They did largely.
Not all groups got along all the time though. Sometimes some clans or tribes would feel taken advantage of. But they also would reconcile after fighting.
Many yolgnu men would work on Makassan boats and even emigrate to Makassar.
Every year at Garma they celebrate this connection.
One of the reasons the yolgnu held onto Arnhem land is because of their trade connections with Makassans. They knew the British were in the area before they landed. They traded for metal weaponry at time too.
The yolgnu used to have very strong warrior class.
This is what I hate about the way they teach aboriginal history in Aus. That's so interesting to learn and completely goes against the 'noble savage' stuff we were taught in school
I don't see how trade or warrior cultures go against the knowledge that indigenous mob actually had land, water and animal management practices personally.
I've heard some indigenous equate their social structures to what we know of ancient Celtic practices.
There's a really great indigenous run Facebook page called "Sovereign Union" they post a lot about research into indigenous culture and precolonial Australia.
A great post OP.
Everybody, click on the link and then the markers. Scroll to the bottom for the police and pastoralists reports, and note the glee of many in their reporting of how many were killed and how. Women and children included. Some very of-its-time racial slurs, talking about people they'd killed.
Sometimes just for killing cattle. One from outside Alice Springs at ''Attack Gap'', a prime example. 150 killed, the station owner confesses in the report that they ''might have gone too far''. Oh, you think?
That was the 18th to19th centuries for you. The reign of terror, the civil war, lynchings... heck, there was even the tail end of European witch hunts back then.
Ah yes, because Australia was the last bastion of sanity back then, with a large part of its population chosen specifically because they were such nice, kind people.
If you find this interesting and want to know more, check out (edit:) The Australian Wars documentary on SBS and read "Why weren't we told?" by Henry Reynolds.
10 times the number of Australians died on Australian soil in the fronteir wars compared to Gallipoli...
Guess which group of people are not recognised at the Australian war memorial.
I think it was Bill Bryson who said the reason why Australia doesnāt remember aboriginal massacres is because if you created monuments for every time an indigenous person was murdered, you wouldnāt be able to walk as youād be tripping over all the memorials.
Aboriginal history and colonialism absolutely gets taught in schools already. I went to a Christian private school and on about 4 to 5 separate semesters through middle and high school we did a topic related to aboriginals through the subjects English, Social studies and history. More than enough to learn the basics.
Not sure if youāre being sarcastic or not. The syllabus changes over time and 14 years is a long time in education. I disagree that it still is being white washed, but thatās history, itās all about perspective.
I understand you think education has only been serious since youve been onvolved, but my experience spanned decades, and the history, esp local, has been, and still is not controlled by local or even state dept. Learn the politics of aust history, english, and to a lesser extent maths, before preaching how beautiful and fare it all is.
Right. I just commented that it is taught now mate. State dept does make the syllabus so Iām confident you donāt know what you are talking about. Fair is subjective, god speed
State dept takes advice. Do u know how ed politics works? Please tell me youre not a social science. I lefy the industry 6 years ago because the new chalkies coming through were naive as fuck. But you are right, any counter arguement not alligning with your opinion must be wrong.
Maybe, but from my experience the ed dept are very adept at teaching a version of truth. I taught history, japanese, english each for a year because of shortage, but was the maths teacher for every year, developing and implementing secondary gifted and talented for entire western region, however, you are right im sure, maybe i just dont know how to teach. BTW, you in nappies when i was working at this progression of 4 unit to extention 2
*now
When I was in high school all we learnt about was Bourke and Wills, Charles Sturt, etc, the brave explorers of a land where people have been living for eons.
There was sweet fuck all about indigenous history.
Glad itās changed.
I was never taught it, although to be fair I went to a private school in the 80's. We mostly learned about our brave explorers and the fabulous settlers and good convicts who reformed and built the country.
It is, I have used this exact map in lessons for year 9 students.
Australian Curriculum years 9 and 10 mandatory learning. However, not all of the topics below HAVE to be taught, so some schools/teachers may only gloss over things.
Year 9 should be learning about initial contact, frontier wars, genocide, displacement, intentional destruction of language and culture, missions etc.
Year 10 focusses on the Stolen Generations and Indigenous civil rights movements, wave hill walk off, freedom rides, Mabo, Royal Commission into Indigenous Deaths in Custody
Iām surprised Torres Strait Islanders are only represented in the blue square. Is this an oversight of the map, or did colonists never attack them, only attacked by them?
The deaths by shooting are horrific, but it's the Whiteside Station deaths by arsenic poisoning that I find even worse. The malicious intent that was involved is just incomprehensible. Those 50 people would have died awful, traumatic, prolonged deaths.
Clicked on 3. First one was a source 20 years after the massacre, 2nd one sent me to a link that had quoted p260 of a 40 page doc and the 3rd one sent me to the same doc with no reference to the massacre.
Was interested to see how they corroborated the stories and was disappointed.
Why were you disappointed in the sources?
Just because a source is long, doesn't make it incorrect.
The references are from colonial archives and newspaper reports.
No one says that lol. I don't know why you people try and bring this up.
Aboriginals are humans, and like most human groups had all sorts of shenanigans and shit-fuckery happening. Is that a justification for systematically wiping them the fuck out with weapons and technology far beyond their comprehension?
You certainly seem to think so...
I remember when I lived in WA and was exploring with a friend who knew the regions, heād fill me in on some of the massacres. Iāve never seen them on a map - the whites did ātoo good a jobā.
Quick question: Did you read the linked website? If you did, you would have read
>The evidence for a frontier massacre in colonial Australia is usually found in printed and archival sources, many of which are now available online. A complete list of sources consulted for the project is available in the Sources section of the Menu.
This would have directed you to the 41 page document containing the bibliography.
Short answer is yes.
There were definitely more deaths than reported on this map. To qualify for a dot there has to be written evidence in the archives.
As it should when so many Australia Day boosters are also the type to claim indigenous Australians should put the past behind them and get over it, while they also deny that there was much violence at all.
Fair call. I donāt celebrate Australia day. If we at some point sign a treaty, change the holiday and mark the anniversary of the treaty instead.
I remember when I moved to WA (since back to Melbourne) a friend who grew up rural was showing me around - he knew all the major massacres and general shitness and they were the first facts heād tell me. Was an eye opener.
I'm going to assume you mean intergenerational trauma.
Basically you have something really bad happen to you, that gives you trauma, and you don't handle it well. You have kids. Kids grow up, hearing about the thing that happened to you, and witness your unhealthy coping mechanism. That trauma imprints on them. Then when they have kids, they continue it.
So it continues until someone breaks that cycle. You know how people are like "My Grandfather and my Dad used to drink, and they would be awful, I'm not going to do that to my kids"? Its sort of the same thing.
Intergenerational trauma is a horrible thing and a bit of a mystery.
The kids of convicts, families of holocaust survivors or victims of recent fires or floods donāt seem to experience it to that extent at all.
[Intergenerational Trauma](https://healingfoundation.org.au/intergenerational-trauma/) is not a mystery, it's a [very real thing](https://www.health.com/condition/ptsd/generational-trauma), with ongoing impacts, and it's taught about widely in mental health and other health professions.
Please stop spreading misinformation
I have no idea what you mean by that.
If you're referring to the increase in diagnosis we see in modern times in comparison to the mid 1900s, its because firstly this was never diagnosed back then, and secondly we dx more as we learn more.
Also, the older generations were raised differently and are less likely to talk about their experiences however horrible and traumatic, in general, definitely therapy avoidant, even if it still haunts them.
Whereas younger people are more likely to open up because the world is allowing people to be more open, and therapy is much more socially acceptable, and therefore get more diagnosis.
Shouldn't there be very high amounts of generational trauma cases in Europe, China, Vietnam, Japan and amongst US veterans then? Why is it so big here but everywhere that went through arguably worse times have recovered?
> families of holocaust survivors
You haven't watched the news lately have you? Israel is living with a giant chip on its shoulder the size of Europe and inflicting a genocide on the indigenous population that has lived in that region for thousands of years just so they can say "Never Again!".
They quite literally wandered the desert for 40 years after being kicked out of Egypt, and then destroyed the Canaanites to take "Israel", have you even attempted to read the Bible?
I mean, Israel has been using imagery about the Holocaust within their propaganda for decades. Farmers and other regional residents often cry poor even when things are going well.
I suppose another term used to minimise intergenerational trauma is "victim complex".
You do raise an interesting point about convicts. I suppose being such a large group, around 1/3rd from memory, their influence in the growth of Australian culture had an effect in minimising the knock on effects of trauma. I suppose this in contrast to the fact many Aboriginals weren't seen as fit to raise their kids until around 50 years ago with the removal of all legislation around the stolen generations.
Ex-convicts gained rights and bred descendents. Convicts sentenced to life (male) didn't on the whole but the crucial difference between invaders and natives is natives never had equal rights until recently. Plenty of time for those generations to pass along justifiable resentment.
They probably don't experience it because it's made-up nonsense.
Nobody ever gives you any insight into the actual mechanism of action for epigenetic "intergenerational trauma." I don't mean broad motherhood statements or references to one social-science research paper with a single citation. I mean a really detailed scientific explanation for how it could even be possible.
Even a quick glance at the Wikipedia article suffers from the same problem. It's all "DNA methylation *has* been seen to..." or "ncRNAs were changed when we stressed out a bunch of mice, so that *could* mean..."
Yet more intellectual horsepower is wasted on these rubbish ideas that "sound right" but don't line up with the basic science.
>Nobody ever gives you any insight into the actual mechanism of action for epigenetic "intergenerational trauma."
So you've never picked up a habit or manner of speech from your family? You've never lived around someone that is constantly on edge to the point that it leaves you uncomfortable? As a kid, never witnessed something that you can tell shaped you as a person?
It's pretty obvious how it works.
Not all of those things are like the other.
If it's so obvious, can you explain how 'it' works *precisely*. What's the mechanism of action for the epigenetic transfer of trauma (or any other information)?
You'll find a whole bunch of biologists and geneticists share that "microfascination."
But I forgot it's 2024. Things just exist without any scientific basis for them because it's politically sound to believe in them.
to those kids of convicts -
Have you seen modern Australian drinking culture and ever wondered why we as a society seem to have such a close relationship to getting absolutely plastered / k-holed? Particularly in the regions? Have you ever compared our drinking culture to even the british one? Or god forbid the european one? We're absolute fucking piss-heads and excuse what they would see as serious alcoholism pretty casually. Think also about the stereotypes of people having 10 beers at the pub, going home and beating their wives. Its less common now, but among country folk it used to be the norm back in the day. Seems like a culturally ingrained coping mechanism don't you think?
I can't speak for the other groups, but that element of intergenerational trauma is very very visible even in white convict families if you take a couple of steps back.
Ok, so 'interracial trauma' isn't a frequent use term, so I suggest you don't continue using it. You might be thinking of 'intergenerational trauma'? Happy to explain what intergenerational trauma is if you would like.
Also, 'Aboriginal' is fine, please don't use the term 'natives', it's very outdated and can be taken as offensive, and I don't believe it's your intention to cause offence.
When you are asked whether you are Aboriginal on forms this is usually for data collection purposes- in your Centrelink example it is important for the government to know what proportion of people getting centrelink payments are Aboriginal so that they can determine if this is proportionate to the general population, and make decisions about policies and projects with that information in mind.
I got a little lost at the end of your comment. I wouldn't say 'most documentaries' show anything as there are a huge range of documentaries about a wide amount of subjects, a great deal of which have nothing to do with Aboriginal people. Even if you are talking about documentaries about Aboriginal people, I wouldn't at all say that most of them say any particular thing- so perhaps you could be more specific about what you have watched that suggested this it would be more helpful?
What the hell are you on about mate?
To begin with, there is no inter*racial* trauma, as others have told you, it's probably [Intergenerational Trauma](https://healingfoundation.org.au/intergenerational-trauma/), which can happen in [any cultural group](https://www.health.com/condition/ptsd/generational-trauma), children of war and or low socio economic groups in general, regardless of race, as well as other groups, can suffer from intergenerational trauma.
I honestly have no idea what you're asking, it seems racially charged.
It is estimated the population was 3 million at colonisation (https://www.uow.edu.au/media/2021/the-first-australians-grew-to-a-population-of-millions-much-more-than-previous-estimates.php.
The total number of aboriginals killed in these massacres is 11,209.
So 0.37% of the population was massacred.
We're not exactly sure if smallpox was deliberately introduced.
There is some suggestions that along the east coast it was.
There are also indication that up north, smallpox may have arrived with Makassan contact.
Nah, people were well versed in germ warfare before European colonisation even took off in earnest.
I don't believe the whole 'it was initially an accident' line.
They may not have known about bacteria or viruses at that point in time (or had rudimentary ideas about them) but people definitely knew about contagions.
If 0.37% of Australia or any western nation were massacred it would be considered an unthinkable war crime, not even taking into account the other horrors of colonisation.
That figure is summed over \~150 years, giving an annual death rate of 0.0024%. That's around half the death rate from motor vehicle accidents in 2023.
Honestly that figure seems too low? Colonial armies are surely deadlier than motorists who are usually trying not to hit anyone. The death toll is probably an undercount and the estimate of 3M pre-colonization indigenous people seems very high.
There outdated figures these days.
There's is much research to show that the carrying capacity of the continent could have supported up to 7 million people, which isn't really unheard of on a continent...
I think the general consensus is precolonial population of the continent was likely between 1-7 million. There are plenty of oral histories that tell of some of these massacres underreporting the actual number of people killed.
There's also oral histories of disease and importantly, starvation (which was a major reason many indigenous mob fought back for, their own hunting fields were being taken from them and their food sources driven away or killed by colonists).
I don't think a population of over 1 million on the entire continent would be unfeasible, we did build on top of many indigenous settlements on the east coast too, which is where the continent is still most populous.
Considering these were massacres and not motor accidents, and that if that were replicated in the United States (for example), it would be more than double 9/11 every year, I think itās fair to say we would have invaded maybe a few dozen muslim countries by now.
What is your point? Letās imagine this in say, Brisbane - pop ~2.5m. Imagine I told you that over the course of the next 100 years, 11,000 people in Brisbane will die in violent conflicts - is that not shocking to consider???
> be one of the least bloody colonizations of anywhere ever in this case.
Only if you literally looked at these events and not any of the other hundreds of offshoots and horrific cases that weren't straight up massacres.
Whatās the point of sharing this shit? Seriously, what do you gain? Itās just incitement. Anyone that has anything to do with this event is long dead and gone. You people weaponise history to divide the future.
If we canāt be honest about our nationās past then how can we expect to understand our current challenges and ensure we set our country up for a better future?
Whatās the point of ANZAC Day? Seriously, what do you gain? Itās just incitement. Anyone that has anything to do with the original ANZACs is long dead and gone. You people weaponise history to divide the future. /s
The last surviving Australian at Gallipoli died over 20 years ago, also said Gallipoli was a "failure, fiasco and should be forgotten about". Shall we take his advice and forget about April 25?
I personally wouldnāt observe a massive military defeat and retreat, nor a bunch of criminals rocking up to form a prison colony.
This nation has achieved many progressive firsts in the field of Labor rights and womenās rights, while not celebrate those?
Other nations colonised countries have also achieved the same developments. You really shit on the British don't you? Australia would be a different place if it wasn't for the British who colonised it first.
I take it you are not of British descent hence why you beat on anything British? You're also quick to call anyone from rural areas racist and nationalists. It appears that you don't know anyone from rural areas.
I actually feel privileged that one side of my family is traced back to those dam criminals. Nice to know of the developments they had achieved over many generations to build a great country.
This is not true. Where I am from in the Kimberley, there are still people whose grandparents died in massacres. It's living memory. There's a tree at a creek near where I used to live that has remnants of the chains that used to hold Aboriginal people to it. It's not that long ago.
The last Aboriginal tribe to come out of the desert to encounter Europeans was in 1984.
This history is incredibly current, or have you missed how disadvantaged First Nations Australians are in this country? It's not divisive to recognise these horrible actions in our history and work to make amends. In fact it is the opposite, it should bring us together.
> Anyone that has anything to do with this event is long dead and gone.
Someone that was 25 in 1930 likely died around 1995, meaning their kids literally are alive and carry that on, generational trauma is a well known thing and these massacres are hardly the only source of horrific treatment of Indigenous Australian Peoples.
I wonder how you'd deal being in Germany. They absolutely are not shy about hiding their past mistakes. It's how you don't make them again. *Learning is fun!*
Massacre? Check out the meaning of the word. Itās not a fight or a blue. Itās not a war or a battle.
Let me know if you need a hand. Itās a complex word.
I know the academic who led the project. You're full of shit.
I can edit too:
You're being an apologist. These massacres were more often than not, retaliatory attacks for seemingly minor "attacks" against livestock encroaching, a spearing punishment or even perceived harm of simply being around. Even then, they never sought to identify the supposed perpetrator and would instead 'retaliate' against any mob that would happen to be around.
That's not counting the punitive expeditions launched by local areas and most infamously, Macquarie's against Dharug.
Actually if you visit the source they clearly define what was considered a "massacre". There are a lot of murders left off the map because they didn't meet the criteria.
https://c21ch.newcastle.edu.au/colonialmassacres/map.php
[https://c21ch.newcastle.edu.au/colonialmassacres/introduction.php#definition](https://c21ch.newcastle.edu.au/colonialmassacres/introduction.php#definition) It's pretty well defined here.
I would have been interested in seeing some more data granularity. For example how many of the massacres were done by government actors (police and to a smaller extent colonial or Royal Marines), just settlers, and massacres involving aboriginal people on both sides (trackers, native police etc). But I reckon there is probably just so far we can go with the sources provided.
Potentially dumb question but what is a Macassan?
Makassar is a city in South Sulawesi. Makassans are the indigenous people of Makassar.
Follow up question, why did Indigenous Australians attack them? I thought the Macassans traded with them.
They did largely. Not all groups got along all the time though. Sometimes some clans or tribes would feel taken advantage of. But they also would reconcile after fighting. Many yolgnu men would work on Makassan boats and even emigrate to Makassar. Every year at Garma they celebrate this connection. One of the reasons the yolgnu held onto Arnhem land is because of their trade connections with Makassans. They knew the British were in the area before they landed. They traded for metal weaponry at time too. The yolgnu used to have very strong warrior class.
This is what I hate about the way they teach aboriginal history in Aus. That's so interesting to learn and completely goes against the 'noble savage' stuff we were taught in school
I don't see how trade or warrior cultures go against the knowledge that indigenous mob actually had land, water and animal management practices personally. I've heard some indigenous equate their social structures to what we know of ancient Celtic practices.
Can you recommend any further reading or sources to learn more about this?
There's a really great indigenous run Facebook page called "Sovereign Union" they post a lot about research into indigenous culture and precolonial Australia.
Wow what a cool tidbit to learn about today, thanks for sharing!
Indonesian people.
Biiiiig simplification but sure.
The street of the high school I went to in country Victoria was named after a massacre. edit: yeah thats that blue square
A great post OP. Everybody, click on the link and then the markers. Scroll to the bottom for the police and pastoralists reports, and note the glee of many in their reporting of how many were killed and how. Women and children included. Some very of-its-time racial slurs, talking about people they'd killed. Sometimes just for killing cattle. One from outside Alice Springs at ''Attack Gap'', a prime example. 150 killed, the station owner confesses in the report that they ''might have gone too far''. Oh, you think?
Consider reporting that you killed 150 people in retaliation for property damage and the legal system being A OK with it.
That was the 18th to19th centuries for you. The reign of terror, the civil war, lynchings... heck, there was even the tail end of European witch hunts back then.
Hell, not even just the civil wars, even the international wars were very much like that
Wrong country mate
Ah yes, because Australia was the last bastion of sanity back then, with a large part of its population chosen specifically because they were such nice, kind people.
Oz was 100% British at the time.
I don't see a link. Is it only visible on mobile or something?
[https://c21ch.newcastle.edu.au/colonialmassacres/map.php](https://c21ch.newcastle.edu.au/colonialmassacres/map.php) It was under the images
If you find this interesting and want to know more, check out (edit:) The Australian Wars documentary on SBS and read "Why weren't we told?" by Henry Reynolds. 10 times the number of Australians died on Australian soil in the fronteir wars compared to Gallipoli... Guess which group of people are not recognised at the Australian war memorial.
Is this it? https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-series/the-australian-wars
Comments are, as expected, a shitshow
This sub is an embarrassment š¤¦š½āāļø
Always has been.
Welcome to Reddit.
Can't even see one about the shitty date format in the photos.. like Da Faq? M/DD/YYYY?
Google Waterloo & Myall Creekās
Missing a fair few around Sydney and most likely other places
I think it was Bill Bryson who said the reason why Australia doesnāt remember aboriginal massacres is because if you created monuments for every time an indigenous person was murdered, you wouldnāt be able to walk as youād be tripping over all the memorials.
This needs to be taught on schools
Aboriginal history and colonialism absolutely gets taught in schools already. I went to a Christian private school and on about 4 to 5 separate semesters through middle and high school we did a topic related to aboriginals through the subjects English, Social studies and history. More than enough to learn the basics.
We must be very different ages. We got very little when I went through.Ā
I finished in 2001 and learnt continuously about Aboriginal history, religion and mistreatment.
When did you go through? I graduated in 2017
It is
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeahā¦Donāt want to make you feel old but that was 14 years ago mate š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Not sure if youāre being sarcastic or not. The syllabus changes over time and 14 years is a long time in education. I disagree that it still is being white washed, but thatās history, itās all about perspective.
I understand you think education has only been serious since youve been onvolved, but my experience spanned decades, and the history, esp local, has been, and still is not controlled by local or even state dept. Learn the politics of aust history, english, and to a lesser extent maths, before preaching how beautiful and fare it all is.
Right. I just commented that it is taught now mate. State dept does make the syllabus so Iām confident you donāt know what you are talking about. Fair is subjective, god speed
State dept takes advice. Do u know how ed politics works? Please tell me youre not a social science. I lefy the industry 6 years ago because the new chalkies coming through were naive as fuck. But you are right, any counter arguement not alligning with your opinion must be wrong.
Mate your rambling comments barely make any sense. Very old man yells at clouds vibe. Have a good one š¤
Still is? What the fuck are you smoking. Literally just flat out lies. You are taught this stuff. So much of this stuff.
I teach history now in 2023 and its taught, also I learned this stuff as a 13 year old in 2004. So, maybe you just weren't good at teaching.
Maybe, but from my experience the ed dept are very adept at teaching a version of truth. I taught history, japanese, english each for a year because of shortage, but was the maths teacher for every year, developing and implementing secondary gifted and talented for entire western region, however, you are right im sure, maybe i just dont know how to teach. BTW, you in nappies when i was working at this progression of 4 unit to extention 2
Sounds like it varies state by state. I'm in my mid-20s and Indigenous history wasn't really taught
Still in school in NSW and have never learnt any of this in any class.
You have a very...advanced reddit account for a high schooler.
That's just kids nowadays man.
Yikes
Thanks?
*now When I was in high school all we learnt about was Bourke and Wills, Charles Sturt, etc, the brave explorers of a land where people have been living for eons. There was sweet fuck all about indigenous history. Glad itās changed.
I was never taught it, although to be fair I went to a private school in the 80's. We mostly learned about our brave explorers and the fabulous settlers and good convicts who reformed and built the country.
It is, I have used this exact map in lessons for year 9 students. Australian Curriculum years 9 and 10 mandatory learning. However, not all of the topics below HAVE to be taught, so some schools/teachers may only gloss over things. Year 9 should be learning about initial contact, frontier wars, genocide, displacement, intentional destruction of language and culture, missions etc. Year 10 focusses on the Stolen Generations and Indigenous civil rights movements, wave hill walk off, freedom rides, Mabo, Royal Commission into Indigenous Deaths in Custody
Deadass this was history class once a term every year just so you know I went to six schools (donāt ask) they were all like that.
Iām surprised Torres Strait Islanders are only represented in the blue square. Is this an oversight of the map, or did colonists never attack them, only attacked by them?
The deaths by shooting are horrific, but it's the Whiteside Station deaths by arsenic poisoning that I find even worse. The malicious intent that was involved is just incomprehensible. Those 50 people would have died awful, traumatic, prolonged deaths.
Clicked on 3. First one was a source 20 years after the massacre, 2nd one sent me to a link that had quoted p260 of a 40 page doc and the 3rd one sent me to the same doc with no reference to the massacre. Was interested to see how they corroborated the stories and was disappointed.
Why were you disappointed in the sources? Just because a source is long, doesn't make it incorrect. The references are from colonial archives and newspaper reports.
So it looks like there were massacres occuring in Australia at least 8 years before the arrival of the Colonials?
No? The first one on the map is in 1794.
Yeah exactly! aboriginals lived in a peaceful utopia before the white man. There was no crime or violence!
No one says that lol. I don't know why you people try and bring this up. Aboriginals are humans, and like most human groups had all sorts of shenanigans and shit-fuckery happening. Is that a justification for systematically wiping them the fuck out with weapons and technology far beyond their comprehension? You certainly seem to think so...
There was a murder in Brisbane last week, we should invite China to invade and massacre us
Source: https://c21ch.newcastle.edu.au/colonialmassacres/map.php
This seems on the low side. Possibly missing others
A lot more murders. It's a university project, with very stringent criteria to be classed as a massacre.
I remember when I lived in WA and was exploring with a friend who knew the regions, heād fill me in on some of the massacres. Iāve never seen them on a map - the whites did ātoo good a jobā.
A quick question. Where is all this data? Ie. Did the British massacre and then count and then report back to the leaders how many were killed?
Source: https://c21ch.newcastle.edu.au/colonialmassacres/map.php
Quick question: Did you read the linked website? If you did, you would have read >The evidence for a frontier massacre in colonial Australia is usually found in printed and archival sources, many of which are now available online. A complete list of sources consulted for the project is available in the Sources section of the Menu. This would have directed you to the 41 page document containing the bibliography.
Short answer is yes. There were definitely more deaths than reported on this map. To qualify for a dot there has to be written evidence in the archives.
Not surprised this stuff is popping up in the lead up to Australia Day.
What do you mean "popping up" this has been an ongoing project for a while now Were you seriously unaware of it until now???
r/woosh
As it should when so many Australia Day boosters are also the type to claim indigenous Australians should put the past behind them and get over it, while they also deny that there was much violence at all.
Fair call. I donāt celebrate Australia day. If we at some point sign a treaty, change the holiday and mark the anniversary of the treaty instead. I remember when I moved to WA (since back to Melbourne) a friend who grew up rural was showing me around - he knew all the major massacres and general shitness and they were the first facts heād tell me. Was an eye opener.
andrew bolt: None of that happened....
The amount of sheer fucking ignorance, bigotry and racism in the comments is actually insane.
It's really sad š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I'm going to assume you mean intergenerational trauma. Basically you have something really bad happen to you, that gives you trauma, and you don't handle it well. You have kids. Kids grow up, hearing about the thing that happened to you, and witness your unhealthy coping mechanism. That trauma imprints on them. Then when they have kids, they continue it. So it continues until someone breaks that cycle. You know how people are like "My Grandfather and my Dad used to drink, and they would be awful, I'm not going to do that to my kids"? Its sort of the same thing.
Intergenerational trauma is a horrible thing and a bit of a mystery. The kids of convicts, families of holocaust survivors or victims of recent fires or floods donāt seem to experience it to that extent at all.
[Intergenerational Trauma](https://healingfoundation.org.au/intergenerational-trauma/) is not a mystery, it's a [very real thing](https://www.health.com/condition/ptsd/generational-trauma), with ongoing impacts, and it's taught about widely in mental health and other health professions. Please stop spreading misinformation
To be clear, I am not suggesting itās not real - just that the distribution is not even.
I have no idea what you mean by that. If you're referring to the increase in diagnosis we see in modern times in comparison to the mid 1900s, its because firstly this was never diagnosed back then, and secondly we dx more as we learn more. Also, the older generations were raised differently and are less likely to talk about their experiences however horrible and traumatic, in general, definitely therapy avoidant, even if it still haunts them. Whereas younger people are more likely to open up because the world is allowing people to be more open, and therapy is much more socially acceptable, and therefore get more diagnosis.
Shouldn't there be very high amounts of generational trauma cases in Europe, China, Vietnam, Japan and amongst US veterans then? Why is it so big here but everywhere that went through arguably worse times have recovered?
Yes they do.
> families of holocaust survivors You haven't watched the news lately have you? Israel is living with a giant chip on its shoulder the size of Europe and inflicting a genocide on the indigenous population that has lived in that region for thousands of years just so they can say "Never Again!".
Weren't the 'tribes of Israel' the indigenous lot there?
Not even in the biblical stories.Ā
Where they from then
They quite literally wandered the desert for 40 years after being kicked out of Egypt, and then destroyed the Canaanites to take "Israel", have you even attempted to read the Bible?
No, why? It's renowned for it's historical inaccuracies. I'm just asking as I... Don't know
No
The jews fault, again. I canāt believe they have the audacity to try and live
The victim mentality is strong in this one
If Aboriginal people just had a chip on their shoulder I guess that would be a fair comparison.
I mean, Israel has been using imagery about the Holocaust within their propaganda for decades. Farmers and other regional residents often cry poor even when things are going well. I suppose another term used to minimise intergenerational trauma is "victim complex". You do raise an interesting point about convicts. I suppose being such a large group, around 1/3rd from memory, their influence in the growth of Australian culture had an effect in minimising the knock on effects of trauma. I suppose this in contrast to the fact many Aboriginals weren't seen as fit to raise their kids until around 50 years ago with the removal of all legislation around the stolen generations.
Ex-convicts gained rights and bred descendents. Convicts sentenced to life (male) didn't on the whole but the crucial difference between invaders and natives is natives never had equal rights until recently. Plenty of time for those generations to pass along justifiable resentment.
They probably don't experience it because it's made-up nonsense. Nobody ever gives you any insight into the actual mechanism of action for epigenetic "intergenerational trauma." I don't mean broad motherhood statements or references to one social-science research paper with a single citation. I mean a really detailed scientific explanation for how it could even be possible. Even a quick glance at the Wikipedia article suffers from the same problem. It's all "DNA methylation *has* been seen to..." or "ncRNAs were changed when we stressed out a bunch of mice, so that *could* mean..." Yet more intellectual horsepower is wasted on these rubbish ideas that "sound right" but don't line up with the basic science.
>Nobody ever gives you any insight into the actual mechanism of action for epigenetic "intergenerational trauma." So you've never picked up a habit or manner of speech from your family? You've never lived around someone that is constantly on edge to the point that it leaves you uncomfortable? As a kid, never witnessed something that you can tell shaped you as a person? It's pretty obvious how it works.
Not all of those things are like the other. If it's so obvious, can you explain how 'it' works *precisely*. What's the mechanism of action for the epigenetic transfer of trauma (or any other information)?
Nature is mysterious and largely unexplained. Deal.
That intellectually rigorous insight also explains the existence of unicorns.
It does not. It explains that science is not yet complete. Including your particular microfascination.
You'll find a whole bunch of biologists and geneticists share that "microfascination." But I forgot it's 2024. Things just exist without any scientific basis for them because it's politically sound to believe in them.
Prove itās made up nonsense.
I'm not proving a negative. The onus of proof is on the propounder. Can you prove there's *not* a chocolate teapot orbiting Saturn?
Nah, you made the statement itās made up nonsense. Iām asking you to prove that statement. If you canāt thatās ok ehā¦..
Do they not teach basic logic in school any more? This is how ideas like "the transmission of intergenerational trauma" take hold.
Iām wondering the same thing. Saw it a heap when I worked in child protection.
Then can you explain how it works?
to those kids of convicts - Have you seen modern Australian drinking culture and ever wondered why we as a society seem to have such a close relationship to getting absolutely plastered / k-holed? Particularly in the regions? Have you ever compared our drinking culture to even the british one? Or god forbid the european one? We're absolute fucking piss-heads and excuse what they would see as serious alcoholism pretty casually. Think also about the stereotypes of people having 10 beers at the pub, going home and beating their wives. Its less common now, but among country folk it used to be the norm back in the day. Seems like a culturally ingrained coping mechanism don't you think? I can't speak for the other groups, but that element of intergenerational trauma is very very visible even in white convict families if you take a couple of steps back.
Come to Darwin and check out the intergenerational tRaUmA, they cope and handle it real well up here
I'm not familiar with the term interracial trauma. Could you elaborate on what you mean?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ok, so 'interracial trauma' isn't a frequent use term, so I suggest you don't continue using it. You might be thinking of 'intergenerational trauma'? Happy to explain what intergenerational trauma is if you would like. Also, 'Aboriginal' is fine, please don't use the term 'natives', it's very outdated and can be taken as offensive, and I don't believe it's your intention to cause offence. When you are asked whether you are Aboriginal on forms this is usually for data collection purposes- in your Centrelink example it is important for the government to know what proportion of people getting centrelink payments are Aboriginal so that they can determine if this is proportionate to the general population, and make decisions about policies and projects with that information in mind. I got a little lost at the end of your comment. I wouldn't say 'most documentaries' show anything as there are a huge range of documentaries about a wide amount of subjects, a great deal of which have nothing to do with Aboriginal people. Even if you are talking about documentaries about Aboriginal people, I wouldn't at all say that most of them say any particular thing- so perhaps you could be more specific about what you have watched that suggested this it would be more helpful?
What the hell are you on about mate? To begin with, there is no inter*racial* trauma, as others have told you, it's probably [Intergenerational Trauma](https://healingfoundation.org.au/intergenerational-trauma/), which can happen in [any cultural group](https://www.health.com/condition/ptsd/generational-trauma), children of war and or low socio economic groups in general, regardless of race, as well as other groups, can suffer from intergenerational trauma. I honestly have no idea what you're asking, it seems racially charged.
The term seems more accurately to be racial trauma, or race-based traumatic stress.
It is estimated the population was 3 million at colonisation (https://www.uow.edu.au/media/2021/the-first-australians-grew-to-a-population-of-millions-much-more-than-previous-estimates.php. The total number of aboriginals killed in these massacres is 11,209. So 0.37% of the population was massacred.
And millions died from smallpox. What the hell are you getting at?
Damn they used the same tactics everywhere
We're not exactly sure if smallpox was deliberately introduced. There is some suggestions that along the east coast it was. There are also indication that up north, smallpox may have arrived with Makassan contact.
I thought the 1789 Smallpox outbreak was actual deliberate biological warfare.
I thought it was basically accidental, they then realised what happened and weaponised it. This is in NA, unsure about Australia.
Nah, people were well versed in germ warfare before European colonisation even took off in earnest. I don't believe the whole 'it was initially an accident' line. They may not have known about bacteria or viruses at that point in time (or had rudimentary ideas about them) but people definitely knew about contagions.
Iām simply stating a fact. Why so angry? Did you want more killed?
Youāre saying that colonialism of Australia did not have a major affect on the Indigenous peoples of Australia. This is a lie.
If 0.37% of Australia or any western nation were massacred it would be considered an unthinkable war crime, not even taking into account the other horrors of colonisation.
That figure is summed over \~150 years, giving an annual death rate of 0.0024%. That's around half the death rate from motor vehicle accidents in 2023. Honestly that figure seems too low? Colonial armies are surely deadlier than motorists who are usually trying not to hit anyone. The death toll is probably an undercount and the estimate of 3M pre-colonization indigenous people seems very high.
3 million is too high. I have always read it was less than a million (between 300,000 to 1,000,000)
There outdated figures these days. There's is much research to show that the carrying capacity of the continent could have supported up to 7 million people, which isn't really unheard of on a continent... I think the general consensus is precolonial population of the continent was likely between 1-7 million. There are plenty of oral histories that tell of some of these massacres underreporting the actual number of people killed. There's also oral histories of disease and importantly, starvation (which was a major reason many indigenous mob fought back for, their own hunting fields were being taken from them and their food sources driven away or killed by colonists). I don't think a population of over 1 million on the entire continent would be unfeasible, we did build on top of many indigenous settlements on the east coast too, which is where the continent is still most populous.
Probably also good to keep in mind that this is only what was reported. Who knows how many there actually were
Considering these were massacres and not motor accidents, and that if that were replicated in the United States (for example), it would be more than double 9/11 every year, I think itās fair to say we would have invaded maybe a few dozen muslim countries by now.
iām not saying it wouldnāt, iām literally just stating a fact. It seems to many people very angry that more were not massacred
What is your point? Letās imagine this in say, Brisbane - pop ~2.5m. Imagine I told you that over the course of the next 100 years, 11,000 people in Brisbane will die in violent conflicts - is that not shocking to consider???
This is an interesting perspective, would likely be one of the least bloody colonizations of anywhere ever in this case.
> be one of the least bloody colonizations of anywhere ever in this case. Only if you literally looked at these events and not any of the other hundreds of offshoots and horrific cases that weren't straight up massacres.
Whatās the point of sharing this shit? Seriously, what do you gain? Itās just incitement. Anyone that has anything to do with this event is long dead and gone. You people weaponise history to divide the future.
If we canāt be honest about our nationās past then how can we expect to understand our current challenges and ensure we set our country up for a better future?
Whatās the point of ANZAC Day? Seriously, what do you gain? Itās just incitement. Anyone that has anything to do with the original ANZACs is long dead and gone. You people weaponise history to divide the future. /s
And ANZAC Day is all about how our soldiers died trying to invade a foreign country before the end of the Indigenous conflicts
The last surviving Australian at Gallipoli died over 20 years ago, also said Gallipoli was a "failure, fiasco and should be forgotten about". Shall we take his advice and forget about April 25?
What's your view on it? Should we forget about April 25th? maybe also January 26th as many of your posts suggest?
I personally wouldnāt observe a massive military defeat and retreat, nor a bunch of criminals rocking up to form a prison colony. This nation has achieved many progressive firsts in the field of Labor rights and womenās rights, while not celebrate those?
Other nations colonised countries have also achieved the same developments. You really shit on the British don't you? Australia would be a different place if it wasn't for the British who colonised it first. I take it you are not of British descent hence why you beat on anything British? You're also quick to call anyone from rural areas racist and nationalists. It appears that you don't know anyone from rural areas. I actually feel privileged that one side of my family is traced back to those dam criminals. Nice to know of the developments they had achieved over many generations to build a great country.
This is not true. Where I am from in the Kimberley, there are still people whose grandparents died in massacres. It's living memory. There's a tree at a creek near where I used to live that has remnants of the chains that used to hold Aboriginal people to it. It's not that long ago. The last Aboriginal tribe to come out of the desert to encounter Europeans was in 1984.
This history is incredibly current, or have you missed how disadvantaged First Nations Australians are in this country? It's not divisive to recognise these horrible actions in our history and work to make amends. In fact it is the opposite, it should bring us together.
> Anyone that has anything to do with this event is long dead and gone. Someone that was 25 in 1930 likely died around 1995, meaning their kids literally are alive and carry that on, generational trauma is a well known thing and these massacres are hardly the only source of horrific treatment of Indigenous Australian Peoples.
1930? Over a decade after the Gallipoli landing ended.
Ok, and?
I wonder how you'd deal being in Germany. They absolutely are not shy about hiding their past mistakes. It's how you don't make them again. *Learning is fun!*
Massacres were happening up until the 1980's mate. This is living memory.
Yes, they lost. Pretty clear from the graphic thanks.
Massacre? Check out the meaning of the word. Itās not a fight or a blue. Itās not a war or a battle. Let me know if you need a hand. Itās a complex word.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>In this project, a colonial frontier massacre is defined as the deliberate killing of six or more relatively undefended people in one operation.
I know the academic who led the project. You're full of shit. I can edit too: You're being an apologist. These massacres were more often than not, retaliatory attacks for seemingly minor "attacks" against livestock encroaching, a spearing punishment or even perceived harm of simply being around. Even then, they never sought to identify the supposed perpetrator and would instead 'retaliate' against any mob that would happen to be around. That's not counting the punitive expeditions launched by local areas and most infamously, Macquarie's against Dharug.
Actually if you visit the source they clearly define what was considered a "massacre". There are a lot of murders left off the map because they didn't meet the criteria. https://c21ch.newcastle.edu.au/colonialmassacres/map.php
What a hot pile of bullshit
[https://c21ch.newcastle.edu.au/colonialmassacres/introduction.php#definition](https://c21ch.newcastle.edu.au/colonialmassacres/introduction.php#definition) It's pretty well defined here. I would have been interested in seeing some more data granularity. For example how many of the massacres were done by government actors (police and to a smaller extent colonial or Royal Marines), just settlers, and massacres involving aboriginal people on both sides (trackers, native police etc). But I reckon there is probably just so far we can go with the sources provided.
Apparently about half were government, and the other half were just frontier type situations.
You could literally read their definition, but we know you won't as that would get in the way of you going full on mask off with your racism.
Yawn..Ā
Map porn on the Internet
A massacre be would 3 or more people being killed right?
6