Frontier or History Wars?

What is it about the nature of frontier conflict that led historians to overlook it for so long?

Until recent decades, the history of frontier conflict, and to an extent, Indigenous history, had been absent on the pages of popular Australian history and history textbooks. The extent and nature of frontier conflict is a highly contested issue amongst historians, with varying, and sometimes polar historical viewpoints. Australian history, until the late 20^th century, was focussed largely on the actions and lives of European white settlers. Indigenous responses to white settlement were often ascribed as feeble and unvaried, and many massacres of indigenous groups were ignored completely in history books.

Opposing this view of history and adding to the historiographical debate, in his ground-breaking monograph The Other Side of the Frontier (1981), Henry Reynolds recounts a history of violence between white settlers and Indigenous Australians. More notably, Reynolds describes the complex forms of resistance by the Australian Aborigines against the invading European settlers. Reynolds presents a “black armband” view of history which had been absent in previous hegemonic white Australian historical accounts. There are, however, several reasons for the general absence of Indigenous history before this publication.

Political motives may have led to the exclusion of frontier conflict in history. As Indigenous Australians were not counted on the Australian census until the referendum in 1967, this made way for the disregarding of indigenous beings, in the most part, from the history books.  Moreover, it is difficult to assess both sides of the historical recounts of frontier conflict, as Indigenous societies often employed oral history to recount events. Many historians in the past had ignored oral history, particularly Indigenous oral history, and instead used the more “credible” white people’s accounts of history in written form.  

Moreover, it is perhaps the shame associated with this history that has prevented it from being widely published and accepted until recent times. Reynolds presents the world with a “black armband” history, a history of shameful behaviour, including massacres, rape and displacement, that is more difficult for many people to accept in this young country. Conservative government, particularly under the leadership of John Howard in the 1990’s, chose to remember the more positive aspects of our history, rather than these more shameful memories.  

Finally, to accept a history that so greatly opposes what generations of Australians had been taught is another reason why frontier conflict has been left bare. Reynolds’ proposition was largely revolutionary in the telling of the Indigenous perspective, and did not follow the traditional and accepted histories of Australia until that time. Thus, Frontier conflict had been overlooked by historians for so long because of its complex nature, difficulty in accessing information, shameful aura and its opposition of traditional histories of Australia

"Natives Attacking Shepherds' Hut," print by Samuel Calvert, c.1860's, As Henry Reynolds explains, Indigenous responses to white settlement were complex and varied. (Source: National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-an8957159)

Europeans and the Australian Environment

According to Mitchell, what impact were settlers having upon the environment?

Explorer Thomas Livingstone Mitchell, in his 1848 writing “Of the Aborigines” purveys a sense of understanding of the negative impact Europeans settlers were having on the Australian environment. Mitchell speaks quite perceptively about the cycle of dependence of “fire, grass, kangaroos and human inhabitants”, understanding the importance of previous indigenous management of the land. Mitchell indeed is quite complementary of the Indigenous Australian’s he has encountered, considering the essential practises of firestick farming by Aboriginal Australians for both their own benefit, and to help control the forest and keep it well managed. Periodical burning of the forest allowed for the regrowth of local plant species, and, due to the fresh growth of plants, encouraged kangaroos to graze, which the Indigenous inhabitants could then hunt.  Mitchell points out that if there had not been Indigenous management of the land through burning, the Australian bushland would not have any of its open forests or clear land needed for cattle farming. Ceasing the burning of the land by Indigenous inhabitants would cause a major disruption in ancient and traditional practises of land management, and greatly disrupt the natural forest environment.

In addition, Mitchell points out the gross mismanagement by European settlers and the Imperial Government. Though, as he points out, some settlers have practised burning on their land to remove old grass, the government, simply from their own misunderstandings, had banned the burning of the forest. The environmental consequences of ceasing controlled annual burning, has lead to growth of thick forest around Sydney, which has become almost impenetrable. Because of this, kangaroos no longer graze in the area, and there has been less growth of grass and open forest area needed for the farmers of cattle. Due to the departure of Aboriginal inhabitants in the area, the forest is no longer cleared and managed in the traditional way. The new growth encouraged by burning the land is no longer apparent, and forests have become thick and dense, rather than the open forests they once were.

Sir Thomas Livingstone Mitchell, oil painting by an unknown artist ca. 1830. Mitchell perceived the importance of the traditional indigenous use of fire as a land management practise. (Source:  State Library New South Wales http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/discover_collections/people_places/east/settlers/mitchell.html)

Convict Lives: The Changing Image of Convict Women

The image of Australia’s convict women, perceived by historians up until the 1970’s was particularly damning and uncomplimentary. Often attributed by contemporary authority figures as morally depraved criminals, women rarely were represented as anything more than whores. This is demonstrated by colonial surveys, such as those conducted by Samuel Marsden in 1806, labelling convict women as either “moral” women or “concubines”. A contemporary authority figure and lieutenant of the First Fleet, Ralph Clark, branded the convict women as “damned whores”. Historian A. G. L Shaw embodies this view of convict women, writing in 1966 that “the picture they presented is a singularly unattractive one!” Throughout the mid 20^th century, the picture painted by historians of convict women was indeed unflattering, labelling women as little more than immoral criminals.

This 1751 engraving entitled "Gin Lane", by William Hogarth, depicts, via the central figure of a woman, the moral depravity found on the streets of London at that time. The drunken woman is shown to be neglecting her child, dressed in revealing rags, and appears to be seducing the man at her feet. This image supports the traditionalist view that convict women were little more than morally depraved whores, a view contested by feminist historian Anne Summers.
 (Source: http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/primary-sources/158)

However, alongside changing attitudes and the emergence of feminist history in the 1970’s, a new image of convict women began to appear, challenging the traditionalist view. Feminist historians such as Miriam Dixson, Kay Daniels and Joy Damousi began to write a revised history of Australia, portraying women as more than morally inept members of a criminal class. The work of Anne Summers, in her book “Damned Whores and God’s Police,” is particularly influential, explaining that much of the immoral behaviour of women in the first fleet was due to the patriarchal oppression of men. Summers explains that women of the First Fleet were universally stereotyped as “whores,” and due to this social typecast, had to deal with constant sexual abuse from their male counterparts and authority figures. Summers argues, that while transported men were put to work constructing roads, and farming, women were transported to be used for the sexual gratification of the male settlers. Thus, women convicts were not all originally prostitutes, but became so, by force, during the journey and upon the arrival in the colonies. Summers argues that the sexist depiction of women as licentious and morally depraved was used to control and manipulate convict women during settlement.

Outpost of Empire: Why was Australia settled by Britain?

Traditionally, the European settlement of Australia has been attributed to Britain’s need for a “dumping ground” for their criminals. In a time of poverty and overcrowding in London, petty crimes such as theft could lead to jail terms, or in some cases, the death penalty.  However, London jails and prison hulks were unable to cope with increasing prisoner numbers, and, as a consequence, became overcrowded breeding grounds of disease as well as social unrest. This situation was exacerbated when London was no longer able to send excess convicts to their American colonies following the American revolution of 1776. New Holland was selected, after being suggested by Sir Joseph Banks (following his voyage to Eastern Australia in 1770 on the Endeavour), as a new penal colony to house this increasing number of criminals in Britain. This is the traditional view adopted by historians such as A. G. L Shaw and Manning Clark for the settlement of Australia.

However, an alternative argument was presented in historian Geoffrey Blainey’s 1966 book The Tyranny of Distance. Blainey caused controversy when suggesting that Australia’s settlement was not merely as a dumping ground for criminals, but rather, as a site of economic gain and availability of navy resources. Blainey argues that, with access to American timber no longer viable after 1776, the navy needed a new area to harvest and grow high quality pine, such as the pine discovered on Norfolk Island during Cook’s voyage on the Endeavour in 1770. Blainey particularly emphasises the need for flax and timber for use by the British navy ships in order to continue naval exploration and maritime dominance. This theory has come under much scrutiny by historians such as Bolton and Shaw, who argue that Britain could have gained access to these materials for a cheaper price in regions closer to Britain itself. However, Blainey points out that the pine discovered in Norfolk Island appeared to be of superior quality, in high quantities on an island which was uninhabited.

"The Settlement, Norfolk Island" 1846 Print. Note the many Norfolk Island Pine Trees in the background of the image, which historian Geoffrey Blainey believes is of primary importance when regarding reasons for settlement in Australia. (Source: State Library of Tasmania http://catalogue.statelibrary.tas.gov.au/item/?id=100191)

A third theory has been presented by historian Alan Frost, who argues that the settlement of Australia in the 18^th century was for England’s desire for Empire expansion. Frost argues that competition with other nations, such as France, to claim The Great Southern Land, was of importance to Britain. This point is supported by the fact that in January 1788, just eight days after the arrival of the First Fleet, French explorer La Perouse coincidentally arrived in Botany Bay, to find the English Fleet already there. The Empire Theory also encompasses Britain’s need for a base in the Southern Hemisphere, where ships travelling to India could restock and help defend their other colonies. This theory links in closely with a forth theory, which emphasises Australia’s need for a base to trade with Asia, and in particular, China.

There have been many theories put forward regarding the reasons for British settlement of Australia. Perhaps it was a combination of all theories, rather than just one or the other, which led to the colonisation of Australia. Overcrowded jails could be emptied and ridded of undesirable convicts, an outpost the British Empire could be created (before being claimed by competing nations such as France ), and Britain could have a chance to benefit economically and strengthen their navy fleet. Overall, the settlement of Australia seemed to appear as a largely beneficial undertaking by Britain.  

Australia and the Enlightenment

Captain Cook's Description of the Inhabitants of New Holland

Navigator William Dampier, whilst exploring the west coast of Australia in the 17^th century, famously described the Indigenous inhabitants of New Holland as “the miserablest people on earth”. In August 1770, decades after this less than flattering description, English Captain James Cook arrived and documented his own rather different impression of the First Australians. Not only did Cook describe the physical appearance of the local Indigenous inhabitants, their weapons, canoes, and houses, but he enunciates his observations of a people living a natural and harmonious way of life, free from the corruptions of the “civilised” world.



The "Landing of Captain Cook at Botany Bay, 1770" by E Phillips Fox, 1902. Note the savage and warlike depiction of the Indigenous Inhabitants in the background, opposing Cook's own description as a "timorous" people in the "Natural State". (Source: National Gallery of Victoria Website: http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/gordonbennett/education/01.html)



Captain Cook’s observation of the inhabitants of New Holland carries with it a generally positive air. Whilst mapping the East Coast of Australia in 1770, Cook described a “timorous and inoffensive” populace, with no interest in material possession, no need for clothing, no permanent housing, and no evidence of the engagement of trade with their Pacific neighbours. In the publication Captain James Cook describes his Impression of New Holland, written in August 1770, Cook does not merely dismiss the Aboriginal inhabitants as savage, brutish or primitive like his Western predecessors had done so before him. Instead, Cook appears to have drawn upon ideas of the Enlightenment, particularly the work of the French philosophe Rousseau and his concept of the Natural State of Man. Cook notes that the inhabitants of New Holland live in a naturally innocent, “tranquil” state, without want of material possession, and with no difference in individual class or wealth. Cook explains that living so far from civilisation and the material conveniences found in England, may appear to some to be a “wretched” and uncomfortable way of life. Instead, Cook claims that it is the lack of civilisation which makes the Indigenous inhabitants “far happier than we Europeans,” in a more wholesome and Natural State.

However, Cook’s perception of the Indigenous Australian’s contains an underlying current of paternalism, which was not uncommon in this era of colonisation. Cook marvels at the way the inhabitants of this vast land are seemingly disinterested by the gifts of cloth left on the beach by his crew. In the eyes of Cook, the Indigenous inhabitants of New Holland were able to live their lives based only on what was shared by the “Earth and Sea”, and they cared not for the pursuit of grand houses of personal belongings. Cook, whilst admiring this aspect of the society, may have seen the Indigenous inhabitants as living in this Natural State for the present, but in the future, may progress to a more Civilised State, and begin to covet material possession, wear clothing and live in permanent houses. In this sense, Cook may have thought, that, like an uncorrupted and innocent child, the inhabitants of New Holland will one day, in a sense, “grow up” and adopt the “civilised” ways of Britain. Thus, whilst Cook admires the way of life of the inhabitants of New Holland, he does so in a paternalistic way, from the viewpoint of the “civilised” world.

Image of English navigator Captain James Cook, by John Webber,1782, following his exploration of the East Coast of Australia (formerly New Holland), and description of its inhabitants in 1770. (Source: Australian Dictionary of Biography: Online Edition, http://adbonline.anu.edu.au/biogs/A010231b.htm)