The Wiradjuri Group Report

The arrival of Arthur Phillip’s first fleet in 1778 and the following arrivals of convicts and free settlers during the nineteenth century has been known as ‘the settlement of Australia’ a term believed to be a racial and cultural bias. Due to our history being dominated by the white man, and the influence of the concept of ‘terra nullius’, we are brought up to believe, from a European point of view, that the settlement was peaceful, and lawfully correct. However, being recorded as the first nation genocide, the word invasion best suits this colonization. In 2017 this argument is still debated, as protest and outcries attempt to force Australia to change its national day from the 26th of January to another date, as many indigenous

Before European settlement, the Aboriginal people of the Wurundjeri willum clan lived on the land that now forms the City of Whittlesea and the northern suburbs of Melbourne. They lived on the offshoots of the Yarra River - along the Merri, Edgars and Darebin Creeks - the Plenty River and the Maribyrnong River.

The convicts did not follow this conduct and most believed that the Australian natives were ‘barely human’ (MacDougall .A.K 2004). The population ratio of British settlers in Australia to the natives, drastically altered over the century in the result of rapid colonisation and the conflicts which the Commonwealth of Australia Official Year Books explicitly depicts. The British settlers came in masses bringing a new society and culture to the land. The indigenous people were not familiar with an individual possession society and believed that the stock on the land was to be hunted and used as a food source. This is epitomised in a letter sent to the editor of The Sydney Monitor and Commercial Advertiser by Daniel Eaton in 1838, stating that ‘five horses [were] killed, and four others were wounded… a hundred head of cattle killed and the flocks and herds were driven away in all directions by the blacks’ (Convict Creations, 2013). Newspapers from the time showed that the British reacted to the natives by killing them off the land and believed that the ‘Natives should be slaughtered…[because] they are baboons, blood thirsty dogs and black animals’ (Stewart D,1986). The British were not interested in negotiating with the natives of the land and believed their culture was inhuman wasting the land. Governor Gawler stated in a newspaper article, ‘Black men- we wish to make you happy, but you cannot be

“In what ways did Indigenous peoples resist the non-Indigenous settlement of Australia in the frontier period and how did non-Indigenous peoples retaliate? In your answer, discuss and analyse the initial and ongoing impact on Indigenous communities.”

In 1788 the colonists had to follow Governor Phillip’s instructions, which declared that “the Aboriginals were to be protected and friendly relations were encouraged.” Phillip had to follow and pass on these instructions as they were given to him in the document labelled today as the ‘Draught Instructions for Governor Phillip,’ which can be seen in Source 2. However, as the British began to settle they cleared the land and fenced waterholes. They showed no respect for sacred sites and broke laws the Indigenous people had followed for many ages. The Europeans did not understand their way of life but as they gained knowledge they continued taking land and breaking indigenous laws. Slowly more encounters between Europeans and Aboriginal people occurred. In May, 1788, two convicts were found dead in Rushcutters Bay, killed by Aborigines. In Source 1, the proclamation to the Aboriginal people can be seen. It gives an example of how the British were still planning to treat the Aboriginal people equally, if they obeyed the law. However, it stated that the law was for the Aboriginal people to live in the European ways, which took away their own traditional customs. This illustrates conflict that arose, but peace was still trying to be made through positive relationships between

Under the ‘terra nullius’ law, the Aboriginals lost their land, which is now known as dispossession. To justify this dispossession, the English followed the set of beliefs that are now identified as social Darwinism. “Social Darwinism, with its powerful racially based doctrines, ranked Indigenous Australians as inferior to Europeans and provided a rationale for dispossession by drawing on the ‘laws’ of natural selection to justify the ‘inevitable’ extinction of Indigenous Australians in the face of the arrival of the ‘superior’ white race” (Psychology and Indigenous Australians, Foundations of Cultural Competence, 2009, pp. 75). By having their land taken away from them, the Aboriginals lost part of their spiritual connection and their sense of belonging and identity because Aboriginal culture is based heavily on the spirits of the land. These connections that bonded the Aboriginals to the land were never understood by the English settlers, who only saw the land as possible income (Psychology and Indigenous Australians, Foundations of Cultural Competence, 2009.). They also lost a lot of their sacred areas, spiritual areas and meeting places because they were on the land that the white people had divided and fenced of the land that these areas were on and if an Aboriginal was trying to

The battle between the settlers and Aborigines increased when Macquarie became Governor and believed that the Aborigines should be civilised. This is another way of saying to convert Aboriginal ways into European ways. Macquarie tried very hard to teach new techniques or educating them however these failures made him very mad and desperate. In his perspective the rightful last resort was to put the Aboriginal land and people under his control by saying anyone is permitted to shoot Aborigines if they retaliated or resisted.

As the English population began to increase, Aboriginal people were moved into missions in 1810, so the population could be manages and they were taught the European ways so they could be used as low paid labours, border lining slaves (Creative Spirits, 2002). When the Aboriginal people failed to move to Christianity and ‘civilised’ life, the Europeans thought it was due to the lack of intellectual ability because they didn’t understand the “complexity and holding power of the traditional culture and religion” to the Aboriginals (Psychology and Indigenous Australians, Foundations of Cultural Competence, 2009, pp. 77). The separation of Aboriginals from the community into missions was known as segregation. In the early 20th century, the Indigenous Australians all throughout the nation were exposed to the ‘protection legislation’ which in turn, denied them of their basic human rights as well as the freedom that was demanded by every other Australian. Aboriginals were increasingly moved of farms where they worked like slaves and put into government or church controlled reserves where they were expected to die out (Psychology and Indigenous Australians, Foundations of Cultural Competence, 2009, pp. 79). On the Australian census at this time, Aboriginals were still considered as

The discourse of whiteness began at Colonisation when Indigenous Peoples were dehumanised. To legitimise the colonisation Moreton Robinson (2004) and Phillips (2005) state the traditional owners of the land needed to be ‘othered’, thus lacking innately human characteristics and, therefore, of unequal civil status. Othering of Indigenous Peoples enabled Australia to be defined as ‘Terra Nullius’, and according to McGrath (1995) and Crowley (1980), the myth of Terra Nullius is central to the discourse of whiteness and the white epistemology of Australia. The invasion and subsequent Colonisation

-White settlement affected the Indigenous people in a number of ways”{They} made them (the Aboriginals) outcasts on their own land*” by calling it terra nullius under the English Law, despite knowing the existence of the Aboriginals. Terra nullius is a latin term that means “land that belongs to no one.”They believed it belonged to no one because the Aboriginals didn’t use the land in the same way as the British. The Aboriginals believed that Mother Nature would provide them with what they needed, so they didn’t need to hunt and mark the land. The British completely ignored the deep spiritual connections the Aboriginals had with the land. They cut down trees, put up fences and built towns. They believed they had to own the land. But the Aboriginals were outraged when saw the settlers building farms where they had originally been hunting and gathering at, this was because there wasn’t enough food for them. They killed many white settlers in revenge and a clash of cultures began. Pemulwuy was an Aboriginal warrior that lead raids against the British. He also speared John McIntyre, Governor Phillip's gamekeeper, in December 1790. When the Indigenous people resisted the British, it lead to many conflicts which eventually left a irreversible damage to the lives of Indigenous people.

In 1788 the first Fleet arrived in Australia bringing European soldierse, convicts and settlers. This bought aboriginals in contact with white people for the first time. Some aboriginal groups tried to resist this occupation and they used violence and force the archive it. This essay will explain why that resistance was justified by examining the causes, identifying some examples of Indigenous resistance and will assess short and long term effects of this conflict.

Noel Pearson’s speech ‘an Australian history for us all’ discusses his approach to trying to solve some of the most systemic problems facing Australian Aboriginals today. The speakers are successful in understanding the ideas and values of the speech. Through the uses of various language techniques and context, Pearson’s speech details the struggles of the relationship between the first European settlers and Aboriginal Australians.

The process of colonisation by European powers, as might be expected, has had a radical effect on Aboriginal culture. The settlers viewed the natives as barbarians, seizing tribal land and, in many cases, following a policy of pacification by force. Many others died of disease, starvation, cultural dislocation and neglect. Today, there are fewer than 230,000 Aborigines in Australia, less than 2% of the population.

In what ways does Governor Brisbane’s Proclamation of Martial Law provide insights into the nature of conflict between Aborigines and settlers in the frontier areas around Bathurst in 1824?

Ironically, the civilised people who brought the ‘improvements’ could not cope to live in peace with the natives, where countless Aboriginal lives vanished under the ‘superior’ governance of the new settlers. Regardless which part of the continent including Tasmania, the history has shown many unfair