Colonialism final essay PDF

Preview

Summary

This is an essay for colonialism- it includes a lot of examples and sources. It includes a reference list- so if you want to use the sources for a similar essay you can. This essay is about 30000 words and covers key methods of aboriginal resistance to British colonisation ...

Description

In what ways did Indigenous peoples resist colonisation across Australia? The arrival of British colonists to Australia was seen by the indigenous population as an invasion(Mar, TBB & Edmonds, P 2011). The early stages of colonisation were characterised by the spread of disease, dispossession and widespread violence. Rather than ‘terra nullius’, the settlers were confronted by an indigenous population that actively fought against their dispossession. The tumultuous relationship between the Aboriginals and the European colonists saw a battle of resistance on both sides. A critical issue faced by indigenous resistance was the degree to which known methods of fighting could be employed against the Europeans and the extent to which innovation was necessary. This essay will discuss the progression of resistance methods used by Aboriginal Australians to combat the encroaching impact of colonialism on their way of life. Over 200 years of fighting, Aboriginal resistance has developed from purely physical tactics, aimed to physically deter colonialists, to strike action and protests that focused on creating change at social and political levels that would seek to resist further European dominion and focus on the reinstatement of aboriginal rights and relationship with the land.

In the initial stages of conflict, Aboriginal resistance focused on traditional fighting methods. Prior to colonisation, feuding tribes would partake in traditional warfare, whereby opposing tribes operated in open confrontation using simple weaponry, including spears, arrows and boomerangs. The fight would typically end with a corroboree to mark the end of hostilities. The Hawkesbury and Nepean War of occupation depicts some of the most prominent forms of resistance used in the initial stages of colonisation. Settlers established farms along the territory of the Darug Nation. The settlers kidnapped Darug children as well as preventing the people from harvesting native yams. Darug resistance was widespread in an attempt to punish settlers and force them off the land. Settler farms were raided and sheep and cattle were slaughtered (Mar, TBB & Edmonds, P 2011). In May 1795 the impact of the Darug attacks had become so severe that officials considered abandoning the Hawkesbury settlement.

David Collins, the

colony’s Judge Advocate recounted the outbreak of the war in September 1794; ‘… a body of natives having attacked the settlers, and carried off all their clothes and provisions, and whatever else they could lay their hands on, seven or eight of the plunderers were killed on the spot’

(Collins et al., n.d.). This early period in Australia’s colonisation remained unpredictable but the colonists’ persistence alongside further Aboriginal resistance led by Pemulwuy caused officials to place a military garrison on the Hawkesbury River (Mar, TBB & Edmonds, P 2011). Pemulwuy was a central figure who defined indigenous resistance. He was an indigenous warrior who utilised guerilla tactics as well as traditional forms of warfare. Pemulwuy is known for killing John McIntyre, who was ‘feared and hated by the Eora people’(J. L. Kohen, 2005). The Australian Dictionary of Biography notes that McIntyre’s death was retribution for his violence toward the indigenous people. Pemulwuy also led multiple raids within the Bidjidal lands that began in 1772 (J. L. Kohen, 2005). The raids attempted to decelerate the development of farming settlements in the area. Raids consisted of burning huts, stealing crops and attacking travelers. The most substantial of the raids was the ‘Battle of Parramatta’, where Pemulwuy, with about 100 Indigenous warriors, armed with spears, raided the Parramatta area and threatened settlers with violence (Pemulwuy, National Museum Of Australia). Pemulwuy's fearlessness became well known amongst the Europeans, which made him one of the most feared Aboriginal resistance fighters known within the colonies. Tactics used by Pemulwuy were a widely followed form of indigenous resistance. Guerilla tactics and small-scale ‘tit for tat’ resistance became the primary tool of resistance against the superior weapons used by the settlers. In the early stages of colonisation, a large portion of aboriginal resistance focused on raids as revenge against poor treatment. ‘Revenge expeditions’ or ‘execution parties’ were a common form of resistance (Reynolds, H 2006). This was a traditional method of punishment and revenge that had been adopted by many tribes to fight against the colonists. The expeditions were typically carried out by small groups during the night. This method created fear amongst the settlers, as recorded by a Tasmanian pioneer “Their whole art of war, was a concealed, silent and treacherous attack” (F. D. Browne). The distress felt by the colonists towards the Aboriginal guerillas was further conveyed by Governor Arthur: “They appear; commit some act of outrage and then as suddenly vanish” (Arthur to Sir George Murray, 12 September 1829).

Furthermore, the traditional fighting methods and larger revenge battles involved multiple tribes. Peter Dennis and other scholars assert that the non-cohesive nature of Indigenous society prevented inter-tribal alliances and associated military strategies (Kerkhove, R., 2015). Whilst their viewpoint is prominent amongst historians and scholars, historians like Henry Reynolds and Bill Laurie assure that integration of clans was a mode of resistance used during the frontier wars. Instead of fighting against each other, aboriginal clans joined forces to increase their power and threat (Kerkhove, 2012, p. 23). In the case of the southern Queensland Black War in the 1830s-1880s, approximately 15 indigenous groups were said to have been involved. These were groups from the Logan district, which encompassed a range of language-groups. The cooperation of the clans was maintained through Bunya gatherings. The gatherings included an ‘inter-tribal parliament’ (Kerkhove, 2012, p. 23) where ‘each tribe would tell the others what happened in their part of the country’ (Simpson 1979, p. 1400). These gatherings played a significant role in encouraging and planning inter-tribal attacks on settlers throughout the early 1800’s. Likewise, during this period, ‘various powerful tribes’ were witnessed mobilizing and committing a range of small scale attacks ‘according to a pre-concerted plan’ at the Logan River and Lockyer Creek (Evans 2002, p. 64). They destroyed entire crop fields, killed livestock and baled up travelers(Sydney Morning Herald,1844). In all likelihood, the settlers' poor treatment of the native population aroused ‘joint outrage’, which created a sense of united action that was fuelled by the Bunya gatherings. However, the large formations were logistically and tactically problematic, and concentration of people increased the ability of the settlers to reign terror upon the indigenous people with their superior fire-power.

Conversely, many historians view the Australian frontier wars as devoid of dramatic military confrontations. Reynold’s referred to confrontations as a ‘state of petty warfare’ (Reynolds, 2013). Similarly, Jonathan Richards’ analysis of the Native Police corps suggests that conflicts were not battles, but masacres (Richards, 2008). This notion is crystallized by Robert OrstedJensen’s analysis of the Indigenous losses in Queensland, which placed indigenous casualties above 65,000 (Orsted-Jensen. 2011).

For a time during the frontier wars, Aboriginal guerilla tactics and superior knowledge of the landscape almost matched the power of settler resources. However, this soon came to an end with the rapid advancement of European weaponry, as well as their growing confidence in the bush. Their use of Aboriginal guides and trackers, termed ‘friendly blacks’ became a significant tool in the early 1800’s to counter resistant clans’ superior knowledge of the bush (Reynolds, H 2006). ‘Friendly blacks’ had an immediate dire impact on concentrated Aboriginal resistance in the Western District of Victoria in 1843 and in south-east Queensland in 1849. Furthermore, the Aboriginal trooper combined traditional bush skills combined with European resources; rifle and revolver, and therefore were a large threat to the illusive nature of indigenous resistance (Reynolds, H 2006). However, whilst Aboriginal superiority in bush craft was undermined, indigenous morale prevailed. While traditional skills did cause considerable damage against the Europeans, as time progressed, there was a need for innovation, in order to better resist the evergrowing European dominance.

Considering the technological advantages possessed by the settlers, Aboriginal resistance was often more effective and prolonged than expected. Aboriginal resistance caused fear and insecurity amongst the settlers through increasing property loss, injury and death. Attacks on property had considerable effects on the livelihoods of individual settlers. It also seemed to occasionally threaten the economic prosperity of key pioneer industries, like squatting, farming and mining. In Tasmania in the late 1820s and New South Wales in the late 1830s, Aboriginal resistance was considered one of the main problems in colonial society. In 1879 an editorial in a popular Queensland newspaper summed up the extent to which Aboriginal resistance impacted the lives of the colonialists: “During the last several years the human life and property destroyed by the Aboriginals in the North totals up to a serious amount ... settlement and the development of minerals and other resources of the country, have been in a great degree prohibited by the hostility of the blacks, which still continues with undiminished spirit” (Moses, 2008). Despite this, the expansion of European technology saw the continuation of colonial practices throughout the nation. This continuous modernisation saw the need for evolution in methods of resistance. Resistance changed from attempting to completely rid the land of settlers, to trying to

gain autonomy and the land rights that had been stolen from them. As a result, Aboriginal people sought to disrupt the flow of settler activities through strikes and protests.

Strike action is a form of resistance that emerged in the mid-1900’s. The “blackfellas Eureka” in 1946 saw Aboriginal workers strike against pastoralists in the Pilbara in Western Australia. This strike spread across the region, as workers from 20 of the 22 Pilbara stations participated. As a result, wages were introduced for Aboriginal workers in the Kimberley and the Northern Territory (The 1968–69 introduction of equal wages for Aboriginal pastoral workers in the Kimberley | National Museum of Australia, 2014). Strike action rose to prominence during the 1950’s and 60’s. It forced many white workers and trade unions to acknowledge the need to combat racism throughout the wider labour movement. Strike action represented growing determination in organised indigenous movements, and illustrated a departure from physical violence as the primary form of resistance. Strike action allowed Aboriginal people to resist European oppression in a passive and unified way that had the potential to encourage change at a government level, as well as strengthen support from liberal-minded Australians. Australia's first successful land claim was achieved through strike action in 1966. 200 of the Northern Territory Gurindji people, led by Vincent Lingari, walked off the Wave Hill cattle station owned by British company; Vesteys. Lingiari declared; "The issue on which we are protesting is neither purely economic nor political but moral ... on August 22, 1966 the Gurindji tribe decided to cease to live like dogs."(Fletcher, 2009). The success of the strike was marked by the moment prime minister Gough Whitlam poured earth into Lingiari's hands which symbolized the return of the land to the indigenous people. Ultimately, the victories procured through strike action, no matter how small, revealed the significance of the collective power of resistance and saw a greater push for solidarity. Numerous campaigns followed, many of which were inspired by the civil rights movement in the United States. Since the 1960’s, as strikes became more prominent, Aboriginal activists began to lead an increasingly radical movement for equal rights (Fletcher, 2009).

While many Aboriginal land rights activist groups were inspired by the American Black Panther Party, they were formed in a way that would address the unique conditions of the indigenous Australian community. Activism in the mid to late 1900’s was transformed to meet the needs of Aboriginals living in urban areas, where activists understood them as being ingrained within the fight for land rights. As stated by Briscoe, this represented ‘the contemporary extension of the historical resistance to white superiority’(Macfarlane, I & Hannah, M 2007). The Tent embassy is one of the most significant Aboriginal rights campaigns. It is a representation of the modern protest movement that focuses on solidarity. On Australia day 1972 an umbrella flying the Aboriginal flag was placed outside Parliament. Protests around the ‘tent’ grew over the next months. Activists issued a petition which detailed a plan addressing Aboriginal ownership of reserves and settlements, as well as the preservation of all sacred sites, full rights of statehood for the Northern Territory and $6 million in compensation (Aboriginal Tent Embassy | National Museum of Australia, n.d.). Protestors asserted that the tent embassy would stay until Aboriginal Australians had land rights. The tent embassy has been a landmark for Aboriginal resistance. Since 1992 it has been a focal point for protests and marches on parliament. More recently, protests have taken on a more ceremonial style, for example, the 1998 lighting of the sacred fire to protest land rights. The tent embassy remains a significant marker of the demand for Aboriginal land rights. The embassy maintains a constant presence within Old Parliament House. Its impact as a grassroots movement has seen it become a powerful symbol of resistance and cultural revival. Its significance is further conveyed by many Aboriginal activists who have attributed their political consciousness and education to the powerful image of the Embassy. Today, the embassy is used to bolster support and attention towards prominent issues like Aboriginal sovereignty and acknowledgement of self-determination. The Embassy is listed on the Australian Heritage Commission’s National Estate and is currently the only nationally recognised place for the political struggle of Aboriginal people (Aboriginal Tent Embassy | National Museum of Australia, n.d.).

Tent embassy demonstrated a method of resistance directed at altering the impacts of colonialism at a government level. A great example of modern means of resistance put into action is the landmark 1992 ‘Mabo case’ which challenged the existing Australian legal system. The case aimed to eliminate terra nullius and dismiss the notion that grounds for complete ownership of land in the colonies to the crown is determined by sovereignty. In resistance to the treatment of indigenous people, Meriam men Eddie Mabo, Reverend David Passi, Celuia Salee and others, brought legal action against the Queensland government and the Commonwealth in the High Court, claiming 'native title' to their land in the Murray Islands. Their claim was successful, and it was ruled that terra nullius did not apply and that the Meriam people were 'entitled as against the whole world to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the lands of the Murray Islands’ (No. 1 [1988]). Moreover, Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2), the High Court inserted the doctrine of native title into Australian law, and it was recognised that Indigenous peoples deserve rights to their land according to their own laws and customs. Furthermore, Russell highlighted Mabo’s political genius, and noted that the resistance struggle had entered a new era (Russell, 2006). The significance of the case is perfectly summed up through Mabo’s statement “We are struggling 200 years after the invasion, fighting the white man’s law makers in their own legal game where our fathers and our ancestors before us were not able to do” (Keon-Cohen) . In recent decades, the term ‘resistance’ has been overtaken by ‘activism’. A key issue faced by activists is the ‘change the date’ debate. This relates to the celebration of Australia day on the 26th of January, which is argued to mark a day of invasion and trauma. Protests have occurred for many years; a public corroboree is held annually around the tent embassy to protest ‘Invasion Day’. In 1938, Aboriginal people living in New South Wales marked January 26th as a "Day of Mourning and Protest" (Australians Together | Australia Day, 2013). This was to draw further attention to the loss of Aboriginal land and demanded equality. This historic moment was a crucial step forward to advance the struggle against racial discrimination and oppression through the self-organisation of Aboriginal people. Furthermore, as highlighted by Stanner, resistance today is directed towards rediscovering “who and what their people were before the long humiliation.” It is “a way of restoring self-esteem, of finding a new direction for the will to survive.”(Stanner 2011). No matter the form in which modes of indigenous resistance takes, the

underlying message is universal. It was expressed in 2014 by activist Sol Bellear; “we will never surrender. We will never assimilate.You can come to that realization now, or in 100 years. But the determination of Aboriginal people to control Aboriginal lives will never end.”(Sol Bellear, 2014) Resistance is not simply characterised by violent responses to colonisation. It involves complex, intense and sustained psychological resistance. As stated by Henry Reynolds; “The mere presence of Europeans, no matter how threatening, could not uproot certainties so deeply implanted in Aboriginal custom and consciousness.” (Reynolds, 1982, p.65). Reynolds suggests that resistance was not only shown through fighting, but through the undying will of the Aboriginal people to survive and maintain connections to the land and their culture. In the early stages of colonisation, where the struggle was most violent, Aboriginal resistance interrupted the progression of settlement, and inflicted substantial economic and psychological damage to the settlers. Over time, European dominance increased, and Aboriginal resistance transformed from physically fighting Europeans to enlisting their support as a means of increasing solidarity and encouraging change at a social and political level. The most significant means of resisting the dominance of European culture and politics for the Aboriginal people was through social unity. Despite the constant internal struggle fighting intergenerational trauma caused by biopolitical practices of the Australian government, indigenous Australians have not only successfully resisted systematic extermination, but have also continued to fight to live according to their historical and cultural values.

References Aboriginal Studies Press. “The Little red Yellow Black Book: An Introduction to Indigenous Australia” (p111-112) Arthur to Sir George Murray, 12 September 1829, HRA, 1, 15, p. 446. Australian Indigenous Law Review , Vol. 19, No. 1, THEMATIC EDITION: Indigenous Children’s Wellbeing (2015/2016), pp. 88-102 Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. 2015. First Encounters And Frontier Conflict. [online] Available at: Australianstogether.org.au. 2013. Australians Together | Australia Day. [online] Available at:

Collins, D., Lowry, W., Lowry, W., Neele, S., Heath, J., Neagle, J., Strahan, A., Cadell, T., Davies, W., King, P. and Bass, G., n.d. An Account Of The English Colony In New South Wales. 1st ed. BoD – Books on Demand. Collingwood-Whittick, S 2018, ‘Settler colonial biopolitics and indigenous resistance: The refusal of Australia's First Peoples "to fade away or assimilate or just die"’, American Indian Culture and Research Journal, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 11–37. Evans, R. 2002, ‘Against the grain: Colonialis...