Talk:Tasmanian Aborigines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Tasmanian Aborigines is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Tasmania.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian history.
This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia.
Assessment comments
Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Contents

[edit] Expansion

I must be part of the Australian "sorry" movement, for I would like to apologise for not doing this subject justice. The original article motivated me to expand it with corrections, so hopefully my small effort will do the same for you. There are many stories to be told here.

-- zig 16:49, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The article needs some serious reworking. The Aborigines crossed the land bridge 40,000 years ago, then waited 13,000 years until the Westerners came in 1803??

a recently added section attempts to include this event with current pedophile trials by describing it as a 'witch hunt', strangely enough. the logic is a little fuzzy, but the idea is to include the phrase 'witchhunt' in historically unjust situations, and then try and build a case for 'Moral Histeria', or '"witch hunts" to try and deflect criticism of thier leader.Line 32.Legalist 11:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extinction

May be worth diluting the importance of the 'extinction' issue - this is definitely not the case with some 10,000 people in tasmania believed to have some aboriginal heritage. It is also quite offensive to the local community to even consider this angle - This view generally died out when guys like Michael Mansell started making noise in the late 70's

-- Jgritz 19:09, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is it not the case that the tradition and culture of historical TA tribes are indeed extinct. And hasn't this fact contributed to historian/antholopologists' view that TAs are extinct? Does the the word "heritage" refer to DNA or "spirituality". Former is verifiable while later is not. And for this reason, if the claim of heritage is "spiritual", then it ought to have proper POV attribution. FWBOarticle

[edit] Customs & language

It'd be nice if this article talked some about the customs, language, etc. of the Tasmanian aborigine, instead of just colonization and "extinction". I'm sure for instance they are in interesting case being complete isolates for so long (does any other human population on earth even come close?). -- stewacide 17:51, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Would love to learn more about the customs too, but its a pretty complex bunch of views. Within the culture a lot of stuff is seen as private business, and the forementioned colonization issues mean that the local customs weren't very well documented. Then again, I'm no expert... http://www.discovertasmania.com.au/home/index.cfm?SiteID=215 has some interesting stuff -- Jgritz 20:05, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Extinction - Genocide

"20th century historians previously held that they had become extinct with the death of Truganini in 1873, but this is no longer the accepted view."

I can see that this may be seen as unnecessary for the intro, but it remains a common misconception, and should be damn near the top if not restored to where it was.- David Gerard 17:51, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've restored the top sentence... Jgritz 18:06, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
"It should be noted that the apology is specific to removal of children and does not refer to the unique nature of Tasmanian genocide."
Shouldn't this read the alleged Tasmanian genocide? Or at least reference made to the controversy surrounding the fact that some have labled the destruction of the Tasmanian Aborigines a genocide?
Lukeisham 23:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
"Shouldn't this read the alleged Tasmanian genocide?"
Alleged? Are you refuting that thousands of Aboriginals died senselessly as a result of the of colonial invasion of the land by Europeans?

I agree with Lukeisham that it's less than clear that there was a systematic attempt to wipe out the Tasmanians (i.e. genocide). Windschuttle makes a persuasive case that not only have people like this anonymous commentator accepted rather uncritically many poorly substantiated claims of genocide, but that the role of disease in a isolated population (an unintended consequence of colonial invasion) has been underestimated. I've added a review of Windshuttle's book to the citations. --Our Bold Hero 04:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed too, but as always with Tasmanian issues there seems to be no middle ground. AFAIK, it's only really Henry Renyolds of the academic writers that has stated there was systematic attempt e.g. Genocide. I think I'll remove the line Lukeisham quoted if no one has any objections. --Jgritz 04:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
See the Black War article for the campaign against Tasmanian Aborigines, -- Paul foord 14:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Genocide not just refer to extinction of race (i.e. DNA) but it also refer to extinction of culture. Hasn't tradition and culture of historical TA tribes are extinct or wiped out? FWBOarticle

In anthropology, loss of culture especially language amount to extinction of ethinicity if not race. I can understand the PC aspect of saying that Tasmanian Aborigines are not extinct. However, I don't think its right to pretend that it was only the loss of full blood person which is the cause of extinction view. Given that DNA and "spiritual" heritage is still a controversy, I don't think it's NPOV to take DNA view. Vapour

The extinction pov is just that - a POV. When there are people who contend to be indigeneous (albeit part blood) Aborigines of Tasmania, I see no idea how that would be NPOV. Furthermore, aspects of their culture may be extinct, but some other parts of their culture may yet survive, and thus one should not close the book on them by declaring the Tasmanian Aborigines extinct. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slaughter

An anonymous user changed the first sentence of the "After European Settlement" section to say "... mainly due to the slaughter perpetated the white settlers..." rather than "... mainly by the white settlers..."

I understand why someone would be motivated to make this change, but it's counter-productive (as well as being against Wikipedia standards, and having a grammatical error). In hopes of preventing anyone from doing it again, let me explain why:

Many people are turned off by such stridently POV writing, and won't read the rest of the section--which makes the point quite vividly. The facts are horrific enough when presented neutrally; let them speak for themselves. --Falcotron 06:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Population 1859

I've added a population figure for 1859 to the article; for the record, the source is:

"Dr. Joseph Milligan's paper on Tasmania, read before the Society of Arts, contains interesting information ... [of] the aborigines, there were only about a dozen remaining at the end of 1859." - Chambers's Journal, "The Month: Science and Arts", #391, June 1861.

(I ran across it looking for something else entirely...) Shimgray | talk | 00:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The recorded number of Aborigines killed from 1803 to 1833 by whites is over 100 (and only 85 according to Keith Windschuttle). The idea that the population was reduced to 300 “mainly by the murderous white settlers” is completely unsupported by historical documents. This shows the author's bias and should be altered.

[edit] Great Map

Wow - that's a great map. Thanks Petaholmes/Martyman or who ever was responsible for this. --Jgritz 09:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the level of interest present day Tasmanians have in this subject can be summed up by the fact that a number of them have Tasmanian Aboriginal garden gnomes in their gardens. There are a dozen or so such photographs at www.beautphotos.com under the heading Tasmanian Hillbilly Country. They all have fairly extensive commentary attached which is referenced to Wikipedia. User: kruklanki 16/02/06

[edit] Who is an Indigenous Australian

The discussion at See the discussion at Talk:Indigenous Australians/archive 2#.28What.29 Who is an .28i.29Indigenous_Australian.3F is also relevant to Tasmania, although the local legislation is more restrictive. Paul foord 14:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Watercraft, weaving,fishing and clothes

I'm highly skeptical of claims of Tasmanian catamarans and sewn clothing. My undertsanding, and one I have seen repeated in numeorus reputable sources, was that Tasmanians lacked sewing technology and possesed only crude reed rafts. The catamaran reference is particularly odd since such craft are only found in limited areas of northern Australia. If Tasmanians possesed catamarans why were they isolated for 10,000 years despite less than 50km of open water separating them from the mainland?

My understanding is also that Tasmanians did not eat fish, which makes claims of using watercraft for fishing somewhat puzzling. Tasmanians certainly used watercraft to reach offshore islands to hunt and to collect the eges of nesting bird, but that isn't fishing.


I'm somewhat dubious of Tasmanians possesing weaving technology as well. But we really need a reference for sewn clothes, fishing and catamarans in Tasmania. 211.29.68.168 23:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I asked User:EamonnPKeane, who added this, about his sources. At least Jared Diamond claimed in Guns, Germs, and Steel, that Tasmanians had forgotten how to fish. Secular mind 20:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural genocide

The descendants of the Tasmanian Aboriginal people are still living but are said to have lost their traditional language and culture, so cultural genocide, that article itself needs some expansion. Paul foord 12:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "(Aboriginal name: lutrawita)" Aboriginal name for what?

"The Tasmanian Aboriginals are the indigenous people of the island state of Tasmania, Australia. (Aboriginal name: lutrawita)"

It is unclear from this what "lutrawita" names. (Could be Tasmania, or could be its indigenous people.)

And in which Tasmanian aboriginal language?

It's actually the palawa kani word for the island of Tasmania and is spelled lutriwita incidentally; 'truwana is Cape Barren Island. Which brings me onto a request. I'm not sure how to creat disambiguation pages but I think we need one for palawa kani. At the moment when you search for "palawa" you only get Palawa but I think it would be helpful to have a page which disambiguates (in much the same way as French for example is dealt with. --Akerbeltz 15:48, 21 February (GMT)
Palawa is now a disambiguation page. Gnangarra 00:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Grand, thanks a lot! Akerbeltz 01:00, 22 February 2008 (GMT)

[edit] An inappropriate reference

This article is very lacking in references, of which I am sure there must be plenty to be found..

However, the first reference (to an external website) is, to my way of thinking quite inappropriate to this particular article, simply because of the other content of the paper that is referenced and the way in which it uutilises the historic persecution of Aboriginal people in order to support an entirely different cause.

In the Wikipedia article Tasmanian Aborigines the reference is about likening the persecution of aboriginal people to "a witchhunt". The Wiki article said - "The refusal of the settlers to recognise the Aborigines as human beings can be regarded as a legal injustice, or even a witchhunt." This is a very bald and non-explanatory statement. It was followed by the link to the other webpage.

The words or even a witchhunt add practically nothing to the article. It reads in a sensational way, because anything about witchhunts is sensational, but it would be far better to find and appropriate reference to Genocide than a link to this particular article.

Why? Because the topic of the cited article is not the oppression of Aboriginal people. The article is primarily about is the isolation and persecution of those people who have been accused of child molestation. The persecution of the so-accused is likened to a "witchhunt".

The article that is referenced is written supporting the supression of public information regarding those who have been accused of child molestation. It is not an article about the plight of Aboriginal people. It is an article that likens the situation of people accused of molestation to the oppression of Jews, Huguenots, Australian Aboriginals and other people of cultural minority groups.

While, on one hand, the author of the cited article may use any reference that they like to support claims in favour of those who (rightfully or wrongfully) are accused of child molestation, I don't think that the reverse reference applies. In Wikipedia terms, yes, it is a published reference and therefore citable. On the other hand, I think that the article adds nothing positive to this page and carries possible implications of an extremely negative kind.

As an "Auntie", I don't want to see the Aboriginal cause so directly linked to the general and universal matter of child molestation (and wrongful accusations of child molestation). That is a topic in itself.


Let's find some references that are primarily about Aboriginal people.

The reference is at [1]

--Amandajm 23:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TA extinction, outside view

I was reading an Timeonline article and came upon writing which describe TA as extinct while making reference that there are some modern group who can trace ancestory. It's fairly obvious that state of TA depends on perspective. From Antholopological POV, for example, TA is extinct. I have refered to extinction POV from a verified source. Vapour

Interesting question (dunno how old this posting is, mind). I think in this debate it's too often overlooked that there are various means by which a people can perpetuate itself. From the POV of genetic purity (aka blood) there are no Germans on this planet as they are a total genetic mix of whoever has passed through in the last 5000 years. But I doubt that any anthropologist (or any other -ologist as for that) could successfully argue that Germans are extinct as the German people has perpetuated itself by other means (language/culture). So I personally think that if there are people in modern Tasmania who can demonstrate a link to "native Tasmania" either through ethnic and/or linguistic means then we must accept that. No German (or Brit etc) is required to prove genetic purity (which in the case of Germans is both impossible and historically difficult (I am part German by the way)) to justify their claim to being German. Partial parentage and/or residency for several generations and/or native speaker status are enough in the eyes of most people. So why should Tasmanians (or any other ethnicity) be required to demonstrate "pure-bloodedness"? It all smacks of goalposts that outsiders have imposed to suit their own views. Akerbeltz 00:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)]

[edit] "Legal Injustice" vs. "Genocide" - and a General Mess

1. There seems to be some discussion of this above which I don't have time to investigate, but I would like object to this statement:

"The refusal of the settlers to recognise the Aborigines as human beings can be regarded as a legal injustice, and the suspiscion and acts of violence aroused by their cultural difference has been likened to a witch hunt."

Don't you think describing an active and intentional campaign of genocidal extermination as "can be regarded as a legal injustice" -- or even a "witchhunt" -- is a bizarrely vague and mushy understatement?


2. In generally this article seems to be heavy on vague warm-and-fuzzy stuff about contemporary Tasmanian native pride and light on the actual history and facts.

"Much of the Indigenous Tasmanian language (which had several different dialects), and a lot of Tasmania's Aboriginal cultural heritage has been lost."

The Tasmanian language(s) are completely extinct, and almost nothing is known of them. "A lot" is a colloquial phrase not appropriate for a encyclopedia article -- and what exactly hasn't been lost?

This is really the central problem of the article -- trying to "affirm" how alive, real, vibrant, and legitimate today's partly-native claimants are, is distracting the weight and narrative of the article away from how everyone of full Tasmanian blood on the island was wiped out.


3. "...mainly killed by the white settlers..."

The fact that the program was an intentional extermination needs to be emphasized as the central theme of the article. And the racial ideology behind it, that the Tasmanians were "even more primitive" than mainland Australian aborigines and considered to be sub-human animals who could literally be hunted for sport from horseback needs to be clearly discussed as a historical reality, even though it is obviously offensive today.

4. The article in general needs a more neutral point of view on whether the people claiming Tasmanian nativehood today are really genetically descended from the original natives.

Yes, there was a genocide. No, not all the koories are gone, just all of the full-blooded ones. That being said, the loss of several languages was surely a tragedy. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tasmanian Physical and Cultural Type

What I think is missing from this article is a frank discussion of what made the British deem the Tasmanian native inhabitants to be so "primitive" that they could be killed at will.

This is a unique phenomenon in British colonialism -- there was of course massive oppression and de facto murder of colonial subjects everywhere else, but Tasmania was the only place where the native inhabitants were initially considered to be literally "sub-human" without any human rights at all.

The real or imagined cultural condition of the native inhabitants was one factor. How were they reported to live by the colonists -- entirely without clothing and dwellings? And does any new archeological data contradict this?

The distinctive physical type of the native inhabitants was also essential to their categorization by the colonists.

Can we see some data/illustrations on morphology, cranial capacity, etc. -- and how these data were interpreted by scientists in a wholly racist way in former times?

And how about today, when the Tasmanian physical type figures in the debate about "Recent-Out-of-Africa" vs. "Multiregional" evolution. Can we get an argument from a multiregionalist that the Tasmanians represented a mixed Homo erectus/Homo sapiens type, refuted by an out-of-Africanist?

Finally, the question of repatriation of remains is presented only from one point of view in the article currently, as redressing of an injustice. Many scientists are opposed to these sorts of repatriations -- compare the Kennewick Man case -- and that point of view should be presented co-equally. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.16.12 (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] H.G Wells Quote

What place does the preface of a fictional book have to do with factual information about Tasmanian Aboriginals? Gnangarra 03:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Capitalisation in title - correct Australian usage is to capitalise both Tasmanian and Aborigine - see Talk:Indigenous_Australians/archive_2#Capitalisation_of_Indigenous Paul foord 08:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aboriginal or Aborigine?

Cjfudger (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is there so much inconsistency between the use of Aborigine and Aboriginal. I thought the correct name for people was Aborigine, unless you are saying "Aboriginal people"

  • There is no doubt that in formal English, the term "aborigine" is the noun that means an inhabitant of a particular place. It is therefore correct English to say an Aborigine or an Australian Aborigine when referring to one of people whose ancestors inhabited the land prior to the coming of Europeans.
  • The word "aboriginal" is plainly an adjective (a describing word). In formal English, you can be an aboriginal person, an aboriginal man or woman, or even use it to mean specifically an indigenous Australian by saying "I'm Aboriginal" in the same way as someone might say "I'm English".
  • Grammatically speaking, one cannot say "I am an Aboriginal".
  • However, Australian Aboriginal people, since about the late 1980s, have shown a marked preference for using the term "Aboriginal" as a noun, and shying away from the noun "Aborigine".
  • I believe that the reason for this is caused in part by the lack of formal education among Aboriginal people, at a time when Grammar was taught in Australian schools. Subsequently, in NSW at any rate, the teaching of English Grammar has been neglected for about thirty years, so that, even though education has become accessible, English Grammar has not, and we have one or two generations of Australians who would really have very little idea as to what part of speech the word "Aboriginal" is, let alone whether it is being used correctly.
  • To someone not studied of English grammar, the word "Aborigine" sounds like "Aboriginny" and, as everyone knows, you add a "y' to the end of a word to make a nick-name, like "dinky-di" and "billy boy" and "cow cocky". "Aboriginny" sounds like a nick-name. Not quite as bad as "Abo" but getting there!
  • So the word "Aboriginal" is in current use as a noun, simply because Aboriginal Australians have used it that way for thirty years, it has become common use in the press, and Aboriginal people correct those who call them "Aborigines".
  • The word is so much in use as a noun that the plural "Aboriginals" is also in common use.
  • The situation is not unusual. The terms "negro" and "negroid" are similarly rejected by many negroid people who prefer the term "Black" to the Latin-based scientific description which, translated, means the same thing.

My proposal is that we scrap the word "Aborigine" from the article simply because there are Aboriginal people who don't like it. The Term "Aboriginal" can be used either as an adjective as in "an Aboriginal person", or as a noun as in "a family of Aboriginals". Since throughout the article the word "Aboriginal" is taken to mean specifically aboriginal Australians, then it is a being used to describe a specific race and should always have a capital letter in this sense. So- "aboriginal Australians" but "Australian Aboriginals".

--Amandajm 15:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, while I am in favour of political correctness, I believe that the topic should remain under the heading Tasmanian Aborigines, because people of the world need to be able to find the article under "correct" English. --Amandajm 22:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've heard the local aboriginal activists refer to themselves as "Tasmanian Aborigines" a lot lately. Barrylb (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the use of 'aborigine' is not justified, even for the title. Many indigenous Australians have a problem with this term, not just because it has connotations of a nickname but because "it has been used as a term to classify and demean Aboriginal people in the repressive State in which I live - Queensland; it also assumes an 'air of superiority' by a dominant culture." (Jackie Huggins, 'Writing my Mother's life, Hectate, Vol. 17, no. 1, 1991, p. 88). If people want to look up 'Aborigines' they can get to a page entitled 'Aboriginal Tasmanians' anyway, so I don't think that is a good reason for its use. It simply continues the colonial history of domination. People that are interested in indigenous Australians should be encouraged to use politically sensitive terminology preferred by the people themselves. If Tasmanians choose to talk about themselves using the term 'Aborigine' then that is their choice and right to do so. "Correct" English is secondary to use of offensive, degrading words. I agree with the use of aboriginal as an adjective, Jackie Huggins uses it as a noun as well, but again, I would not feel comfortable doing so, for the above reasons.

Ok I moved the discussion here cause it was stranded at the top. I think we should take out lead from native usage which appears to be a preference for Aboriginal as a noun and adjective (from reading a lot of the native blogs and message boards). In the context of Tasmania, palawa is also increasingly used (see for example [2]). Given the way word classes are breaking down in English, I don't think the noun/adjective issue is a strong enough issue to affect preferred usage. After all, we have the Greens and you can background a picture ;)
So, personally i think we should move the page to either Palawa or Tasmanian Aboriginals Akerbeltz (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)