Interesting topic on the 7:30 Report; should the Australian War Memorial have a section devoted to the conflict between aboriginals and the 18th century Europeans?

Special G said :

Mind you ‘indigenous’ means native, naturally occuring in an area etc.. I was born here, my parents were born here – does that make me indigenous to Australia. By the definitions damn right it does. The Australian Indigenous people by their own history migrated here 40,000 years ago. Who were the indigenous population then and what happened to them? This argument can go on forever (and off topic to the AWM).

Th AWM is not the place for this conflict.

The debate over the semantics of the word ‘indigenous’ is irrelevant to this debate. The question is, should the AWN commemorate the conflict between white and black Australians.

As an English teacher and linguist, I concur completely that the word ‘indigenous’ does legitimately refer to anything native, and that the term ‘indigenous Australian’ makes no reference to a person’s race and can legitimately be applied to a person of any racial background born in Australia. It is also important, though, to realise that when that term is used, it is understood to mean something other than what it means. But all that’s got nothing at all to do with whether the racial conflict should be commemorated at the AWM.

Likewise, I don’t think it’s particularly relevant to cite the NMA’s exhibition as a panacea for exclusion of this conflict from the AWM. The NMA exhibits pre- and post-contact history, but the AWM commemorates conflict, and honours those who gave their lives. It is not a museum, but a memorial. And as such, if it were to commemorate the racial conflicts between white and black, it should be acknowledge the sacrifices on both sides of the conflict.

They might not acknowledge the sacrifices of German soldiers in WW2, but that is a foreign conflict, and since there were Australians on both sides of the racial conflict here, it should be commemorated similarly to the way civil wars are commemorated in countries that have had conventional civil wars.

Mind you ‘indigenous’ means native, naturally occuring in an area etc.. I was born here, my parents were born here – does that make me indigenous to Australia. By the definitions damn right it does. The Australian Indigenous people by their own history migrated here 40,000 years ago. Who were the indigenous population then and what happened to them? This argument can go on forever (and off topic to the AWM).

Th AWM is not the place for this conflict.

Yoink! Straight to passive agressive notes.

Don’t take it to heart Granny. WMC is always abusing people who disagree with him. He will also call racist at the drop of a hat. I think he doesn’t like anyone who is not indigenous. It certainly comes through in his posts.

BerraBoy68 said :

Granny, when I see you next I’ll tell you to your face… but I love you. And I know that you know what I mean by that. Your golden.

I do, BerraBoy. That’s beautiful. Thank you so much.

Surely the NMA has enough flagellation of this issue?

And personally, while no one denies that there was certainly conflict and violence between white and black, there was also conflict and violence between convicts and free settlers, squatters and selectors, Irish and Brits, and later over gold, the eureka stockade, lambing flat, cronulla riots, I mean where does it stop? Are we going to label every conflict between social groups ‘war’? Are these the kind of ‘war’ that should be in the war memorial? Of course not.

This country was founded on a jumble of unwanteds: the poor, the native dwellers, the convicts, the crims, the politically undesirable, the bonded kanakas . . . ALL just had to try and make it the best they could. And I think we as a nation are getting there, despite the history of having the rubbish England didn’t want dumped here. I just wish indigenous people would try harder to identify as Australian. After all, they are the most Australian you can get! Why must this beloved sector of the Australian community constantly say ‘look at moi, my people suffered more than you lot’ all the time?

Granny said :

I may not be as smart as you, WMC; but I don’t have you around to give me my opinions all the time, so I’m afraid I have to come up with some of them myself.

I do think about what you have to say because I respect you, but I would think a lot harder if some of that respect was returned.

Granny, when I see you next I’ll tell you to your face… but I love you. And I know that you know what I mean by that. Your golden.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Read the history of the AWM and it’s foundation, then try to work out for yourself why it was built.

@WMC – What, like I’m betting you just did five minutes ago?

You lose, WMC, I majored in Aust. History at uni and extensively studied the Frontier Wars (i.e. Aboriginal Vs White colonialists) and Aust. military history as part of both my graduate and post-graduate studies. As part of this I’ve studied the history of the AWM and spoken to Aboriginal ex-servicemen who have served their nation with distinction and pride in foreign conflicts. From what I’ve learned from them over the years, these men also continue to view the scope and growth of the AWM with awe and never for one second have those I’ve spoken to intimated they want to highlight our differences over our similarities.

You, however, appear to believe that all those that do not readily agree with your world-view are rednecks, clowns etc. which simply indicates you are ignorant if not self absorbed. P Personally, I welcome informed debate that leads to enlightenment and (shock, horror) education on both side. But please, by all means take your bat and ball and go home.

Thanks, guys. I kind of needed to hear that right now.

: )

That be the way I saw it too.

sepi said :

(sepi) “trailer park”?

Granny’s a class act!

And here I thought Granny’s analogy was all about someone trying to take over an established institution with their own related, but not really relevant hobby horse.

Go the folksy homestyle trailor park wisdon – there should be more of it!!

CW Bean wrote some stuff which might have gone over well in the British empire of the early twentieth century, but I have issues with.

I’m done here. Enjoy the fruits and spoils of your redneck wonderland, viewed through the crystal lens that is grade school history circa 1953.

I think between us all, we probably have grade primary school educations from each of the last six or seven decades. Doesn’t make our opinions an more abuse worthy then yours. And yes, I have had a few beers.

I may not be as smart as you, WMC; but I don’t have you around to give me my opinions all the time, so I’m afraid I have to come up with some of them myself.

I do think about what you have to say because I respect you, but I would think a lot harder if some of that respect was returned.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

(WMC)…you clown…. redneck wonderland…grade school history circa 1953.”

There you go again WMC, confusing abuse with argument. You put forward an argument. Someone disagrees. You abuse them. And for someone so ready to sling insults, you sure are a sensitive little critter yourself aren’t you?

I suggest you change your user name to better reflect your personality. How about Cry Baby-Caruso?

.

If you want to paint me as racist I can’t stop you, WMC. It doesn’t make it true.

I don’t think you’re a racist. I do think your insistence on trying to distill complex issues into folksy homestyle trailer park wisdom just reflects your limited experience, knowledge and world view. Seriously, take a long hard look at what you wrote: having an exhibit in the War Memorial to show that bloody conflicts were fought on Australian soil over a period of decades – battles that still have consequences today, that show the country was taken by force – is the same as some woman you know whining to get some attention for her drug addict daughter.

Read the history of the AWM and it’s foundation, then try to work out for yourself why it was built.

What, like I’m betting you just did five minutes ago? I look forward to hearing you lobby against exhibits about Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan, on account of there being no foreign Australian war graves that are too distant to visit. Still waiting to hear why the Boer War is OK – it happened before the war that prompted the establishment of the memorial, and before Federation.

All that remains is a sketchy history which is at best contested, and certainly contentious

All war is sketchy, contested and contentious you clown. Shall we just close the whole thing?

I’m done here. Enjoy the fruits and spoils of your redneck wonderland, viewed through the crystal lens that is grade school history circa 1953.

What would this memorial be? Who was the ‘enemy’? Are there any relics which could be displayed?

No. All that remains is a sketchy history which is at best contested, and certainly contentious. I cannot see how politics could be left out of anyone’s version of events, and the AWM is no place for politics.

magella said :

And yes! The war memorial should have a section devoted to those conflicts. It’s all a part of our history, no matter how uncomfortable it makes people feel.

FFS, what a load of crap. The AWM is not the place for Aboriginal Vs White settler conflict. The National Museum or various other ATSI institutions can, and do, cover this issue well enough. What the AWM has done, and continues to do very, very well is commemorate joint Australian sacrifice, Black and white together, against a common enemy. Read the history of the AWM and it’s foundation, then try to work out for yourself why it was built.

And when will people get the fact that there never was a single ‘aboriginal nation’, just several hundred separate tribes living on the same lump of land, that fought among themselves whenever they felt the need.

And what Granny said +1 (as always).

And you can call me a racist if you like, you can also call me xenophobic, homophobic, gay, lesbian, blah, blah, blah… you don’t know me and it doesn’t make you right.

Another vote for Granny in post #27. Also, let’s use the NMA to tell Australia’s story.

An earlier tome entitled ‘The Hundred Years’ War’ is worth a read too. I read it while living in Bathurst, where some of the strongest Aboriginal forces were mustered, and attracted quite a strong response from London in the mid 1800s.

I think Furry Jesus is closes to the mark on this. The NMA tell a balanced story of frontier conflict and published a book on the subject in 2003.

There are memorials to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people who died in frontier conflict scattered around the country, although I know of none which represent a national picture.

One example of an existing memorial to Aboriginal people is here: http://www.slv.vic.gov.au/jcollins/0/0/2/doc/jc002945.shtml

The two dates on the obelisk – 1840 and 1883 – mark the 43 years it took for white settlement to displace the Djargurd wurrung from the Camperdown area.

no

I’m not against recognising violent conflict between Europeans and aboriginal people as long as equal space is given to the conflict that occurred between aboriginal groups, or are we supposed to believe that they were less war like in defending and increasing their territory.

Granny said :

I do believe the aboriginal massacres should be commemorated, but I do not agree that the War Memorial is the right forum for this.

Well said Granny. I think CW Bean would turn in his grave.

Wasn’t there a display in the Museum of Australia about the aborigines and the first settlers. I seem to remember seeing something there a few years back.

If you want to paint me as racist I can’t stop you, WMC. It doesn’t make it true.

I go there to remember young men and women, both white and aboriginal who died on foreign shores serving their country and securing the freedom and lifestyle that we enjoy today and my children can enjoy into the future.

So do you just skip the Boer War bit, or do you rally for them to close it because it draws attention away from the ‘real’ wars?

FFS, I’m always amazed at the lengths people will go to to come up with ‘reasons’ to stop Aborigines getting any kind of recognition for anything, ever. “It’s like my heroin-addict niece” takes the cake for arguing by dodgy metaphor.

Yep. 50% of Indigenous kids in some towns have trachoma (eye disease).

Australia is the only first world country to have any incidence of trachoma – it is just wrong.

The gap must be closed. It is just unacceptable.

I’m also with Granny to an extent, but the person who suggested that this would be a nice exchange for the removal of the tent embassy has an extremely good point.

I would love nothing more than to see the tent embassy and what it symbolises become a museum piece. It represents conflict between different groups of Australians, and wouldn’t it be nice to see that become a thing of the past? At the very least, it would be nice for the Black War to be universally acknowledged as history and not as an ongoing conflict.

Still, we’re not there yet. Maybe when that ‘gap’ is closed.

I think Granny has made the best expressed case so far.

+1

I can only liken it to a situation I have experienced where a very loved niece was being buried after a drug overdose and another relative wanted to make it all about her own heroin-addicted daughter.

We felt for her, but it just wasn’t the time or place. It was my niece’s day.

I feel the same about the war memorial.

I go there to remember young men and women, both white and aboriginal who died on foreign shores serving their country and securing the freedom and lifestyle that we enjoy today and my children can enjoy into the future.

I do believe the aboriginal massacres should be commemorated, but I do not agree that the War Memorial is the right forum for this.

BAH.

(I wish I could write that in a larger font).

star anise said :

…We can argue about whether the War Memorial should commemorate inter-country wars or civil wars. To me, the heart of the matter is not semantic. It is about giving recognition to life lost in conflict as a record of history, a form of remembrance, a line in the sand for ‘moving on’, and as a lesson about (poor) behaviour when coming into contact with people from different cultures and/or with different values.
If this isn’t the place of the War Memorial, then whose place is it?

A public exhibition drawing attention to conflict between the indigenous and the invader is bound to be controversial enough to bring John Laws back from the grave and Alan Jones out of the toilet. Its time has come, but is its place in the War Memorial, or would arguments about putting it there distract from its purpose, not to mention offend our returned servicemen by dragging national race politics into their shrine of remembrance. I would have thought the NMA would be more appropriate.

Or is someone just looking for a fight and a bit of illumination in the national spotlight…

It’s not really the AMW’s job to give lessons about

“about (poor) behaviour when coming into contact with people from different cultures and/or with different values.”

A traditional war is one in which the leaders of the country formally declare we are at war.

I’m not denying systematic killing. I’m just not sure how this ‘black war’ can fit into the AWM.

Causing universal hatred in the indigenous parts of the country is Indigenous Affairs’ job.

Sepi, how do you define a ‘traditional war’? Does a Government-initiated and systematic process of targeting another population count? The degree of conflict ensuing from the Black War resulted in every able-bodied male colonist, convict or free being called up to carry out a well planned and systematic process of moving all Tasmanian Aboriginal people off the mainland (the Black Line). This wasn’t a spontaneous scuffle between ‘local police’ and ‘groups of people’ – although the Black Line was a costly colonial failure.

At the end of the day we can get caught up in semantics about whether Aboriginal people were considered Australian or even British subjects. We can argue about whether British settlers were foreigners or new Australians. We can argue about whether the War Memorial should commemorate inter-country wars or civil wars. To me, the heart of the matter is not semantic. It is about giving recognition to life lost in conflict as a record of history, a form of remembrance, a line in the sand for ‘moving on’, and as a lesson about (poor) behaviour when coming into contact with people from different cultures and/or with different values.

If this isn’t the place of the War Memorial, then whose place is it?

I would be interested to read a proposal of how the Indigenous vs Settler war could be explored at the AWM.

As I said earlier, I’m not against it, but I don’t see how trying would result in anything but a failure to please.

I actually don’t think it should either. It would be very hard to do.

I know there are arguments for the Indigenous peoples waging a war against the settlers, but certainly not a traditional war, as commemorated by the War Memorial.

While massacres occurred, and the Tasmanian aborigines were basically wiped out, it wasn’t full scale and constant warfare from either side.

Indigenous people were initially friendly to Governor Phillip. They also saved a few lost settlers – like King who survived the Burke and Wills fiasco. And Indigenous people in canoes saved dozens of people in Gundagai when the whole town flooded in 18something.

I would be interested to read a proposal of how the Indigenous vs Settler war could be explored at the AWM.

No

The War memorial charter is to record conflicts between Australians and foreign nations not conflicts between local police and groups of people.

I would argue that when the First Fleet arrived, any exchange of hostilities was between Australians, and the military of a Foreign Nation.

Why? This wasn’t the case at the time.

Exactly. I can’t work out why some people have so much trouble understanding that just because a situation in the past is uncomfortable, and no longer true, doesn’t mean it is not history. What are museums for anyway?

The Germans have had to deal with how to remember their countries role in wars which modern humanity abhors, why can’t we? Although Japan also seems fond of pretending stuff never happened…

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

The idea has merrit but you would then have accept that the term “Australian” applies to indiginous aboriginals rather than a conglomeration of aboriginals and foriegn settlers.

Why? This wasn’t the case at the time.

The War memorial charter is to record conflicts between Australians and foreign nations not conflicts between local police and groups of people.

The idea has merrit but you would then have accept that the term “Australian” applies to indiginous aboriginals rather than a conglomeration of aboriginals and foriegn settlers.

Why? This wasn’t the case at the time.

here here.. and then maybe we can all move on with the business of closing the gap between life expectancy, literacy and employment…

And yes! The war memorial should have a section devoted to those conflicts. It’s all a part of our history, no matter how uncomfortable it makes people feel.

I suppose some white Australians still consider themselves at war with Aboriginals.

The idea of being ‘Australian’ is just a modern cultural concept, so it shouldn’t be too much of a brain stretch to conceive of Aboriginal Australians (first Australians) coming into conflict with British settlers (subsequent Australians). They don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Anyway, we are all immigrants one way or another as even Aboriginal people travelled to this land in migration waves from about 40,000 years ago. Why don’t we, that is all Australians, accept that conflict happened between white and Aboriginal Australians when Europeans arrived, and put up a memorial to all those who lost their lives in an inevitable conflict over resources?

The idea has merrit but you would then have accept that the term “Australian” applies to indiginous aboriginals rather than a conglomeration of aboriginals and foriegn settlers. Then you would have to accept that the existing “Australians” (who were indiginous) had their land invaded by the brittish empire and war was declared in some way. Then you have to accept that the indiginous Australians lost the war.

If you accept that then maybe we could get some ideas on what to do from Japan.

I can’t see why a area couldn’t be set aside for indigenous conflict. Between themselves, pre-European settlement, and then conflict with the new arrivals.

Trying to actually produce such a exhibit in a way that didn’t get absolutely everybody offside would be hell though. I sure as hell would never take the job.

In fact, everyone hating you would be the best outcome you could hope for. At least you would know that you had a balanced approach.

Also, before the Referendum, Aboriginal people were ‘administered’ by state legislation, not federal, and therefore the legislation pertaining to Aboriginal people varied across Australia. Contrary to popular belief, Aboriginal people were considered citizens and in many cases (although far from universally) had the right to vote – again this was subject to state legislation among other things (for example, all Aboriginal ex-servicemen had the right to vote before the Referendum). Discrimination did exist, but it wasn’t under a ‘Flora and Fauna’ Act. If you’re ever bored, you can check out the ‘Half Caste Acts’ that most states had going. They are pretty draconian.

There is a bit of a difference between inter-tribal warfare and the total obliteration of many Aboriginal clans – and their way of life – by Europeans… The Black War is not so-named for nothing: “The Black War refers to a period of conflict between the British colonists and Tasmanian Aborigines in Van Diemen’s Land in the early years of the 19th century. The conflict resulted in the complete obliteration of the Tasmanian Aboriginal population. None of the descendants of the handful of Tasmanian Aboriginal survivors are full blooded, and the native culture and language has been irrevocably lost.”

I also reckon some recognition is due to the Torres Strait Islander Light Infantry Battalion, who successfully striked for better wages (although never equal wages) during WW2 and in so doing, raised awareness of the discrimination that the Australian Army practiced between Indigenous and non-Indigenous soldiers.

Skidbladnir said :

The native animals are given similar levels of prestige, though.
And as the building was completed in 1941 (26yrs previous to the Referendum), ‘representing the original inhabitants’ sounds like a more politically correct retconning to me.

Before the referendum Aborigines were administered by the Flora and Fauna Act.

The native animals are given similar levels of prestige, though.
And as the building was completed in 1941 (26yrs previous to the Referendum), ‘representing the original inhabitants’ sounds like a more politically correct retconning to me.

“The most interesting part of that whole thing was that apparently there are still stone carvings of aboriginals alongside wombats and birds as part of the AWM building”

There is an indiginous male on one side, and a female on the other side at the Hall of Memory end (the big dome). They are there representing the original inhabitants of this country, not as a part of the fauna.

On this topic – I don’t think that the Director of the AWM (Gower) will see it as a good idea. Perhaps sometime in the future someone that is less self-serving and is in possession of a more open mind will take the helm.

What if they did? Wouldn’t be hard to have a single exhibit about Indigenous warfare covering both.

Does this mean they want recognition of wars, different Aboriginal tribes fought between each other as well?

The most interesting part of that whole thing was that apparently there are still stone carvings of aboriginals alongside wombats and birds as part of the AWM building .
IE: they’re Fauna.

Give me a few days and I’ll bring back some photos for Jb.