Scan barcode
theogb451's review
4.0
A good and interesting read that made a lot of things clearer about how the first peoples around Melbourne were systematically removed and why the usual excuses for this simply don't hold water. I was surprised at how many people in the mid-19th Century were already aware how the Aboriginal people were being destroyed and how badly we treated the country.
ur_local_dustmite's review against another edition
4.0
I like the way Boyce writes history. It goes well after having read Van Diemen’s Land as it is set afterward, and Melbourne is essentially colonised by Van Demonian’s in the end. I preferred the environment- driven history of Van Diemen’s Land to the more personnel focus of 1835 but appreciate that this style was more appropriate for this book given the particular circumstance of this settlement.
So-called ‘Melbourne’ and ‘Victoria’ were colonised by property speculators (some also politicians), the Port Phillip Association, who saw opportunity to further develop their farming/property businesses by expanding to new pastures across Bass Strait. Boyce’s main argument is that the British colonial government and colonial secretary (Lord Glenelg) were responsible for the opportunistic, fast, bloody land grab that occurred by maintaining a policy of doing nothing to disincentivise the colonial boundaries being upheld and then being criminally negligent in properly safe-guarding the rights of First Nations people of Victoria and setting aside land for these groups. Removing the boundaries of settlement basically opened the rest of so called ‘Australia’ up for a free-for-all and through all this Boyce warns of the human and environmental cost of this style of laissez-faire, ‘small’, neoliberal style government.
The materialist perspective Boyce returns to is critical here and in the end Boyce systematically debunks some convenient myths that are commonly held of the settlement of Australia and how it is historically recorded. Boyce argues that 1. Adaptation and resistance were integral parts of First Nations peoples experience and survival of colonisation which is being increasingly understood in contemporary historical analysis adding more nuance to the colonisation narrative. However, Boyce argues that whilst this perspective is important, the sheer devastation caused to First Nations people due to the settlement of Victoria should not be undermined. 2. In the debate of the role of disease and this convenient cause the Empire hides behind in explaining the ‘accidental’ massacre of First Nations people, Boyce argues whether or not they were purposefully introduced, and regardless of the number that died by disease, the devastation caused by diseases to First Nations Victorians was largely due to negligence on behalf of the government and settlers. First Nations Victorians food and shelter was destroyed and in the few reserves that existed for them they did not have enough resources to live healthily. 3. Convict scapegoating – the idea that the frontier was violent due to the presence of convicts and violent ex-convicts is convenient class warfare, empire propagandist dribble – wealthy landowners talked often to each other of the effectiveness of the use of terror to stop First Nations ‘stealing’. The colonial government pushed much rhetoric about protecting First Nations Victorians, but they ultimately were responsible for the land grab which was the root of this violence. 4. The mystery of existence – Boyce here argues that the conservative talking point that ‘well if colonisation like ours didn’t happen then we wouldn’t be here’ is defensive reaction as cities and places are established on past decisions which inform the present and scrutinising past policy is important for understanding why our cities are like they are and changing the future.
I found some of Boyce’s anecdotes tiresome, I think they could have been reduced and some of the details on various personalities was too much for my interest. This is also a history based on colonial documents and journals – what was driving the settlement’s decision making. Some of the language was also outdated and should be revised. It would be interesting to know it any First Nations of Victoria were consulted in producing this book.
I would recommend it to anyone living in so-called Victoria, those interested in the capitalist motivations of Empire building and its cost for Indigenous peoples, but I would particularly recommend it to people defensive of the history of colonisation in Australia, perhaps some in the older generation, as Boyce’s voice is moderate and he systematically analyses the lazy and neglectful policy decisions that were the root cause of unplanned land occupation and much suffering.
The beginning chapters setting the scene of contexts on the Yarra, in Port Phillip Bay, in Sydney, Hobart, and London were very good.
Boyce’s commentary of George Augustus Robinson (Aboriginal Protectorate in Van Diemen’s Land and then Melbourne) is interesting. Boyce points out the hypocrisy in Robinson’s discrepancies in what he reports in his official reports to government (largely of anthropological value, missing important reporting on the widespread abuses) and the criticality and worry expressed in his private journals. Robinson was widely critical of systematic procedure which he knew was leading to the abuse of First Nations Victorians rights and also knew of the abuses to First Nations Victorians on the ground and was sympathetic to First Nations suffering. However, Boyce argues that also these Protectorates were stuck in a difficult place. They were totally under-resourced (there were 5 in Victoria during a couple of decades were the population and land occupied grew exponentially) and were placed as tokens to stand in the way of a completely unrestrained land rush and had almost no power on the ground. There were no systems put in place to ensure they could do their job, and perhaps there were only there for the empire to claim its moral duties were being upheld.
“As Robinson (Protector of the Aborigines) regularly pointed out, this paucity and neglect was occurring at a time when the NSW government coffers were overflowing with hundreds of thousands of pounds in revenue from the sale of Aboriginal lands. Robinson knew that the neglect of the [First Nations Victorians] was not primarily a product of ignorance, misunderstanding or perennial budget complaints, but accurately reflected the priority given to the conquest and settlements of homelands.”
“What if it had been made clear to investors that those who occupied land without government sanction would be barred from leasing or purchasing crown land in the future? What if the owners of sheep placed illegally on crown land were automatically denied the right to receive convict labour or be considered for government office? What if the protectors of the Aborigines had been given the power to renew or cancel squatting licences according to whether the squatter upheld the Aborigines’ right to access the resources of their country? What if London hadn’t waited until the late 1840s to insist on clauses in pastoral leases that specified that Aborigines were not to be deprived ‘of their former right to hunt over these Districts, or to wander over them in search of subsistence, in the manner to which they have been heretofore accustomed’?”
“The truth revealed by these genuine policy options is that the conquest of almost all of Victoria’s vast grasslands in less than a decade, and almost all of easter Australia in a single generation didn’t occur in spite of policy or political action, but because of it. Politics was not overwhelmed by the market, but instead drove the resource rush. While some level of violence and suffering could not have been avoided, with sufficient political will the colonisation of Port Phillip could have been properly regulated, the Aborigines could have been better protected, and the land settlement process dramatically slowed to allow time for cultural adaptations and change.”
“In the 175 years following the founding of Melbourne and the overturning of the policy of concentrated settlement, we have come to assume that economic forces set the parameters of government power. It has become difficult to remember that, as the Aborigines Protection Society put it in 1837, the uncontrolled, comprehensive and ruthlessly fast conquest of the Australian continent was not ‘an appointment from heaven’.”
So-called ‘Melbourne’ and ‘Victoria’ were colonised by property speculators (some also politicians), the Port Phillip Association, who saw opportunity to further develop their farming/property businesses by expanding to new pastures across Bass Strait. Boyce’s main argument is that the British colonial government and colonial secretary (Lord Glenelg) were responsible for the opportunistic, fast, bloody land grab that occurred by maintaining a policy of doing nothing to disincentivise the colonial boundaries being upheld and then being criminally negligent in properly safe-guarding the rights of First Nations people of Victoria and setting aside land for these groups. Removing the boundaries of settlement basically opened the rest of so called ‘Australia’ up for a free-for-all and through all this Boyce warns of the human and environmental cost of this style of laissez-faire, ‘small’, neoliberal style government.
The materialist perspective Boyce returns to is critical here and in the end Boyce systematically debunks some convenient myths that are commonly held of the settlement of Australia and how it is historically recorded. Boyce argues that 1. Adaptation and resistance were integral parts of First Nations peoples experience and survival of colonisation which is being increasingly understood in contemporary historical analysis adding more nuance to the colonisation narrative. However, Boyce argues that whilst this perspective is important, the sheer devastation caused to First Nations people due to the settlement of Victoria should not be undermined. 2. In the debate of the role of disease and this convenient cause the Empire hides behind in explaining the ‘accidental’ massacre of First Nations people, Boyce argues whether or not they were purposefully introduced, and regardless of the number that died by disease, the devastation caused by diseases to First Nations Victorians was largely due to negligence on behalf of the government and settlers. First Nations Victorians food and shelter was destroyed and in the few reserves that existed for them they did not have enough resources to live healthily. 3. Convict scapegoating – the idea that the frontier was violent due to the presence of convicts and violent ex-convicts is convenient class warfare, empire propagandist dribble – wealthy landowners talked often to each other of the effectiveness of the use of terror to stop First Nations ‘stealing’. The colonial government pushed much rhetoric about protecting First Nations Victorians, but they ultimately were responsible for the land grab which was the root of this violence. 4. The mystery of existence – Boyce here argues that the conservative talking point that ‘well if colonisation like ours didn’t happen then we wouldn’t be here’ is defensive reaction as cities and places are established on past decisions which inform the present and scrutinising past policy is important for understanding why our cities are like they are and changing the future.
I found some of Boyce’s anecdotes tiresome, I think they could have been reduced and some of the details on various personalities was too much for my interest. This is also a history based on colonial documents and journals – what was driving the settlement’s decision making. Some of the language was also outdated and should be revised. It would be interesting to know it any First Nations of Victoria were consulted in producing this book.
I would recommend it to anyone living in so-called Victoria, those interested in the capitalist motivations of Empire building and its cost for Indigenous peoples, but I would particularly recommend it to people defensive of the history of colonisation in Australia, perhaps some in the older generation, as Boyce’s voice is moderate and he systematically analyses the lazy and neglectful policy decisions that were the root cause of unplanned land occupation and much suffering.
The beginning chapters setting the scene of contexts on the Yarra, in Port Phillip Bay, in Sydney, Hobart, and London were very good.
Boyce’s commentary of George Augustus Robinson (Aboriginal Protectorate in Van Diemen’s Land and then Melbourne) is interesting. Boyce points out the hypocrisy in Robinson’s discrepancies in what he reports in his official reports to government (largely of anthropological value, missing important reporting on the widespread abuses) and the criticality and worry expressed in his private journals. Robinson was widely critical of systematic procedure which he knew was leading to the abuse of First Nations Victorians rights and also knew of the abuses to First Nations Victorians on the ground and was sympathetic to First Nations suffering. However, Boyce argues that also these Protectorates were stuck in a difficult place. They were totally under-resourced (there were 5 in Victoria during a couple of decades were the population and land occupied grew exponentially) and were placed as tokens to stand in the way of a completely unrestrained land rush and had almost no power on the ground. There were no systems put in place to ensure they could do their job, and perhaps there were only there for the empire to claim its moral duties were being upheld.
“As Robinson (Protector of the Aborigines) regularly pointed out, this paucity and neglect was occurring at a time when the NSW government coffers were overflowing with hundreds of thousands of pounds in revenue from the sale of Aboriginal lands. Robinson knew that the neglect of the [First Nations Victorians] was not primarily a product of ignorance, misunderstanding or perennial budget complaints, but accurately reflected the priority given to the conquest and settlements of homelands.”
“What if it had been made clear to investors that those who occupied land without government sanction would be barred from leasing or purchasing crown land in the future? What if the owners of sheep placed illegally on crown land were automatically denied the right to receive convict labour or be considered for government office? What if the protectors of the Aborigines had been given the power to renew or cancel squatting licences according to whether the squatter upheld the Aborigines’ right to access the resources of their country? What if London hadn’t waited until the late 1840s to insist on clauses in pastoral leases that specified that Aborigines were not to be deprived ‘of their former right to hunt over these Districts, or to wander over them in search of subsistence, in the manner to which they have been heretofore accustomed’?”
“The truth revealed by these genuine policy options is that the conquest of almost all of Victoria’s vast grasslands in less than a decade, and almost all of easter Australia in a single generation didn’t occur in spite of policy or political action, but because of it. Politics was not overwhelmed by the market, but instead drove the resource rush. While some level of violence and suffering could not have been avoided, with sufficient political will the colonisation of Port Phillip could have been properly regulated, the Aborigines could have been better protected, and the land settlement process dramatically slowed to allow time for cultural adaptations and change.”
“In the 175 years following the founding of Melbourne and the overturning of the policy of concentrated settlement, we have come to assume that economic forces set the parameters of government power. It has become difficult to remember that, as the Aborigines Protection Society put it in 1837, the uncontrolled, comprehensive and ruthlessly fast conquest of the Australian continent was not ‘an appointment from heaven’.”
dustytiger29's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.25
melbsreads's review
4.0
It didn't suck me in *quite* as much as Van Diemen's Land did, but it was still great!