LUX Magazine Edition 4

frequent disputes suggest that they were less accepting of racial equality and had no qualms in exacerbating the tension between the parties. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that the convicts were responsible for any developments regarding ethnic parity, and in fact they probably only aggravated tensions further, deepening the divide. Free settlers’ actions regarding ethnic equality The behaviour of different groups varied, and some demonstrated more sympathetic attitudes towards Indigenous tribes; in particular, the actions of free settlers were more positive. Treatment of the Aboriginal Australians can be seen to vary in accordance with their economic value to local employers. In places where their labour could be utilised – particularly as stockmen or domestic servants – violence against them was, to some degree, constrained and those who regularly employed Aborigines were less likely to participate in killing (Palmer, 2000). However, overall, the arrival of free settlers had mainly negative impacts on the Indigenous people. In the short term, their arrival caused violent outbreaks, dispossession of land, and the influx of new diseases. In the long term, free settlers played a key role in eroding their culture and ultimate decline. Significant cultural differences between the groups caused immediate disputes. Free settlers failed to understand that the Natives had strong emotional connections to the land, consequently when they were forcibly removed from the land by the settlers for arable purposes, tensions were immediately created. Ruling classes’ actions regarding ethnic equality Whilst it was the colonial authorities that instigated the ‘ethnic cleansing’ and continually disregarded the pleas of the Aborigines regarding their ‘sacred land’, by the beginning of the twentieth century, the ruling class began to show some remorse and created several laws to protect the Indigenous community. Official policy evolved to protect Aborigines on designated reserves and stations run by missionaries, in order to ease the process of extinction. However, any real progress was slow in coming. In the name of ‘protection’, Indigenous Australians were made wards of the state and subjected to policies that gave the Australian government the power to determine where they could live, who they could marry, and where they could work. Despite the benevolent intentions of these policies, in practice they denied Indigenous people control over almost every aspect of their lives. By 1911, every mainland State and Territory had introduced

but were more common and welcomed than in England or amongst the ruling colonial classes. It could be argued that the acceptance of ethnic differences was possibly a natural progression.As already stated, having a family was emphasised as a solution to raucous male behaviour and inappropriate sexual activity by both genders, and consequently men were encouraged to marry. Nevertheless, the shortage of British female adults meant most men could not marry a white woman, and so some married Aboriginal women - such as Jonathan Goldspink, who married Margaret Reid in 1832 (Myheritage.com, 2021).Therefore, it is fair to conclude that the acceptance of ethnic differences (and, hence, ethnic equality), was not so much of a choice, but more of a necessity. By 1787,Aboriginal Australians numbered circa 1 million. Unsurprisingly, they were opposed to the settlers, who brought with them deadly diseases such as smallpox. However, some convict absconders integrated into Aboriginal society, while bands of convict bushrangers are known to have formed working alliances. However, despite some cases of working or romantic partnerships, convict attitudes to locals readily became destructive, in part perhaps as some Aboriginal people were rewarded for returning runaway convicts. In addition, runaways often clashed with Indigenous Australians over the limited food resources. However, ethnic animosity was not solely one-sided.As much as the Indigenous people despised the newcomers, the Black War, originating in 1804, indicated that the feeling was reciprocated by colony leaders.The war was a deliberate attempt at ethnic cleansing, sweeping the country to capture and corral the islands’ Indigenous people.The war initially began to force pastoralists off Indigenous homelands that had become the colony’s settled districts.The colonial government responded with money, men and martial law, and comprised the largest force ever assembled against Aboriginals anywhere in Australia. Colonial states also created Native Police Forces that patrolled and ‘dispersed’ Aboriginal people. Figures suggest that the Native Police sponsored frontier killings in Queensland alone of over 65,000 people, between 22-26% of the pre-contact population (Evans and Ørsted–Jensen, 2014).Additionally, the Aboriginal Australians were denied their rights for centuries after the arrival of the First Fleet.Aboriginal Australians did not have full citizenship or voting rights until 1965 (Blakemore, 2019). However, whilst these targeted attacks may have been orchestrated by the ruling class, it was the convicts who were recruited into these, and other, roving parties.The convicts were responsible for the brutal attacks on the Indigenous community and, whilst they were more open to the idea of gender equality, the

39

Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software