|WikiProject Australia / History / Tasmania / Indigenous peoples||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Perhaps it is neccessary to include a greater mention of his work. The current reference is unacceptable, as Windschuttle not only 'challenged' but disproved many of the previuos claims. Maximus Meridius 04:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I intend to read the rebuttal Whitewash, but it will have to be damn good to answer Windschuttle's claimsGeoff82
Maybe we should trim the Windschuttle links, as they're more about the book rather than the actual article? Jgritz 14:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think the caption is wrong on the poster in this article- I think its actually Governor Davey's proclamation to the Aborigines from 1816, not Gov. Arthurs - as seen in this image which shows the top of the posterAstrokey44 10:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Good find, Robert Hughes' The Fatal Shore implies that it is part of George Arthur's Black War campaign. Can't trust even sources now! --188.8.131.52 08:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Is Geoncide the right word to describe the "Black Wars". Especially because many of the deaths attributed to this period are through disease? Or do you mean to imply that the diseases were in fact biological weapons? ```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) . 02:09, May 7, 2006 (UTC)
- While it can certainly be argued that it was not genocide, it is also quite clear that many do consider it to be genocide. older ≠ wiser 03:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- How about these for starters:
- Here we have a discussion of historian Keith Windschuttle dismissal of "the conventional thinking on what's been is widely-accepted as one of the darkest moments in Australian history, the genocide of Tasmanian Aborigines".
- Turnbull, Clive (1948) Black War: The Extermination of the Tasmanian Aborigines. Melbourne and London: F.W. Cheshire.
- This may or may not be a reliable source, but it discusses the Black War in the context of other genocides.
- This is almost certainly not a reliable source, but gives some evidence to it being commonplace to consider it as genocide.
- This seems reputable. Minogue is apparently reluctant to use the label genocide, although the site editors seem to want to push that angle. Part of a multi-part series sparked by Windschuttle's publications.
- Yet another discussion of Windschuttle supposed debunking of among other things, Tasmanian genocide.
- http://www.yale.edu/gsp/colonial/Madley.pdf "Patterns of frontier genocide 1803–1910: the Aboriginal Tasmanians, the Yuki of California, and the Herero of Namibia" by Benjamin Madley in the Journal of Genocide Research (2004), 6(2), June, 167–192
- "Modern by analogy: modernity, Shoah and the Tasmanian genocide" by Jesse Shipway in the Journal of Genocide Research (2005), 7(2), June, 205-219
- All of these were gathered without even trying very hard. Many, many more comparable sources are available. older ≠ wiser 04:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not on the talk page that they are needed, it is in the article. Why not pick a few of the most "reputable" and weave them into the text? I ask this because I am trying to clean up the Genocides in history page and I would like to include sources for all the Genocides mentioned and currently this one does not have any either on the Genocides in history#Australia section or this article to substanciate the claim that it was a genocide. As I am no expert on this episode it is much better if someone who is selects the references to be cited and as the page already reports on the History wars (an article I had not seen until I read this page) it would be helpful if it was a balanced NPOV paragraph.
Also do those respectable sources that state that the Black War it was a genocide, define the genocide in terms of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, or do they use a different definition like those described in Genocide#Criticisms of the CPPCG? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Aha, now you're asking something more difficult--I thought you were following up on the anon's earlier question which was accompanied by an article edit to remove the word genocide. There's no question that it is commonly described as a genocide--that is one of the primary bases for Windschuttle's book. As to whether it actually meets that standard for some specific definition of genocide (or even whether Windschuttle was right in claiming earlier historians exaggerated the genocidal aspects of the conflict)--well that is a different matter altogether and one that I'm not qualified to venture an opinion about. I'm only casually familiar with the topic and not ready to go digging into secondary sources at this time. older ≠ wiser 11:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
How can we say there are 'thousands' of decendents when they are of maybe 1/36th aborignality?
I believe its extraordinarily naive and bad taste to have a genocidal one sided progrom in a military history project - somebody didnt read the article when they put that on! SatuSuro 23:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Why was it called the Black War?
It may be obvious to those who know Australian history, but there is nothing on the page explaining why it was called the Black War. Were the Aborigines called "Blacks".
Nearly all information is missing
Intro, wrong word used
The conflict resulted in the complete obliteration of the Tasmanian Aboriginal population. None of the present day descendants of the handful of Tasmanian Aboriginal survivors are full blooded, and the native culture and language has been irrevocably lost.
I understand the point the lead is attempting to make however the language used doesnt really support it. The war resulted in obliteration, which means that everything was wiped out. However it then states there was a handful of survirors - it would be more accurate to state the near obliteration of the people or the obliteration of their society etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- The reason the lead says complete annihilation is because the survivors were herded into a camp, where they promptly died off. The only real survivors in the strict sense of leaving progeny were slaves and collaborators, who bore half-white children. The last full blooded native Tasmanian died in 1876 (despite some attempts to pin the label on the half-white last speaker of an Aboriginal language).Likebox (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a minor comment about the newspaper quote. It's a little obscure. Are the editors proposing the preservation of the native populace or that they should be extermininated? Both can be concluded depending on the reading of the statement. I suspect given the general slant of Australian/Western history it is a cry for exterminating untermenchen but I could be mistaken. This really should be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
At the time of the newspaper article, settlers in the more remote areas had been suffering from frequent raids by Aborigines, often involving the Aborigines approaching settlers in an apparently friendly manner and then suddenly turning on them and killing them. There had been a number of killings of helpless women and children as well as the killing of settlers known to have treated Aborigines particularly well, so there was a certain amount of outrage about it. The newspaper article came at a time when all sorts of proposals were being made as to how to end the hostilities, generally involving separating the 'combatants' by forcing the Aborigines away from the settled areas into some sort of reservation on a peninsula or island. With very few exceptions, published records of opinions in the colony show that most settlers were in favour of action being taken to BOTH preserve the Aborigines AND end the murder of settlers. I'm pretty sure that is what the newspaper was demanding. Webley442 (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I attempted to add a clarification saying just that (i think it was from the 28th aug) but someone deleted it. they claimed it was uncited, whereas it was putting that very citation in the context of the article from which it came User:Geoff82
Cut and paste from article
The paragraph below was cut and pasted from article to here .. for discussion .. noting that it appears to be more detailed than would expect in the summary beginning to an encyclopedic article .. and seeing the same subject matter (though difference detail) is already covered in the article below: Bruceanthro (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
"One well-documented strategy utilised by British settlers to attempt to attack and defeat the Tasmanian Aborigines is known as the Black Line, which involved situating participating troopers and settlers in a line across the island, then moving the line from the northeast to the southwest in an attempt to corner the Aboriginal population in southern Tasmania, a task made difficult by the terrain, the Aborigines' intimate knowledge of it and their skill at concealment. The Black Line was a failure, however, capturing only one old Aboriginal man and a disabled boy, both of whom escaped almost immediately thereafter, and also causing the deaths by shooting of two other Aborigines. The attempt also resulted in the deaths of five troopers accidentally shot by their fellow troopers."
I've removed the term 'revisionist' which had been used to characterise Plomley in the introductory paragraph. While technically 'revisionist' can refer to a positive act in historical work, eg correcting past mistakes or false interpretations, recently it is generally only used in the sense of 'Historical revisionism (negationism)', ie as in Holocaust revisionists. So it seems inappropriate on that count alone. Aside from which, Plomley was working in the 1960's, publishing Robinson's journals for the first time before the 'it was genocide', 'all those atrocity stories are absolutely true, no question' mentality started to develop (in the late 70's & into the 80's) regarding what happened in Tasmania. He wasn't 'revising' anything.Webley442 (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Colonial Times article
It appears as though the Colonial Times article was misrepresented. The newspaper was NOT calling upon citizens to hunt down and kill aborigines like animals in the name of self defence. If you read the entire article (as I have done) you will see that the Times is merely explaining what is already going on - namely that settlers are killing Aborigines while defending themselves. The Times article then points out that the only real solution is to exile them all to King Island - a precursor to the 1830 decision to send them off to Flinders Island.
Of course I'm reasonably aware of the issues surrounding this piece of history and I can assure people that my editing here is not based upon revisionism but upon fact. Read the Colonial Times article for yourself (the whole first column and the beginning of the second one) and you will see that they were not calling upon the people of Tasmania to kill aborigines. From a political standpoint the article is still reasonably racist but it is more in tune with the idea that Bass Strait exile would be the solution. Sadly this solution didn't end up working either.
--One Salient Oversight (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC) It seems that everyone can be denied these days in the new "Age of Enlightment" we live in. Save ONE major exception- the Jewish Holocaust. The Native American Holocaust? Much worse than the Jewish Holocaust in terms of number of people killed. Yet denying it- or blaming all the deaths on smallpox- is not only permitted but even encouraged. The Tasmanian Holocaust? Much worse than the Jewish Holocaust in terms of proportion of people killed. Yet denying it- or blaming it on smallpox- carries no grave sentence today. In other words- everything can be denied except for the tragedy of those who wield more influence than others. RaduFlorian (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that more context needs to be put around the editorial in 1826. Two settlers had just been murdered and a further five injured. This report of the deaths and injuries also discusses King Island: "THE BLACK NATIVES,.". Hobart Town Gazette (Tas. : 1825 - 1827) (Tas.: National Library of Australia). 18 November 1826. p. 2. Retrieved 29 August 2013. The discussion had thus been happening in the press over several weeks. (The Hobart Times article is several weeks earlier than the Colonial Times article currently cited.) I don't feel this Wikipedia article quotes its sources effectively. There is bias and it is dealing with original matterial so I feel this is original research, breaching WP:NOR. I think it would be better if this section referenced a reputable history rather than excerpting bits from contemporary newspaper discussions. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- just to clarify, the No original research policy makes clear that quoting primary sources requires a reliable secondary source for interpretation
- from WP:Nor - Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
- --22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Flood, Dr Josephine, The Original Australians: Story of the Aboriginal People, Allen & Unwin, 2006 p86