Australia's Frontier Wars Trivia Quiz

Answer:

The arrival of settlers to establish a British colony on the island continent that was to become known as Australia has long been the starting point for school history lessons, with the focus being on their intrepidity in the face of hardships caused by the unfamiliar land, one which was very far from, and very different from, the British Isles. While the previous presence of Aboriginal tribes rated a brief mention, it was never a serious consideration, and the lives of those whose land was being taken away certainly never featured. However, there were many Aboriginal tribes, not only in the areas of first settlement, but also in the other parts of the country where colonists moved, seeking land and security. When cities were built, often in sites that had previously been important meeting places for the various tribes living in a region, the cultural impact of them was as severe as the impact of pastoral properties had been on food supply. In the 1970s, historians began to explore and discuss the conflict between Europeans and Aboriginals, giving the area of study the name of Frontier Wars. The word Frontier indicates that the basis of the conflict was the expansion into what was seen as vacant land beckoning to be settled. Calling them Wars emphasises that this was in fact a serious conflict between two cultures, not a few local misunderstandings.

Every part of the country experienced some degree of conflict as Europeans moved in, often along with considerable cooperation. Almost anywhere you go, there will be someone who can tell you which of their ancestors was killed there, whether in defense of their hunting lands, to protect sacred sites from destruction, or as a preventative measure to make sure there was no disturbance of the settlers. Many of the stories follow the same pattern of skirmishes leading up to Europeans deciding that enough was enough, and it was time to make an example of someone, to regain control. Sometimes this just led to the Aborigines being forced to move away from their home territory, sometimes there were deaths - anything from one or two members of a family up to the slaughter of entire communities.

Newspaper reports tended to mention only the damage done to the colonists, and often completely ignored the reprisals. There were, however, some notable exceptions. One of these was the Myall Creek Massacre of 1838, in which a group of armed European (and one African) convict stockmen arrived to stop the ongoing skirmishes in the region. They chose for their target a group of about 35 Aborigines who had been invited to camp on a farm to escape harassment by stockmen, rounded them up and took them to a nearby gully where they were all killed. Since most of the group's men were away at the time working on another station, the victims were women, children and old men. The armed men then went in search of the missing men, before returning to burn the bodies. One member of the original group, who was distressed by the events, reported the matter, and eventually eleven of the men were brought to trial. Their first trial ended in acquittal, with one member of the jury stating that he thought they had done it, but could not convict a white man for murdering an Aborigine. In a second trial, seven men were convicted of one count of murdering a child. This was so controversial that it made headlines in the big city, with opinion divided as to whether the verdict was appropriate.

Nearly a hundred bloody years later, the last known officially sanctioned massacre of Indigenous Australians took place at Coniston Station, in the Northern Territory. The killing of a dingo hunter in August of 1928 led to a series of retaliatory expeditions, led by a police constable. Officially "at least 31" members of the Warlpiri, Anmatyerre, and Kaytetye people were killed, with oral histories placing the figure closer to 200.

In 1934, the killing of a police officer in Caledon Bay nearly had a similar outcome, but missionaries were able to convince the men responsible for the killing to surrender themselves for trial. Dhakiyarr Wirrpanda, who was convicted of killing Constable Albert McColl, was sentenced to hang, before having his conviction overturned due to irregularities in the trial. He disappeared on his way home and is thought to have been murdered by citizens unhappy with that result.

In the 21st century, Australians have started to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land, and the immense damage done to them by the imposition of European control. There is still much to be learned, and many people to convince that it matters, but the process has begun.