November 27.
Questions raised.
Extract continued from entry for 26 November:
An Explorer Explains
Sixthly cont'd:- ...overlooking these, [tales, jests, boasting] let us suppose that the settler is actuated by no bad intentions, and that he is sincerely anxious to avoid any collision with the natives, or not to do them any injury, yet under these even comparatively favourable circumstances, what frequently is the result? The settler finds himself alone in the wilds, with but few men around him, and these, principally occupied in attending to stock, are dispersed over a considerable extent of country, he finds himself cut off from assistance, whilst he has heard fearful accounts of the ferocity, or the treachery of the savage; he therefore comes to the conclusion that it will be less trouble, and annoyance, and risk, to keep the natives away from his station altogether; and as soon as they make their appearance, they are roughly waved away from their own possessions: should they hesitate, or appear unwilling to depart, threats are made use of, weapons perhaps produced, and a show, at least, is made of an offensive character, even if no stronger measures be resorted to. What must be the natural impression produced upon the mind of the natives by treatment like this? Can it engender feelings otherwise than of a hostile and vindictive kind; or can we wonder that he should take the first opportunity of venting those feelings upon his aggressor?....
Seventhly: There are also other considerations to be taking into the account, when we form our opinion of the character and conduct of the natives, to which we do not frequently allow their due weight and importance, but which will fully account for aggressions having been committed by natives upon unoffending individuals, and even sometimes upon those who have treated them kindly. First, that the native considers it a virtue to revenge an injury. Secondly, if he cannot revenge it upon the actual individual who injured him, he thinks that the offence is equally expiated if he can do so upon any other of the same race; he does not look upon it as the offence of an individual, but as an act of war on the part of the nation, and he takes the first opportunity of making a reprisal upon any one of the enemy who may happen to fall in his way; no matter whether that person injured him or not, or whether he knew of the offence having been committed, or the war declared. And is not the custom of civilized powers very similar to this? Admitting that civilization, and refinement, have modified the horrors of such a system, the principle is still the same...Shall we then arrogate to ourselves the sole power of acting unjustly, or judging of what is expedient? And are we to make no allowance for the standard of right by which the native is guided in the system of policy he may adopt?
E.J. Eyre, Journals of Expeditions of Discovery Etc., 2 Vols., London, 1845, 1, pp. 168- 172.
Acknowledgment: Henry Reynolds, Dispossession – Black Australians and White Invaders, pp. 28-31.
____
“...the very attempt to apply our forms and processes equally...did, in reality, involve a grievous inequality.”
[In 1865 Charles Neumann death at Lake Hope property in 1865 had prompted “a well-armed party of 15 police and armed settlers to seek to track down the Aboriginal party responsible. [After an unsuccessful search] “some time later, two Aboriginal men known simply as ‘Frank’ and ‘Freddy’ were arrested...The case against them was exceedingly weak… and ‘Frank’ and ‘Freddy’ were acquitted.]
Going to the particulars of the case, [Judge Richard Hanson] pointed to the nature of settler behaviour: ‘this affray arose out of proceedings which never could have been contemplated unless blacks had been the persons. If a dispute similar to this had arisen, and white men had shot cattle, who would dream of arming 10 of his servants for the purpose of recovering cattle by force of arms?’ These were matters that were more properly the province of government, he said, ‘because he felt that the very attempt to apply our forms and processes equally as between the prosecutor and the prisoners did, in reality, involve a grievous inequality’. [1]
Register, 5 September 1866.
Acknowledgment: Robert Foster and Amanda Nettelbeck, Out of the Silence, pp. 122-123, 203 n.85.