Talk:Australian frontier wars

Terra nullius and Cook's claim of possession

Hello all I have simplified the text and have removed an implied argument that Cook took possession of the east coast of NSW under the doctrine of terra nullius. This is not supported by the sources cited and amunts to original research and synthesis. The previous version quoted Macintyre (1999). However, the latest edition of this work (2020) states clearly, "But terra nullius was not part of British law in 1788 ... the British government...instructed Cook that he was to take possession of the country if he found it uninhabited." We don't know why Cook took possession of the east coast contrary to his instructions and speculation on the matter doesn't really belong to an article on the frontier wars. Nor is Mabo relevant, given that the frontier wars were long over by the time this decision was made. All that needs to be said is that the British government simply annexed the eastern half of Australia and acted as if the Aboriginal population had no land rights other than those granted by the Crown. Legal justifications for this didn't begin appearing until the 1820s and weren't formalised into a doctrine until 1880. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

If Macintyre has added in his 2020 edition that "terra nullius was not part of British law in 1788", does he cite a source? The usual source for a three-part concept of terra nullius in British (predominantly English) law is Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, which had appeared in 1765, were soon in widespread use and are regarded as conservative. Errantios (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Macintyre is a reliable secondary source and it is not up to us editors to interrogate the primary sources they use. However, the matter was thoroughly discussed in the Mabo case and Macintyre is accurate in this respect. Blackstone appeared before the term terra nullius was invented (which was in the 1890s). Blackstone stated that the British were entitled to colonise lands that were "desert and uncultivated" and this is the relevant common law concept. The question of whether NSW was "desert and uncultivated" under the common law was first raised (indirectly) in NSW cases from the 1820s but the law wasn't settled until Mabo in 1992. No colonial official ever explicitly used the doctrine of terra nullius or "desert and uncultivated" land to justify the colonisation of Australia in 1788. The British simply took the land and left the lawyers to sort out the legal justifications over the next century. But my edit was because we don't have to go into complicated discussions of terra nullius in order to write about the frontier wars: all we need to say is that the British acted as if the Aborigines didn't have land rights that weren't granted by the Crown. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Macintyre, in a work for a general audience, makes a categorical statement on a point that specialists in Australian legal history consider to be murky. So I was interested in whether he supports it. The Mabo judgments don't help here, because they refer to the 1830 edition of Blackstone. I will agree that Macintyre is probably right, but it would be good to know whether he supports his statement. I also agree with you on British colonial practice. Errantios (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

NSW Southern Alps

In the New South Wales section, there is mention of the Sydney area, the Central West, the North West and the plains, but there is no mention of the South West (particularly the Snowy Mountains and surrounding areas). Being such a large area, I would imagine there had been some amount of fighting there (I apologise in advance if I am incorrect), and if the case is there was warfare at some point, it would be a good idea to add writing about those events in the New South Wales section of this article. 2001:8003:3A18:E00:3145:956B:894B:F2A9 (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

British settlers?

Hello there

There has been a bit of back and forth in the lead between describig the conflict as between Indigenous peoples and "British" settlers, or "primarily British settlers" or "primarily British and Irish settlers" or "European settlers" etc. I suggest we sort this out here rather than have the lead constantly changing.

Given that Australia was part of the British empire until the 1920s and that it was Britain that colonised Australia I suggest we use the term British settlers or British colonists. No other term will adequately cover the range of Americans, Chinese, Europeans, Africans and Asians who settled in Australia in large numbers at some time in the 150 years after first colonisations. The vast majority over the time, however, were British subjects and they comprised about 96% of Australian residents in 1910.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

If you boldly change something, and are reverted, you discuss (per WP:BRD), you don't start a thread then revert. That is just edit warring. But back to the subject at hand. The frontier wars occurred all over Australia from the arrival of the First Fleet to 1928. Many settlers after the initial NSW arrivals until 1928 were from places other than Great Britain. For example, in SA, only two years after British colonial establishment, large numbers of Germans arrived, and this continued right up to 1914. By 1851, nearly 7,000 Germans had arrived in SA and made up more than 10% of the population. By 1875 around 70 towns in SA had German names. SA isn't the only colony that had non-British migration before 1928, especially due to the various gold rushes. There were also thousands of Chinese who came in the gold rushes, and also South Sea Islanders in Queensland, Japanese in the NT and Queensland and "Afghans" (many of whom were from what is now Pakistan) in WA, NT and SA at least. Some of these groups were also involved in the frontier wars (Chinese in the north Queensland goldfields for example). So some nuance is needed in the lead. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The stable version said "primarily British settlers". I have changed this to "mostly British settlers". "European settlers" doesn't work because there were also settlers from the Pacific Islands, China, America, Asia, Africa etc. I can live with "mostly British" which was the stable version before the recent flurry of edits. 96% of Australians in 1910 were British subjects wherever they were born, so "mostly British settlers" will do. By the way, BRD is not a policy. It is only one method of seeking consensus. There is no consensus for your preferred version: "European" settlers. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not my preferred version, I'm actually happy with "mostly British settlers" because that is accurate. BRD may not be a policy, but WP:CON is, and so is WP:EW, and your reflexive reverting is exactly how they happen. Have a great day, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe you were the first to revert my change which I fully explained on a Talk thread. If you now say that you reverted it, without discussion, to a version that you don't agree with, I suggest that you are the one engaging in "reflexive reverting" rather than consensus building. Good day to you too. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The question seems to be: What kind(s) of people were the settlers? Most of them were indeed "British" in that they possessed British nationality - they were "British subjects". But that obscures great cultural differences, especially on the then salient criterion of skin colour: for it includes Indian and Chinese British subjects. It also includes some Irish who strongly disliked being British subjects. I suggest: "settlers, primarily [or "mostly"] from the British Isles". Errantios (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Yet British Isles is a controversial term generally not favoured today. I think mostly British settlers is fine, I'm also not opposed to European settlers. I certainly oppose edits like this. AusLondonder (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Point taken, and I was aware of it, but in the context of the Australian British colonies one might expect "British Isles" to be understood historically. Alternatively, perhaps "United Kingdom" would more clearly ask to be understood historically. Errantios (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

What about "settlers, mostly from Britain,"? Errantios (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders

I have reverted an editors attempt to add "killed in action" symbols etc to this article as they add nothing to our understanding of the conflict. The entire "commanders and leaders" part of the info box is absurd as it is trying to impose a structure based on wars between nation states onto an entirely different kind of conflict. The idea that George III, for example, (or any British monarch) was a commander or leader in a war against Indigenous Australians has no basis in the historical sources. The other "British" commanders listed are just a random selection of monarchs and governors,. Similarly, the list of Indigenous "leaders" is just a number of peoples who were identified in the colonial press, they weren't "commanders" because traditional Indigenous society had no concept of commanders. Nor do we have any evidence that these people were elders of their clans. There might be a case for listing some of these as "prominent warriors in the eyes of the settlers"but that is all. Truganini was not even that. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the British monarchs from the info box as the information was unsourced. If an an editor can find academic sources which state that Queen Victoria etc commanded and led the colonial forces against Indigenous people such sources can be discussed on Talk. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Death toll

Hello all

I have revised the death toll figures in the Info Box based on the second edition of Reynold's scholarly study The Forgotten War (2022). This is one of the most studied areas of Australian history in the past twenty years so it's important that we base the article on the most recent scholarship where possible. The figure of 115,000 Indigenous deaths in the conflicts wasn't a scholarly estimate from Reynolds, he merely mentions it as speculation by one author and sources it to the Brisbane Times). In any event, the info box is supposed to be a summary of the contents of the article and I can see no section in the article discussing recent scholarship on this complex issue. I will try to add one in the next week of so. This is an important aspect of Australian history and this article needs a thorough rewrite based on the most recent and reliable scholarly sources. I would be happy to work with other interested editors to improve the article over time.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, fair call. The Colonial Frontier Massacres in Australia, 1788-1930 project here has excellent quality information. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)