Distorted Perceptions: An Examination of the Media’s Role in the Black War

Ky Greene

Dr. Jason White

HIS 2800-102: Writing History

November 13, 2017

2Greene

Introduction

Much of the research surrounding the Black War (1825-1831) centers around

determining whether the war constituted a genocide1. Considering the impact of the war left only

a handful of Aborigines in its wake, the Black War constituted a genocide. With so many

historians debating this, a lack of research into other areas exists. Instead of examining the same

question, a new one is raised: what role did the media play in the genocide?

The answer is a complicated one. The media portrayed the Aborigines as vicious savages,

making it easier for them to engage in the relentless pursuit and destruction of the natives. In

addition, the media painted the government as incompetent, and the papers urged the settlers to

take matters into their own hands. The newspaper editors never directly call for the

extermination of the Aborigines – instead, they express their concerns, often, that such a course

of action will be undertaken if the government fails to provide stronger policies regarding the

natives. The media played a pivotal role in the genocide of the early 1800s through their

portrayal of the Aborigine natives as vicious savages and through their portrayal of the

government as weak and ineffective.

Historiography

The Black War (1825-1831), a six-year eradication campaign against the Aborigine

natives of Tasmania, was first discussed in John West’s History of Tasmania, published in 1852,

two of the first volumes ever published about the island once known as Van Diemen’s Land.  It

is the first time the Black War is discussed in a history text, making it the canonical text of the

field. West was the first historian to raise the question about the British government and their

1 Genocide, as a term, was coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin. The Holocaust of WWII introduced the concept of genocide to the world. Before that point, no equivalent term existed.

3Greene

intentions in declaring the Black War – the first to speculate that their end goal was the

extermination of the Aboriginal natives.

        The first book published that discussed the Black War in detail was James Bonwick’s

The Last of the Tasmanians, also known as The Black War in Van Diemen’s Land, published in

1870. In his book, Bonwick documents the atrocities committed against the Aborigine

Tasmanians. He is among the first historians to place the beginning of the war at Risdon where it

is said a large group of Aborigines came together, and, out of fear of hostility, fired upon by the

colonialists (36). In comparison to John West, James Bonwick provides a thorough examination

of the war – such a thorough examination that the subject is all but abandoned.

        Because of Bonwick’s thorough explanation, no other scholar broached the subject until

Clive Turnbull wrote his book, Black War: The Extermination of the Tasmanian Aborigines in

1948. He argues that the British government were carrying out an agenda of genocide while

disguising that agenda through government proclamations that called for peace. While the

proclamations called for peace--called for treating the Aborigines as hapless children in need of

protection--the reality was that the colonialists were killing the natives. Turnbull’s desire to write

this book may have stemmed from the recent Holocaust and the way the German government led

its citizens on a crusade of genocide. With that comparison fresh in his mind, Turnbull provides a

critical view of the role the British government played during the Black War.        With

Turnbull’s book, more historians began to tackle the questions raised by the Black War. In 1974,

David Davies published his book, The Last of the Tasmanians. His book is unique in that he does

not try to determine whether the Black War was a genocide. Instead, he argues that the war itself

can be divided into three phases – pre-war, war, and conciliation. Within each of these phases,

the British implemented different methodologies to deal with the hostility they faced from the

4Greene

natives. This division is of interest, as it allows both historians who view the war as a war and

the historians who view the war as a genocide to create three distinct periods of escalating

violence. With the war being divisible into time periods, determining if the Black War

constituted a genocide became more feasible.

        Up until 2002, the books published about the Black War favored the Aborigine natives.

From West to Turnbull, these authors discuss the plight of the Aborigines in a sympathetic light.

However, in 2002, Keith Windschuttle published the book that started a series of history wars in

the debate about the Black War. That book was The Fabrication of Aboriginal History: Volume

One, Van Diemen’s Land 1803-1847. In his book, Windschuttle argues that the Black War has

been portrayed as a genocide when it is nothing more than a war. He argues that previous

historians have been sympathetic towards the plight of the Aborigines that they have used

revisionist history to concoct a theory of genocide where no proof of genocide can be found.

Windschuttle accused previous historians of being so invested in the idea of the Black War being

a genocide that they committed grievous professional errors by inserting false documentation

into their sources. The debate this set off within the community of Black War historians has

come to be known as “the history wars.” While Windschuttle made valid points – that sometimes

the work of previous historians was imbued with sympathy towards the plight of Aborigines –

the accusation he made about historians falsifying source documents was proven false. In

addition, it became known that some of the documentation he used in his own book was faulty,

and the history wars ended – but they left an enduring mark.

        One of the books published in 2014 show signs of that mark, as Nicholas Clements’ The

Black War: Fear, Sex, and Resistance in Tasmania echoes Windschuttle, as he claims that the

Black War was not a genocide. Rather than accusing previous historians of shoddy work,

5Greene

however, Clements bases his argument on a different interpretation of events. Rather than

viewing the British as genocidal masterminds and the Aborigines as hapless victims, Clements

argues that both peoples were trying to separate themselves from the other. He suggests that both

the British and Aborigines were highly territorial, and the Black War was an inevitable

culmination of the clash of two peoples seeking the right to their own lands. In many ways,

Clements’ has revived the argument of the Black War as a war, rather than a genocide, by

providing a different interpretation of events.

        In contrast to this, and taking the stance that the Black War did constitute a genocide,

stands Tom Lawson and his 2014 book, The Last Man: A British Genocide in Tasmania. The

argument Lawson puts forth is that the genocide Britain committed in Tasmania has led to a

British culture today that has incorporated genocide into its very cultural identity. He argues that

the British implemented a systematic agenda of genocide in Tasmania, and that it is one of the

few post-genocidal states today. Lawson’s book is of relevance to historians of the Black War

who view it as a genocide and to genocide historians. As a Holocaust historian, Lawson naming

the Black War as a genocide lends a lot of credibility to those historians who view the Black War

in such a lens. For genocide historians, Lawson’s book suggests that it is possible to study a post-

genocidal state, which is one of the areas lacking in genocide studies.

        Lawson’s book, alongside Clements’, illustrates that the history wars are still very much

alive among Black War historians. Except for Lawson, who focuses on proving that Britain is a

post-genocidal state, Black War historians have focused on answering the question of whether or

not the Black War was a war or a genocide disguised as a war. The fact that the focus of previous

historians has been so narrow leaves a lot of room for further historical research. Tasmania was

settled as a penal colony, and the role prisoners played in the escalation of violence between the

6Greene

English and the natives has not been closely examined. Because Tasmania was settled as a penal

colony, very few women lived on the island. The lack of British women on the island meant that

the colonialists, especially the convicts, tended to abduct Aborigine women that may have played

a vital role in the escalation of violence in the Black War. Another question raised is what role

the depiction of the Aborigines in print media played in escalating violence. The role convicts

played in escalating violence, the role abducting Aborigine women played, and the role the

depiction of Aborigines through print media played in increasing hostilities between the

colonialists and the natives are questions that historians have not yet explored.

Sociocultural Background

Captain Cook discovered Van Diemen’s land on January 24, 1777.2 When his crew went

ashore, they met with the natives, left them with the present of pigs, cows, sheep, and goats, and

attempted to solicit sexual favors from the native women – an act that enraged the native men.3

The attempt to solicit sexual favors from native women began before the Black War and became

commonplace during the war.4

War played a critical role in Van Diemen’s Land.5 Originally a military outpost of the

British in the Napoleonic Wars, Tasmania served as a buffer between the British and the French.6

The King7 intended to use the outpost to support his political agenda, and he sent convicts to the

outpost to provide the labor required for the upkeep of the post.8 Because trade and settlement

mattered less than the political maneuvering against the French, the isolated location of the

2 Tasmanian Alamanack for the Year of our Lord 1829, 74-76.3 Ibid.4 Clive Turnbull, Black War: The Extermination of the Tasmanian Aborigines (Melbourne: Lansdowne Press, 1948), 39-40.5 Van Diemen’s Land is the original name of the land known today as Tasmania.6 Henry Reynolds, A History of Tasmania (Port Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 24-25.7 King George III.8 Clive Turnbull, Black War, 22.

7Greene

settlement served a dual purpose – it kept out invaders, especially the French, and it kept the

convicts from escaping.9

Due to its isolation, the King determined that the best use of Van Diemen’s Land was to

turn it into a penal colony first, a settlement colony second.10 The men who settled Van Diemen’s

land possessed hard, brutish personalities – partially because many of them were convicts and

partially because the character of British society in the early 1800s was brutish.11 The violence

escalated during the 1820s, but the foundation had already been laid.12 The general consensus

was that human lives mattered less than the lives of livestock.13 According to Turnbull, “Cows,

sheep, pigs belong to someone to whose interest it is to see that they survive until he wishes to

kill them. The poor and homeless man and women are no one’s care.”14 The men who settled in

Van Diemen’s land differed from the men who discovered it; these new settlers considered

staking claim to land with a flag meant they possessed everything near it, and they assumed

anyone different from themselves needed to be eliminated.15

The Aborigines frustrated the ambition of the Europeans, as they refused to be reduced to

slavery, and they refused to be assimilated.16 The lack of cooperation the Aborigines exhibited

angered the colonists, who adhered to the notion of savagery.17 The concept of the noble savage,

popularized by the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rosseau, devolved into the concept of the ignoble

savage amongst the uneducated working classes.18 The ideology of the ignoble savage created a

9 Ibid, 22.10 Ibid, 23.11 Ibid, 25-27.12 Duncan Andrews, “Was the Friendly Mission to the Aboriginal people of Van Dieman’s Land in the 1830s

an Evangelical Enterprise? Integrity: A Journal of Australian Church History Volume 1 (2012): 56-79.13 Clive Turnbull, Black War, 27.14 Ibid, 27.15 Ibid, 28. 16 David Davies, The Last of the Tasmanians (Great Britain: Harper & Row Publishers, 1974), 57.17 Nicholas Clements, The Black War: Fear, Sex, and Resistance in Tasmania (Queensland: University of

Queensland Press, 2014), 13.18 Ibid, 13.

8Greene

strong anti-savage sentiment among the British population; it also coincided with the height of

imperialism.19 In Van Diemen’s Land, the combination culminated in the incident at Risdon

Cove, the catalytic event leading to the Black War.20

In May 1804, a large group of Aborigines – approximately two to three hundred -

approached the settlement of Risdon Cove.21 The Oyster Bay people approached the settlement

to hunt kangaroo nearby, as the land was a favored hunting ground.22 The testimonies of the

account varied so greatly that constructing a legitimate view of the event is nearly impossible.23

The only verifiable incident that occurred was that the British opened fire on the natives and

killed an unknowable number of the natives.24

It is also important to remember that the British view of race stemmed from their support

of the slave trade, and they viewed the Aborigines as less than human due to the blackness of

their skin.25 One of the key industries in Van Diemen’s Land was the sealing industry, and

enslaving the Aborigine women provided the settlers with a source of free labor.26 The sealers

raided native communities in pursuit of slaves, a practice that slowly eradicated any chance at a

peaceful conciliation between the settlers and the natives.27 While the sealers made life difficult

for the natives, the convicts played a critical role in destroying the relationships between the

settlers and the natives.28 Many convicts became police, and the settlers often accused them of

corruption – by 1835, the ratio of settlers to police was 88:1, and Tasmania became known as

19 Ibid, 14.20 Tom Lawson, The Last Man: A British Genocide in Tasmania (London: I.B. Tauris&Co., 2014), 30-34. 21 Ibid, 31.22 “Mumirimina People of the Lower Jordan River Valley,” Tasmanian Aborigine Center. 2012, 4.23 Tom Lawson, The Last Man: A British Genocide in Tasmania (London: I.B. Tauris&Co., 2014), 31.24 Ibid, 31-32. The number of natives killed at Risdon Cove varies too widely over accounts to know with any certain how many people lost their lives – some accounts give a number as low as five, while other accounts give numbers as high as fifty. 25 Ian McFarlane, Aboriginal Society in North West Tasmania: Dispossession and Genocide (Honors Thesis:

University of Tasmania, 2002), v. 26 Ibid, v.27 Ibid, v.28 Ibid, v.

9Greene

one of the most heavily policed societies in the world.29 The corruption of the police, combined

with the atrocities committed for the sake of the slave system caused settler-native relations to

deteriorate.

That deterioration culminated in the Black War, a war that lasted six years and all but

decimated the Aborigines.30 The Black War didn’t have an official start; it is instead reckoned by

the escalation of Aborigine attacks on settlers – a number that jumped from 18 annually between

1824 and 1826 to 72 in 1827 to 144 in 1828 to 148 in 1829 and to 222 in 1830 before it

decreased to 68 in 1831.31 With no official beginning or end to the war, the statistics paint a

picture of a society embroiled in conflict. In 1830, Governor Arthur established two methods for

dealing with the Aborigines – he introduced bounties, and he organized the Black Line military

operation.32 The Governor intended the bounties to go to those men who brought the Aborigines

back into town after capturing them, with the bounty price set at five pounds for an adult and two

pounds for a child.33 The other method, the Black Line, was a huge military operation that

involved the entirety of the police force to walk in a line across the entire island, moving

together, in an effort to push the Aborigines out into the open where they could be caught.34 The

operation failed – the men caught two Aborigines – and it cost the government thirty thousand

pounds, a sum of money that equaled half of the annual budget of the colony.35

After the line failed, George Augustus Robinson embarked on what came to be called the

“Friendly Mission.”36 The purpose of the mission was to Christianize the Aborigines, but

29 Stefan Petrow, “After Arthur: Policing in Van Diemen’s Land 1837-1846” (Tasmania: University of Tasmania, 1999), 2.

30 Nicholas Clements, Frontier Conflict in Van Diemen’s Land (Honors Thesis: University of Tasmania. 2013), iv.

31 Henry Reynolds, History of Tasmania, 52.32 Ibid, 60-64.33 Ibid, 60.34 Ibid, 60-62.35 Ibid, 61-62.36 Ibid, 70-71.

10Greene

Robinson began by learning the language and culture of the Aborigines and insinuating himself

into one of the tribes.37 By doing this, the tribes themselves began to negotiate passage across the

island to the west coast – to Bruny Island – and eventually to Flinder’s Island.38 The negotiations

only worked because Robinson guaranteed the Aborigines them access to their homelands during

the summer months, a guarantee that bore no fruit.39 The settlement on Flinder’s Island,

Wybalenna, was not a concentration camp as is often depicted; rather, it was a settlement filled

with both Aborigines and convicts.40 The Aborigines did not view themselves as prisoners but as

exiles, and they had more freedom than the convicts, as they could leave the settlement and

return whenever they wished to do so.41 However, many Aborigines died on Flinder’s island,

mostly from disease, and those diseases decimated the already diminished Aborigine population

even further, essentially wiping them out altogether.42

Portrayal of the Aborigines

The media portrayed the Aborigine natives as vicious savages. Introducing this image of

the natives to the settlers served as a dehumanizing agent, allowing the settlers to see the

Aborigines as less than human. The dehumanization of the natives through the newspapers

served to prime the population into a mindset where the concept of genocide – or retaliative

murders – could be introduced without causing the population to flinch away from the horrors

they would have to inflict on other human beings.43

37 Ibid, 71-74.38 Ibid, 71-74. Whether the Aborigines truly moved themselves to Flinder’s Island or found themselves moved by force is contended – some ascribe magical powers of persuasion to Robinson; some say he used more force than he reported.39 Ibid, 77.40 Ibid, 78-83.41 Ibid, 82.42 Ibid, 80.43 Hobart Town Courier, January 12, 1828.

11Greene

The media often painted a picture of the Aborigines as both peaceful and savage, adding

to the confusion the settlers felt towards the natives. On Saturday, May 24, 1817, Robert Rosne

began a search for Captain Jeffrey’s missing sheep.44 While in pursuit of the sheep, Rosne came

across a group of native women and children, numbering about fifteen, and he approached them,

stopping for a moment to light up his pipe and speak with them.45 The tribe he approached was

peaceful, and, afterwards, he continued in his pursuit of the sheep. However, as soon as he left

the group of women and children, “he met with a number of savage native men, whose ferocity

had nearly been his death.”46 The natives threw stones at Rosne, one of the stones struck his

shoulder – causing a dislocation – and the rest of the stones left him bruised.47 Rather than

seeking retribution for the damage done him, Rosne, “Fortunately, however…was suffered to

leave them alive.”48

This newspaper article paints a striking image of the difference between Aborigine

women and children, and Aborigine men. The media constructed an image of peaceful women

and children and vicious, savage men. Yet, the damage done to Rosne was nowhere near as

severe as the media painted it through their choice of words. They referred to the attack as

“ferocious,” and said that the attack on Rosne had “nearly been his death.”49 In the next sentence,

however, the facts come out – the stones the natives threw at Rosne served to dislocate his

shoulder and leave him a bit bruised.50 A dislocated shoulder and a bruised body isn’t an

indication of a near-fatal beating - especially when the article ends by saying that Rosne’s

decision to leave the native men alive was a fortunate one.51

44 Hobart Town, May 24, 1817. 45 Ibid.46 Ibid.47 Ibid.48 Ibid.49 Ibid.50 Ibid.51 Ibid.

12Greene

The media portrayed the Aborigines as both vicious and helpless in the article. They

reported an attack on a settler – an attack that seemed to come out of nowhere – and described

the natives as savages. In the next breath, however, they painted the Aborigines as helpless, and

they assigned all the power of the situation to Rosne. According to the article, his benevolence

stayed his hand, which is the sole reason he didn’t murder the native men who attacked him.52

The media often assigned power over settlers to the natives, but they often did so in a

subtle manner. On April 25, 1818, however, the Hobart Town invoked the Christian ethic and

addressed the settlers. The hostile attacks from the natives began to abate, and natives became a

more frequent site within the township of Hobart.53 The media painted a new picture of the

natives in this article – the natives became the children of the colony.54 The media used this

portrait of the natives to bestow a sense of responsibility for the natives on the settlers. One

poignant part of the article reads thus:

What parent would be deemed other than bar-barous, who surrounded by particular

branches of his family, all of them happy, should feel no concern, or if he felt it, make no

efforts to extend similar happiness to other branches, the sadness of whose conditions

would be enough to make cruelty weep? And are not the Aborigines of this Colony the

children of our Government? Are we not all happy but they? Or do they not claim our

assistance? And shall that assistance be denied? Those who fancy that ‘God did not make

of one blood all the nations upon the earth’ must be convinced that the Natives of

whatever matter formed, can be civilized, nay, can be Christianized.55

52 Ibid.53 Hobart Town, April 25, 1818.54 Ibid.55 Ibid.

13Greene

The media called for the Christianization of the natives, assigning the responsibility of

converting them to Christianity to the settlers. The edition of Hobart Town published on April

25, 1818, was one of the only editions in which the concept of saving the Aborigines took center

stage. While mentioned in other newspaper articles, the idea of assimilating the natives by

converting them to Christianity diminished as the attacks from the natives became more frequent

and more hostile.

One such attack happened on October 25, 1818, near Oyster Bay.56 The November 28,

1818 edition of Hobart Town described the incident in detail. A group of five men headed to

Oyster Bay, and the group consisted of James Foley, John Sherberd, Zachariah Chaffey, William

Garth, and John Kemp.57 The men headed to Oyster Bay in order trade, and their trading was

successful. They acquired swan feathers (300lbs.), swan skins (60), kangaroo skins (100), and

live swans (34).58 After procuring these goods from Oyster Bay, the men headed to Big Swan

Port, known as the White Rock, where they received 150 seal skins.59 With such a successful

trading venture, the men decided to return home, and they docked at Grindstone Bay, a port 31

miles removed from Oyster Bay.60 While at Grindstone Bay, the winds became so fierce they

could not leave the harbor for three days, and, during their stay, they returned to Big Swan Port

in hopes of increasing the number of seal skins they had to take back with them.61 Because they

had so many trade goods, however, one man had to be left behind to guard the goods they had

already acquired – John Kemp was chosen for the job.62 He was left in charge of the swans

alongside four kangaroo dogs, three muskets, sealing knives, ammunition, and all of the skins;

56 Hobart Town, November 28, 1818. 57 Ibid.58 Ibid.59 Ibid.60 Ibid.61 Ibid.62 Ibid.

14Greene

when the other four men returned, they found his mutilated corpse.63 Foley jumped out of the

boat, noticed the trade goods had been stolen, and then hastened back to the boat as natives

ambushed the men, armed with spears.64 The men managed to escape the ambush but not before

noting that a native girl, frequently seen around Hobart Town, accompanied the natives and kept

trying to persuade the men in the boat (fleeing for their lives) to return to the shore where the

tribe lay in wait.65 The weather forced the men to dock at East Bay before they could return

home, and the concern for the Aborigines’ possession of firearms became greater.66 The settlers

relied on the fear the natives had of firearms, and their newfound possession of muskets meant

that fear would diminish. The editors of Hobart Town also warned the settlers to be on their

guard, stating,

We have only to hope, that this unhappy circumstance will put persons, who are in the

habit of frequenting the woods and islands, on their guard in future not to lose sight for a

moment of their arms, or to go any distance without them, which would probably in all

cases prevent disasters of this description, and the necessity of proceeding to extremities

on either side, so much to be desired.67

While the event portrayed seems straightforward, the media made implications regarding the

trustworthiness of the natives who frequented Hobart Town. The native girl – a girl so well-

known that the five men recognized her on sight – attempted to convince the men to come back

63 Ibid.64 Ibid.65 Ibid.66 Ibid.67 Ibid.

15Greene

to shore after the murder of their companion and the theft of their goods. The media implied the

natives possessed a treacherous nature, and they worked hard to enforce that image.

The December 26, 1818 edition of Hobart Town painted a clear image of the destruction

the settlers wrought on the natives. Cowper berated the settlers for their attitudes towards the

Aborigines, drawing attention to the fact the settlers used their supposed “superior endowments”

as an excuse to incite the Aborigines to violence against one another.68 Cowper said it best:

I was much grieved and distressed, to hear and see that the public peace of the Town, and

the holy rest of the Sabbath, were most impiously violated by the blows and cries of the

Blacks, excited to uproar and outrage by the Whites, who take pleasure in the sufferings

of their fellow men, and, who will propose and give a reward, that the unoffending may

be slain, or injured, merely to gratify or indulge the diabolical passions of a base mind,

yea ‘their feet are swift to shed’ or to cause to be shed, the ‘innocent blood!’69

Cowper’s report made it clear that the settlers themselves viewed the natives as inferior, as less

than human, and as a sport. While Cowper condemned the settlers for treating the natives

inhumanely, he never stated that the natives were equal – the way he phrased it implied that the

behavior of the settlers was no better than that of the natives.70 While he was disgusted with the

behavior of the settlers, he ends his entreaty by reminding the settlers that a man who “needlessly

sets foot upon a worm” lacks sense – a statement that served as a subtle endorsement of the idea

of the natives being less than human.71

68 Hobart Town, December 26, 1818. 69 Ibid.70 Ibid.71 Ibid.

16Greene

The September 29, 1826 edition of Colonial Times attempted to push responsibility for

the rough treatment of the natives onto the stock-keepers.72 The newspaper mentioned the details

of two attacks on settlers, then made a point of drawing attention to the fact that the settlers

themselves were the cause of the attacks.73 The stock-keepers frequent shooting of the natives

and the abducting of native women played a large part in why the natives acted in such a hostile

manner towards the settlers.74 In the Colonial Times, the editors informed the settlers that if they

kept their weapons closer to hand, kept a better guard on their farms, and kept the natives at a

humane distance, then reports of the violence done against natives would dwindle.75 The

newspapers also simultaneously depicted the natives as “treacherous” and as a “harmless race.”76

The stark contrast between a race of people being both treacherous and harmless made

the task of dehumanizing the natives far easier for the media. While dehumanizing the natives,

the editors of the Colonial Times insisted that the settlers, especially the stock-keepers, were

responsible for the attacks the natives committed on the colony. Slowly, they began to introduce

the concept that the settlers themselves were the ones who needed to solve the problems the

hostile actions of the natives were causing.

According to the October 18, 1828 edition of the Hobart Town Courier, the attacks from

the natives had become so pervasive that it could “no longer be doubted that the natives have

formed a systematic organised plan for carrying on a war of extermination against the white

inhabitants of the colony.”77 The article itself discussed the attacks on the woman, Anne Geary,

and the infant Alicia Gough. Alicia’s father, Patrick Gough, spotted Anne Geary running away

from the natives, learned that the natives were attacking Mortimer’s hut (her place of residence),

72 Colonial Times, September, 29, 1826. 73 Ibid.74 Ibid.75 Ibid.76 Ibid.77 Hobart Town Courier, October 18, 1828.

17Greene

and he took two men with him to Mortimer’s hut to keep the natives from getting guns and

ammunition.78 Once the men arrived at Mortimer’s hut, they deduced the hut had been ransacked,

the goods stolen.79 Once there, he met his eldest daughter, Mary, who was covered in blood; she

urged him to hurry home, as the natives had killed their family.80 Patrick found his wife – still

alive, but dying – and saved her, then he ran to his hut and found his infant daughter (under

three) lying breathless on the floor.81 He also found Anne Geary on the floor, vomiting out vast

quantities of blood.82 Both Anne Geary and Alicia Gough died that night.83

After detailing the gruesome deaths of the woman Anne Geary and the infant Alicia

Gough, attention turned to the potential of a white genocide being committed upon the settlers by

the natives. By this point, the Aborigines had been fully dehumanized by the portrayal of their

actions in the media. The media painted a picture of the Aborigines as the ultimate threat, as

people willingly engaging in a “war of extermination against the white inhabitants.”84 The media

primed the settlers, giving them reasons to both hate and fear the Aborigines. To maneuver the

settlers into the prime position to pursue a war of extermination against the Aborigines, however,

the media had to accomplish one more task – they needed to convince the settlers that the

government was incompetent.

Portrayal of the Government

The media portrayed the government as weak and ineffective, often criticizing the orders

the government issued regarding the Aborigines. The incendiary remarks and berating of the

government served to incentivize the people to action. The newspapers constructed a narrative of

78 Ibid.79 Ibid.80 Ibid.81 Ibid.82 Ibid.83 Ibid.84 Ibid.

18Greene

the natives as a problem, a process made easier by the fact that the natives did attack and kill

settlers. While the government issued orders trying to protect the natives, the newspapers often

condemned the government for failing to take the safety of the settlers into account. Eventually,

the attacks – according to the papers – became so numerous and the government so incompetent,

the only choice left was for the settlers to take matters into their own hands.

The violence the settlers exhibited towards the natives provoked a response from the

government. The March 13, 1819 edition of the Hobart Town Gazette and Southern Reporter

illustrates the response the government took towards the increasing violence the Aborigines

faced at the settlers’ hands. Lieutenant Governor Arthur penned an article in the newspaper

calling for the cessation of kidnapping native children.85 Arthur acknowledged the settlers held

concerns about the natives and their supposed intentions to wage a war of extermination against

them, but he dismissed those concerns out of hand.86 In his words, “It is, however, most certain

that if the Natives were intent upon destruction of this Kind, and if they were incessantly to

Watch for Opportunities of effecting it, the mischief done by them to the Owners of Cattle or

Sheep…would be increased a Hundred Fold.”87 Governor Arthur dismissed the concerns of the

settlers, then turned around and told them they were the ones at fault for the attacks being waged

against them.88 The governor made it clear that his concern lay more with the Aborigines than

with the settlers; in fact, he said that if the natives were attempting to exterminate the settlers, the

reason lay in the pursuit of native women and children.89 His compassion towards the natives

deserves commandment, but it also increased the resentment the settlers felt towards the

85 Hobart Town Gazette and Southern Reporter, March 13, 1819.86 Ibid.87 Ibid.88 Ibid.89 Ibid.

19Greene

government. It also decreased the amount of confidence the settlers had that the government

could handle the problems they faced.

The dwindling confidence in the government led the newspapers to call for more decisive

steps to be implemented in dealing with the natives.90 The papers advised the settlers to regard

the natives with jealousy as the natives’ attacks became more frequent.91 Another suggestion

offered by the papers was that a party of soldiers could be stationed on different native tribes – a

technique with the potential to diminish the violent attacks the natives sprang on the settlers.92

An even greater concern is raised in the December 1, 1826 edition of the Colonial Times, as the

natives have learned to use guns and are no longer afraid of the sound.93 It is in this newspaper

article that the extermination of natives was called for in explicit terms:

SELF DEFENCE IS THE FIRST LAW OF NATURE. THE GOVERNMENT MUST

REMOVE THE NATIVES – IF NOT, THEY WILL BE HUNTED DOWN LIKE WILD

BEASTS, AND DESTROYED!94

Although the article was written in a tone that suggested concern for the lives of the natives, the

call for extermination was the only part written with full capitalization. The paper suggested

removing the natives from Hobart and relocating them to New Holland or King’s Island to

prevent the destruction of the Aborigines altogether.95 The suggestions made to the government

in terms of relocating the natives show that the people themselves had begun to lose faith in the

government. The emphasis placed on hunting down and destroying the natives, despite the

90 Colonial Times, November 10, 1826.91 Ibid.92 Ibid.93 Colonial Times, December 1, 1826.94 Ibid.95 Ibid.

20Greene

seeming concern of the media for the lives of the Aborigines, indicates that the Black War was a

genocide, and it was a genocide carried out by the settlers – rather than the government.

In an attempt to reconcile the settlers and mend the tense relationships with the natives,

the government issued an order with six clauses. The Colonial Times tore into those six clauses,

questioning each one with resentful anger.96 The first clause said that the settlers could defend

themselves if the intent of the natives could be established as hostile, and, if found to be hostile,

they could then join with the military and drive the natives away.97 The editor countered that by

asking how feasible it was to establish the intent of the natives and expressing his exasperation

that the government felt soldiers were so commonplace that the settlers could easily find a

military party to join themselves to in their own defense.98 The editor put it thus: “Do soldiers

grow in the bush, like mushrooms, or are they to be conjured up at a moment’s notice?”99 The

tone of exasperation permeates the entire article; the editor was displeased by the lack of logic

found within the government order.100 The logical validity and vagueness of all clauses but the

96 Colonial Times, December 8, 1826. 97 Ibid.98 Ibid.99 Ibid.100 Ibid. The clauses of the order were (taken verbatim):

1) If it should be apparent that there is a determination on the part of one or more Native tribes, to attack, rob or murder the white inhabitants generally, any persons may arm and by joining themselves to the Military, drive them by force to a safe distance, treating them as open enemies.

2) If they are found actually attempting to commit a felony, they may be resisted by any persons in like manner.

3) When they appear assembled in unusual numbers, or with unusual arms, or although neither be unusual, if they evidently indicate such intention of employing force as it is calculated to excite fear, for the purpose of doing any harm SHORT OF FELONY to the persons or property of any one, they may be held as RIOTERS, and resisted, if they persist in their attempt.

4) If they be found merely assembled for such purpose, the neighbours and soldiers armed, may, with a Peace Officer or Magistrate, endeavor to apprehend them, and if resisted, use force.

5) If any of the Natives have actually committed felonies, the Magistrates should make such diligent enquiries as may lead to certainty of the persons of the principals, or any of them (whether this consists in knowledge of their names, or any particular marks or characteristics, by which their persons may be distinguished), and issue warrants for the apprehension of such principals. The officer executing a warrant, may take to his assistance such persons as he may think necessary; and, if the offenders cannot be otherwise taken, the officer and his assistants will be justified in resorting to force, both against the principals, and any others, who may be any acts of violence, or even of intimidation, endeavor to prevent the arrest of the principals.

6) When a felony has been committed, any person who witnessed it, may immediately raise his neighbours, and pursue the felons; and the pursuers may justify the use of all such means as a Constable might use. If

21Greene

fifth riled the editor, and the contempt he felt for the government bled through his words.101 The

inefficiency of the government portrayed in the article echoed throughout the colony, and, by

January, the violence between settlers and natives had escalated to a new high.102 According to

the January 5, 1827 edition of the Colonial Times, “With such mutual hatred do the whites and

blacks in this Colony now look upon each other, that little more is necessary to occasion the

work of destruction to begin, than for them to meet.”103 The settlers had witnessed so much

carnage against their neighbors that the only option left to them was the extermination of the

natives.104 The editor stated that he did not intend to cause alarm, then followed that statement up

by saying he felt it necessary to point out the “legitimate alarm” caused by the hostilities the

natives used against the settlers, and that it was especially important to bring the incidents to the

attention of the government.105

The lack of action taken by the government continued to frustrate the editors, and, by

extension, continued to frustrate the settlers in the colony. Unlike the issues pertaining to the

natives, the government handled cases of convict runaways with utmost precision and

professionalism.106 The papers commended the government for the quick capture of convict

runaways, praising the constables for a job well done.107 After praising the constables for their

admirable conduct, the papers then hinted that if the police in the interior of the country - where

the native attacks were the most ferocious – adopted a similar professional attitude, the problems

with the natives would be solved.108

they overtake the parties, they should bid, or signify to them to surrender. If they resist, or attempt to resist, the persons pursuing may use such force as is necessary; and, if the pursued fly, and cannot be otherwise taken, the pursuers may then use similar means.

101 Ibid.102 Colonial Times, January 5, 1827. 103 Ibid.104 Ibid.105 Ibid.106 Hobart Town Courier, November 17, 1827.107 Ibid.108 Ibid.

22Greene

Two methods of dealing with the natives arose in the January 12, 1828 edition of the

Hobart Town Courier.109 The two suggested modes of problem solving were reprisal or

retaliative murder.110 Reprisal consisted of capture and deportation, and the method suggested to

implement reprisal was to put together a hundred troops, aided by all the settlers that could join

them, and pursue the natives for several days and take them prisoner.111 No method of retaliative

murder presented itself, but the concept of reprisal became a favored theory – seen through the

implementation of the Black Line military operation of 1830. While the Black Line operation

failed because the military was ineffective, the papers had highlighted the inefficiency well

before the implementation of the Black Line. In the March 22, 1828 edition of the Hobart Town

Courier, the editor issued an explicit statement:

The black natives are actuated with a determined hostility to every white on the island –

their thirst for blood is evidently satiated only by extermination, their cunning is

excessive, - it is utterly impossible to apprehend or identify the aggressors, and,

according to the existing law, the presence of the police or military can avail but little. To

meet these evils we propose, that government should appoint committees, and the settlers

themselves should instantly assemble, to devise the best plan.112

The editor of the Hobart Town Courier painted a clear picture of the Aborigines as a people who

harbored every intention to exterminate the settlers, and he made it clear that the military police

were inefficient and ineffective – essentially defining the government itself as ineffective.113 The

109 Hobart Town Courier, January 12, 1828. 110 Ibid.111 Ibid.112 Hobart Town Courier, March 22, 1828.113 The military police consisted largely convicts and ex-convicts, all appointed by the government.

23Greene

suggestion he made that the government appoint committees to address the problem and invite

settlers into the committees was a direct call for the settlers to get involved in solving the

problem themselves.114

Conclusion

The media distorted the perceptions the settlers received about the Aborigine natives and

the colonial government in Van Diemen’s Land. They portrayed the Aborigines as savages bent

on white extermination. The government attempted to counter this by issuing orders to protect

the natives. The government also directly addressed the fear the settlers had that the natives were

attempting to wage a ware of extermination against them. One of the key reasons the settlers did

not respond favorably was the way in which the media portrayed the government’s orders.

Rather than using the considerable influence they wielded in favor of the government, the media

chose instead to portray the government as illogical and ineffective. By doing so, they helped

craft a stronger drive among the settlers to find a way to end the “native problem” on their own.

The call-out to the government to capture and deport the Aborigines the media made seemed

well-intentioned, but they coupled every call-out for deportation with the warning that if

deportation did not occur, extermination would. That, alongside the exasperated examination of

the poorly worded government order meant to pacify the settlers’ concerns about the natives,

worked to prime the settlers into a state of mind conducive to genocide. The media played a

larger role in the genocide known as the Black War, and the escalation of violence towards the

natives. can be largely attributed to the influence the media held over the settlers in Van

Diemen’s Land.

114 Hobart Town Courier, March 22, 1828.

24Greene

Primary Sources

Colonial Times. September 29, 1826.

Colonial Times. November 10, 1826.

Colonial Times. December 1, 1826.

Colonial Times. December 8, 1826.

Colonial Times. January 5, 1827.

Cowper. “These, Therefore, I Can Pity.” Hobart Town. December 26, 1818.

Hobart Town. May 24, 1817.

Hobart Town. April 25, 1818.

Hobart Town. November 28, 1818.

Hobart Town. March 13, 1819.

Hobart Town Courier. March 22, 1818.

Hobart Town Courier. November 17, 1827.

Hobart Town Courier. January 12, 1828.

Hobart Town Courier. October 18, 1828.

Tasmanian Alamanack for the Year of our Lord 1829.

25Greene

Secondary Sources

Andrews, Duncan. “Was the Friendly Mission to the Aboriginal people of Van Dieman’s Land in the 1830s an Evangelical Enterprise? Integrity: A Journal of Australian Church History Volume 1 (2012): 56-79.

Clements, Nicholas. The Black War: Fear, Sex, and Resistance in Tasmania. Queensland: University of Queensland Press, 2014.

Clements, Nicholas. Frontier Conflict in Van Diemen’s Land. Honors Thesis: University of Tasmania. 2013.

Davies, David. The Last of the Tasmanians. Great Britain: Harper & Row Publishers, 1974.

Lawson, Tom. The Last Man: A British Genocide in Tasmania. London: I.B. Tauris&Co., 2014.

McFarlane, Ian. Aboriginal Society in North West Tasmania: Dispossession and Genocide. Honors Thesis: University of Tasmania, 2002.

“Mumirimina People of the Lower Jordan River Valley.” Tasmanian Aborigine Center. 2012.

Petrow, Stefan. “After Arthur: Policing in Van Diemen’s Land 1837-1846.” Tasmania: University of Tasmania, 1999.

Reynolds, Henry. A History of Tasmania. Port Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge of University Press, 2012.

Turnbull, Clive. Black War: The Extermination of the Tasmanian Aborigines. Melbourne: Lansdowne Press, 1948.