The article examined the position and relevance of Aboriginal imagery and policy in Australia before independence. Aboriginal imagery was used to justify activities of the colonial government. Later on, various writers used native Australian policy to support their demand for independence.
The Aborigines were portrayed as primitive people incapable of self rule. In several instances native Australians were portrayed as primitive and violent savages. Their land was referred to as a barren wilderness. The native Australians were dispossessed of their land. Right to own land was transferred to white settlers.
The imagery was intended to portray both the colonial government and white settlers as progressive and civilized. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, destruction of native Australians way of life (past, present and future) was justified using images of uncivilized past and promise of a progressive future. Aboriginal people served as a reference point for the colonial government. Writers at the time portrayed pre-colonial Australia as a backward society.
When democracy became a preferred method of governance in New South Wales, candidates often used Aboriginal imagery to portray their opponents as non-progressive. The future relevance of native Australians in the new dispensation was deliberately ignored. Democracy was a preserve of the white male.
The annihilation of the Aborigines was seen as a natural consequence of modernization. The colonialists treated Aborigines with contempt. They often viewed them as an inconvenience. Native Australians were viewed as non-progressive people. Their place in the politics of New South Wales was not examined.
When New South Wales was demanding for self governance, Aboriginal imagery was used to advance this course. It was used to show how a failed colony would look like. Proponents of independence argued that continued rule by Britain would certainly cause New South Wales to fall back to savagery (Mitchell, 2009).
Lack of Aboriginal policy was discussed in the context of attaining independence from Britain. Worries about Aboriginal destruction were not genuine. It was only used to emphasize the idea that a native white person was better suited to rule New South Wales.
The writer makes an observation that Aboriginal imagery was used to justify the dispossession of native Australians. This observation is accurate. The colonialists needed to portray aboriginal people as primitive savages to justify their continued occupation of the land. The imagery helped to advance the notion that the British government was progressive. It advanced the narrative that colonialists had managed to transform a wilderness into a successful economy.
The writer is also accurate in her observation that concern for Aboriginal people was not genuine. Aboriginal policy was used to advance a desire for independence. If the concerns had been genuinely concerned, they would have discussed the topic in detail. It would have been discussed separately. In this case, it appeared in a different discussion. The political future of the Aborigines was not discussed by the writers. The writers appeared to support their governments stand on this issue.
The writer observes that ignorance of aboriginal issues may not have been intentional. However, she is quick to point out that this cannot be forgiven. This is a valid argument considering the influence writers had on society. If the writers had criticized the government and the settlers, mistreatment of native Australians would not have continued. The British government would have responded promptly as this was a potentially embarrassing situation.
Reference
Mitchell, J. (2009). ‘Are we in Danger of a Hostile Visit from the Aborigines?’ Dispossession and the Rise of Self-Government in New South Wales. Australian Historical Studies, 40(3), 294-30. doi: 10.1080/10314610903105191.