Redressing the whitewash

Fate of a Free People: A Radical Re-examination of the Tasmanian Wars
By Henry Reynolds
Penguin, 1995 $16.95 (pb)
Reviewed by Chris Martin With his new book Fate of a Free People, author and historian Henry Reynolds makes a solid addition to his valuable studies on the Aboriginal experience of white colonisation. Like his earlier books, Fate of a Free People is meticulously researched using colonial records and personal histories. Reynolds provides a passionate account of the injustices visited on the Aboriginal peoples; in this case the attempted genocide of Tasmanian Aborigines, officially known as the Black War. Perhaps the strongest feature of Reynold's study is the way it confronts the way deliberate misinformation has obscured this bloody history of white settlement through invasion and war. Reynold's writes with a conscious drive to redress the whitewash, pointing to the 19th and early 20th century accounts of the Black War which didn't shy from documenting its ferocity. He explains that it was only later that politically motivated accounts presented the wars as limited skirmishes in an otherwise peaceful settlement process. Reynold's work also debunks the persistent myth, prevalent even amongst progressive whites, that these wars were one-sided acts of aggression against helpless victims. His account demonstrates that the black resistance was fierce and enduring. Fate of a Free People traces the history of the conflict in Tasmania through the roles played by Aboriginal leaders, in particular the women who were instrumental in negotiating the final settlement — Trugernanner, Dray and Manalargenna. The war was officially fought between 1824 and 1831, culminating with the infamous 'Black Line' offensive. This final desperate and ultimately futile attempt by the colonists to win the war involved 500 soldiers and 1700 civilians sweeping the island in an effort to confine the Aborigines on the Tasman peninsula. The failed attempt, which had cost the colony half its annual budget, further demoralised a population already weary of the protracted campaign. The Aborigines had succeeded in holding the invaders to a stalemate, despite the vast imbalance of arms, equipment and resources. The many tribes of the island had come together, putting aside traditional enmities, to fight the war as a united force. Traditional gender roles were also put aside as women joined the combat. The success of their resistance sprang from their superior knowledge of the land, their use of guerilla tactics and their determination. The resistance also skilfully exploited weaknesses and divisions in the white forces. The officers could trust none of the convicts and not all of the soldiers and the conviction that the Aborigines would never surrender significantly deepened white demoralisation. As it became clear to the authorities that a military victory was impossible, a peace settlement was sought. That this settlement constituted and remains a binding treaty is the central message of Reynold's study. The settlement process was itself a remarkable undertaking. It was instigated by a white civilian, George Augustus Robinson, who lead a number of expeditions over many years throughout the island, contacting and discussing a settlement with each tribe. He chronicled these trips in lengthy journals, calling them the "Friendly Missions". Using Robinson's journals and subsequent commentaries, Reynolds argues that these expeditions were carefully engineered by the Aborigines to achieve a negotiated settlement. Realising that a treaty offered their only chance of survival with something of their culture intact, the Aborigines accompanying Robinson, mostly women leaders of the resistance, worked to convince their people to accept a political resolution. That settlement promised freedom in exile — removal to Flinders Island with provisions, clothing, shelter and a guarantee that they could live in their traditional way without interference or injury. It also conveyed an understanding that the Aborigines would eventually be allowed to return and reclaim some of their land. Reynolds contends that while no record of the exact terms of the settlement exists, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the agreement constituted a treaty similar to those with the Native American tribes and that the governor of the colony was a party to it throughout. The Aboriginal survivors were later to express their anger at the government's dishonouring of the treaty in a petition to the Queen, drafted on Flinders Island in 1846 and presented in 1847. This document, prepared and signed by Aboriginal leaders, reiterated their understanding of the terms of the settlement, stressing that they remained the "free Aboriginal Inhabitants of Van Diemen's Land now living upon Flinders Island". They argued that they had made good their part of the agreement and demanded the government do the same. Reynold's suggests that this petition, long ignored by white historians, represents the most important evidence of the sophisticated political outlook and deep historical understanding held by Aborigines of this period. It illustrates that, contrary to the myth of a dying people, Tasmania's Aborigines were very much alive, using their courage and wits to secure a means to survive, live in their culture and continue their resistance.