Rumaisa Mahasin Islam Making a Nation-First Contact 9 HASS

(Option 2)

The first contact between European settlers and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
took place when European colonists arrived in Sydney, New South Wales with a fleet of
eleven ships in 1788. Sovereignty over Australia was proclaimed by European colonists
through legal notion of terra nullius and through ‘dispossession’, even though Indigenous
Australians have lived in this continent for centuries. This contact between the two races
quickly escalated into frontier conflicts which disrupted the lives and cultures of Indigenous
Australians. One such conflict is the massacre at Myall Creek, which changed the course of
Australian history forever. For several reasons, the extension of settlement had numerous
effects on both Indigenous Australians and European settlers.

The doctrine of Terra Nullius influenced the way Europeans dealt with Indigenous people
initially in the colony by denying the existence of native Australians, also known as the First
Australians, as fellow human beings. During his first voyage, Captain James Cook reached
the south-eastern coast of Australia in 1770 and claimed the coastal area for the British
Crown, which Captain Cook was able to accomplish by declaring that area he called New
South Wales to be terra nullius. Terra Nullius refers to a land that is ‘uninhabited’ or
‘belongs to no one’, and he used it to justify acquisition by the British Crown without a
treaty. Australia, however, was occupied by more than 750,000 Indigenous Australians prior
to British colonisation. They arrived in the continent more than 60,000 years ago, survived
Australia’s harsh environment and used the land productively. They were also semi-nomadic
and developed various clans, each with its own dialect and language. According to Historian
Henry Reynolds’ research, “So what had the earliest settlers discovered about Aborigines
and their land? The Aborigines lived in relatively small districts with known and recognised
boundaries. Although the food quest took them in many directions, they had ‘fixed
residences’. They defended their territories against trespassers…They ‘enjoyed’ their land,
exploiting a wide range of food sources. They identified with their districts and took their
name from them.” (1987, p. 224) Despite their population and rich cultures, Captain Cook
overlooked them because the natives did not occupy the land in the European sense, such
as the absence of crop cultivation, did not have a social structure in the European sense and
seemed few in number. This led some early European settlers to consider Indigenous people
to be ‘uncivilised’, ‘barbaric’ and ‘noble savages’. The law of terra nullius influenced some
colonists to treat Aboriginal people and their lands with disrespect. It also led them to
believe that Indigenous people are inferior to ‘white’ men and negotiating with the
Indigenous people is unnecessary. The settlers believed it was their right to use the land
however they want and “instead of being recognized and entering into treaties with the
British, the Aborigines were treated like savages and denied any right or ownership to the
lands they had solely inhabited for so long…. The British recognized this land as a land
belonging to nobody, which gave them complete ownership over it and the right to treat the
land as their own with no regard to the Aboriginal people. In some instances they
acknowledged sovereignty by the Aborigines over the land but never ownership. In
acknowledging sovereignty they would sometimes refrain from getting involved in
Rumaisa Mahasin Islam Making a Nation-First Contact 9 HASS
(Option 2)

Aboriginal affairs, letting Aboriginals deal with their own issues and problems.”(Foley 2009,
p. 9). Eventually, the law of terra nullius caused the European settlers to dispossess the First
Australians of their lands.

Dispossession adversely affected the relationship between European and Indigenous

people. “Dispossession” refers to depriving a person of land or property. In this case, taking
away the traditional land of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people without forming an
agreement beforehand is dispossession. The First Australians have a deep connection with
their traditional lands because they consider land to be link between all aspects of life
including spirituality, family, law, language and identity. Land is sacred to them for their
belief in the Dreaming. As the land sustains them with resources, they manage and care for
their land through ceremony and culture Dennis Foley, a Wiradjuri and Gaimariagal man,
and Fulbright scholar said, “The land is the mother and we are of the land; we do not own
the land rather the land owns us. The land is our food, our culture, our spirit and our
identity.”(Common Ground 2015). Thus, they may lose their sense of belonging and
happiness without it. Due to the differences in culture, the European settlers did not
understand the importance of land and sacred sites for the First Australians. Some of them
disrespected their land by changing it and did not acknowledge the rights the Indigenous
people had over it. The European settlers soon began to change the environment by
implementing their farming methods, such as by erecting fences and clearing trees for
pastures. They introduced a lot of rabbits and sheep, which destroyed the Aboriginal food
sources and hunting grounds. Some convicts also engaged in killing any Indigenous people
they found in ‘their’ territory. These disrupted the First Australians’ traditional way of life
and displaced them from their ancestral lands forcibly. According to a Wesleyan Missionary,
Francis Tuckfield, "The Government is fast disposing of the land occupied by the natives
from time immemorial. In addition to which settlers under the sanction of government may
establish themselves in any part of this extensive territory and since the introduction of the
numerous flocks and herds . . . a serious loss has been sustained by the natives without an
equivalent being rendered. Their territory is not only invaded, but their game is driven back,
their marnong and other valuable roots are eaten by the white man's sheep and their
deprivation, abuse and miseries are daily increasing.” (1837, pp. 138-140,152) Eventually,
the relationship between Indigenous Australians and European settlers started to
deteriorate. The Indigenous Australians were furious and retaliated to the injustices by
attacking European farms and settlers. This resulted in the frontier violence and Indigenous
people detested European settlers for taking over their land. The European settlers’
negative attitude towards the First Australians also continued and “unfortunately, the
Europeans did not understand the Indigenous people's relationship with the land. The
newcomers saw Australia as uninhabited land that needed to be used. They also believed
that it was their right to impose their lifestyle onto the new country and the people they
met. This resulted in bad feelings between the two groups, as the Indigenous people
became angry about the way the land was being used.” (CBHS Year 5 History 2017)
Rumaisa Mahasin Islam Making a Nation-First Contact 9 HASS
(Option 2)

Many frontier conflicts occurred over the years and one of the well-documented conflicts
was the Myall Creek Massacre, which had some significant outcomes. The Myall Creek
Massacre was a frontier conflict that involved the violent killings of twenty-eight
Wirraayaraay men, women and children by a party of twelve European settlers on 9 th June
1838. It took place at Henry Danger’s Myall Creek Station, in northern New South Wales.
When the station superintendent, William Hobbs, was away, the 12 armed stockmen arrived
at the station and gathered up the Indigenous people who were camping there. Only two
assigned convicts, James Kilmeister and George Anderson, were present when the stockmen
came. The stockmen, along with Kilmeister, gathered up 28 defenceless Aboriginal elderly
men, women and children, tied them up and led them away from the hut. They claimed that
they were seeking revenge on Aboriginal people for stealing cattle, even though they do not
know who committed the theft definitively. The victims were later slaughtered with swords
and their bodies were burned altogether. This massacre was discovered by Mr Hobbs, who
returned many days later, and he decided to report it to the magistrate. The magistrate
concluded that gruesome murders were committed and brought 11 of those stockmen to
trial. In the first trial, the accused were found not guilty as the defence argued that the
bodies were not accurately identified by Hobbs and Anderson’s testimony was unreliable.
However, the prosecution counsel, led by Attorney General John Hubert Plunkett and Roger
Terry, requested the court to remand the defendants by charging them with the murder of
an Aboriginal child. This case’s second trial was held on 29 th November 1838, where the
judge from the previous trial was replaced by another judge. In the second trial, the Black
Association attempted to hinder public justice by putting Hobbs under arrest and used
various tactics to keep people away from joining the Jury. However, they were not
successful, and the trial proved that Henry Dangar was biased in his testimony instead. After
the second trial, the seven perpetrators were hanged for murdering Aboriginal children and
their appeal for clemency were rejected on 18th of December. The trial caused a lot of
controversy across the colony. The admissibility of evidence was the central issue in this
trial as the principal Aboriginal eyewitness, Davey, was not allowed to give evidence in the
court and Anderson’s previous testimony was impeached by the defence. Davey was a non-
Christian and had his own set of beliefs regarding religion. Thus, he was not able to take an
oath on the Bible before testifying in the trial, even though Attorney-General attempted to
explain the Christian concept of God to him. Attorney-General stated, “Your Excellency, the
Aborigine does not believe in God or have any fixed belief in a future state of rewards and
punishments. He is therefore incapable of taking an oath which is contrary to the
fundamental principle of British law.”(Australia on Trial, episode 2, 2011). Although there
were issues with admissibility of evidence, the Crown’s case won and the Black Association
was unsuccessful.

Henry Dangar was a prominent landowner and surveyor, who owned Myall Creek station as
one of his properties, in New South Wales. As the massacre took place at his property, he
played a huge role and aimed to influence the trials of the case. Henry Dangar and his fellow
Rumaisa Mahasin Islam Making a Nation-First Contact 9 HASS
(Option 2)

squatters had formed a secret society called the Black Association which funded the defence
lawyers and fought against the Indigenous people over land. He used various tactics such as
intimidating people from joining the jury, arresting Mr Hobbs under false allegations and
impeaching the testimonies of principal witnesses. Henry Dangar possibly engaged in these
unlawful activities “because the squatters knew what was at stake here…settlers who took
on the Aborigines could be painted as murderers or as heroes blazing a trail for
Empire.”(Australia on Trial, episode 2, 2011) He believed that “Anderson is a disreputable
liar and a scoundrel and as per Hobbs I’ve already wasted enough time and money on the
man. It is landowners who generate the wealth in this colony and I shall do as I damn well
see fit.” (Australia on Trial, episode 2, 2011) This shows that he cared about his reputation
and fortunes more than his employees, which caused him to support the defendants instead
of Hobbs. He also mentioned to Attorney-General, “Mr Plunkett, are you suggesting I am
somehow engaged in some reprehensible activity to affect the outcome of this case? I am a
man of considerable standing sir. I would advise against any intention you may have to
tarnish my good name in public.”(Australia on Trial, episode 2, 2011) This clearly shows that
Dangar’s thirst for private gains from land motivated him to take part in the campaign
against Indigenous people.

The two newspapers, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian had very different
perspectives in relation to Indigenous people and the trial. The Sydney Morning Herald was
relentless in its campaign against the Indigenous people, and was on the side of the
squatters. The Sydney Morning Herald after the first trial wrote, “The Aborigines are
murderous wretches while a white man is sent to trial perhaps for his life. The savages
provoke these aggressions by plunder and probably by murder flee from the whites and
defy all attempts at capture.”(Australia on Trial, episode 2, 2011) It went on to report that
“the whole gang of black animals are not worth the money the colonists will have to pay for
printing the silly [court] documents.”(1838, p.29) These articles in the Sydney Morning
Herald show that the newspaper did not support the rights of the Indigenous people over
the land and supported wealthy squatters instead. The Australian, however, supported the
Indigenous people and criticised the members of the Black Association. The newspaper
wrote, “The interests of humanity, the character of the colony and the honour of the British
are outraged… whoever be the perpetrator, the murder is most foul and
unnatural.”(Australia on Trial, episode 2, 2011)

Under British Law at the time Aboriginal people in the colonies had the “right to protection
under the law”. The New South Wales Governor, William Gibbs and the judge in the second
trial, Judge Burton fought hard to uphold the law. However, some sections of colonial
society did not support these ideas. This includes some squatters, settlers and jurymen who
discriminated against Indigenous people. They did not acknowledge the rights Indigenous
people had over their land and “in Australia, the squatters wanted to force the Blacks off the
land…at stake was the legitimacy of white settlement.”(Australia on Trial, episode 2, 2011)
This is because the ‘presence’ of Indigenous people in the settlers’ land decreased the price
Rumaisa Mahasin Islam Making a Nation-First Contact 9 HASS
(Option 2)

of the land and a juror in the Myall Creek trial wrote to The Sydney Morning Herald wrote, “I
look on the blacks as a set of monkeys, and the earlier they are exterminated from the face
of the earth the better. I would never consent to hang a white man for a black one. I knew
well (the colonists) were guilty of the murder, but I for one would never see a white man
suffer for shooting a black.”(Harris 2013) This shows the partiality of general public and
settlers at that time.

The criminal proceedings of Myall Creek massacre had significant impacts in the colony. The
Myall Creek Massacre was just one of the countless massacres by ‘white’ men but it is
deemed to be ‘unusual’ in Australian history. This is unusual because “it was the first time
white men were hanged for murdering Aborigines.”(Australia on Trial, episode 2,
2011).Despite the trial, frontier violence against Indigenous people continued and settlers
made sure no evidence was left behind. The murderers could still avoid capital punishment
and “in places where the law could not reach there were still whites’ who used guns or
poison to kill off the Blacks. The men who committed these crimes no longer boasted about
them in public but they continued.” (Australia on Trial, episode 2, 2011) A third trial was
supposed to be held but Davey, the principal witness, was nowhere to be found. It is
believed that Henry Dangar arranged for him to be put out of the way. This trial increased
racial tension and caused a lot controversy across the colony. The general public was against
the outcome of the trial but some of them supported it. The story of the massacre laid the
foundation for reconciliation and is retold to remind people about the mistreatment of
Indigenous people. A memorial site was marked which is dedicated to the massacre.
In conclusion, the first contact had a huge impact on both European settlers and Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people. It changed the life of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people drastically.
References
Australia on Trial 2011, television program, ABC TV, Victoria 5 April.
CBHS Year 5 History 2017, Traditional Aboriginal Lifestyle after British Colonisation, CBHS
Year 5 History, NSW, viewed 18 June 2020,
<http://cbhsyearfivehistory.weebly.com/aboriginal-lifestyle-after-british-colonisation.html>
Common Ground 2015, Connection to Country, Common Ground First Nations, ACT, viewed
18 June 2020, <https://www.commonground.org.au/learn/connection-to-country>
Foley, A 2009, Terra Nullius: The Aborigines in Australia, Digital Commons, Newport, RI,
viewed 18 June 2020, <https://digitalcommons.salve.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1033&context=pell_theses> Harris, J 2013, One Blood: 200 Years of Aboriginal
Encounter with Christianity: A Story of Hope, Australians Together, Fullerton, SA, viewed 18
June 2020, <https://www.amazon.com.au/One-Blood-John-Harris-ebook/dp/B00BSXNW1C
>
Reynolds, H 1987, The Law of the land, 2nd edition, Penguin Books, Ringwood, Victoria,
viewed 18 June 2020, <https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/6315568/version/40227936>
Rumaisa Mahasin Islam Making a Nation-First Contact 9 HASS
(Option 2)

Tuckfield, F 1837, Australians Together, Fullerton, SA, viewed 18 June 2020,

<https://australianstogether.org.au/ >