Frontier or History Wars?

By their very nature, the narratives of nations evolve and change over time as the opinions of the populations that belong to them alter. Yet because this change is so irrevocably linked to our identity both as individuals and as a nation, it evokes a diverse range of emotional reactions from a number of different sections of society.

One such change is that in the perception of Australia’s ‘frontier’. As notions of Australian national identity became more inclusive in the 1970’s, historians and the general public alike began to acknowledge the struggles of groups that had previously been ignored in favour of focussing on the perspectives of the white population. Rather than ideas of grand achievement and virtues that Australia had seemingly always espoused, this new revisionist view of history evoked feelings of shame, guilt and anger. It was not a piece of curious but unrelated history, but instead evoked feelings aimed at individuals’ own ancestors, and by extension both their own identity and that of the nation at large.

The violence and atrocities that occurred on both sides of the frontier wars characterise these negative feelings. It is this that is focussed on by historians such as Dirk Moses, who goes so far as to label the actions taken towards Aboriginal society in the years after European colonisation as genocide.

A drawing of the Myall Creek massacre of May 1838, one of the more notorious conflicts on the frontier. Note the rope binding the Aboriginal people together and the child on her mother's back on the far right. First published in the Chronicles of Crime, 1841. [Source: http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/images/myall-creek-massacre-drawing-1841.jpg]

 However, critics of this view, including ex-Prime Minister John Howard and historian Keith Windschuttle, argue that by focussing attention on these negative aspects of Australian history, proponents of so-called ‘black arm-band’ history degrade Australia and its people at the expense of its successes.

There are important elements to both sides of the argument. It is certainly important to acknowledge the struggles and violence that occurred on the frontier. From dispossession to removal to murder, it was indeed a horrific experience for many members of the Aboriginal population. Yet by focussing solely on the violence, such as is done by Moses’ label of ‘genocide,’ individuals risk not only ignoring the attempts at reconciliation and accommodation that were made, but also obscuring Aborigines into solely being victims of violence rather than complex individuals with the ability to make their own decisions.