The Causes of the Myall Creek Massacre - Case Study Example

Running head: The Causes of Myall Creek Massacre Your name Course name Professors’ name Date Introduction In the history of Australia, Aborigines have faced several massacres and slaughter, most of which have gone unrecorded. The Myall Creek Massacre is just of the types that saw perpetrators being punished for crimes committed against the Aborigines. This incident happened on 10th June 1838 where a group of white settlers killed 28 Aborigines near Myall Creek Station. The massacre marks colonial violence against the natives and is an example of modern reconciliation given that seven of the murderers were tried and hanged for crimes committed against humanity. This paper seeks to expound on the causes of Myall Creek Massacre by first giving a succinct account of the historic background and the events of Myall Creek Massacre that took place on June 10, 1838. Thesis statement: Myall Creek Massacre was mainly caused by encroachment into the ancestral land of the natives. What is more, societal law and ethos play a fundamental role in increasing massacres and this will be evidenced by malfunctioning law. Background of the Myall Creek Massacre, 1838 By the year 1838, it was 51 years since the whites settled in Australia (Manning, 1998). This was a period during which pastoralist encroached into aboriginal land consequently depriving Aborigines the land that supported them physically and spiritually in the sense of dreaming. Aborigines had to rise up and defend the land that they had nurtured for years. While attempting to dispossess Aborigines of their land, the result was a clash with Aborigines at the frontier. Owing to the fact that the whites were likely to be outnumbered, some settlers resorted to low-level battle that culminated to what is now termed as massacres of Aboriginal people. During this time, the law was ineffective and settlers continued their atrocities. Gangs of stockmen initiated “the drive” that lasted for several months hunting for Aboriginal people. The gangs thought shooting Aboriginal people and raping Aboriginal women was right. Notwithstanding the fact that there were several other massacres, the one at Myall Creek is distinct in nature since it was documented and is an example of what the whites were able to do against the Aboriginal people. Events of 10th June 1838 At this period, stockman employed at Myall Creek Station had invited 50 Aborigines. Ten able-bodied men working on neighbouring station located 50kms received information that some armed stockmen were on their way to Myall Creek station. Upon this knowledge, the ten men went back but Fleming John and the stockmen were fast advancing towards the huts of Myall Creek Station where part of the aboriginal people were busy preparing the meals. These armed men pooled the helpless Aborigines and tied their hands with a long rope. Despite pleading for compassion, the invaders were deaf and proceeded to drag the Aboriginals westwards away from their huts to about 800 meters where they hacked and slashed them to death (Blanch, 2000). Thereafter, the stockmen built a camp and began drinking and boasting about the murder. Late at night, the men who had been labouring at the neighbouring station arrived at Myall Creek Station where they were urged to move on. When two days elapsed, the killers returned with an intention to burn the bodies of their victims and look for the ten escaped Aboriginal people. Most of the escapees were captured and killed. According to Elder (1988), the stockmen were responsible for Macintyre massacre, a place where the ten missing men had escaped. At this place, 30-40 Aboriginals were killed and their bodies set ablaze. Slain women, infant children, and mutilated girls were not left but thrown into the fire. At the end, the killers went into a drinking spree and later dispersed. Investigating the Massacre After three weeks, governor George Gipps called upon the police to investigate the kills. The outcome of this investigation saw the identification of ten suspects who were marched to Sydey 300 kms for trial. In consideration of negative perception against the Aboriginals during those periods, the public were soon in favour of the accused. The first trial tool place in November 1838 but was deficient of evidence as the killers had removed the bodies before they could be recovered as evidence (Stone, 1974). In absence of this critical evidence, the accused were pronounced not guilty. This was followed by another indictment granted on Attorney General James Plunkett. The second trial on seven out of the ten accused focused on killing of an Aboriginal child. They were found guilty and sentenced to hang. This was the first time whites were punished for atrocities committed. Causes of the Myall Creek Massacre As the white settlers increased their settlement away from Sydney coast, they faced indigenous tribes. White settlers who were pastoralist displaced the natives from the hunting grounds as a result starving them of the native foods (Rowley, 1972). Conflict ensued since Aborigines were not compensated for the immense loss of their land. The conflict was also influenced by the fact that the antagonist could not sit down to reconcile their inequities. Aborigines continued to raid white settlement to get food and livestock. In response, the whites organised killing groups to murder families and abduct women. This conflict is clearly demonstrated in the killings that took place in Myall Creek Station where 12 whites on a revenge mission murdered Aborigines at the station. As afore mentioned, seven were found guilty and sentenced to hang even though the public was against the sentence. It is visible that the intent of the punitive measure was to motivate the whites to hide any future killings from the authorities. There is no doubt that causes of massacres were not addressed thus destruction of the indigenous people did not stop until the native society vanished into the European culture where it ceased to be a risk to colonial success. Initially, when the first colonialists established themselves around Sydney, the Aboriginals retreated from their ancestral land to hide in the nearby bush (Attwood, 2003). The Aborigines preferred to retreat instead of engaging in an open confrontation. At the same time, some Aboriginals established relationships with the whites and ended up cohabiting with them. Conversely, as Governor Macquarie established settlements on the Blue Mountains and into the Buthurst plains, the whites began to take over vast tracks of land used by Aborigines as hunting grounds. The option of retreating then became impossibility seeing that hunting grounds and sources of food diminished. Aborigines were now left with a single option of stealing food and animals from white man’s settlement. This gave rise to conflict between the two civilizations and frequent killing of lone white farmer or a team of aboriginal hunters. As a response measure to conflicts, the authorities ordered the settlers to defend themselves by driving away attackers with enough force. It is evident that authorities did not take any measure or initiative to compensate Aborigines for the loss of land while the Aborigines went through difficult moments following European activities in their ancestral area (Beatty, 1962). In some instances, the settlers gave Aborigines shelter, food, blankets, and other gifts as an enticement to prevent them from hostility. This policy was only limited to some areas where Europeans gave assistance on humanitarian grounds. However, the initiative was short-lived. Peace remained fragile and would quickly fade away to give way for conflicts. This was true especially with displaced Aborigines who moved around spreading the bad imagery of colonised remote areas of Australia. The growth of pastoral industry led to food deficiency and the spread of problems amongst many Aborigines tribes. It is understood that Aboriginal culture is based on the art of sharing, in consequence, Aborigines failed to comprehend existence of fencing and impossibility of getting free cattle and sheep (Blanch, 2002). European culture was well characterised by individualism with no sharing of possessions. This strongly rooted culture motivated the whites to form vigilante groups who would hunt and kill any aboriginal encroaching into their properties. The hunts and subsequent killings were initiated after a raid had occurred on European land or even as a general practise to rid aboriginals. Such occurrences were never reported since aboriginal killing was a widespread activity done by the whites in an effort to protect property and family. Australian law was practised by officers and magistrates in the cities but whites were free to act as they please in remote areas. Even though Britain had instructed Governors to look into the issue of Aborigines, remoteness of the stations acted as disincentive for action. Besides, focus was placed on building colony thus; welfare of the Aborigines was not among the Governors priority areas. Additionally, aborigines were not Christians and did not have any affiliation with a religious group. For this reason, they were considered unequal in the eyes of the law because they were not fit to take oath. The impression created by this nature of the law was that treating Aborigines as animals or even kill them was legitimate. To the white settlers, Aborigines were worth elimination just like a wild weed in the Imperial garden. Failure of the law to bring sanity among the whites on how to treat the Aboriginals meant that human ethos of a civil society should come to aid (Windshuttle, 2002). Nonetheless, society created by the first settlers was deficient of any European society characteristics. It is noticeable that colony was constructed by ex-convicts as opposed to family set ups with ethics. This colonial society was brutal. Most of these first settlers were forced into Australia or had intent of making quick money. The colonials did not have diplomacy or manners. Only a few resorted to reconciliation and discussions with the Aboriginals on how to share land and create a good place for both parties to survive. To some colonials, the sight of Aboriginals would jumpstart a fear that clouds humanity and creates a cushion for killings. More so colonials in Australia did not attend churches or even picnics and lacked any ideals and philosophies created by the British. This turned out to be a misfortune on the indigenous nation. The increased demand for wool augmented the need for pastoral and wool industry. In response to this demand, stations gained strength with more ancestral land taken away. The stations expanded into the remote areas and provoked natives. On the other hand, the growth of pastoral industry called for more additional labour that was sourced from aborigines who acted as animal handlers. Women were also employed as domestic servants. Myall Creek Station is among examples of the stations that had engaged the Aborigines in some jobs and management of the station (Ryan, 1980). Aborigines at these stations were not given any legal aid but were considered as being protected by manages at the station. Due to the vast knowledge of land and a good ground on animals, aboriginals became stockmen while women were used for sexual procreation. These were mere arrangements for convenience and not a measure to reconcile the two warring sides. After the ruling made on the seven suspects found guilty of murder, Europeans took steps to conceal evidence of killings by hiding bodies or poisoning food offered to the Aborigines. This means that trial of Myall Creek Station murder suspects did not arouse humanity amongst the public. According to the settlers, mayhem caused by Aboriginals was supposed to be handled and therefore they could not understand the need for punishing the suspects. The common nature of Aboriginal killing created a mindset that killing was lawful. This punitive measure, which was intended to bring sanity, was ignored while the real causes of massacre remain unaddressed. The authorities left Aboriginals to struggle for their lives. Even those who collaborated with the whites were exploited as they work and offered their women in exchange for food, shelter, and clothing. Conclusion This essay gave a complete discussion on the causes of Myall Creek Massacre of 1838. These causes revolve around encroachment into the Aboriginal ancestral land. Besides, societal law and ethos played a fundamental role in increasing massacres. The Myall Creek Massacre is just one among the many killings and atrocities committed against the indigenous Australians. This essay pointed out that trials done after the massacre did not change European perception of Aboriginals. The massacre further affirms that man ought to be guided failure to which can become a dangerous creature in the animal empire. Reference Attwood, B., & S. Foster. (2003). Frontier Conflict: The Australian experience. Canberra: National Museum of Australia. Beatty, B. (1962). With Shame Remembered: early Australia. London: Cassell. Blanch, R. (2000). ‘Massacre Myall Creek Revisited.’ Delungra: Grah Jean Books. Elder, B. (1988). Blood on the Wattle: Massacres and Maltreatment of Australian Aborigines since 1788. Brookvale: National Book Distributors. Manning, C. (1998). History of Australia, Abridged by Michael Cathcart, Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. Rowley, C.D. (1972). The Destruction of Aboriginal Society. Ringwood, Victoria: Penguin. Ryan, L. (1980). Aboriginal Policy in 1838 - A Watershed? in Push from the bush: devoted to the year of grace 1838, Volume 8. Armidale: University of New England. Stone, S. N. (1974). "4.5 George Anderson's eye-witness account". Aborigines in White Australia: A documentary history of the attitudes affecting official policy and the Australian Aborigines, 1697-1973. Melbourne: Heinemann. Windshuttle, K. (2002). The Fabrication of Aboriginal History: Vol 1 Van Diemen’s Land 1803-1847. Sydney: Macleay Press. Read More