Australian researchers lay bare bloody history of colonial massacres

[webfact]

Australian researchers lay bare bloody history of colonial massacres

By Colin Packham

 

A supplied image shows University of Newcastle research academic, Professor Lyndall Ryan, and researcher Bill Pascoe sitting in front of a screen July 18, 2018, displaying a map detailing the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander massacres that occurred on Australia’s colonial frontier. Picture taken July 18, 2018. University of Newcastle/Handout via REUTERS

 

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Thousands of aborigines are estimated to have been murdered in 500 massacres across Australia from European settlement in 1788 until the mid-20th century, researchers said on Friday, as the country continues to struggle with its bloody colonial past.

 

Historians from the University of Newcastle said they had drawn on settler diaries, contemporary newspaper reports, evidence from indigenous groups and state and federal archives to attempt to catalogue the violence for the first time.

 

"To date we have identified about 250 massacre sites in colonial Australia and we estimate there will be about 500 when the project is finished," lead researcher Lyndall Ryan told Reuters.

 

Ryan estimates the death toll from the 250 massacres already identified at about 6,200 people, including less than 100 Europeans. It defines a "massacre" as an incident in which at least six people were killed.

 

The research, which is expected to be completed in 2019, comes as Australia is wrestling with an emotional debate about how it honours the anniversary of the arrival of the first European settlers.

 

Each year Australians enjoy a national holiday on Jan. 26, marking the date the "First Fleet" sailed into Sydney Harbour in 1788 carrying mainly convicts and troops from Britain. Some indigenous people refer to Australia Day as "Invasion Day".

 

More than half of all Australians support changing the date of the national holiday, a poll by the Australia Institute think-tank showed earlier this year.

 

The conservative government opposes a change, though indigenous campaigners say a change is essential for Australia to come to terms with its past.

 

The country's 700,000 or so indigenous people track near the bottom of its 23 million citizens in almost every economic and social indicator.

 

(Reporting by Colin Packham; Editing by Stephen Coates)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-07-27

[robblok]

Almost every country has done some bad things in the past, the Dutch in Indonesia and other place, the Americans, wiping out the native Americans (one of the first times where disease was used to kill giving infected blankets to the native Americans). The Belgians in the Kongo, the Germans and French and Italians in their colonies.  But if you go back even further then almost all bigger empires are build by conquest it was the norm back then. So do we still have to feel guilty that is the question. Not so sure as I as a Dutch guy feel not responsible for what others have done in the past. 

[mfd101]

(1) Most of this is not new. Henry Reynolds and many other respectable Australian historians have been writing about various killings and massacres in C19th Oz for over 30 years. The notion that Oz continues to wrestle with and struggle with its bloody colonial past is mostly melodramatic nonsense. Probably most Australians couldn't care less.

 

(2) Billions upon billions of dollars have been spent on Aboriginal welfare, infrastructure, education and employment since 1967, with quite limited positive outcomes. Where there has been real & lasting improvements is where Aboriginal leaders (such as Noel Pearson in Cape York) have themselves taken action and led their people forward to self-sufficiency, education, & drug control, away from the usual dependence on government handouts which the welfare industry breeds everywhere in the world. As usual, local action trumps central government any day. THINK GLOBAL, ACT LOCAL.

[kannot]

why dont they simply  just scrap it  then?

[mfd101]

Try suggesting that to the politicians! Or the welfare industry!

[DoctorG]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

More than half of all Australians support changing the date of the national holiday, a poll by the Australia Institute think-tank showed earlier this year.

This is untrue. The poll does not say this.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-18/australia-day-debate-more-than-half-dont-mind-changing-the-date/9337500

 

 

[Belzybob]

2 hours ago, DoctorG said:

This is untrue. The poll does not say this.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-18/australia-day-debate-more-than-half-dont-mind-changing-the-date/9337500

 

 

Not only that, but a poll can produce whatever result you wish. You just have to ask the right question. Market research is a big scam.

Edited July 27, 2018 by Belzybob

[car720]

3 hours ago, mfd101 said:

(1) Most of this is not new. Henry Reynolds and many other respectable Australian historians have been writing about various killings and massacres in C19th Oz for over 30 years. The notion that Oz continues to wrestle with and struggle with its bloody colonial past is mostly melodramatic nonsense. Probably most Australians couldn't care less.

 

(2) Billions upon billions of dollars have been spent on Aboriginal welfare, infrastructure, education and employment since 1967, with quite limited positive outcomes. Where there has been real & lasting improvements is where Aboriginal leaders (such as Noel Pearson in Cape York) have themselves taken action and led their people forward to self-sufficiency, education, & drug control, away from the usual dependence on government handouts which the welfare industry breeds everywhere in the world. As usual, local action trumps central government any day. THINK GLOBAL, ACT LOCAL.

So true.  Get a look at these two.  Talk about jumping on the bandwagon.  Bring back Joliffe I say.  

[TPI]

You can hear the whine starting already......More money, more money, more money! This is what Ms Hansen said 30 years ago was the problem with our "sun tanned brothers and sisters"! It's a problem that combines the historical low level IQ's of the Aboriginals with SJW's who specialise in "Gender Studies".....All the problems will go away, all the sins of the past will be wiped clean, things will be just peachy, if they only give us more money!  

[Tchooptip]

6 hours ago, robblok said:

Almost every country has done some bad things in the past, the Dutch in Indonesia and other place, the Americans, wiping out the native Americans (one of the first times where disease was used to kill giving infected blankets to the native Americans). The Belgians in the Kongo, the Germans and French and Italians in their colonies.  But if you go back even further then almost all bigger empires are build by conquest it was the norm back then. So do we still have to feel guilty that is the question. Not so sure as I as a Dutch guy feel not responsible for what others have done in the past. 

Right, but at the same time, some in those countries do not hesitate to say daily that as heir, we Westerners are all guilty...and as so we should pay! 

[starky]

If a massacre is only 6 people then I would be more concerned about the " massacres" that happen world wide every day than what happened 200 years ago. Also if indigenous populations are so angry at settlers than they should forgo all welfare, housing, transport, medical and anything else that was introduced by the Europeans including alcohol tobacco and medicines then.

[The Deerhunter]

4 hours ago, car720 said:

So true.  Get a look at these two.  Talk about jumping on the bandwagon.  Bring back Joliffe I say.  

So what would Joliffe's character "Saltbush Bill" have to say about it, I wonder?

[Quidio]

I am inclined to apologize as soon as I hear an apology from the Mongols for some of the stuff that Ghengis Khan did.

 

Any time two cultures come into contact, there will be conflict.   Someone will win, someone will lose.   Even if the loss is only a perception.   

[RickTik]

When it comes to space, nutrients, and water, even plants will fight and kill each other. Rather than sweating what happened in the past, be happy you are alive today. Let's unite, learn from humanity's past mistakes, and make the world a better, more free, and more prosperous place for everyone. 

The most racist and fascist policy still in place is cannabis persecution. Let's end this racist madness and restore our cannabis civil liberties...on a global scale. 

Edited July 27, 2018 by RickTik

[generealty]

This is not a Western  Phenomena as all areas of the globe are guilty of mass murder. The Mongols, The Chinese, The Red Army, The Indians from South America, most African countries, etc. The victor always writes the history books to show glory, whereas the truth emerges centuries later. We cant feel constantly guilty, or at least we should not be made to feel guilty alone. It is a world wide problem, and the problem is mankind.

[Rigby40]

21 hours ago, robblok said:

Almost every country has done some bad things in the past, the Dutch in Indonesia and other place, the Americans, wiping out the native Americans (one of the first times where disease was used to kill giving infected blankets to the native Americans). The Belgians in the Kongo, the Germans and French and Italians in their colonies.  But if you go back even further then almost all bigger empires are build by conquest it was the norm back then. So do we still have to feel guilty that is the question. Not so sure as I as a Dutch guy feel not responsible for what others have done in the past. 

Only Western countries need to feel guilty and hand over resources. Every other country or peoples gets a free pass for all the horrific things they've done to others.

[sirineou]

 Indeed many are guilty of the same , and one has to look at it  in the context of its time  

 But rationalising it by saying that everyone did it it ,might make you feel better about it but it does not start to address the problem. Before a problem can be resolved one must admite that there is/was a problem. If there is a problem take steps to resolve it, if there was but no longer is, Identify the lingering results of such past problems and take parts to address them. 

Edited July 28, 2018 by sirineou

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 Indeed many are guilty of the same , and one has to look at it  in the context of its time  

 But rationalising it by saying that everyone did it it ,might make you feel better about it but it does not start to address the problem. Before a problem can be resolved one must admite that there is/was a problem. If there is a problem take steps to resolve it, if there was but no longer is, Identify the lingering results of such past problems and take parts to address them. 

Question is how long do you have to pour money in the problem, i would say many reparation payments have been made by many governments. 

[sirineou]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

Question is how long do you have to pour money in the problem, i would say many reparation payments have been made by many governments. 

I did not see anything about money in the OP, 

I am not Australian and I don't know if all that is needed has being done .and no more needs to be done. I am sure  the subject is arguable.

IMO  every country and every person, can benefit by an honest look at their past as a way to move forward.   

[robblok]

19 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I did not see anything about money in the OP, 

I am not Australian and I don't know if all that is needed has being done .and no more needs to be done. I am sure  the subject is arguable.

IMO  every country and every person, can benefit by an honest look at their past as a way to move forward.   

I am also not specifically commenting on the OP the Dutch have often been asked reparation payments, and we have made them. The question is when is enough enough. How many of a countries problems (or group of people) can you lead back to the misdeeds in the past. The requests keep coming.. money for slavery (while the Africans sold their own to the whites and I bet they were never asked for reparation payments).

 

Its just an observation as I really have no idea.. but I feel after some time enough is enough.

 

[Morch]

28 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I did not see anything about money in the OP, 

I am not Australian and I don't know if all that is needed has being done .and no more needs to be done. I am sure  the subject is arguable.

IMO  every country and every person, can benefit by an honest look at their past as a way to move forward.   

 

I think one related problem is that often, these "looks at the past" are utilized for promote and support current political agendas. As such, they aren't so much about "moving forward", but rather the opposite - endlessly rehashing past events (or perhaps more correctly, ideological oriented-versions of).

 

[sirineou]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I think one related problem is that often, these "looks at the past" are utilized for promote and support current political agendas. As such, they aren't so much about "moving forward", but rather the opposite - endlessly rehashing past events (or perhaps more correctly, ideological oriented-versions of).

 

That some people might use history to promote their agenda is inevitable IMO the only defence is an educated public, remember ,I said  a "honest " look.

  Politics are always part of the problem, and sometimes part of the solution, they are part of the human condition and should not deter as from honest retrospective,

[overherebc]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

That some people might use history to promote their agenda is inevitable IMO the only defence is an educated public, remember ,I said  a "honest " look.

  Politics are always part of the problem, and sometimes part of the solution, they are part of the human condition and should not deter as from honest retrospective,

Why would I have to say 'sorry' to anyone for something my great, great, great grandfather did and why should I even think about it or give money or whatever to the descendants of whoever he did it too?

[sirineou]

12 minutes ago, overherebc said:

Why would I have to say 'sorry' to anyone for something my great, great, great grandfather did

who said that that you have to?

12 minutes ago, overherebc said:

why should I even think about it

because those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.  And this time it might be you on the losing end.

12 minutes ago, overherebc said:

give money or whatever to the descendants of whoever he did it too?

If you benefited  from it you need to make restitution, if you did not you should not.

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, sirineou said:

That some people might use history to promote their agenda is inevitable IMO the only defence is an educated public, remember ,I said  a "honest " look.

  Politics are always part of the problem, and sometimes part of the solution, they are part of the human condition and should not deter as from honest retrospective,

 

IMO, the political angle makes the "honest" look problematic. Who gets to decide what's "honest"?

[Morch]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

who said that that you have to?

because those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.  And this time it might be you on the losing end.

If you benefited  from it you need to make restitution, if you did not you should not.

 

How far down the line does accountability goes?

[sirineou]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

IMO, the political angle makes the "honest" look problematic. Who gets to decide what's "honest"?

are you suggesting that we don't look at our past because some unscrupulous people might try to profit from it? 

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

How far down the line does accountability goes?

 as far as it needs to , dictated by the facts of the particular situation.In this situation as far back as these transgressions  took place.

Edited July 28, 2018 by sirineou
repaired auto correct error

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, sirineou said:

are you suggesting that we don't look at our past because some unscrupulous people might try to profit from it? 

 as far as it needs to , dictated by the facts of the particular situation.In this situation as far back as these transactions took place.

 

I'd suggest you don't put words in my mouth. There's nothing wrong with looking at the past, but at the same time, no need to assume that offered "looks" are agenda-free, or particularly "honest". Notice you dodged the question of who gets to decide what's "honest".

 

With regard to the second point, once more - who gets to decide what is "as far as it needs to"? Who determines what "facts of the particular situation" are to be considered? How is can these be discussed without it being political? Obviously, there would be varying points of view on such issues.

[rkidlad]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

I did not see anything about money in the OP, 

I am not Australian and I don't know if all that is needed has being done .and no more needs to be done. I am sure  the subject is arguable.

IMO  every country and every person, can benefit by an honest look at their past as a way to move forward.   

But what if you simply see yourself as an ‘individual’? You know - someone with their own thoughts and feelings. Should I feel guilty for the holocaust? Well, I’m not German. The Rwandan genicide? I’m not Rwandan. I’m British, so there must be something to feel guilty about there. Hang on, my mum is Irish. How much guilt should I feel? How do I measure this? 

 

One of the best ideas I’ve ever heard of is “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” Basically, we’d like you to conform to our way of living, but if you don’t want to, do what makes you happy. Aka, mind your own business and don’t allow others to dictate what you should do or how you should feel. 

 

Let’s encorage people to be decent not based on the colour of their skin, nationality or heritage, but just based on the fact that that’s all you can really expect of people. As individuals. 

 

 

 

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

I'd suggest you don't put words in my mouth.

  You said "IMO, the political angle makes the "honest" look problematic.  " and I agree but that suggests that we might not "look" then, otherwise it is simply stating the obvious When wasn't a  "political angle"?

 

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

who gets to decide what's "honest".

   The facts as supported by documentation  will determine the honesty of the report.