Follow Topics

6 February 2013, 6.52am EST

Coming to terms with Tasmania’s forgotten war

C73dm2yd-1359073649 — Tasmanians have yet to engage fully with the unspeakable in their history. Nina Matthews Photography

Is Tasmania at a tipping point? Over the next two weeks The Conversation, in conjunction with Griffith REVIEW and the University of Tasmania, is publishing a series of provocations. Our authors ask where does Tasmania’s future lie? Has it reached a “tipping point”, politically, economically and culturally? Thinkers, writers and doers from Tasmania and beyond, including members of its extensive diaspora, challenge how Tasmania is seen by outsiders and illuminate how Tasmanians see themselves, down home and in the wider world.

Some dark secrets run so deep that they slip from view. The hole left in our collective conscience is gradually plugged, with shallow distractions and awkward half-truths. Questions, if uttered, pass unheard. An uneasy and enduring silence prevails.

So it has been in Tasmania since the end of our war.

This was the first and only properly declared war fought by the British on Australian soil. Initiated by Governor George Arthur on November 1 1828, it was waged against an enemy once dismissed as a meagre scattering of “savage crows”. But the first Tasmanians were an enemy so committed to driving the settlers from their ancestral lands that neither ad hoc massacres on a lawless frontier, nor the ravages of disease that swept ahead of muskets and poisoned flour seemed capable of quelling their determination.

As their numbers fell, Aboriginal resolve seemed to increase. They simply could not give up their land.

This is a story about the consequences of such resolve and the marks it has left on the history and identity of today’s Tasmanians.

I have spent nearly 30 years seeking solutions to the injustice that persists for the Aboriginal community in Tasmania. Attitudes in Tasmania remained unaffected by what seemed pyrrhic victories. The Aboriginal community remained alienated from contemporary Tasmanian society, which in turn resisted the facts of the bloody history that we shared.

These were not simple prejudices, they grew out of penetrating mythologies, rooted in the oldest and most profound of themes; cultures in collision and the inexorable triumph of power.

My thesis: that a hand guided by a thousand years of European history held every pen and wielded every musket used in the campaign against the First Tasmanians. While the nations of Tasmania had lived in splendid isolation on their island for millennia, the invaders had already survived an eternity of war.

The story of Tasmania’s war is not part of the state’s ever-changing tourist brand. It is the one truth that can never be uttered – the source of an ancestral curse. There is a terrible history lurking beneath the surface of the island’s placid lakes. It stalks the shadows of each rainforest glade and casts a disquieting hue across the lurid vistas of wilderness upon which our fame is built.

Tasmania’s history is one of shameless deception that outraged even the citizens of the day. When the war was won a veil was drawn and a chapter closed. Saint and sinner could join in sombre lament. With inevitable necessity the Native threat had been banished.

To live in Tasmania today is to exist in the eye of a quiet, relentless storm. The island, politically and aesthetically, is a quintessential green. It is a destination of choice for Australians seeking an escape from the clutter of urban life. The cleanest of air and mildest of climates bestows on its small population a gourmet life; where fine wine and culinary delights accompany a thriving culture of literary and visual arts. These reassure both visitor and resident alike that, of all the places in the world, this must be closest to heaven.

Within a year of the first European settlement the die had been cast and the fledgling colony took its first confused steps toward conflict with the Tasmanian Aboriginal nations whose land it was to over-run. On 3 May 1804, the British at Risdon Cove had their first encounter with a large group of Aborigines. According to Henry Reynolds, the group, which included women and children, was “probably on a hunting expedition”. Frightened soldiers (some say drunk) fired on them in the commanding officer’s absence. Estimates made at the time of the carnage ranged as high as 50 killed.

In the coming decades, as the number of livestock grew, settlers demanded more land; inevitably increasing the number of destructive encounters with Aboriginal tribes. This culminated in Governor George Arthur issuing a series of proclamations placing the colony under martial law and calling for Aborigines to be expelled by force from the settled districts “by whatever means a severe and inevitable necessity may dictate”. James Boyce argues that the popular interpretation and overall effect of these proclamations was to provide legal immunity and state sanction for the killing of Aborigines wherever they could be found. The resulting slaughter became known as the Black War.

The thought of an ethnic cleansing in Tasmania fatally challenges the notion of an “Australia fair”. This might be Tasmania’s darkest secret, but it is also the least-kept. Raphael Lemkin, the Jewish scholar who first coined the term “genocide” in 1943, referred to Tasmania as a textbook example. The subject remains a disputed one. Henry Reynolds has long held that the term should not be applied in Tasmania.

Yet, the tolerance of active killing, forced exile and permanent detention are all consequences of Tasmanian policies between 1828 and 1864. The last detention facility at Oyster Cove was only abandoned when its inhabitants, left to die in miserable conditions, had reduced to a single old woman. Benjamin Madley, from Yale University’s Genocide Studies Program, concluded an exhaustive 2008 study thus, “Tasmania under British rule was clearly a site of genocide”.

Despite voluminous colonial documents and a wealth of visual records from the time, the Black War remains absent from Australian national remembrance. There was no glorious victory, no legendary loss on a far-flung beach. While our national imagination has churned heroes from slaughter on the fields of France during the Great War, the first war that Australians ever fought entrenched Tasmanian Aborigines as the archetypal enemy within.

This stands in contrast to the long European experience of war, where enemy and ally are fluid identities, and where treaty and reparation are the established guideposts of national relations. In Tasmania the standing of Aboriginal nations was simply swept from the table with an unspoken agreement that it should be raised no more.

Tasmanian colonial artists struggled with the unseemly haste by which any further discussion of the Black War was ceased.

In the early 1830s, John Glover presented his audience with a fanciful memorial to mark the end of conflict. Warriors who, armed with long spears, waddies and firesticks, had slain settlers and burned their barns and crops to the ground just months before, danced and sang in the whimsical scenes he created. They seem cast as a grotesque footnote to colonial accomplishment.

Others artists such as Thomas Bock and John Skinner Prout continued this sentimental acknowledgement. Their portraits provide a unique visual record of the ancestors of today’s Aboriginal community who had died before the introduction of photography to the colony. But this visual record offers little clue to their experience of war.

It was an ageing engraver and minor painter named Benjamin Duterrau who stood alone in his desire to directly confront the seriousness of the Black War. Arriving in Hobart from London in 1832, just months after its end, he was quick to produce a series of engravings, reliefs and portraits on the subject. These characterised a cast of “noble savages” that he would use to play out the drama of Australia’s first epic history painting. The Conciliation embedded an enduring melancholy into the mythology of Tasmanian wilderness, depicting a scene in which a hollow treaty is struck between the governor’s agent, George Augustus Robinson, and the last resistance fighters to oppose British rule. Robinson had travelled with a small group of Aborigines, including a woman called Truganini, traversing the whole island on foot in an effort to contact each of the tribes remaining free on their country. His mission was to end the war and spread his Evangelical Christianity to the survivors.

Dutterau’s painting of The Conciliation presents a complex tableau. It reveals his passion for Raphael and a theme recently revisited by the French revolutionary painter Jean-Jacques David with his painting The Sabine Women, first exhibited in 1799.

Duterrau is known to have had an intense interest in Raphael’s School of Athens and his Cartoons. He utilised these references to invest various characters in the composition with gesture, emotion and passion – among these, incredulity and suspicion. Raphael also supplies allusion to the Apostles as founders of the Christian church. In this way Duterrau describes a tense scene where the war is brought to an end with pious authority. The Aborigines find themselves under a new jurisdiction and are saved from their own ignorance, as the Apostles had saved Jews and Gentiles two thousand years before.

Elements found in David establish a counterpoint in the composition, as the Aboriginal woman known as Truganini pleads with outstretched arms for her reluctant husband to accept the truce. This emblematic figure recalls a similar one in The Sabine Women where Hersilia, wife of the Roman leader, Romulus, also intervenes with an appeal for peace.

Duterrau was aware that Robinson had deceived the Aborigines and that the treaty was immediately discarded by the governor once he had the fighters under his control. The wisdom of Truganini’s husband was proven and their fate was sealed. These are scenes hung heavily with the European history of moral conflict. An origin for David’s figure can be traced to Satan, Sin and Death, an earlier painting by William Hogarth. This work was created as an illustration to Milton’s gothic masterpiece Paradise Lost, a biblical epic of the Fall of Man, the Temptation of Eve, and expulsion from the Garden of Eden. It is an archetypal gothic tale, with Satan the greatest tragic hero in English literature – mingling humanity with hubris and rebellion.

Milton’s epic had a huge influence on the development of gothic literature, running to at least 60 editions between Duterrau’s birth and his arrival in Hobart. Its influence is most notable in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, where the creature reads Paradise Lost and suffers at its revelations.

Duterrau brought Tasmania under the same dark veil. In this analysis, Robinson fits perfectly the role of a tragic hero, alone in the wilderness, miraculously surviving both the rugged landscape and the treacherous Natives. He wrote of his journeys as a terrifying ordeal of the soul requiring virtue, bravery and self-sacrifice. With all the necessary elements of a gothic tale, he challenges the tyrant of war and saves the maiden Truganini (with whom he was romantically linked) from faithless savagery.

In crafting Australia’s first historical epic painting, Duterrau underpinned the drama that had played out on the island of Tasmania as a reiteration of the eternal battle between good and evil, and the profound consequences of betrayal. That he should have chosen such a theme to explore, and drew upon the art of the French Revolution is no surprise. Duterrau’s family history was steeped in war. He was a Huguenot – a French Protestant. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the Huguenots had been subject to missionaries, forced conversion, persecution, torture and massacre at the hands of French Catholics. When Louis XIV declared Protestantism illegal in 1685, tens of thousands of Huguenots fled to neighbouring Protestant countries, as their country was no longer their own.

For me, The Conciliation neatly weaves together the histories of French religious conflict and the Tasmanian colonial war against a backdrop of interminable bloodshed across Europe. My experience of the tangible artefacts of war that form the very fabric of monument and landscape in France make it clear that a mature society is one that lives with its past. An enduring legacy of war is to be reminded of past mistakes.

The Conciliation elaborates a theme that seems to have resonated powerfully for an artist of Duterrau’s background. That this might be so takes the events in Tasmania from being an inconsequential flurry on the edge of civilisation and places them among the mainstream of world events. It shifts the Aboriginal nations of Tasmania from anthropological curiosity to players on the world’s stage – with the same international rights to justice.

The attempt to extinguish traditional Indigenous society in Tasmania set the scene for a continuing drama to which the whole world remains witness. Long before Marcus Clarke’s novel For the Term of His Natural Life (1874), or films such as The Tale of Ruby Rose (1988) or The Hunter (2011), Benjamin Duterrau scripted the first chapter of Tasmanian gothic.

This story is reiterated with every acknowledgement of Tasmania’s other great tragedies: the thylacine, Lake Pedder, and the ongoing struggle to save its ancient forests. All of these form powerful mythic characters that engage an international imagination, and resonate with a diversity of unresolved and self-inflicted sins across the globe.

The colonial jewel of Van Diemen’s Land was tarnished from the beginning. Despite the grandeur of its wilderness and the modern attraction of its lifestyle to those weary of a world in chaos, Tasmania’s sanctity as an oasis remains fraught to its heart while our deepest secret remains unacknowledged. But a remedy might still be achievable.

We need only to look to the most notorious perpetrator of modern genocide to see how. Germany has, since the Nuremburg Trials in 1946, committed itself to “owning” its past. With no option of ignoring the consequences of Hitler’s policies, it has embraced its responsibilities for reparation and remembrance. Holocaust museums and places of memorial have become powerful sites of healing for today’s German people. Millions of visitors also come to share redemptive sorrow for the inhumanity that has been practiced so widely across human culture.

Is it too late to acknowledge the genocide that played out in Tasmania? Is 200 years too long ago? Truganini is memorialised by Duterrau as desperately seeking an end to the killing, only to be imprisoned for her efforts. She witnessed the entire drama unfold – as the idealistic young woman arguing for a treaty with GA Robinson, then the weary old woman who was finally released from detention at Oyster Cove.

In France progress seems to be a constant of history – pock-marked as it is by struggle and bloodshed. French president François Mitterrand made a formal apology to the descendants of the Huguenots in 1985. This marked the 300th anniversary of the revocation of Protestant rights. Europeans are familiar with war and have learned how to deal with its costs.

Tasmanians have yet to engage fully with the unspeakable in our history and accept its terrible legacy. A scattering of history books does not make amends. Acknowledgement must be public and profound if it is to matter on the world’s stage. Can we end the silence on Australia’s first war and the terrible methods it employed? Maybe then the burden of our haunted past will be eased and the ancestral curse broken. The spectre of genocide must be confronted and its consequences owned before this gothic tale can conclude.

You can read the whole series here.

You are free to republish this article both online and in print, as long as you follow some simple guidelines, which are summarised here:

Unless you have express permission from the author, you can’t edit our material, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. To make material edits contact us
You have to credit our authors and partner institutions — ideally in the byline.
You have to credit The Conversation — ideally at the top of the article and include our logo — with a link back to either our home page, The Conversation, or (preferably) the specific article URL on The Conversation website.
If space is tight, you can run the first few lines of the article and then say: “Read the full article at The Conversation” with a link back to the article page on our site.
If you’re republishing online, you must use our page view counter, link to us, and include links from our story.
It’s okay to put our articles on pages with ads, but you can’t sell our material separately.
You have to confirm that you're licensed to republish images in our articles. Some sources, such as AAP, don't allow their images to be republished without permission.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Join the conversation

84 Comments sorted by

Sean Lamb

Science Denier

"There is a terrible history lurking beneath the surface of the island’s placid lakes"

Except the Hydro-electric lakes, since they weren't around them. I don't see that the Tasmanian frontier wars were any different from frontier wars in the US, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa - aside from being of a considerably smaller scale.

4 months ago report
1. Gregory Lehman
  
  MSt Student at University of Oxford
  
  In reply to Sean Lamb
  
  Not sure if I was thinking of Hydro impoundments when I imagined the placid waters like Meston or Oberon. But I agree with your point - and it is something I am trying to emphasise in this essay. What happened in Tasmania is not something different that should be bracketed away. Here they might have called it 'extirpation'. However, the events in Tasmania need to be considered according to the same historical and social standards as are applied to other genocidal campaigns in world history. But whether a population is large or small, a people and their culture are just as important. None of these attempts at 'cleansing' of frontiers was just. To make excuses for them now is to invite repetition.
  
  4 months ago report
Seamus Gardiner

Citizen

Thank you for an interesting article. I grew up in Tasmania during the 70s and 80s and I take issue with comments that the aboriginal war in Tasmania was no different to any other colonial conflict. The difference is that a generation of Tasmanians, and presumably a generation or two before, had the past hidden from them. Presumably out of shame. It is as if the whole event never happened. In my primary school, at a known location where aboriginal clans hunted and traversed, we learnt little of our…
Read more

Thank you for an interesting article. I grew up in Tasmania during the 70s and 80s and I take issue with comments that the aboriginal war in Tasmania was no different to any other colonial conflict. The difference is that a generation of Tasmanians, and presumably a generation or two before, had the past hidden from them. Presumably out of shame. It is as if the whole event never happened. In my primary school, at a known location where aboriginal clans hunted and traversed, we learnt little of our colonial and indigenous past; it was if the aboriginal tribes just disappeared or withered away with no explanation. Genocide was freely taught as a dogma, which was bizarre in high school where there were a number of tasmanian aboriginal kids, but no recognition of the survival of the tasmanian aboriginal race ( albeit with a depleted culture and language).
Whilst I am not a fan of the 'black armband' version of history ( where everything is seen through the lens of occupation) it is a blight on tasmanian history that a full and free acknowledgement of a war between british and aboriginal people was not discussed for two generations. Tasmania was in a state of martial law for three years whilst a persistent, methodical and sanctioned ethnic cleansing took place. Near where I grew up and spent my formative years there were two sites of aboriginal massacre, where children and women were killed alongside the menfolk. I'm just glad now that this is acknowledged. We don't have to dwell upon it, we don't have to scourge ourselves about it, we just have to bring it out into the light for what it is and was.
The aboriginal people fought long and hard against overwhelming odds. They committed atrocities of their own in what was a sustained period of cultural elimination and dislocation. Now the tasmanian peoples, both aboriginal and European, can acknowledge the past as it is no longer hidden. And that's a good thing.

4 months ago report
1. Gregory Lehman
  
  MSt Student at University of Oxford
  
  In reply to Seamus Gardiner
  
  Well put Seamus. There has been too much dwelling - its been simmering, putrid and corrosive. The sooner we can embrace the future together in our diversity as old, not so old, and newer Tasmanians - the more open will be our perspective on what might be possible for our shared experience on this island.
  
  4 months ago report
2. Kim Darcy
  
  Analyst
  
  In reply to Seamus Gardiner
  
  Seamus
  
  NSW was under 'martial law' for much more than three years. WHY were both NSW and Tasmania under 'martial law'? Because they were both PENAL colonies. Eben today, the laws inside a jail, are different from those outside. And it is this penal character that distinguishes greatly Tasmanian history from US, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa; not to mention Central/South America!.
  
  4 months ago report
3. Seamus Gardiner
  
  Citizen
  
  In reply to Kim Darcy
  
  Thanks Kim,
  martial law was enacted in tasmania due to the war with the aborigines. prior to this it was not under martial law. There was a time between tasmania as a penal csettlement and tasmania as a free settlement. During this time tasmania was not governed by the military.
  For a fuller explanation of the distinction I recommend 'Van Dieman's Land' by Boyce or Lyndall Ryans "tasmanian Aborigines".
  tasmania and NSW were only fully penal colonies for short periods. Once land grants were given and settlers and graziers arrived in large numbers the colonies ceased to become exclusively penal settlements. in the same way that having a prison in Risdon does not make Tasmania a penal settlement now.
  
  4 months ago report
4. Scott Seymour
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Seamus Gardiner
  
  Is it any wonder that in Tasmania everything regarding being "Aboriginal" is so messy and misunderstood when you see articles like this....
  
  "In 1978 the documentary The Last Tasmanian, made by Tom Haydon and Rhys Jones, was released. This movie was attacked as racist by Aboriginal activists when it came out because it said the Tasmanian Aborigines were extinct and denied the Aboriginality of their descendants.
  
  However, the most damning statement in the film about their lack of Aboriginality…
  Read more
  
  Is it any wonder that in Tasmania everything regarding being "Aboriginal" is so messy and misunderstood when you see articles like this....
  
  "In 1978 the documentary The Last Tasmanian, made by Tom Haydon and Rhys Jones, was released. This movie was attacked as racist by Aboriginal activists when it came out because it said the Tasmanian Aborigines were extinct and denied the Aboriginality of their descendants.
  
  However, the most damning statement in the film about their lack of Aboriginality came from Annette Mansell, chairperson of the Cape Barren Island Association, who said,
  
  “I’m not Aboriginal. I’m only a descendant of one. Just compare the Aborigines that were here with their descendants today. There’s a hell of a difference. There are no Aboriginals and there’s not much in any of us.”
  
  She went on to say that virtually no knowledge about the Aborigines had been passed down,
  
  “It’s just history. I don’t know anything about it and I honestly don’t think there’s anybody alive who could tell you anything honestly and truthfully about the old Aboriginals. It’s only history, what we’ve learnt as you’ve learnt.”
  
  In her history thesis, The Cape Barren Islanders, Juliannne Murphy wrote about how the Cape Barren Islanders had different opinions about their identity,
  
  “It is interesting to note the people of Cape Barren extraction, who were spoken to, have varying opinions regarding their identity. Within the Everett family, who are resident in Tasmania, Philip regards himself as an aborigine, his brother considers himself to be an Islander and his sister prefers no-one to know she is of Aboriginal descent. Devony Brown of Cape Barren claimed, “I am a Cape Barren Islander, not an Aborigine.” Ron Thomas also on cape Barren stated, “I don’t care whether I’m black or green…..I’m as good as any man.” Mrs Annette Mansell regards herself as an aborigine and when reference was made to her brother, Derek Peardon, medal-winning footballer with the N.T.F.A., she bitterly stated, “he considers himself white, he’s no brother of mine.”
  
  So, it looks like Annette Mansell, who said she was not an Aborigine and there are no Tasmanian Aborigines anymore, has changed her mind and now says she is an Aborigine after all, but her brother says he is white. Annette Mansell later became the manager of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre in Burnie"
  
  3 months ago report
5. Gregory Lehman
  
  MSt Student at University of Oxford
  
  In reply to Scott Seymour
  
  It is indeed messy and misunderstood. Annette didn't simply decide to change her mind. The social and political world in Tasmania at the time that she was interviewed by Tom Haydon was very different to now. I know all of the people that you refer to (some of them passed away now) and urge readers to exercise caution and respect in how quotes from the past are used in today's context. Contemporary Tasmanian Aboriginal identity is a complex reflection of history, both social and personal. Each of us speaks of our cultural identity in our own way and this changes over time. Annette is a member of the 'Stolen Generations'. Aboriginal mothers were targetted in Tasmania for coercive adoption practices. This was one of very many reasons why someone might discuss their cultural identity differently in the 1960s and 1970s than they would now.
  
  3 months ago report
Peter Innes

Peter Innes is a Friend of The Conversation.

ag science research

There is hardly a country or continent on earth that hasn't been subject to waves of immigration and invasion, more often than not dark and brutal unfortunately, that seems to be a not so nice part of the human race. Even aboriginal Australia had had more than one wave of immigration and hard to imagine it was always friendly.

And the brutality was not just to aboriginals, a reading of 'For the Term of his Natural Life' shows just how dreadful the colonials could treat people from their own country as well as the Irish, despite all the high sounding morality of the times.

4 months ago report
1. Gregory Lehman
  
  MSt Student at University of Oxford
  
  In reply to Peter Innes
  
  Pre-European Tasmania was certainly no picnic. My Aboriginal ancestors were not a romantic bunch of noble Arcadians. Nor were my Irish, German and English forebears. The brutality brought to Tasmania was practiced across national, class and gender divides in Britain stretching back to the Picts of Albion and their Paleolithic ancestors. I believe that what will mark us in terms of our future prospects is how well we continue to raise ourselves from our past behaviour, rather than the excuses we make for it.
  
  4 months ago report
Joanna Mendelssohn

Program Director, Art Administration, School of Art History and Art Education at University of New South Wales

Well put, but please remember that not all Tasmanian Aboriginal people were destroyed. There is a reason why so many Tasmanian Aboriginal people appear angry. I can't think of anything worse than going to school and being told you are extinct.
There are other layers in Tasmania's past that are interwoven with the genocide. One of these is the convict history. Those grand houses of colonial Tasmania were built by a feudal society as outrageously pretentious as the American south (which used convicts…
Read more

Well put, but please remember that not all Tasmanian Aboriginal people were destroyed. There is a reason why so many Tasmanian Aboriginal people appear angry. I can't think of anything worse than going to school and being told you are extinct.
There are other layers in Tasmania's past that are interwoven with the genocide. One of these is the convict history. Those grand houses of colonial Tasmania were built by a feudal society as outrageously pretentious as the American south (which used convicts before the 1776 revolution led them to import slaves).
One of the problems with researching Tasmanian history before the late 19th century is that many births and marriages were not registered. A part of this was to eradicate evidence of 'the convict stain', but James Boyce has indicated that relationships between members of the two underclasses – convicts and Aborigines flourished away from the oversight of government officials.

It is time – or rather it is well past time – for Australia to follow Germany's example and create a series of memorials to the many thousands of Aboriginal people who suffered and were killed as a part of the European conquest. Some of these could be as small as the brass plaques at doorways in Berlin, which remember the dead who were taken from their homes. But we also need to remember particular killing fields and as well as a great act of national penitence, like Berlin's memorial to the murdered Jews which is built on the site of the old Nazi Party Headquarters. This is a case where the symbolism of the site will matter as much as the design.

4 months ago report
1. Gregory Lehman
  
  MSt Student at University of Oxford
  
  In reply to Joanna Mendelssohn
  
  I suspect that, in recent decades, there has been a tendency in public discourse to lump 'genocide' in with 'extinction' - so the Aboriginal community, along with many others have been reluctant to use the term - for different reasons. Genocides are almost never complete, and the survivors are usually the ones who press most persistently for justice. This is so in Tasmania as it is elsewhere.
  I like the idea of beginning to think about how we might build places of public remembering and healing. There will be people from both sides who will oppose this. A lot has been invested in identities built on oppression, loss - and denial. But we should not be deterred. Some old power structures will have to be disrupted if we want to break down the barricades they have erected...
  
  4 months ago report
2. Kim Darcy
  
  Analyst
  
  In reply to Joanna Mendelssohn
  
  Joanna
  Southern American slave plantations? Nazis? The Holocaust? Are you for real?
  "Those grand houses of colonial Tasmania were built by a feudal society as outrageously pretentious as the American south."
  Actually they were built by a very modern society, which was the complete opposite of "feudal".
  1. The land on which those houses were built were on freehold land granted to former convicts, free settlers, and militia, in fee simple. This is as far from the feudal world of a hierarchy of…
  Read more
  
  Joanna
  Southern American slave plantations? Nazis? The Holocaust? Are you for real?
  "Those grand houses of colonial Tasmania were built by a feudal society as outrageously pretentious as the American south."
  Actually they were built by a very modern society, which was the complete opposite of "feudal".
  1. The land on which those houses were built were on freehold land granted to former convicts, free settlers, and militia, in fee simple. This is as far from the feudal world of a hierarchy of land tenure. These sort of people never achieved anything like freehold land back in Europe.
  2. Like the period they were built in, those grand houses were built in the Georgian style, nothing like the Romanesque style characteristic of feudal times.
  3. How can you support a reading of early Tasmanian history as a "war" being opposing sides, with the Germans gassing their own people, who were not only loyal German citizens, but timid and powerless?
  I can't believe that after all the effort we have put into infants, high school, and university teaching, not to mention the huge public debates we have had over the past 20 years, that this type of guff still gets thrown like soot into the ether.
  
  4 months ago report
3. Joanna Mendelssohn
  
  Program Director, Art Administration, School of Art History and Art Education at University of New South Wales
  
  In reply to Kim Darcy
  
  The grand houses of Georgian Tasmania were the results of land grants to opportunists who could not have achieved anything like that degree of wealth in their home country.
  eg Thomas Archer of Woolmers was a younger son who turned up in the colony of NSW with a letter of introduction to Governor Macquarie http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/archer-thomas-1475. His initial grant was 2000 acres.
  James Cox of Clarendon was another younger son who went to sea to make his fortune before joining his family…
  Read more
  
  The grand houses of Georgian Tasmania were the results of land grants to opportunists who could not have achieved anything like that degree of wealth in their home country.
  eg Thomas Archer of Woolmers was a younger son who turned up in the colony of NSW with a letter of introduction to Governor Macquarie http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/archer-thomas-1475. His initial grant was 2000 acres.
  James Cox of Clarendon was another younger son who went to sea to make his fortune before joining his family in NSW. His grant was 6700 acres.
  
  Nice work if you can get it.
  
  Some (but not all) convicts were granted (very) small parcels of land on freedom, but culturally Tasmania remained a feudal society for too long and 'the convict stain' had a greater resonance there than in the rest of Australia.
  
  The main difference between the aftermath of World War II Germany and the aftermath of the attempted elimination of Aboriginal people in Tasmania is that Germany as a country and as a culture has had the self knowledge and integrity to admit guilt and to honour the dead. It could be argued that the very act of penitence is what unleashed Germany's creative intelligence and is a major factor in the country's current success. If Tasmania properly recognised the places where massacres happened, if it honoured its dead, then it would be a stronger society.
  
  3 months ago report
4. Kim Darcy
  
  Analyst
  
  In reply to Joanna Mendelssohn
  
  "The grand houses of Georgian Tasmania were the results of land grants to opportunists who could not have achieved anything like that degree of wealth in their home country."
  I make precisely this point. Tasmania was nothing like the feudalist Britain they left behind.
  
  As for the repeat of the colonial Tasmanian situation with Nazi Germany, this is just plain wrong analytically and wrong historically. .
  
  3 months ago report
5. Gregory Lehman
  
  MSt Student at University of Oxford
  
  In reply to Joanna Mendelssohn
  
  It was interesting how, back in 1991 when we were trying to get the first Land Rights bill through the Legislative Council (after it had passed the Lower House), one of the most vehement opponents of granting land to Aborigines was a member of one of these families. In fact, he was the ninth Archer to hold a seat in the Tasmanian Upper House. He seemed to completely miss the irony that his family's success and power had originally flowed from a land grant.
  
  3 months ago report
6. Joanna Mendelssohn
  
  Program Director, Art Administration, School of Art History and Art Education at University of New South Wales
  
  In reply to Gregory Lehman
  
  It wasn't irony. That lot, who were middle class back in England, put on all the airs and graces of feudal lords once they grabbed the land and were given convicts to work it. Sadly their delusions of grandeur were encouraged by weak and corrupt governments who pandered to their whims and sanitised the past.
  After the convict system ended (and many former convicts fled to the goldfields to reinvent their history as free settlers) the big land owners imported impoverished rural workers from the UK. These workers were impoverished because of the 19th century enclosures of ancient common lands – for the benefit of the rich.
  And so it goes...
  
  3 months ago report
Kim Darcy

Analyst

"Forgotten"? Hardly. Kids get this stuff shoved down their throats from infants school, through high school. It is largely the reason why Australian History is dropped like a hot potato when students get to Year 12, and university. And please can we drop this "genocide" crap. This whole issue was thrashed out for about 5 years early last decade. The Maoist academics ended up recanting their "genocide" fabrications.

4 months ago report
1. Gregory Lehman
  
  MSt Student at University of Oxford
  
  In reply to Kim Darcy
  
  If Australian History is indeed being dropped like a hot potato, then its because we are making a mess of it. Mature nations treat their histories with respect and define themselves by the lessons learned through considered analysis. I'd like to think we can do something similar over the coming decades. Attacking those we disagree with seems juvenile. Compared to most European and Asian nations - even the US - we are still behaving like ignorant, selfish teenagers; more interested in either partying or fighting than growing up and taking responsibility for our history. Call me a Marxist, but consumerism is just making us vacuous, fickle and myopic. I like the idea of having room for improvement!
  
  4 months ago report
2. Kim Darcy
  
  Analyst
  
  In reply to Gregory Lehman
  
  "Call me a Marxist..." If you insist. In which case, your attempt to re-jig the now recanted "Tasmanian genocide" Maoist trope is very telling. I'd say that anybody who still admits to being a Marxist in 2013 has probably got a lot more explaining to do closer to our own time, rather than trying to reboot hand-waving over Tasmania nearly 200 years ago.
  
  4 months ago report
3. Richard Leo
  
  Lecturer, Education & Humanities
  
  In reply to Gregory Lehman
  
  Greg,
  
  I agree, the teaching of Australian history in our classrooms does need to be improved significantly (perhaps now in my role of educating preservice teachers how to teach history I will be judged by my own words in years to come !). In my role as a lecturer of preservice teachers of history, I find that, anecdotally, students come with negative attitudes to Aust Hist because they don't realize that it is more than Cook, convicts, gold and Anzac. I have found that student teachers appreciate…
  Read more
  
  Greg,
  
  I agree, the teaching of Australian history in our classrooms does need to be improved significantly (perhaps now in my role of educating preservice teachers how to teach history I will be judged by my own words in years to come !). In my role as a lecturer of preservice teachers of history, I find that, anecdotally, students come with negative attitudes to Aust Hist because they don't realize that it is more than Cook, convicts, gold and Anzac. I have found that student teachers appreciate being shown that the 'traditional' history they have been taught is but one of the many interpretations, and indeed, in many cases, a significantly incomplete story. I regularly receive questions along the lines of 'Why weren't we taught this at school?' which is a great segue in to discussing the issues in some depth that you raise in your article. I often like to share with them Anna Clark's comment that 'We emphasise history as a collective story that embodies the essence of the nation – it is the nation – and so endlessly contest it in an attempt to get it right. The intractable problem is that collectively, we all have an investment in this thing called history. We all have our own histories. That’s why it is fought so passionately' Essentially we are dealing with both personal and collective identities.
  
  After wrestling with the intellectual and, in some cases, emotional disconnect that often results from being shown through the historical evidence that the destruction of Aboriginal Tasmania (which in turn, reflects historical attitudes that are apparent in a more general way across the Australian continent as a whole) was greater than previously realized, the student teachers tend to become more mature in their response to teaching Australian History. Many also become more commited to ensuring a more well-rounded history is taught, and ensuring that these 'hidden histories' see the light of day. I'm not convinced that they have become 'Marxist' by default. I see better teachers of history, and it gives me hope that a more mature nation will result in time.
  
  4 months ago report
4. Kim Darcy
  
  Analyst
  
  In reply to Richard Leo
  
  Richard
  " I find that, anecdotally, students come with negative attitudes to Aust Hist because they don't realize that it is more than Cook, convicts, gold and Anzac."
  Well I don't know what country your students come from, but it could not be Australia. British colonisation of Australia and the impact on Aboriginal people is a compulsory part of the curriculum in Years 4,6, 7, and 9/10; an option in Years 11/12; and part of every university History department course offerings from 1st Year to…
  Read more
  
  Richard
  " I find that, anecdotally, students come with negative attitudes to Aust Hist because they don't realize that it is more than Cook, convicts, gold and Anzac."
  Well I don't know what country your students come from, but it could not be Australia. British colonisation of Australia and the impact on Aboriginal people is a compulsory part of the curriculum in Years 4,6, 7, and 9/10; an option in Years 11/12; and part of every university History department course offerings from 1st Year to 4th Year Honours.
  
  "After wrestling with the intellectual and, in some cases, emotional disconnect that often results from being shown through the historical evidence that the destruction of Aboriginal Tasmania (which in turn, reflects historical attitudes that are apparent in a more general way across the Australian continent as a whole) was greater than previously realized, the student teachers tend to become more mature in their response to teaching Australian History."
  
  Baloney.
  
  Part of the compulsory syllabus for every Australian school student in primary school Stages (3 & 4), high school (twice in Stages 4 - Year 7/8 - and Stage 5 - Yr 9/10) Australian school students are taught Aboriginal history; British colonisation of Australia; and distinct topics on the "consequences of British Invasion/Conquest on the Indigenous People". In this latter topic, they are taught the broader history, and then specific case studies, such as the Eora people, and so on. At Stage 6 (HSC/VCE), the material is covered again (for the FIFTH time) in Modern History, but this time as an option. It is hardly surprising that by Year 12, Australian History is the option with the lowest student enrollment. Students have been completely turned off by that stage.
  
  Every university's History department course offerings are filled to the brim with courses highlighting "The Black War", "genocide", and so on.
  
  4 months ago report
5. Richard Leo
  
  Lecturer, Education & Humanities
  
  In reply to Kim Darcy
  
  Kim,
  
  Thank you for your response. I'm not sure the students who have recounted their experiences to me would appreciate those experiences being belittled by a throwaway comment such as 'Baloney', but as you have not spoken to them, I trust your greater wisdom in this matter. As you obviously have greater experience and expertise in education than I do then I feel as though I must secede from this conversation.
  
  4 months ago report
6. Gregory Lehman
  
  MSt Student at University of Oxford
  
  In reply to Richard Leo
  
  Richard - are you related to Trevor Leo?
  
  4 months ago report
7. Kim Darcy
  
  Analyst
  
  In reply to Richard Leo
  
  Richard, surely, you are aware of the facts of infants/high school and undergraduate History teaching in Australia over the past decade? So how do you reconcile the facts of history education in this country, which I detailed above, with the alleged 'recounted experiences' of your students? Why aren't you challenging their claims?
  
  4 months ago report
8. India Rose
  
  Market researcher
  
  In reply to Kim Darcy
  
  Kim,
  As a young person who has just recently finished tertiary education in Tasmania, I feel the need share my opinion on the issue of Tasmania's history and how it factors into the education system. To begin with, it is worth mentioning that throughout my entire education, (until years 11 & 12) history, as a single, stand-alone subject was just never even a thing. It would be cramped into one large humanities mess named "S.O.S.E" (studies of society and environment). Also shoved in there was some…
  Read more
  
  Kim,
  As a young person who has just recently finished tertiary education in Tasmania, I feel the need share my opinion on the issue of Tasmania's history and how it factors into the education system. To begin with, it is worth mentioning that throughout my entire education, (until years 11 & 12) history, as a single, stand-alone subject was just never even a thing. It would be cramped into one large humanities mess named "S.O.S.E" (studies of society and environment). Also shoved in there was some very soft geography, ancient civs (mostly Eygpt) and yes, some Australian history.
  
  By the time I reached years 11 & 12 (college) of course I chose not to pursue it! It was such a bland, regurgitated REPETITIVE subject in my mind, and I felt that Australia couldn't possibly have much more of a history aside from what I'd already been taught. This was: Explorers, (of European heritage), ANZACs (this one was REALLY shoved down our throats, I can't even eat ANZAC biscuits!), Gallipoli, and the first world war, maybe something in year one about Ballarat and gold, Port Arthur, and the fact that once upon a time, Australia was full of native people called Aborigines.
  This was not a fundamental part of the learning of Australia's history, not to my memory at least. It would be far more suitable for it to be described as sideline, or an unpleasant addition to everything else that, in the mind of a primary schooler, had always been here.
  I believe the main problem with Australian history that is taught in our schools if that it is not created on the foundation, or the premise that aborigines were the first Australians. European explorers were mentioned far before notion that there was a war, a genocide or a nationally scarring battle that occurred. Only in the past 4 years or so have I really, thoroughly, delved into, and understood more of the truth that lies beneath our identity. It came to me as a shock, some of the things that were left neatly undisclosed in my High school SOSE classes, I remember being deeply disturbed after a viewing of 'Rabbit proof fence' (which I think taught me a lot more than anyone had really attempted to convey in a formal lesson). Apart from the general and in a way forgivable ignorance of many of my classmates (particularly a stubborn but quiet Christian girl who boldly stated one day in class "But aboriginals don't deserve our respect..") there was also a sense of, "let's not bother about this now, it's in the past" Not much detail was given or debate provoked, as most teachers had negotiate what they considered a fuzzy and contentious issue themselves. It's still very much a topic that gets swept under the rug.
  We are extremely behind in terms of widespread agreeance of our origins and the historical events that took part in forming our national identity when compared to somewhere like America.
  Overall, I say that history, as its own subject should be an integral part of our educational system, starting first and foremost, (and more to the point chronologically,) with the first Australians, the indigenous people of our land.
  
  4 months ago report
9. Gregory Lehman
  
  MSt Student at University of Oxford
  
  In reply to India Rose
  
  Sometimes, in desperation, I wonder if anything I have seen in the past thirty years or so represents real progress on these issues. The bridge walks gave me hope. As an optimist, the other thing that reassures me is the prospect of what our younger generations are going to come up with. This gives me hope that some of the old, tired, obscene and racist garbage that we have been dragging along with us might actually be thrown out! I have had so many teachers over the years say to me that many of their colleagues are too frightened to tackle this stuff. Teachers need quality information and training so that they can confidently support this process.
  
  3 months ago report
10. Seamus Gardiner
  
  Citizen
  
  In reply to India Rose
  
  India,
  I read your comment with some horror. Your experience with history completely echoes mine in Tasmanian schools in the 70 and 80s. Again, I only gained insight into tasmanian history from autodidacticicism.
  I thought that by now, surely, education in our public schools has advanced from the Eurocentric dogma of the last century. If anything I would have thought that it would have swung too far into 'black armband'.
  Until, at primary and secondary education, tasmanian students can discover the real past in the country where their schools are located we are forever going to produce generations ignorant of the past.
  
  3 months ago report
11. Kim Darcy
  
  Analyst
  
  In reply to India Rose
  
  India, OK before I can answer, I need a little bit more info. OK, what does “recently finished” mean? 2012? 2010? 2000? 1990? And how “young are? 45? 30? 21? I have comments to make about the rest of your points, but I need some clarity on your age, and graduation year.
  
  3 months ago report
Chris McKay

Storyteller

Nicely written. I was taught in the 90s that Tasmanian Aborigines were wiped out and unfortunately in this country you really have to go searching for the truth if you're to run into it. I'm sure this is still a commonly held belief in Aus, if people think about it at all. Probably best exemplified by the recent boxing bout between two Aboriginal men, Anthony Mundine and Daniel Geale (A Tasmanian Aboriginal). In the lead up to the fight Mundine commented that he thought all the Aborigines in Tasmania had been wiped out, he later apologised after being heavily criticised. It shouldn't have been Mundine that was criticised though, he was probably just regurgitating what he'd been taught in school.

4 months ago report
1. Kim Darcy
  
  Analyst
  
  In reply to Chris McKay
  
  Chris, you would have been taught that all the full-bloods had been wiped out. But Aborigines and former convicts and other white settlers had been having children together for decades before Truganini died in 1876. Modern day Tasmanians who claim to be Aborigines usually do so by descent from these children.
  
  4 months ago report
2. Kim Darcy
  
  Analyst
  
  In reply to Chris McKay
  
  "It shouldn't have been Mundine that was criticised though, he was probably just regurgitating what he'd been taught in school."
  
  No. This is actually the position of many full blood Aborigines, especially in the Northern Territory. They reject the "whitefellas" in southern capital cities as being Aboriginal at all. The irony is that Andrew Bolt was only repeating what a lot of full-bloods have been saying for years. Even after the Bolt case, full-bloods have been repeating exactly what Bolt said, on blogs, in newspapers, on radio, and on TV. It's all very interesting.
  
  4 months ago report
3. Richard Leo
  
  Lecturer, Education & Humanities
  
  In reply to Chris McKay
  
  Chris, you and I have similar experiences in that I clearly remember being taught in Launceston primary school in the 80s that Aborigines no longer existed in Tasmania. The subtleties of half- vs full-bloods argument wasn't even on the radar. It wasn't until I studied Tasmania's history in more detail (I was one of the lucky ones - I had a brilliant teacher of Aust Hist in Yr 11/12 who actually began to introduce me to these subtleties), and then in my undergrad studies in Hobart that I began to see that there was a culturally hidden history residing under our noses. That realization has shaped my historical understandings and education of it to others ever since.
  
  4 months ago report
4. Chris McKay
  
  Storyteller
  
  In reply to Chris McKay
  
  Ugh, why did he have to reply to my post. Now I feel obliged to come and sweep the crap off my doorstep - I won't be doing it a second time. I love the idea of Andrew Bolt being in happy agreeance with Aborigines in the NT, yes I'm sure he's in regular conversational briefings with the NT Aboriginal peoples. Ha!
  I also love the idea that if you have a white ancestor then that overrides everything else - European DNA apparently has a magical property that strips you of your identity and culture…
  Read more
  
  Ugh, why did he have to reply to my post. Now I feel obliged to come and sweep the crap off my doorstep - I won't be doing it a second time. I love the idea of Andrew Bolt being in happy agreeance with Aborigines in the NT, yes I'm sure he's in regular conversational briefings with the NT Aboriginal peoples. Ha!
  I also love the idea that if you have a white ancestor then that overrides everything else - European DNA apparently has a magical property that strips you of your identity and culture. One drop of white and whoosh tens of thousands of years of family history and culture just disappear. Some whitefellas seem to be in disbelief that the past campaigns of genocide and assimilation, such as that discussed, have not been effective in destroying culture. So when they see someone embracing their culture who's skin colour doesn't match what they think an Aborigine is, the only way they can explain it to themselves is that they must be pretending, it must be artificial. It's very juvenile thinking, though the fact that the term 'fullblood' went out of use sometime in the 60s or 70s because it is racist means that, unfortunately, Kim's age probably doesn't match his thinking.
  That's it from me. Thanks Richard for sharing your experience and thanks Gregory for a good piece. Those reading do well to ignore Kim.
  
  4 months ago report
5. John Phillip
  
  John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Grumpy Old Man
  
  In reply to Chris McKay
  
  Chris, when you talk of people 'embracing their culture', which culture are you talking about. Is it actuallly culture or would heritage or ancestry be more appropriate?
  
  4 months ago report
6. Kim Darcy
  
  Analyst
  
  In reply to Richard Leo
  
  " I clearly remember being taught in Launceston primary school in the 80s that Aborigines no longer existed in Tasmania. The subtleties of half- vs full-bloods argument wasn't even on the radar."
  
  You are right that the subtleties of full vs part-blood Aborigines was not on the radars in the 1980s. The issue only flared up in Tasmania with the establishment of ATSIC in 1990.
  
  4 months ago report
7. Seamus Gardiner
  
  Citizen
  
  In reply to Kim Darcy
  
  The 2000s have seen a dispute between those who claim to be Tasmanian Aborigines but are not recognised to be so. It's nothing at all to do with 'half and full bloods' its everything to do with being recognised as an aboriginal tasmanian by other Aboriginals and being part of that culture.
  I guess an analogy would be if you had been adopted by a Malaysian national as a child and brought up in Malaysia what culture would you consider yourself part of? How would younreactvif you were told that you were too white to be a Malaysian?
  
  4 months ago report
8. Kim Darcy
  
  Analyst
  
  In reply to Chris McKay
  
  "It's very juvenile thinking, though the fact that the term 'fullblood' went out of use sometime in the 60s or 70s because it is racist means that, unfortunately, Kim's age probably doesn't match his thinking."
  Really. Have you actually gone up to any fullbloods and expressed your concern at the "racism" of their self-identification? Wait till you hear Aborigines distinguishing between "phoney" and "real" Aborigines.
  
  In Tasmania, the conflict has been described ever more starkly by Michael…
  Read more
  
  "It's very juvenile thinking, though the fact that the term 'fullblood' went out of use sometime in the 60s or 70s because it is racist means that, unfortunately, Kim's age probably doesn't match his thinking."
  Really. Have you actually gone up to any fullbloods and expressed your concern at the "racism" of their self-identification? Wait till you hear Aborigines distinguishing between "phoney" and "real" Aborigines.
  
  In Tasmania, the conflict has been described ever more starkly by Michael Mansell as "there were more phoney than real Aborigines in Tasmania and more than half the voters in the 1996 ATSIC election were not Aboriginal" Mansell said that back in 2001. Where have you been? More recently, last year, the SBS "Insight" program hosted an episode "Aboriginal or Not" where some full-bloods held nothing back.
  http://www.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/overview/490/aboriginal-or-not
  
  "I also love the idea that if you have a white ancestor then that overrides everything else - European DNA apparently has a magical property that strips you of your identity and culture."
  I don't know where you get this idea from, let alone why you "love" it.
  
  Chris, if you are not aware of the raging debate within Aboriginal communities on the issue of full-bloods versus the part-blood white fellas in the southern cities then in your case it seems to be true "unfortunately in this country you really have to go searching for the truth if you're to run into it." You can start your search right here.
  
  4 months ago report
9. Kim Darcy
  
  Analyst
  
  In reply to Seamus Gardiner
  
  Seamus, very poor analogy, as the issue is not about ME. This about how actual Aboriginal people, in this country, see the issues.You are correct on the Tasmanian issue, as I posted below. In Tasmania, the language is not "full" versus "part" blood, but rather "real" versus "phoney" Aborigines. If you have an issue with that, take your analogy to Michael Mansell, and 'splain to him the error of his ways.
  
  4 months ago report
10. Richard Leo
  
  Lecturer, Education & Humanities
  
  In reply to Kim Darcy
  
  Kim, thank you for your response with the details you provide by requoting back at me what I know I have said.
  
  4 months ago report
11. Gregory Lehman
  
  MSt Student at University of Oxford
  
  In reply to Chris McKay
  
  Daniel is a relation of mine and I have been horrified by the hypocritical and racist rubbish that has been flowing from Mundine's mouth. But Mundine doesn't need me to make excuses for him. There's a good reason that a lot of Aboriginal people are pissed off. It's the same reason that generations of Aboriginal people are pissed off in this and every other colonised country. The great tragedy is that the coloniser wins every time we start to take this stuff out on each other. Especially when we condemn…
  Read more
  
  Daniel is a relation of mine and I have been horrified by the hypocritical and racist rubbish that has been flowing from Mundine's mouth. But Mundine doesn't need me to make excuses for him. There's a good reason that a lot of Aboriginal people are pissed off. It's the same reason that generations of Aboriginal people are pissed off in this and every other colonised country. The great tragedy is that the coloniser wins every time we start to take this stuff out on each other. Especially when we condemn on the basis of 'how black' we are supposed to be. Usually the 'black' that we hold up as 'real' is just a stereotype that oppression has made of us. It's time for some new ways of dealing with generational trauma. We can start by valuing our diversity as a people. Talk of blood quotient has its roots in the slave trade and is not something that any mixed race people find dignifying. It's inevitably associated with arguments aimed at disempowerment - regardless of whether it comes from a shock jock or a remote community member. Our new conversations should be about freedom - not victimhood or resentment.
  
  4 months ago report
Fred Pribac

logged in via email @internode.on.net

Thank you for an insightful article.

It's always amazed me that Tasmanian tourism destinations (like some in the Coal River Valley for instance) have barely one paragraph or plaque about the 10,000 plus years of settlement by the original inhabitants while even the settlers chamber pots from just 150 years ago can get carefully written up historical notes.

In the case of the Cola River Valley area for instance there were some particularly sordid and brutal interactions between the constabulary and the aboriginal inhabitants but you can only work this out by digging deeply into the handful of historical texts alluded to in the above article. And yet the brutality shown to the convicts is freely marked and expressed at some of the local historical tourist destinations.

Why the difference?

4 months ago report
1. Gregory Lehman
  
  MSt Student at University of Oxford
  
  In reply to Fred Pribac
  
  It's a good question. We seem to have come to terms with the dark past in relation to treatment of convicts, but not of Aborigines. Maybe that's because we don't try to hide Tasmania's convict history.
  
  4 months ago report
2. Kim Darcy
  
  Analyst
  
  In reply to Fred Pribac
  
  Fred, I'm sorry, but ALL Tasmanian government/official offices go to great lengths to explain Tasmania's history, especially the violent interactions with Aborigines, including massacres. It took me 30 seconds to find all this detail on the Tasmanian Tourism website.
  1. "Our Heritage". This is the opening sentence
  "Tasmanian Aboriginal people have fought to preserve their culture and heritage since European invasion."
  It then goes to pre-1788 "Tasmanian" history back 12,000 years to when Tasmania…
  Read more
  
  Fred, I'm sorry, but ALL Tasmanian government/official offices go to great lengths to explain Tasmania's history, especially the violent interactions with Aborigines, including massacres. It took me 30 seconds to find all this detail on the Tasmanian Tourism website.
  1. "Our Heritage". This is the opening sentence
  "Tasmanian Aboriginal people have fought to preserve their culture and heritage since European invasion."
  It then goes to pre-1788 "Tasmanian" history back 12,000 years to when Tasmania was formed. It includes a map of tribal areas before European contact.
  2. A different page is titled "European Contact". It details "Aboriginal society came under threat from two separate groups of Europeans; sealers and settlers", later moving on to the Black Line, Wybalenna and Oyster Cove.
  3. A different tab "Aboriginal Culture". One page on "ancestors" discusses how "many Tasmanian Aboriginal people are descendants of Fanny Cochrane Smith and Dolly Dalrymple."
  4. "Aboriginal Land Claims"
  and on and on.
  http://www.discovertasmania.com/about_tasmania/general_overview_of_tasmania/european_impact
  
  You are concerned by the lack of tourism promotion of" In the case of the Cola River Valley area for instance there were some particularly sordid and brutal interactions between the constabulary and the aboriginal inhabitants." Do you expect all interactions between the cops and the people, which come under your definition of "particularly sordid"? Imagine what a bore it would to visit New York or LA. We'd never get to the Empire State Building, Hollywood, or Disneyland, due to all the tour guides giving us the run down on 'sordid interactions' with the police.
  
  As for the convicts, well Tasmania has had a global reputation for being the most sordid and reviled prison on earth for 200 years now, and the original jails are even still there. Some never read footnote vaguely waving at 'sordid interactions' involving police 200 years ago is not what tourism is about. As any Mexican, Pole, American, South African, Iranian, Chinese, Haitian, Kenyan, or Russian about 'sordid' cops. Rodney King got off lightly compared to what actually happens every day. And 200 years ago? Slavery, the death penalty, torture, famine, and disease were all the go. So, no, you are going to have to do a bit better than 'sordid interaction'.
  
  Every single person on the planet who has heard the word 'genocide', associates the word with Tasmania. Ironically, through the shoddily researched Robert Hughes' "A Fatal Shore". When people visit Tasmania, they've already got that narrative, so I doubt some monument to the "victims of sordid police" is really the issue here.
  
  4 months ago report
3. Kim Darcy
  
  Analyst
  
  In reply to Gregory Lehman
  
  Greg, what "dark past" and how have "come to terms with it"? I have never met anybody anxious over convicted criminals from 200 years ago! And you sure have a weird notion of "dark". Let's see. By being sentenced to transportation, British convicted criminals got to flea the stench, disease, and dire poverty of Britain's teeming jails and rat-infested hulks. When they got here, they got to live and work outside, rather than stuck in a dank over-crowded British jail cell. When their term was up, they were given a plot of land, two years provisions, and a brand new life. The British criminals whose sentence was transportation basically won the jackpot.
  
  4 months ago report
4. Fred Pribac
  
  logged in via email @internode.on.net
  
  In reply to Kim Darcy
  
  Hello Kim,
  
  you write: "Do you expect all interactions between the cops and the people, which come under your definition of "particularly sordid"?"
  
  No - but where there is a genuine, revealing, defining and fascinating, historical event of national cultural value to relate e.g. the black line or the unofficially sanctioned massacre of local tribes by the chief of police I would expect that to be revealed at least on a par with the likely diet of local convicts. It's not!
  
  "Imagine what a…
  Read more
  
  Hello Kim,
  
  you write: "Do you expect all interactions between the cops and the people, which come under your definition of "particularly sordid"?"
  
  No - but where there is a genuine, revealing, defining and fascinating, historical event of national cultural value to relate e.g. the black line or the unofficially sanctioned massacre of local tribes by the chief of police I would expect that to be revealed at least on a par with the likely diet of local convicts. It's not!
  
  "Imagine what a bore it would to visit New York or LA. We'd never get to the Empire State Building, Hollywood, or Disneyland, due to all the tour guides giving us the run down on 'sordid interactions' with the police."
  
  This is an interesting comment. Can I presume that you do condone the memorial at ground zero and would not begrudge a moments introspection at that site prior to making haste for Disneyland?
  
  The argument that it takes a mere 30 seconds to find information on the Internet is lame, as that is true of a great many topics both well known and not well known.
  
  4 months ago report
5. Seamus Gardiner
  
  Citizen
  
  In reply to Fred Pribac
  
  Fred,
  Kim Darcynis clearly just pushing a position that he is getting from surfing a couple of websites. The lived experience of Tasmanians, both indigenous and non-indigenous, is what this is about. Equating tasmania's aboriginal history with cops in New Yorkm is specious.
  
  3 months ago report
6. Kim Darcy
  
  Analyst
  
  In reply to Seamus Gardiner
  
  Seamus, my 'position' is based entirely on verifiable and very well known facts. You seem to be trying to argue that any information published on a web site must be wrong. or a lie, or misinformed. You should be careful with that type of reasoning, as it doesn't leave articles published here in good shape. I have been raising these facts to try and combat the misinformation spread here, especially the quite frankly, brazen, deliberate misrepresentation of how Australian history is taught in schools…
  Read more
  
  Seamus, my 'position' is based entirely on verifiable and very well known facts. You seem to be trying to argue that any information published on a web site must be wrong. or a lie, or misinformed. You should be careful with that type of reasoning, as it doesn't leave articles published here in good shape. I have been raising these facts to try and combat the misinformation spread here, especially the quite frankly, brazen, deliberate misrepresentation of how Australian history is taught in schools and universities. This site reinforces just how dogged older Australians - especially the baby-boomers - are about their ingrained prejudices. Despite all the knowledge and debates of the past 30 years, their minds are frozen in the 1970s. At least I can gain some comfort knowing that my posts have led to at least one person following my links, and thus challenging those ingrained, long-disproven prejudices. I hope that a lot more readers went down the same path as you have.
  
  You say equating Tasmania's aboriginal history with New York cops is specious, yet are silent on equations with Berlin, Nazis, world wars, and so on. Clearly the education process still has work to do.
  
  3 months ago report
7. Seamus Gardiner
  
  Citizen
  
  In reply to Kim Darcy
  
  Kim,
  You've 'shown' that students today are taught a wealth of Australian history that they find boring and that some information regarding the aboriginal war is found on tasmanian websites.
  You've demonstrated nothing that would make the title and content of this article less real and relevant for my generation of Tasmanians, the previous generation of Tasmanians and the following generation of Tasmanians (see India's comments above).
  This articles speaks to the Tasmanians that were left ignorant…
  Read more
  
  Kim,
  You've 'shown' that students today are taught a wealth of Australian history that they find boring and that some information regarding the aboriginal war is found on tasmanian websites.
  You've demonstrated nothing that would make the title and content of this article less real and relevant for my generation of Tasmanians, the previous generation of Tasmanians and the following generation of Tasmanians (see India's comments above).
  This articles speaks to the Tasmanians that were left ignorant of tasmania's history. Your point scoring about the degree of education that the current generation of schoolchildren receive appears peevish, querulous and juvenile and it does nothing to address the article or the genuine responses of those who regard generations of institutionalised ignorance of tasmanian history as a great ill.
  Are you stating that my generation, the generations before me and possibly the generation after me are wrong to feel that it is a great shame that the aboriginal wars and local tasmanian history was barely discussed or acknowledged? If so, what could possibly be the motivation for that?
  
  3 months ago report
Gregory Lehman

MSt Student at University of Oxford

For those inclined, the article I refer to in the essay by Benjamin Madley can be found in the Journal of British Studies, Vol. 47, No. 1 (January 2008), pp. 77-106. Just search JSTOR for <Benjamin Madley Tasmania>

4 months ago report
1. In reply to Gregory Lehman
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
Pat Moore

gardener

Thanks Gregory. Difficult topic. The whitewashed history books proof of the adage "the victor writes the history"? A tactic as long as human history is long. Talking of conciliation i could never accept the mainland fairy story of "REconciliation". Conciliation would be the right word in both cases and only after the Europeans have fully recovered from their perceived sense of cultural superiority.

The "vibes"/ the substream i picked up in Tassie was, similar to what others say in terms…
Read more

Thanks Gregory. Difficult topic. The whitewashed history books proof of the adage "the victor writes the history"? A tactic as long as human history is long. Talking of conciliation i could never accept the mainland fairy story of "REconciliation". Conciliation would be the right word in both cases and only after the Europeans have fully recovered from their perceived sense of cultural superiority.

The "vibes"/ the substream i picked up in Tassie was, similar to what others say in terms of the European expression of 'gothic', denoting "horror and mystery" (Websters). The Black Wars, the convict atrocities & it's first Dutch name of Van Dieman's Land seem to pick up on this theme. This little nuggety gem of Gondwana, such a condensed mixture of landscapes & concentrated energy but dominated by the remnants of the glacial seems to be expressed in the physiques of its first hardy peoples and unique animals. What fantastic amazing adaptation & survival that was.

No matter what rituals the conqueror would undergo to deny the responsibility or to appease the guilt it will always remain. But the history books need to be rewritten & the places of massacre marked like they should be on the mainland if that is desired by the descendants.

4 months ago report
1. Gregory Lehman
  
  MSt Student at University of Oxford
  
  In reply to Pat Moore
  
  It would be great if what you describe could be understood as Tasmanian history, rather than 'pre-history'! Tasmania has a 'deep history' that belongs to all of us. Coming to just terms with the past will be a way of making it a something we can share.
  
  4 months ago report
2. Kim Darcy
  
  Analyst
  
  In reply to Gregory Lehman
  
  Gregory, I agree that the notion of 'pre-history' is increasingly irrelevant. To be fair, though, the distinction came about in the 18th century, when scholars defined History as what they could extract from written evidence. There are very sound reasons for identifying a different historical epoch with the invention of writing. Like speaking, the acquisition of writing ability led to a huge change in human consciousness. In the 21st century, we have the technology and learning to use many other forms of evidence apart from writing. This is why new historiographical movements like "Big History" making such a splash.
  
  4 months ago report
Leigh Burrell

No win, no file.

Boo hoo! Typical lefty victimhood and collectivism. Much of Europe, including Britain, was conquered and subjugated by Rome. Maybe we can blame our failings on her heirs and seek reparations.

4 months ago report
1. Gregory Lehman
  
  MSt Student at University of Oxford
  
  In reply to Leigh Burrell
  
  Leigh, I'd really welcome a critical conversation about this issue. I don't think for a moment that I know the best way to resolve the tensions that are apparent from a number of the comments so far - but sarcastic and derisive brush-offs are inherently violent and don't help much. There's a bit difference between Roman conquest of the Britons and English conquest of Tasmania. One occurred two thousand years ago and the other two life times ago. That is what makes it still relevant for Tasmanian people.
  
  4 months ago report
2. Felix MacNeill
  
  Environmental Manager
  
  In reply to Leigh Burrell
  
  Leigh, have you ever heard of the thing called a mirror? You should look in one some time.
  
  3 months ago report
James Lillas

logged in via email @bigpond.com

The area of early Tasmanian history or pre western involvment is one certainly in need of gretaer documentation and publication. I for one, would like to read much more of it. Like much of history, this topic rests so much on the persepctive one adopts in viewing the events of the past. As a history major, I cannot subscribe to the 'black armband view of history' so often adopted by social historians who often exclude the influnce of he ecomomic, cultural, military and political events of the time…
Read more

The area of early Tasmanian history or pre western involvment is one certainly in need of gretaer documentation and publication. I for one, would like to read much more of it. Like much of history, this topic rests so much on the persepctive one adopts in viewing the events of the past. As a history major, I cannot subscribe to the 'black armband view of history' so often adopted by social historians who often exclude the influnce of he ecomomic, cultural, military and political events of the time and consequently jaundice the subsequent perspective taken. One would hope that we could stop looking back in anger and start looking forward in hope?

Words are powerful things and one must question the use of 'genocide' to describe the plight of the first Tasmanians given that it means "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." Certainly the actions of GA Robinson were ultimately disastorous for the aboriginal people but did they have the malicious intent implied by the use of the word genocide? Only recently I read in the Sydney museum of the constructive efforts of Arthur Phillip to establish peaceful contact with the orginal inhabitants of Port Jackson and I am aware of a similar positve attitude adopted by Sir John and Lady Franklin and other Govenors during their time in Colonial Tasmania.

4 months ago report
1. Gregory Lehman
  
  MSt Student at University of Oxford
  
  In reply to James Lillas
  
  Hi Jim - yes indeed, words are powerful. Attempts to use the word genocide outside of a few, very select examples, is guaranteed to generate resistance. It seems that the world is allowed only a few bona fide perpetrators - historical characters that we are comfortable to agree acted 'beyond the pale'. Nazis and Hutu militias come to mind. These are widely and agreeably condemned. But adding the British Colonial Office to list for its failure to prevent Governor Arthur's tactics of arming roving…
  Read more
  
  Hi Jim - yes indeed, words are powerful. Attempts to use the word genocide outside of a few, very select examples, is guaranteed to generate resistance. It seems that the world is allowed only a few bona fide perpetrators - historical characters that we are comfortable to agree acted 'beyond the pale'. Nazis and Hutu militias come to mind. These are widely and agreeably condemned. But adding the British Colonial Office to list for its failure to prevent Governor Arthur's tactics of arming roving parties with permission to use 'severe and inevitable' means? The common response is that 'it was more complicated than that'. The Turkish government continues to defend itself against charges of genocide against Armenians and, although it is perhaps unlikely that it will ever be called before the International Court of Justice; if that were to happen Turkey would mount an energetic defense.
  I don't know what an ICC hearing of the Tasmanian case would determine. This is even more unlikely than imagining Turkey being called to the Hague. My use of the term is not intended to assert the need for this sort of action - only to try to drag Tasmania's colonial history out on to a world stage so that we might consider the significance of the events on our island and their resonance in a larger conversation than the closeted one that is usually permitted.
  Personally, I think GA Robinson provided Governor Arthur with a timely alternative. If Robinson had not succeeded in removing those people still remaining on their country, the colonists who had been deployed as roving parties would have certainly done so by their infinitely more 'severe' means. By then it would have been too late for the Colonial Office to do anything. The 'indelible stain' would have been darker still.
  After visiting Wybalenna, the Franklins wrote to Robinson requesting an Aboriginal child or two for their indulgence. They also asked for Aboriginal skulls for their collection. When they left Tasmania, Mathinna, the most famous of these children, was unceremoniously dumped at the Orphan's School. I doubt whether she was ever more than a disappointing curiousity for them. They failed to effectively deal with the appalling conditions that had developed at Wybalenna and it took an Aboriginal petition to Queen Victoria to prompt its closure two years after that had returned to England.
  Please have a look at the article by Madley before deciding a position on the issue of genocide in Tasmania. It is complicated, but I believe the case is a fairly clear one.
  
  4 months ago report
2. Kim Darcy
  
  Analyst
  
  In reply to Gregory Lehman
  
  "But adding the British Colonial Office to list for its failure to prevent Governor Arthur's tactics of arming roving parties with permission to use 'severe and inevitable' means?"
  
  Greg, what do you mean by "British Colonial Office" failure? What do you claim they [whoever THEY are] should have done? And on what principles consistent with the historical context do you claim to be qualified to impose any obligation on the BCO?
  
  "I don't know what an ICC hearing of the Tasmanian case would determine…
  Read more
  
  "But adding the British Colonial Office to list for its failure to prevent Governor Arthur's tactics of arming roving parties with permission to use 'severe and inevitable' means?"
  
  Greg, what do you mean by "British Colonial Office" failure? What do you claim they [whoever THEY are] should have done? And on what principles consistent with the historical context do you claim to be qualified to impose any obligation on the BCO?
  
  "I don't know what an ICC hearing of the Tasmanian case would determine".
  I do. They'd throw you out. The ICC has jurisdiction to put INDIVIDUALS on trial for 'genocide', and even then, only for those committed after the ICC was established in 2002. But let's assume those impediments away. Who would you put the cuffs on and drag off to The Hague? Robinson/Viscount Goderich? Earl of Bathurst? Huskisson? Murray? Burnett? Lord Glenelg? One problem with seeing the Armenian and Tasmanian situation as analagous is that the relevant Young Turk Ministers, and senior military officials, were actually on the ground within the Ottoman Empire where the massacres took place in Turkey, Armenia, Syria, between 1915 to 1918. Not too sure how much time British Colonial Officies Secretaries, Under Secretaries spent in Van Diemen's Land?
  And why the Colonial Office? Why not George III, or William IV, or Queen Victoria? Why not the House of Commons? After all, Tasmania was established by the authority of the House for Commons? The PM? Pitt the Younger? Walpole? Wellington? Grey? Melbourne?
  But why Arthur himself? Or what abour Sir Alfred Stephen? He was with Arthur every step of the way, firs as Solicitor-General, then Attorney-General.
  
  Why not black-murdering bounty hunters like John Batman? And let's not forget the complicity of the mainland black trackers and terrorists, like Mosquito?
  There's quite a cast of villian's there. But now you've got to establish links of causation, intention, responsibility
  
  3 months ago report
Calaf Tod

Journeyman

200 years is not too late. It is just too soon for a culture that is still in its infancy. It is certainly a good opportunity for our developing culture to embrace this truth in a way that has eluded most cultures throughout history. (rather than the truly barbaric and infantile, "we won, you lost, this is how the world works, get over it".)

What distresses me is the way the lack of acknowledgement prolongs, embeds, aggravates and distorts the grieving process for those who must grieve.

3 months ago report
1. Gregory Lehman
  
  MSt Student at University of Oxford
  
  In reply to Calaf Tod
  
  Very well said. Generational trauma is one of the factors that aggravates a range of issues in the Aboriginal community. Real suffering. Real people. Fellow Tasmanians.
  
  3 months ago report
2. Gregory Lehman
  
  MSt Student at University of Oxford
  
  In reply to Calaf Tod
  
  Yes indeed. It is hard to escape the logical extension of the 'tough luck, get over it' attitude - that it's OK for this sort of thing to keep happening. Sounds like Social Darwinism gone mad!
  Or is it just that it's OK as long as it's not happening to me?
  Imagine the outcry if a superior force overwhelmed Tasmania today and started to 'extirpate' all existing residents in the name of historical inevitability...
  
  3 months ago report
Anthony Nolan

Ruminant

Thanks for this Gregory. The best article I've read on The Conversation. More like this please eds.

3 months ago report
1. Gregory Lehman
  
  MSt Student at University of Oxford
  
  In reply to Anthony Nolan
  
  Thank you Anthony.
  
  3 months ago report
Scott Seymour

logged in via Facebook

Tasmania does have shameful past in a lot of aspects. But I don't understand how 'facts' can be presented, such as those concerning Risdon Cove, as to the number of deaths that are said to have occurred. There is just no evidence for the estimate of 50, not even for half that, so why do historians insist on using these numbers? There is also no reason to speculate that the person in charge was "maybe drunk". This sad and tragic episode in Tasmania's history should be told, but there is no room in history for guess work.

3 months ago report
1. Gregory Lehman
  
  MSt Student at University of Oxford
  
  In reply to Scott Seymour
  
  Hi Scott - the estimates for the death toll at Risdon Cove vary, but there is certainly evidence for my statement that estimates were 'as high as fifty'. This is definitely not guesswork. I am simply stating the maximum of estimates that were made at the time.The first report from Lt Moore to Gov Collins established the 'official line' - that there were two Aborigines killed and at least one wounded - and that the deaths were 'a consequence of their own hostile appearance'. Yet William Charles Wentworth…
  Read more
  
  Hi Scott - the estimates for the death toll at Risdon Cove vary, but there is certainly evidence for my statement that estimates were 'as high as fifty'. This is definitely not guesswork. I am simply stating the maximum of estimates that were made at the time.The first report from Lt Moore to Gov Collins established the 'official line' - that there were two Aborigines killed and at least one wounded - and that the deaths were 'a consequence of their own hostile appearance'. Yet William Charles Wentworth and G E Evans recorded that the natives were of 'a most friendly disposition' and 'distinctly heard to sing' as they descended the hill toward the settlement. The Rev Knopwood supported Moore's account, alluding to three deaths and suggesting that this was on account of the aggression shown by the Aborigines. Under later cross examination, Knopwood revised his estimate to five or six dead. Edward White, an eye witness (unlike Knopwood), testified that 'a great many were slaughtered or wounded'. Capt James Kelly said it was forty of fifty. In the end the committee of inquiry concluded in their report 'that it is indisputable that a lamentable encounter at this time did ensue, in which the numbers slain of Men, Women and Children, have been estimated as high as fifty...' They added that they 'were induced to hope that estimate is greatly overestimated.'
  The historian James Bonwick (1870) was the first to claim that an informant had alleged that Moore was drunk. It was widely alleged that he acted with incompetence. The allegation of intoxication may or may not have been an embelloshment. Lloyd Robson (1983) repeated the assertion that Moore and his men were intoxicated at the time as a result of Lt Bowen's absence. Alison Alexander, in her 'History of Clarence' also acknowledges in 2003 that Moore was accused of 'being drunk at the time'.
  I don't state this as a fact. But I do point to something that has been alleged and if so, is a significant thing to consider. My words are fair I think: 'some say drunk'.
  
  3 months ago report
2. Scott Seymour
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Gregory Lehman
  
  Hi Greg,
  But isn't what Wentworth and Evans said based on what they had heard around Hobart Town, as they were not at Risdon on that day? Capt. Kelly also made his remarks based on what he had heard. I don't think Bonwick elaborates on where he'd heard that Moore was drunk, it seems more based on a guess than anything else, and it has been used by a few authors afterwards. It is, as you say, all alleged, and is significant to consider, but again, it's all guess work. When relating an important part of Tasmanian history, I'm not sure guessing is the best approach.
  
  3 months ago report
3. Gregory Lehman
  
  MSt Student at University of Oxford
  
  In reply to Scott Seymour
  
  Hi Scott.
  It's interesting that no-one ever accuses Knopwood of guessing, even though he wasn't there at the time. I suspect his contribution to historical 'fact' might be better described as collaboration.
  The 'word' around Hobart Town after the event - that Evans, who was Deputy Surveyor of Lands from 1812 took an interest in, and that eventually percolated down to Wentworth and Kelly some years later, would have been influenced by plenty of speculation and a good share of scuttlebutt. But…
  Read more
  
  Hi Scott.
  It's interesting that no-one ever accuses Knopwood of guessing, even though he wasn't there at the time. I suspect his contribution to historical 'fact' might be better described as collaboration.
  The 'word' around Hobart Town after the event - that Evans, who was Deputy Surveyor of Lands from 1812 took an interest in, and that eventually percolated down to Wentworth and Kelly some years later, would have been influenced by plenty of speculation and a good share of scuttlebutt. But mixed in there would have been numerous first hand accounts from those who witnessed the event, but whose status did not privilege them to be a part of the official account. As George Bernard Shaw said: 'There are no secrets better kept than the secrets that everybody guesses.'
  One thing seems clear - that Moore did not handle things well. He was directly criticised by Lt Jeffreys who began visiting VDL from 1817. Gov Arthur confirmed this view in a letter to Viscount Goderich in 1828, writing: 'On my succeeding to Government, I found the quarrel of the Natives with the Europeans, occasioned by an unfortunate step by the officer in charge of the Garrison, on the first founding of the settlement, was daily aggravated by every kind of injury committed against the defenseless natives...'
  We will never know whether Moore was drunk or not. I don't allege that he was and it doesn't much matter. But I acknowledge that this was suggested by a number of sources. I would be interested to hear of anyone coming forward to testify that he wasn't. And maybe this perspective is not so savage on Moore as it seems. To have acted as intemperately as he did against 'innocent and well-disposed creatures' (Lt Jeffrey's words) due to drunkeness is much less sinister than to have ordered the attack as a result of cold, calculated intent. Perhaps it suited the authorities to have it that he may have been suffering from a state of diminished responsibility. History can be a murky business - certainly not an exact science. Sometimes best guesses are all we have.
  
  3 months ago report
4. Scott Seymour
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Gregory Lehman
  
  Hi Greg,
  we could say Knopwood was guessing, but he's basing what he said on a note he received from Mountgarrett that same day and a visit from Lt.Moore later that night I believe. It's likely to be a little more reliable than hear say would have been around Hobart Town in 04/05 and beyond.
  
  In fact by 1830, it seems the only eye witness the committee could find was Edward White, and he seems to be the only person who does not lie, embellish the truth or guess, despite parts of his…
  Read more
  
  Hi Greg,
  we could say Knopwood was guessing, but he's basing what he said on a note he received from Mountgarrett that same day and a visit from Lt.Moore later that night I believe. It's likely to be a little more reliable than hear say would have been around Hobart Town in 04/05 and beyond.
  
  In fact by 1830, it seems the only eye witness the committee could find was Edward White, and he seems to be the only person who does not lie, embellish the truth or guess, despite parts of his statement that are inaccurate and confused.
  
  I wouldn't expect anyone to have come forward to testify that Moore wasn't drunk, because until it was alleged many years after May 3rd, the point was never raised. In fact, I'm amazed that White didn't notice or see that Lt. Moore was drunk, it doesn't rate a mention in his statement if he did.
  
  Lt. Moore could have done a lot of things different that day, but it's not entirely clear that everything that happened against, as Lt.Jeffery's put it, 'innocent and well-disposed creatures' was simply a cold, calculated act. The committee also noted.....
  
  'It appears unquestionable that a person named Burke, whose habitation was considerably advanced beyond the rest, was driven from it by the natives, whose number was estimated at upwards of 500 (that is by some of the witnesses) and much violence was threatened by them towards this man, his wife, and dwelling'.
  
  The two soldiers that Lt. Moore sent to investigate he ordered 'not to fire if they could avoid it'...... could the soldiers avoid it? We'll never know.
  
  I wonder what information Gov. Arthur formed his opinions on when writing to Viscount Goderich?.
  
  One thing is certain though, it seems Mountgarrett, Knopwood, and Moore are always trying to hide something, to cover up, to lie and to collaborate, but White, Wentworth, Evans, Jeffreys, Kelly and anyone else who see's the absolute worst in the event, is, or course, truthful, and relating accurate details.
  
  History, indeed, does seem to be a murky business.
  
  3 months ago report
5. Scott Seymour
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Gregory Lehman
  
  After more than two years of research on Risdon Cove and May 3, 1804, it's amazing how the 'Massacre' story has been blown out of all proportions. From speculation, to guess work, and in some cases even adding made up scenarios based on nothing at all. There are a few things I've read in books that should see them removed from the history section and put in the fiction section along side J.R.R Tolkien.
  
  3 months ago report
6. Seamus Gardiner
  
  Citizen
  
  In reply to Scott Seymour
  
  I am in not defending the author, but i'm curious that you would allude to tasmanian history as fiction. I'm not a historian but I'm sure that reconstruction of the past, especially where primary sources did either not leave accurate writen record or that written record was often secondhand, demands a fair amount of deduction, some speculation and a fair amount of 'best guess'.
  I'm unaware of any historical record being accurate to even a moderate degree. This does not mean that history is inaccurate…
  Read more
  
  I am in not defending the author, but i'm curious that you would allude to tasmanian history as fiction. I'm not a historian but I'm sure that reconstruction of the past, especially where primary sources did either not leave accurate writen record or that written record was often secondhand, demands a fair amount of deduction, some speculation and a fair amount of 'best guess'.
  I'm unaware of any historical record being accurate to even a moderate degree. This does not mean that history is inaccurate, wrong or anything approaching fiction - just that the facts are not as certain as you wish to construe them.
  Should the historian qualify each statement with endless references to the source documents? or should we leave it to the historian to make judgement as to the likely events in the historical record based upon their interpretation of the source documents. keith Windschuttle makes much of several inaccuracies in Lyndall Ryan's book but this is a variation of the fallacy fallacy. The basic premise is accurate even if the fine detail is blurred.
  Whilst this doesn't excuse a historian from making fanciful claims, it does excuse them from making educated guesses as to the likely causes of known events (so long as they acknowledge these inferences and deductions). So whilst we will never know the exact amount of aboriginals killed in any one conflict it does seem reasonable to state that hundreds of aboriginals were killed by settlers over the course of the aboriginal wars. The alternative is that they somehow evaporated after contact, unless you believe that they were all killed by disease which seems unlikely given the evidence in the historical record and what we know about epidemiology.
  If I have stumbled across an argument against the finer points of historical analyses between two historians, i apologise for the transgression, but it seems to me that the exact number of aborigines killed in the Aboriginal wars is open to interpretation and the only certainty is that tasmania started with some thousands of fullblood aborigines and in the space of a couple of centuries ended up with none.
  
  3 months ago report
7. Scott Seymour
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Seamus Gardiner
  
  I agree with you that it is not likely that all historical records are accurate, but it's all that we really have to work with except for rumours and oral histories that change from person to person when told over and over a few hundred times. I have a personal experience of how this can works.
  
  An event I was involved with back in 1985, was reported in a newspaper, there were 11 people present, but over the years I've met around 30 different people who said "I was there". Now, newspapers, like…
  Read more
  
  I agree with you that it is not likely that all historical records are accurate, but it's all that we really have to work with except for rumours and oral histories that change from person to person when told over and over a few hundred times. I have a personal experience of how this can works.
  
  An event I was involved with back in 1985, was reported in a newspaper, there were 11 people present, but over the years I've met around 30 different people who said "I was there". Now, newspapers, like historical documents, in a way, perhaps are not 100% accurate, but given the choice, especially in relation to important history, what, realistically, do we choose?
  
  I'd like to give you an example of what I mean when I say 'fiction', please remember though that I'm only referring to events at Risdon Cove. I have not researched other sites where clashes have taken place. What concerns me the most though, is, if this can happen in relation to Risdon, what about other sites/events?
  
  Lyndall Ryan, in the book titled, "Tasmanian Aborigines - A History Since 1803" on page 49, say's -
  
  "Confused and in shock, the Big River people appear to have retrieved the bodies and then retreated to the hill on the other side of Risdon Creek, directly opposite Jacob Mountgarrett's recently completed stone cottage. At this point, it seems, Mountgarrett persuaded Lt.Moore to make this cottage the centre of military operations".
  
  "Archaeological evidence suggests that Moore stationed fifteen armed soldiers and about the same number of male convicts together with perhaps two armed settlers around it and then brought up one of the carronade loaded with grape shot as further protection. This weapon of mass destruction that Matthew Flinders had sent to Risdon as protection against the French was now put to another use".
  
  To the casual reader, this is one hell of a powerful story of just some of the horrific treatment towards Aborigines. But is it 'fact'?......
  
  First of all, lets get one small error out of the way, Matthew Flinders never sent the carronade's to Risdon Cove. They were from his ship, "Investigator", and when it was having some repair work done, Gov. King had two carronade taken from the ship, and sent them to Bowen at Risdon.
  
  The rest of this scenario has never been heard of before. It is totally made up by Ryan. For starters, there's a great book by Angela McGowan titled, "Archaeological Investigations At Risdon Cove Historic Site 1978-1980" of which I have a copy. Items found at the site of Mountgarrett's cottage include, -
  A steel cannon ball from the fire place, a group of nine irregular shaped flints, "probably" from gunspalls from the ashy fill of the fireplace, a blade gunflint heavily chipped from the fill below the floor level. Two lead balls for a long arm rifle, lead casting waste from a bullet mold, group of thirteen hand made lead bullets probably for a pistol, and a group of 33 hand made lead shot and a second group of 13 lead shot.
  
  This is how Ryan comes up with the above story. Because these items were found at Mountgarrett's cottage.
  
  What Ryan doesn't mention is that a lot of these are described as "approximately spherical", and "unevenly spherical", which could just as well indicate Mountagarrett's failed attempts at casting his own bullets, as it could anything else, but from that, Ryan has a centre of military operations, and numbers of soldiers etc that were stationed around the cottage.
  
  I would have expected a find like this in the ground somewhere on the settlement to indicate a massacre, but archaeological work didn't find anything like this, nor had all the years of farming turned up anything like this.
  
  It's also worth noting that a cannon ball in a fire place is not all that unusual, they were great for keeping the contents of a pot hot, rather than risk burning it over a fire.
  
  Mountgarrett's wasn't the only location to turn up lead shot and or casting waste. But that isn't mentioned.
  
  There were also brass like pins, copper wire thread, buttons and an embroidery ring found at Mountgarretts, but does that mean he was also the settlement's seamstress?? Of course not.
  
  To top that off, Ryan has the convicts or soldiers dragging one of the carronade, from one end of the settlement to the other, on wet ground, to get it to Mountgarrett's cottage. Remember, these carronade were not on wheels. This has never been heard of before either.
  
  This is what I mean when I say 'fiction'......this story telling does not belong in a book on the history shelf of a library. It's pure speculation. What's next......it's out of control.
  
  This is what I mean when I say, 'fiction'........this does not belong in a book sitting on the history shelf at the library.
  
  3 months ago report
8. Gregory Lehman
  
  MSt Student at University of Oxford
  
  In reply to Scott Seymour
  
  History is full of fictions and it is disingenuous to focus only on the fictions generated by one 'side' in any historical debate. Unanswered questions are inevitable in our accounts of the past. In fact an absence of questions often makes such accounts highly suspect. The questions, doubts and unsettled accusations that arise in our attempts to document and understand history need to be engaged with just as willingly as those elements that everyone might agree to be 'facts'. This takes a little…
  Read more
  
  History is full of fictions and it is disingenuous to focus only on the fictions generated by one 'side' in any historical debate. Unanswered questions are inevitable in our accounts of the past. In fact an absence of questions often makes such accounts highly suspect. The questions, doubts and unsettled accusations that arise in our attempts to document and understand history need to be engaged with just as willingly as those elements that everyone might agree to be 'facts'. This takes a little more courage, as it involves a commitment to take a journey with an as yet undisclosed destination. To my way of seeing, this is a path that offers the most agency for Tasmanians, as it allows for us to play an active (and hopefully co-operative) role in the telling of our story and the understanding of its context. This requires a negotiated approach. I have very little interest in processes founded on dismissing one view or another. I'm much more interested in how and why these views have come about. It's not so much a process of uncovering our history, but understanding what's involved in the business of making it.
  
  3 months ago report
9. Scott Seymour
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Gregory Lehman
  
  Tasmanian history, Australian history for that matter, needs to be told, no doubt. What bothers me is that, in the case of Risdon Cove, there are so many 'versions' of the truth, that the real story is lost. The only way to get to the real story is to start by looking at all the different versions and attempting to figure out, to the best of one's ability given the information that is available, what is a reasonable assumption and what is not. That does mean dismissing some views. There has been…
  Read more
  
  Tasmanian history, Australian history for that matter, needs to be told, no doubt. What bothers me is that, in the case of Risdon Cove, there are so many 'versions' of the truth, that the real story is lost. The only way to get to the real story is to start by looking at all the different versions and attempting to figure out, to the best of one's ability given the information that is available, what is a reasonable assumption and what is not. That does mean dismissing some views. There has been so much added to the Risdon Cove story for which nothing exists to justify it. Those things need to be stripped away. Some versions can be dismissed completely. A good example is from the book "Fawkner's Reminicences"........This version of what happened at Risdon Cove, see's Lt. Bowen and Jacob Mountgarret in conversation about what actions to take regarding the Aborigines. This 'version' can be dismissed straight away because Lt. Bowen was not present that day, so therefore taking any notice of any of it is a shoddy notion at best.
  
  I have now gathered eight different versions of the 3rd May 1804, and in all honesty, the authors that have written these have not helped history, or the Aboriginal people, by making a complete farce of what happened at Risdon, Aboriginal's were killed at Risdon and this needs to be recognised, but not at the expense of history.
  
  3 months ago report
10. Gregory Lehman
  
  MSt Student at University of Oxford
  
  In reply to Scott Seymour
  
  I understand your point. What I am saying is that the generation of all of these versions - including the 'implausible' ones - also constitutes an important subject. This is the 'history of history'. As Melvyn Bragg puts it "the writing of history always illuminates two periods – the one history is written about and the one it is written in." This is the point that Keith Windschuttle didn't seem to get, yet his most valuable contribution to Australian history was that he became precisely a part of it.
  I would urge you to resist trying to tear strips off Lyndall. The research you are doing is important. Attacking other historians isn't. It is unfortunate that this sort of 'adversarial' historical practice is still being taught in our universities. I think it is a massive distraction and misses the whole point of historiography.
  
  3 months ago report
11. Scott Seymour
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Gregory Lehman
  
  I too understand your point. My object is not to tear strips off Lyndall, it's to question some of what has been written. It would be difficult to protest anything from a book without making reference to it and in turn the person who wrote it.
  
  I don't personally have any ill feelings towards Ryan or, Tardif, Manne, Windschuttle, Maynard, Elder, or Bonwick. I don't know these people, but the historical records don't exist to back up a lot of what they have written respecting Risdon Cove.
  
  It…
  Read more
  
  I too understand your point. My object is not to tear strips off Lyndall, it's to question some of what has been written. It would be difficult to protest anything from a book without making reference to it and in turn the person who wrote it.
  
  I don't personally have any ill feelings towards Ryan or, Tardif, Manne, Windschuttle, Maynard, Elder, or Bonwick. I don't know these people, but the historical records don't exist to back up a lot of what they have written respecting Risdon Cove.
  
  It seems now though, there is no going back. The history of Risdon Cove can't afford to change. The historians can't say ..."well, perhaps I shouldn't have written that part"..........the Government can't say ...."Perhaps we should have looked at bit harder at the Risdon story before we declared it no longer an historic site".
  
  It's only in recent times that ordinary people, such as myself, are starting to look into things, because little pieces of information from time to time, tell us that we can't always believe what a historian writes anymore........the trust we once had in them is fading.
  
  Is the motivation political? Is it a funding issue? Is it a trend? Is it to side with each other? Is it a fear of being "cast out on the inner sanctum" if they go against the grain..???
  
  I don't know.
  
  I'm just doing my research.
  
  3 months ago report
12. Scott Seymour
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Scott Seymour
  
  I've also been on the look out, while doing this research, for anything that could be important to the Tasmanian Aboriginal community. It is likely, although testing would have to be done to confirm, that I may have found something.
  
  The Aborginal aspect is just as important to me as anything else.
  
  3 months ago report
13. Gregory Lehman
  
  MSt Student at University of Oxford
  
  In reply to Scott Seymour
  
  It might be worth getting in touch with the TAC if you think you have found something of interest - as they have management responsibility for the site.
  
  3 months ago report
14. Scott Seymour
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Gregory Lehman
  
  Hi Greg,
  I was reading that your thoughts on what happened at Risdon Cove have turned to perhaps the large group of Aborigines being a 'Welcoming Party".
  
  Of course we know that when Edward White said that he was "sure they did not know there was a white man in the country" that it was another incorrect part of his statement, because not only had the settlement by this time been established for eight months, more than enough time for word to spread, but because of the large group…
  Read more
  
  Hi Greg,
  I was reading that your thoughts on what happened at Risdon Cove have turned to perhaps the large group of Aborigines being a 'Welcoming Party".
  
  Of course we know that when Edward White said that he was "sure they did not know there was a white man in the country" that it was another incorrect part of his statement, because not only had the settlement by this time been established for eight months, more than enough time for word to spread, but because of the large group of Aborigines that James Meehan had seen and had a minor run in with, when stones were thrown and aggression shown toward his small party of three or four people in Nov/Dec 1803.
  
  What would puzzle me about the 'Welcoming Party' is that when they first arrived they showed aggression toward Page, who was returning to the settlement, and took a kangaroo from him, and then aggression to some degree again to a settlers wife, and then more at Birt's farm.
  
  Unless we are to presume that what happened with Page and the others is a lie, then I'm not sure if a friendly 'Welcoming Party' would be correct.
  
  It seems that any theory, as long as it makes what happened at Risdon appear worse than it was, is readily explored and or accepted, any theory that suggests anything else is dismissed straight away. However, isn't any theory worth exploring? Perhaps the large group, under the guise of a 'Welcoming Party' had something more sinister in mind, and had it not been for Lt.Moore's actions that day, we'd have had a different kind of result at Risdon............a massacre of Europeans.
  
  That, obviously, is only a theory, but is it any more or less valid than any other? The difference being is that a theory such as that must be dismissed straight away as racist driven nonsense. It couldn't possibly be true.
  
  This is the biggest problem with Australian History, you are not allowed to explore all avenues, it's akin to an unwritten law.
  
  Cheers,
  Scott.
  
  2 days ago report
15. Gregory P Lehman
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Scott Seymour
  
  Hi Scott
  I'm glad you are still thinking about this. I wish more people would. Perhaps the reason that some people seem to want to believe the worst about what happened at Risdon Cove is a response to how unresolved the history of the place is - a desire for redemption assuaged through acts of confession - however subjective and perhaps exaggerated. The Tasmanian Historical Research Assoc should perhaps host a symposium and publish the proceedings - an audit on what we can be most confident of and…
  Read more
  
  Hi Scott
  I'm glad you are still thinking about this. I wish more people would. Perhaps the reason that some people seem to want to believe the worst about what happened at Risdon Cove is a response to how unresolved the history of the place is - a desire for redemption assuaged through acts of confession - however subjective and perhaps exaggerated. The Tasmanian Historical Research Assoc should perhaps host a symposium and publish the proceedings - an audit on what we can be most confident of and what further speculations are most productive and valid. It wouldn't settle all the arguments, but it might help us to move our collective understanding forward.
  I have a few thoughts on your points that might be relevant:
  - Of course White might have been mistaken. He was trying to make interpretations of their behaviour and body language from across a very wide cultural divide, and could have easily got it wrong. Or not.
  - Your argument holds best if we are assuming that the group that White saw and the group that Meehan had a run in with were the same people. Some or all of them might have been different individuals, which could account for different attitudes and reactions. It was common for the Moomairemener to travel up into the high country during the summer months. The Meehan encounter may have been with some who stayed behind, or different people from further south or east. We must also be careful about expecting patterns of social behaviour that are familiar to us. The early French accounts of meetings are full of reminders that local groups would one day be friendly and another hostile for no understandable reason. There was a lot more going on in their world than we will ever understand. History books tend to paint Aborigines as somewhat passive and reactive to European agency - ignoring that they are just as capable of their own initiative, (mis)interpretations and contradictory behaviour as anyone is.
  - My idea of a welcoming party is really just a provocation for people to think more laterally about all the possibilities that day. The presence of women and children convinces me that it was not a war party. The reports of singing and waving of branches makes it sound more like a social occasion - consistent with the idea of a kangaroo hunt. If the people involved were in fact a different group, then in many ways it makes more sense. But if they already knew that the British were there, then what was going on? We must speculate; responsibly, carefully, to try and tease out the possibilities.
  - the notion of a welcoming party should also not necessarily be read with an expectation that it was unconditional. The Aboriginal people involved lived in a world of ceremony, obligation and ritual. If they had made a decision to intentionally drive the kangaroo toward the British in anticipation of some sort of joint activity in acknowledgement of the British presence (vis. welcome), it would probably have been done in an expectation that the British would know the correct protocols in response. Maybe finding Page with a kangaroo was seen as an insult given that they were in the process of 'bringing' kangaroo to the British - just as we would be insulted if our dinner guests wandered into the kitchen and started helping themselves before dinner was served. The country around Risdon Cove was their larder. We don't know what the expectations and consequences were around outsiders 'helping themselves'. Of course, I am only speculating here, but I hope you see my point that there are many possible social permutations that might help to make sense of the sketchy record of events that we have.
  
  The possibility that the Aboriginal group had sinister intentions must also be explored. To call it racist would be churlish. The journals of the earlier French and British visitors make it clear that Aboriginal groups were equally capable of being friendly and welcoming, as well as hostile. I'm all for exploring every rational possibility in history, alongside of a competent interrogation of the evidence.
  
  cheers
  
  Greg
  
  1 day ago report
16. Scott Seymour
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Gregory P Lehman
  
  Hi Greg,
  yes, I'm still very much into researching Risdon Cove, and I agree with you that the group Meehan had contact with, may not have been people from the same group that arrived at Risdon. I was leaning more towards the idea that as the settlement had been there for eight months, I would have thought the opposite to what White said, that by that time, as word spreads, which I assume it would have, that many different groups of Aborigines would have known about the presents of…
  Read more
  
  Hi Greg,
  yes, I'm still very much into researching Risdon Cove, and I agree with you that the group Meehan had contact with, may not have been people from the same group that arrived at Risdon. I was leaning more towards the idea that as the settlement had been there for eight months, I would have thought the opposite to what White said, that by that time, as word spreads, which I assume it would have, that many different groups of Aborigines would have known about the presents of the settlement and the settlers. I agree on another point, that it doesn't seem logical that you would bring women and children with you if your intentions were to 'go to war'. Was it usual practice that that many men, women and children would go on a hunt? Was this type of mass gathering ever seen prior too or after Risdon? I think these are good questions to try and answer to help determine what intention, if any, there were. Another thing to consider is that perhaps it was a welcoming party, that unfortunately included two or three who overreacted to seeing Page with a kangaroo, and that their actions wouldn't have been endorsed by the main group, hence a lot of shouting and yelling, while Lt. Moore, not understanding any of this, just interprets the aggression he see's, the yelling and shouting to go along with it, and determines that this is going to be a very unfriendly encounter, and reacts accordingly...???
  
  I really think the only way to come to some sort of conclusion, is to be as open minded as we can, explore any possibility as long as it's sensible, and see what we can conclude. I think your idea of a symposium is brilliant. I would jump at the chance to have some input in that.
  
  I have so much information now about Risdon that I've almost completed a book, scheduled for release in Sept.this year. With new information that appears nowhere else.
  
  Cheers,
  Scott.
  
  1 day ago report
17. Gregory P Lehman
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Scott Seymour
  
  Mass gatherings were observed in other places. Bay of Fires is a good example. Ling Roth also includes an account of what sounds like some sort of large ceremonial gathering place. No, I don't think it was usual practice to take women and children on a hunt - which is why I am partial to the idea that there was some sort of social, peaceful intention associated with the gathering. You are right - eight months is a long time for the settlement to go undetected...
  Please let me know when you book is released. I will look forward to reading it.
  
  cheers
  
  Greg
  
  1 day ago report
18. Scott Seymour
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Scott Seymour
  
  Hi Greg,
  here is just one interesting points that nobody seems to have mentioned.
  
  In White's statement, as detailed as it is, he doesn't mention the carronade being fired. We know it was, whether it was loaded with a projectile or not will never be known, but for the sake of argument, lets say it was loaded with grape shot, and fired directly into a large group of the Aborigines, surely, this horrific sight would have stayed with White for the rest of his days, who could ever forget…
  Read more
  
  Hi Greg,
  here is just one interesting points that nobody seems to have mentioned.
  
  In White's statement, as detailed as it is, he doesn't mention the carronade being fired. We know it was, whether it was loaded with a projectile or not will never be known, but for the sake of argument, lets say it was loaded with grape shot, and fired directly into a large group of the Aborigines, surely, this horrific sight would have stayed with White for the rest of his days, who could ever forget seeing anything like that. It seems White forgot it completely.
  
  Researching White is crucial to the whole Risdon history. If his statement is not realistically valid, or if indeed, he wasn't present at Risdon on the day he said he was, that changes a lot.
  
  Try finding White in convict records in relation to him being at Risdon Cove, or even in Van Diemens Land in 1803/04. Try looking for anyone named Edward White in VDL 1803/04. Search the musters, convict returns, etc...etc for 1803/04.......I'm still trying to find him.
  
  Even author Phillip Tardif's reference to him being on a list of convicts that Collins decided to keep from Risdon Cove, to my shock and surprise, didn't check out, White is not on the list even though Tardif say's in his book, he is.
  
  To quote a reasonably old saying from our generation......"Houston....we have a problem".
  
  Cheers,
  Scott.
  
  1 day ago report

Want to follow The Conversation?

Republish

Join the conversation

Community

Company

Contact

Subscribe to our Newsletter