Surely, the first defenders of Australia who tried to protect their family with spears when confronted by muskets and canon, deserve our admiration and respect.
In National Reconciliation Week the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs stated in a press release that: “… all Australians are encouraged to learn about our nation’s shared history, cultures, and achievements, and to explore how each of us can contribute to achieving reconciliation”.
http://minister.dva.gov.au/media_releases/2020/may/va052.htm
This is very laudable, but it’s not what he means.
His intention is explained in the following quote: “This year’s theme for National Reconciliation Week ‘In This Together’ is a perfect representation of how Indigenous men and women have served our nation alongside non-Indigenous men and women for more than 120 years”.
We’re not being encouraged to learn about the brave Australians who defended their family, possessions and land against the colonising forces of the 18th and 19th centuries. Neither are we being encouraged to learn about the wider Frontier Wars. To avoid these subjects, while at the same time giving the impression of championing reconciliation, the Government is highlighting the service of indigenous Australians in the armed services of the 20th and 21st centuries. A special edition of the Army newspaper was published along these lines with the catch cries “side by side” and “standing together”.
https://www.defence.gov.au/Publications/NewsPapers/Army/editions/1466.pdf
These stories are important and deserve to be told, but so too are those related to ‘Australia’s first defenders’. Surely the Australians who tried to protect their family with spears when confronted by muskets and canon, deserve our admiration and respect. As a nation we honour those who can trace their ancestors back to the First Fleet. Why do we not do the same for our indigenous brothers, ie. those who can trace their ancestors to the time of colonisation.
Why is it not possible for ‘Australia’s first defenders’ to be honoured with all the Nation’s other past (and present) defenders on ANZAC Day? Why can’t indigenous Australians attend ceremonies on 25 April each year that will honour their ancestors who died on the shores of their own/our own country, while defending it?
When asked why they can’t be honoured in the AWM, the response is that the AWM Charter doesn’t allow it. But the Charter can be amended with the stroke of a pen, if there was a will to do so.
What the Government is saying, in effect, is that promotion of Reconciliation is a good thing … but only on our terms.
Bruce Cameron is a former career soldier and author, maintaining a keen interest in defence matters in retirement.
John Menadue is the Founder and Editor in Chief of Pearls and Irritations. He was formerly Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet under Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser, Ambassador to Japan, Secretary of the Department of Immigration and CEO of Qantas.
Comments
7 responses to “BRUCE CAMERON. Australia’s First Defenders”
A letter to the SMH (which was not published) in relation to ATSI
“A shift in attitude is indeed due (“It’s time for a monumental shift” 12th Jun). Captain James Cook’s achievements deserve to be memorialised and to tear down statues such as his and sweep history under the carpet, rather than learning from it, is an insular approach. Everyone needs their heroes and rather than destruction why not have the Aboriginal and Torres Strait peoples story told in full remembering and eulogising their warriors in the frontier wars, some of which are suggested by Karina Marlow and Luke Pearson: Musquito, Windradyne, Yagan, Jandamarra, Tunnerminnerwait and Maulboyheenner, Tarenorerer (aka Walyer). Eddie Mabo could be added.”
Thank you Bruce. As an ex-Service member I find it impossible to ignore the courage and determination of ‘Australia’s first defenders’, and like yourself, feel that their service ought to be officially recognized. This could, as you say, be accomplished “..with the stroke of a pen”.
The unfortunate irony here is that the administration of the legislation which governs the War Memorial’s activities is the responsibility of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs who could, if he were sufficiently interested, introduce the amending legislation to Parliament. That this remains to be done is regrettable and speaks volumes about lack of Governmental interest in Indigenous welfare.
This article makes an interesting claim that Aboriginals who resisted European settlement ought to be counted as Australia’s defenders. It may be worth adding that these “first defenders” were truly defending Australia, whereas (it seems to me) much of post-settlement military conflict was about participating in other people’s wars, not defending Australia.
Bruce is very modest. He served in tanks in the Vietnam war, for which he was awarded a Military Cross. He has also written the definitive account of those tank operations: “Canister ! On ! Fire! Australian Tank Operations in Vietnam”.
Bruce: good questions though I would argue that AWM has sidled cautiously towards recognition of Frontier Wars, then backed away again. There was much ambivalence in its For Country, For Nation exhibition, and some symbolism in its purchase of two very expensive paintings depicting massacres of First Peoples. See this http://honesthistory.net.au/wp/stephens-david-allusions-in-beanland-two-exhibitions-at-the-australian-war-memorial-2/ and links from there.
David, Thank you for the link above. As you’d appreciate, I fully agree with the proposition raised by the question: “Can defending Country at home only be recognised to the extent that it can be presented as a precursor to uniformed service after 1901?” . The new exhibition at the National Museum of Australia is great, but it makes an historical statement, rather than a military one (as I believe that Matthew Andrew has a responsibility to make on behalf of our Nation).
I Meant Matthew Anderson