The frontier or history wars.

The issue of the extent and nature of frontier violence between Aborigines and European settlers during early years has caused ‘intense debate’. This is because there are severe implications and complications that debating and hence resolving or coming to a conclusion can have. In this case, in examining the sketchy contemporary evidence which does exist, there is a risk that the decisions of past generations will be questioned, and this may lead to a full re-examination of other areas of interest in this era of Australian history.

Perhaps the two foremost leaders in this debate are Henry Reynolds and Keith Windschuttle. While both strongly maintain their prospective positions, a large concern with their debate is the level of speculation versus that that can be known for certain, due to the sheer lack of primary material from the period, particularly from the perspective of Aborigines involved. Windschuttle affirms that “it wasn’t a general police action to teach the Aborigines who was in control”, but the debate should instead focus upon the agendas that each historiographical group has, “their particular reasons for exaggerating this story”. Reynolds on the other hand, maintains that despite the imprecise details, “the evidence for extensive violence is massive… the debate in the 19^th century wasn’t whether Aborigines were being killed on the frontier, but rather whether it was justified or not”. He contends that part of the reason that there are such minimal resources on the issue is because of the fact that it was Aborigines who were being discriminated against, that “if the bodies had been white our histories would be heavy with their story”. 

Historian Gillian Cowlishaw argues that there is a tendency to group many individual events under the title of a “frontier war”, that “the term ‘frontier’ evokes images of battles and blood, victory and defeat”, while similarly Dirk Moses believes that “to conclude that Australia’s part is genocidal seems to criminalise it”. In this, Moses and Cowlishaw appear to be concerned that too many conclusions have been drawn in labelling this period of history as a ‘war’ which had ‘genocidal’ attempts to eradicate Aborigines.

Indeed a significant reason that this issue is so controversial is because it may force we Australians to reinterpret other parts of our history, such as the glorified perspective depicted in our folklore of the pioneer and bushranger, despite the fact that many actions against Aborigines were made by such people. In this, a debate over frontier wars can be seen to lead to a new Australian identity which is bloodstained by Aboriginal killings, and free from pioneers and bushrangers which now may be seen as controversial, which would mean a new character away from the hardworking yet radical spirit portrayed by such folk. Therefore, in having a simple debate in regards to ‘frontier war’, one cannot help but open a labyrinth of implications and problems. 




 

This early image of an aboriginal warrior painted by a European signifies why European settlers could have been so frightened of the natives. This could hence be seen as something of a justification of their actions in frontier violence. The artist has depicted the native man as savage, warlike, and surely foreign to Europeans with his war paint and indeed the unfamiliar language and culture that Aborigines had. (Source: http://search.slv.vic.gov.au/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?ct=display&doc=SLV_VOYAGER1647083&indx=9&fn=search&ct=search&vid=MAIN&indx=1&dum=true&vl(freeText0)=aboriginal%20warrior&srt=rank&vl(10247183UI0)=any&vl(1UI0)=contains&frbg=&tab=default_tab&vl(11480836UI1)=images&mode=Basic&scp.scps=scope%3A(SLV_VOYAGER)%2Cscope%3A(SLV_DIGITOOL)%2Cscope%3A(SLVPRIMO), Samuel Calvert, 1865).