| FORUM | LIBRARY | ARCHIVE | E-BOOKS |                     | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The British in Tasmania.
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


The British in Tasmania.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The British in Tasmania.
    Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 01:09
The British in Tasmania.

"Not, perhaps, before, has a race of men been utterly destroyed within seventy-five years. This is the story of a race which was so destroyed, that of the aborigines of Tasmania--destroyed not only by a different manner of life but by the ill-will of the usurpers of the race's land.... With no defences but cunning and the most primitive weapons, the natives were no match for the sophisticated individualists of knife and gun. By 1876 the last of them was dead. So perished a whole people." --Clive Turnbull

As early as 1804 the British began to slaughter, kidnap and enslave the Black people of Tasmania. The colonial government itself was not even inclined to consider the aboriginal Tasmanians as full human beings, and scholars began to discuss civilization as a unilinear process with White people at the top and Black people at the bottom. To the Europeans of Tasmania the Blacks were an entity fit only to be exploited in the most sadistic of manners--a sadism that staggers the imagination and violates all human morality. As UCLA professor, Jared Diamond, recorded:

"Tactics for hunting down Tasmanians included riding out on horseback to shoot them, setting out steel traps to catch them, and putting out poison flour where they might find and eat it. Sheperds cut off the penis and testicles of aboriginal men, to watch the men run a few yards before dying. At a hill christened Mount Victory, settlers slaughtered 30 Tasmanians and threw their bodies over a cliff. One party of police killed 70 Tasmanians and dashed out the children's brains."

http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/archive.php?ac=t&forumid=7139&date=10-19-2006&t=849422-1
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 01 May 2005
Location: Melbourne, Aus
Status: Offline
Points: 7764
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 01:56
Quote "Not, perhaps, before, has a race of men been utterly destroyed within seventy-five years. This is the story of a race which was so destroyed, that of the aborigines of Tasmania--destroyed not only by a different manner of life but by the ill-will of the usurpers of the race's land.... With no defences but cunning and the most primitive weapons, the natives were no match for the sophisticated individualists of knife and gun. By 1876 the last of them was dead. So perished a whole people." --Clive Turnbull


Everything in that paragraph is factually incorrect.

Quote As early as 1804 the British began to slaughter


No.

Quote kidnap


Untrue.

Quote and enslave the Black people of Tasmania.


Tasmania was one of the few places on earth at that time where institutionalised slavery did not exist.

Quote The colonial government itself was not even inclined to consider the aboriginal Tasmanians as full human beings, and scholars began to discuss civilization as a unilinear process with White people at the top and Black people at the bottom.


These people were so primitive that they did not even make use of fire. To the most technologically advanced people on the planet at that time, this was a staggering technology gulf between the two peoples.

The idea that people are arbitrarily equals is a rather new concept. In previous centuries it was instead measured by military success and technological advancement.

Quote To the Europeans of Tasmania the Blacks were an entity fit only to be exploited in the most sadistic of manners--a sadism that staggers the imagination and violates all human morality. As UCLA professor, Jared Diamond, recorded:

"Tactics for hunting down Tasmanians included riding out on horseback to shoot them, setting out steel traps to catch them, and putting out poison flour where they might find and eat it. Sheperds cut off the penis and testicles of aboriginal men, to watch the men run a few yards before dying. At a hill christened Mount Victory, settlers slaughtered 30 Tasmanians and threw their bodies over a cliff. One party of police killed 70 Tasmanians and dashed out the children's brains."


That makes it sound like the colonial experience in Tasmania was entirely one of unbridled savagery, which is a serious misrepresentation.

The Tasmanians were a particularly warlike indigenous group and made a point of carrying out their own attacks on the settlers, often making use of similarly brutal tactics such as mutilation and infanticide.

The more accurate story is that an already very small population was largely wiped out by diseases which they never had any previous exposure to. From time to time conflicts between individual groups of settlers and Tasmanians flared up, but the hard statistics show that for the entire colonial period not more than a few hundred people met violent ends in these conflicts.

Some degree of accommodation was typically reached between the settlers and natives, and intermarriage between white settlers and Tasmanian tribeswomen was not uncommon. But the degree of resistance put up by the natives was something the settlers were eventually not willing to tolerate, resulting in the Black Line and the removal of the Tasmanians to islands in Bass straight. Descendants of the Tasmanian aborigines exist today.


Edited by Constantine XI - 16 Mar 2012 at 08:52
Nullius in verba
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 08:08
The title of the thread I'd like to see: "The British in Buckskin's head". Now's that's an interesting and mysterious topic!
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13258
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 10:05
Especially since in some places he sees the Australians as British and in others as not British (see the thread on what's wrong with the British army).
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 01 May 2005
Location: Melbourne, Aus
Status: Offline
Points: 7764
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 11:12
At what point do British settlers become Australians? Personally I see the most relevant cut-off date to be the point at which each colony was granted effective self government (i.e. the establishment of a colonial parliament with the right to legislate over virtually all of its internal affairs).
Nullius in verba
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4928
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 14:12
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

These people were so primitive that they did not even make use of fire. To the most technologically advanced people on the planet at that time, this was a staggering technology gulf between the two peoples.
-----

The Tasmanians were a particularly warlike indigenous group and made a point of carrying out their own attacks on the settlers, often making use of similarly brutal tactics such as mutilation and infanticide.

 

It seems that you use the same old arguments to justify the genocide on the Tasmanians as colonialists and conquerors have done for centuries. You portrait them as warlike, primitive and brutal.

Still today similar tactics of slander are used when referred to indigenous peoples in many places, especially when the majority society want their land.

You can read more about todays slander of indigenous peoples here:

 



Edited by Carcharodon - 16 Mar 2012 at 14:13
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4928
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 14:45
Ofcourse it is a hard piece to swallow for the desendants of the settlers in Australia and Tasmania that their ancestors took part in fiersome massacres on the indigenous populations. This has made many of them, even historians, wanting to downplay or outhright deny such circumstances. But new research and new approaches have shown that such things might have been more common than some people want to recognize.
 
Or as Lyndall Ryan puts it:
 

Quote The massacre debate today is a microcosm of the wider debate about the impact of settler colonialism on indigenous peoples and in particular about the humanity of the Tasmanian Aborigines. Above all it reflects the reluctance of many white Australians even today, to come to terms with incontrovertible evidence about our violent past and to seek reconciliation with Aboriginal survivors. I would like to hope that this review of the massacre debate in the Black War in Tasmania will take Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians closer to reaching that outcome.

http://epress.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm/view/Passionate+Histories%3A+Myth%2C+Memory+and+Indigenous+Australia/5281/ch02.xhtml

Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 15:19
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Quote "Not, perhaps, before, has a race of men been utterly destroyed within seventy-five years. This is the story of a race which was so destroyed, that of the aborigines of Tasmania--destroyed not only by a different manner of life but by the ill-will of the usurpers of the race's land.... With no defences but cunning and the most primitive weapons, the natives were no match for the sophisticated individualists of knife and gun. By 1876 the last of them was dead. So perished a whole people." --Clive Turnbull


Everything in that paragraph is factually incorrect.

Quote As early as 1804 the British began to slaughter


No.

Quote kidnap


Untrue.

Quote and enslave the Black people of Tasmania.


Tasmania was one of the few places on earth at that time where institutionalised slavery did not exist.

Quote The colonial government itself was not even inclined to consider the aboriginal Tasmanians as full human beings, and scholars began to discuss civilization as a unilinear process with White people at the top and Black people at the bottom.


These people were so primitive that they did not even make use of fire. To the most technologically advanced people on the planet at that time, this was a staggering technology gulf between the two peoples.

The idea that people are arbitrarily equals is a rather new concept. In previous centuries it was instead measured by military success and technological advancement.

Quote To the Europeans of Tasmania the Blacks were an entity fit only to be exploited in the most sadistic of manners--a sadism that staggers the imagination and violates all human morality. As UCLA professor, Jared Diamond, recorded:

"Tactics for hunting down Tasmanians included riding out on horseback to shoot them, setting out steel traps to catch them, and putting out poison flour where they might find and eat it. Sheperds cut off the penis and testicles of aboriginal men, to watch the men run a few yards before dying. At a hill christened Mount Victory, settlers slaughtered 30 Tasmanians and threw their bodies over a cliff. One party of police killed 70 Tasmanians and dashed out the children's brains."


That makes it sound like the colonial experience in Tasmania was entirely one of unbridled savagery, which is a serious misrepresentation.

The Tasmanians were a particularly warlike indigenous group and made a point of carrying out their own attacks on the settlers, often making use of similarly brutal tactics such as mutilation and infanticide.

The more accurate story is that an already very small population was largely wiped out by diseases which they never had any previous exposure to. From time to time conflicts between individual groups of settlers and Tasmanians flared up, but the hard statistics show that for the entire colonial period not more than a few hundred people met violent ends in these conflicts.

Some degree of accommodation was typically reached between the settlers and natives, and intermarriage between white settlers and Tasmanian tribeswomen was not uncommon. But the degree of resistance put up by the natives was something the settlers were eventually not willing to tolerate, resulting in the Black Line and the removal of the Tasmanians to islands in Bass straight. Descendants of the Tasmanian aborigines exist today.

 
"On Flinders Island Robinson was determined to civilize and Christianize the survivors. His settlement--at a windy site with little fresh water--was run like a jail. Children were separated from parents to facilitate the work of civilizing them. The regimental daily schedule included Bible reading, hymn singing, and inspection of beds and dishes for cleanness and neatness. However, the jail diet caused malnutrition, which combined with illness to make the natives die. Few infants survived more than a few weeks. The government reduced expenditures in the hope that the native would die out. By 1869 only Truganini, one other woman, and one man remained alive."

"
We talked and socialized together a great deal and it became readily apparent that only the full-blood Blacks had perished in the holocaust, and that there were Black people living in Tasmania today."

http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/archive.php?ac=t&forumid=7139&date=10-19-2006&t=849422-1

May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 15:23
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

The title of the thread I'd like to see: "The British in Buckskin's head". Now's that's an interesting and mysterious topic!

 Feel free to start your own thread on your inquisitive desire.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 15:27
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Especially since in some places he sees the Australians as British and in others as not British (see the thread on what's wrong with the British army).

Being a free people and remaining in the commonwealth, does not make anyone British. They are Australians. 
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 17:34
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Ofcourse it is a hard piece to swallow for the desendants of the settlers in Australia and Tasmania that their ancestors took part in fiersome massacres on the indigenous populations. This has made many of them, even historians, wanting to downplay or outhright deny such circumstances. But new research and new approaches have shown that such things might have been more common than some people want to recognize.
 
Or as Lyndall Ryan puts it:
 

Quote The massacre debate today is a microcosm of the wider debate about the impact of settler colonialism on indigenous peoples and in particular about the humanity of the Tasmanian Aborigines. Above all it reflects the reluctance of many white Australians even today, to come to terms with incontrovertible evidence about our violent past and to seek reconciliation with Aboriginal survivors. I would like to hope that this review of the massacre debate in the Black War in Tasmania will take Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians closer to reaching that outcome.

http://epress.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm/view/Passionate+Histories%3A+Myth%2C+Memory+and+Indigenous+Australia/5281/ch02.xhtml


It was not Australians. It was the British. This is now part of Australian history that no present day Australian should feel responsible for.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13258
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 21:00
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Especially since in some places he sees the Australians as British and in others as not British (see the thread on what's wrong with the British army).

Being a free people and remaining in the commonwealth, does not make anyone British. They are Australians. 
So why call them British here?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13258
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 21:03
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

It was not Australians. It was the British. This is now part of Australian history that no present day Australian should feel responsible for.
Neither should any present-day Briton. Neither in fact should any present-day anything.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 23:11
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Especially since in some places he sees the Australians as British and in others as not British (see the thread on what's wrong with the British army).

Being a free people and remaining in the commonwealth, does not make anyone British. They are Australians. 
So why call them British here?

There was no Australia. The murderers were mostly British under the British crown..
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 23:14
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

It was not Australians. It was the British. This is now part of Australian history that no present day Australian should feel responsible for.
Neither should any present-day Briton. Neither in fact should any present-day anything.

I agree, all I'm trying to do is have Brits acknowledged the bloodbath and theft from the worlds poor.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 23:40
By this stage it was clear that “full-blood” Tasmanian Aborigines would not survive another generation. That’s when the ghoulish practice of harvesting their bodies for scientific specimens really took off. The last male full-blood was William Lanney who died in 1860. Within hours of his death his skull had been surreptitiously removed and sold to the Royal Society. Truganini was the last full-blood Tasmanian, who died in 1876. Her skeleton was kept on display in the Museum of Tasmania in Hobart until 1949 and was finally cremated in 1976, with her ashes ceremonially scattered in the channel near her tribal homelands on Bruny Island. The last known speaker of any of the Tasmanian Aboriginal languages was Fanny Cochrane-Smith, who made some recordings of songs from her childhood before she died in 1905

www.twcenter.net

We make no pompous display of Philanthropy. We say this unequivocally SELF DEFENCE IS THE FIRST LAW OF NATURE. THE GOVERNMENT MUST REMOVE THE NATIVES – IF NOT, THEY WILL BE HUNTED DOWN LIKE WILD BEASTS, AND DESTROYED!
– Colonial Times and Tasmanian Advertiser, 1826




When the mouse died, there was a sort of pity:
The tiny, delicate creature made for grief.
Yesterday, instead, the dead whale on the reef
Drew an excited multitude to the jetty.
How must a whale die to wring a tear?
Lugubrious death of a whale; the big
Feast for the gulls and sharks; the tug
Of the tide simulating life still there,
Until the air, polluted, swings this way
Like a door ajar from a slaughterhouse.
Pooh! pooh! spare us, give us the death of a mouse
By its tiny hole; not this in our lovely bay.
- Sorry, we are, too, when a child dies;
But at the immolation of a race, who cries?

Death of a Whale, John Blight.


May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 01 May 2005
Location: Melbourne, Aus
Status: Offline
Points: 7764
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Mar 2012 at 23:05
Originally posted by Carcha Carcha wrote:

It seems that you use the same old arguments to justify the genocide on the Tasmanians as colonialists and conquerors have done for centuries. You portrait them as warlike, primitive and brutal.

Still today similar tactics of slander are used when referred to indigenous peoples in many places, especially when the majority society want their land.

You can read more about todays slander of indigenous peoples here:

 



The Tasmanians were warlike, primitive and brutal. Only someone who has never studied their society would think otherwise. But I'm not interested in the opinions of the ignorant.

The reason I mention it is not to justify what occurred in Tasmania, but to provide some informed context. The reason the European settlers and Tasmanian natives failed to reach an accommodation like they did on the mainland is because Tasmanian aboriginal society was far less willing to tolerate European settlements. Raids on homesteads were frequent, atrocities against settlers were common, negotiation difficult to come to. The Tasmanians were an entirely different sort of aborigine to the ones found on the mainland.
Nullius in verba
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 01 May 2005
Location: Melbourne, Aus
Status: Offline
Points: 7764
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Mar 2012 at 23:21
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

"On Flinders Island Robinson was determined to civilize and Christianize the survivors. His settlement--at a windy site with little fresh water--was run like a jail. Children were separated from parents to facilitate the work of civilizing them. The regimental daily schedule included Bible reading, hymn singing, and inspection of beds and dishes for cleanness and neatness. However, the jail diet caused malnutrition, which combined with illness to make the natives die. Few infants survived more than a few weeks. The government reduced expenditures in the hope that the native would die out. By 1869 only Truganini, one other woman, and one man remained alive."


All of what is written above is entirely typical of the life you had as a ward of the state in colonial Australia.

As for the government reducing expenditure in the hope they would die out, I call baloney. Firstly because there are thousands of their descendants alive today. In fact, the largest aboriginal contingent to fight in WWI in the ANZACs came from those very islands you are describing.

Secondly, the government was naturally going to reduce expenditure once the people on the island had developed some form of self sufficient agriculture. Expenditure supporting a settlemtn is at its greatest when the settlement is first being established. After a while it becomes more self sufficient.

Interestingly enough Flinders island and King island today produce some of the most sought after beef and cheeses in the country.

Quote
We talked and socialized together a great deal and it became readily apparent that only the full-blood Blacks had perished in the holocaust, and that there were Black people living in Tasmania today."

http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/archive.php?ac=t&forumid=7139&date=10-19-2006&t=849422-1


A friend asked me about this specific fact, asking why if there was no genocide he saw a statue to the last Tasmanian aborigine.

I responded thus: So why doesn't anyone build a monument to my ancestors? Despite my surname, I'm no longer a pure blooded Prussian. Seems some of my ancestors took a fancy to people from other parts of the world. I can't say I think that is such a bad thing.

It remains unsurprisingly that out of an already tiny population, reduced greatly by diseases to which they had no historical immunity, and reduced further by the strain of resettlement and adapting to an entirely new mode of living, that such a small remaining population would have no choice but to breed with people from other nations. The alternative would be in-breeding within a group of several dozen individuals, with the inevitable result being sterility and extinction.
Nullius in verba
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4928
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Mar 2012 at 15:29
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

The Tasmanians were warlike, primitive and brutal. Only someone who has never studied their society would think otherwise. But I'm not interested in the opinions of the ignorant.

 

But the settlers were worse. Also remember that many of the old descriptions of the natives were made by people indoctrinated with racist and ethnocentric ideas about uncivilized tribes and similar nonsense.



Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7757
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2012 at 09:18

Bloody hell Constantine, I'm more shocked at what your writing than at what Buckskins is.

Originally posted by CXI CXI wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

"Not, perhaps, before, has a race of men been utterly destroyed within seventy-five years. This is the story of a race which was so destroyed, that of the aborigines of Tasmania--destroyed not only by a different manner of life but by the ill-will of the usurpers of the race's land.... With no defences but cunning and the most primitive weapons, the natives were no match for the sophisticated individualists of knife and gun. By 1876 the last of them was dead. So perished a whole people." --Clive Turnbull

Everything in that paragraph is factually incorrect.


Not quite everything. It is true that Tasmanian Aboriginies were destroyed within 75 years, but they weren't completely wiped out as a race. All mainland (Tasi mainland) groups had been rounded up, and within 75 years all of them were dead. Other people survived, either on other islands or on whaling ships or in mixed race families, but essentially, yes, they had been destroyed by a different manner of life but by the ill-will of the usurpers of the race's land.

As to defences, the Tasmanian aboriginies actually mounted the most sucessful defensive campaign of any aboriginal group. They fought for 40 years, a figure that far exceeds any other aboriginal group in Australia. Also the effort required to subjugate them was far in excess of anything anywhere else on the continent.

Originally posted by CXI CXI wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

kidnap
Untrue.

Of course that's true. In fact, that's how many Tasmanian aboriginies survived. British (and American) Whaling ships would frequently pull up in Tasmania to kidnap wifes.
Originally posted by CXI CXI wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

and enslave the Black people of Tasmania.
Tasmania was one of the few places on earth at that time where institutionalised slavery did not exist.

Unless you were white of course. Black slavery never existed in Tasmania - the Aboriginies would not work for the white man. But convicts are essentially slaves, it just isn't & wasn't PC to call white people slaves.
Quote These people were so primitive that they did not even make use of fire.

Blatently untrue. Of course they used fire.
Quote The Tasmanians were a particularly warlike indigenous group and made a point of carrying out their own attacks on the settlers, often making use of similarly brutal tactics such as mutilation and infanticide.

The more accurate story is that an already very small population was largely wiped out by diseases which they never had any previous exposure to. From time to time conflicts between individual groups of settlers and Tasmanians flared up, but the hard statistics show that for the entire colonial period not more than a few hundred people met violent ends in these conflicts.


They were not anymore warlike that anyone else who's country is invaded. Limited conflict marked by disease is entirely inaccurate for Tasmania. Tasmania was an all out war with both sides showing unremitting hostility towards the other. Don't dismiss what happened, wiping the Aboriginies off the Tasi mainland was an objective of the government and one that was achieved. I don't know if London supported Hobart's actions, I suspect they didn't actually. London is usually the most pro-Aboriginie and pro-cooperation of all the Australian governments.
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Especially since in some places he sees the Australians as British and in others as not British (see the thread on what's wrong with the British army).

Being a free people and remaining in the commonwealth, does not make anyone British. They are Australians.


Australian citizenship was invented in 1949 and putting 'British subject' on Australian passports ceased in 1972. Culturally though Australia can still well be called a British country. America too is really a British country too, just one that has some old habits and forgot how to play Cricket (a fact that would not doubt shock the US's founding fathers)
Quote There was no Australia. The murderers were mostly British under the British crown..

All Australians are mostly British under the British crown.
Originally posted by CXI CXI wrote:

All of what is written above is entirely typical of the life you had as a ward of the state in colonial Australia.

As for the government reducing expenditure in the hope they would die out, I call baloney. Firstly because there are thousands of their descendants alive today. In fact, the largest aboriginal contingent to fight in WWI in the ANZACs came from those very islands you are describing.


The final surrender of Aboriginal groups on mainland Tas was negotiated by Truganini and Robinson. The terms of the treaty were that the Aboriginies were to spend a short time in exile on Flinders Island before moving to a reservation back on Tasmania. Hobart reneged on the deal, and removed from their homeland most of who surrendered died, probably of severe depression as much as anything. Eventually, they did get back but by that stage there were only a handful of survivers. Truganini was the last of that group to survive, and she died in 1876.

There are NO descendents of the people who surrendered to Robinson. And NO organised groups of Tasmainian aboriginies existed on the Tasi mainland after the surrender.

Quote But the settlers were worse. Also remember that many of the old descriptions of the natives were made by people indoctrinated with racist and ethnocentric ideas about uncivilized tribes and similar nonsense.

Actually before Darwinism the predominant belief was that Aboriginies were just as capable and intelligent as any white man. The left's major goal was to educate them and turn them into productive citizens. Only after Darwinisn and the invention of scientific racism - which was after the war ended in Tasmania - were the aboriginies viewed as inheritly inferior.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4928
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2012 at 12:31
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Actually before Darwinism the predominant belief was that Aboriginies were just as capable and intelligent as any white man. The left's major goal was to educate them and turn them into productive citizens. Only after Darwinisn and the invention of scientific racism - which was after the war ended in Tasmania - were the aboriginies viewed as inheritly inferior.
 
It was not always so. Slavery and slave trade had already at that time created negative ideas about black and indigenous peoples.
 
And already at that time it was many times considered OK to steal the land of so called primitive peoples.
 
But there were ofcourse also others who had different opinions and more positive attitudes.
 


Edited by Carcharodon - 23 Mar 2012 at 12:51
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 14543
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Mar 2012 at 03:41
Carcha. Tasmanians aren't "black" people. They are australoids.
Remember that the term "black" is usually use only for negroid Africans. Sure, in Australia they call "blacks" to Australoids, but that just ignorance.

And your oppinion that the negative ideas were created by slavery is nonsense. In the case of Australoids, it was Darwin and his boys which spread the idea of the inferiority of the Australoid people. Let me remember you that not all "primitive" races were seen as backwards. Peoples like Polynesians, Amerindians and Mongolians weren't put in the same evolutive scale than australoids by darwinists.


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13258
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Mar 2012 at 11:15
Calling any peoples 'black' is ignorant just as calling any peoples 'white' is.
 
Even the colourblind should be able to see the difference.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 14543
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Mar 2012 at 22:40
Well, races that live around the tropics aren't black but very dark brown.
But you should remember that for old british darwinists what mattered wasn't color of skin but skull measurements.


Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7757
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Mar 2012 at 09:50
Originally posted by Pingo Pingo wrote:

Carcha. Tasmanians aren't "black" people. They are australoids.
Remember that the term "black" is usually use only for negroid Africans. Sure, in Australia they call "blacks" to Australoids, but that just ignorance.

WRONG. Ethnic descriptions are slighly different here.
Blacks are Aboriginal (or Melanesian), Africans are Africans, Black Americans are White. Black Brazilians are Latino. Skin Colour is irrelevant, food is very relavent. I've drawn you an ethnic map so you know where everybody fits in with super-racial descriptors.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 14543
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Mar 2012 at 03:28
Irrelevant? Are you kidding? Do you believe Celia Cruz was considered an "equal" in Argentina? Or in the brazilian high society? Give me a break.

Haven't you heared mulatto brazilians speaking about how idiot are theirs fellow black brazilians? Never read the poem Mulata by Cuban poet Nicolas Guillen?

Or do you think that an African Algerian, Lybian or Morrocan considers himself the "same people" than a bantu?





Edited by pinguin - 26 Mar 2012 at 03:32
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4928
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Mar 2012 at 08:23
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

  Carcha. Tasmanians aren't "black" people.
 
They are australoids.
Remember that the term "black" is usually use only for negroid Africans. Sure, in Australia they call "blacks" to Australoids, but that just ignorance.
 
 
Their skin are as black (or rather brown) as any African, and Australian aborigines are as you say often referred to as blacks in Australia. And the settlers and others of old days did not always make any big difference between different dark skinned peoples.
 
by the way, Australian aborigines have also been referred to as Austral negroes. And the black peoples of Andaman islands, Malaysia, Philippines and some other places have often been referred to as negritos which means small black people.

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 And your oppinion that the negative ideas were created by slavery is nonsense.
 
 
Of course it is not. One can easily follow it through old documents, travel reports and similar. Just read up on this phase of history and you can see for yourself.
 
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

In the case of Australoids, it was Darwin and his boys which spread the idea of the inferiority of the Australoid people. Let me remember you that not all "primitive" races were seen as backwards. Peoples like Polynesians, Amerindians and Mongolians weren't put in the same evolutive scale than australoids by darwinists.

The attitudes towards these peoples have also shifted through the times and among different authors. Amerindians have many times been described as savages, brutes and similar.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 14543
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Mar 2012 at 02:49
Natives were described as savages, brutes et al, but never as members of another species.


Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4928
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Mar 2012 at 08:15
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Natives were described as savages, brutes et al, but never as members of another species.
 
Do not forget that even your beloved Spaniards discussed if Native Americans where humans or not.
 
Also remember that also old Linné himself talked about different taxa or categories of human beings. And according to him these categories had different characteristics and properties. Some of these human creatures he even called monstrosa.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7757
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Mar 2012 at 10:47

Originally posted by Pinguin Pinguin wrote:

Irrelevant? Are you kidding? Do you believe Celia Cruz was considered an "equal" in Argentina? Or in the brazilian high society? Give me a break.

We are talking about Tasmania aren't we?

What Argentinian racial divisions are is completely irrelavant to what Australian ones are.

Originally posted by Carcha Carcha wrote:


Their skin are as black (or rather brown) as any African.

No they're not. Once upon a time in some parts of the continent yes, ok, but modern day no, Blacks don't necessarily have black skin (nor whites white). And let me just point out if you were to say that from an Australian university position, even if you were speaking strictly historically (because people are over-emotional sometimes), there would be a lot of pressure to have you fired. Skin colour was the basis of the stolen generation, so linking skin colour to aboriginality is an extremely emotional issue.
Quote And the settlers and others of old days did not always make any big difference between different dark skinned peoples.

I don't think that's really true. The Africans that accompanied the first fleet were never confused with Aboriginies by whites or blacks.
Quote Australian aborigines have also been referred to as Austral negroes. And the black peoples of Andaman islands, Malaysia, Philippines and some other places have often been referred to as negritos which means small black people.

Only by racists who can't say Aboriginal or Orang Asli.
Quote The attitudes towards these peoples have also shifted through the times and among different authors. Amerindians have many times been described as savages, brutes and similar.

Before the 1860s it would be unheard of in educated circles to suggest that Aboriginies were intellectually or genetically inferior to English. Culturally and Technologically yes, that was said, but the goal was always to educate them and make them upstanding British subjects.



Edited by Omar al Hashim - 27 Mar 2012 at 10:49
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.297 seconds.