Reviews
Tongerlongeter: First Nations Leader and Tasmanian War Hero by Nicholas Clements, Henry Reynolds
jasgrace's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
4.5
It's a dense read, but important book highlighting Tongerlongeter and the aboriginal resistance in Tasmania. History barely told.
tasmanian_bibliophile's review
3.5
‘The subject of this book, the warrior chief Tongerlongeter, is first named in the records four days before the end of the Black War – the vast frontier conflict that consumed eastern Tasmania from 1823 to 1831.’
When I was a school child in Tasmania in the 1960s, I was taught that Truganini, the last Tasmanian Aborigine, had died in 1869. The how, the who and the why was not part of the curriculum. It was not until the 1970s that I learned this was untrue. Since then, I have been trying to learn more.
Who was Tongerlongeter, and why is he a war hero? Firstly, while I understand that Indigenous names often have different spellings according to who recorded them, I understand that members of the Paredarerme Nation prefer the English spelling of his name as ‘Tongelongeta’. Except for direct quotes from the book, I will use that spelling.
This book is both the history of a war (The Black War of 1823-1831) and of Tongelongeta. Colonial records tell us more about the war than the individuals. I read that Tongelongeta and his ally Montpelliatta embarked on 710 attacks during this period, killing 182 colonists and wounding a further 176. So exact, so precise. While we have no numbers of the Indigenous people killed, we are told that the ‘casualties were up to three times greater, and their population plummeted.’
‘The most important lesson driven home by the war was the central importance of the ownership and control of land.’
The British established their first settlement at Risdon Cove, opposite today’s Hobart, in 1803. From the 1820s settlement accelerated along the fertile valleys of the southeast. While Tongelongeta initially restricted his warriors to targeted retribution, the violence against his people continued to grow resulting in accelerated attacks.
By night, Tongelongeta and his people were vulnerable to ambush. They did not attack at night because they were wary of evil spirits. Tongelongeta ’s first wife was taken in one of these ambushes. But during daylight hours, Tongerlongeta and his warriors were formidable foes. They would typically surround a hut, kill the occupants, take what they wanted and then set fire to the hut. They would then vanish. And so, the war continued until an armistice was brokered.
‘After eight gruelling years, the fighting was over.’
On Saturday 7 January 1832, Tongerlongeta and the remaining 25 men, women, and one child, walked down the centre of Hobart with their hunting dogs, spears, ‘shrieked their war song’ to meet the Governor. They were exiled to Flinders Island where Tongerlongeta died in 1837.
I’ll leave the history there. History is usually written by the victors and often not questioned by those on the ‘winning’ side. Perhaps the greatest strength of this book is that it invites us, uncomfortable as it is, to reconsider what we think we know and mourn what has been lost.
‘There is nothing in the Tasmanian landscape to remind locals or visitors that once an island of patriots fought a desperate war against an invader.’
Jennifer Cameron-Smith
kaitlyns_library's review
5.0
The closest I’ve gotten to learning about Tasmania’s history with First Nations people was ‘The Black Line’ and only because I taught it to my year 9’s this semester. This novel gave me more of an insight into the ongoing resistance that was happening in Tasmania. This is one I would recommend to assist in understanding more about First Nations history and the damaging impacts European “colonisation” has had on Australia.
elena_lowana's review against another edition
1.0
I read this book with a red pen, and marked everything I found wrong with it – that should give you a good idea of my view of it. Tongelongeta is my ancestor (Reynolds and Clements, I would point out, spell the name incorrectly, with English phonetics – the colonial spelling if you will, that does not match how it sounds. I imagined as I picked up the book, thousands of people now saying my ancestor’s name wrong). Thousands of people now know my ancestor’s story wrong, too.
Reynolds and Clements, I should point out, never engaged with us (the Paredarerme Nation - yes, we are still here) – Tongelongeta’s people, his kin. We feature not at all in this text – and I do not think we are ever meant to. For this book to succeed, our presence must be a footnote; the past. The book was marketed on its release, and in subsequent reviews in various newspapers etc., as a part of ‘reconciliation’; of ‘truth-telling’. What reconciliation, or truth-telling is it, I ask you, if the very people who Tongelongeta fought for, are excluded entirely from the process? We have had no voice here, and the book suffers for it.
Most crucially, key pieces of information are either wholly untrue, or missing altogether. In the first few pages, the authors label us, and Tongelongeta, as Oyster Bay (a fiction), and state that there is no recorded name for us. I should inform you here, that there is – we are Paredarerme. This is the actual name for the colonial name 'Oyster Bay' nation. It comes up if you google ‘Oyster Bay’ and has been recorded in colonial texts ("Parrdarrama") and passed down in oral history, and community spaces, and known beyond any doubt. Much of this conflict is dismissed in the book by the authors' claiming there is 'no consensus' on these things - naming practices, for example, and what is or isn't known in the (Aboriginal) community. I can tell you that there most certainly is. Had the authors asked us, they would know too.
This is perhaps what I find most frustrating, and degrading, with this book. The very real facts that our communities hold become nothing; what is in fact self-evident becomes murky and confused. The authority of the book and its claims, which comes from settler historians' perceptions of us, both then and now (I include here, both Reyonolds and Clements), is no small thing.
It is important to tell these stories – but at what cost? This is not an accurate telling (I want to go more into every fault or error, but to do so would take up nearly every page of the book), and the repeated un-truths ruin the power of the book entirely for me.
Reynolds and Clements, I should point out, never engaged with us (the Paredarerme Nation - yes, we are still here) – Tongelongeta’s people, his kin. We feature not at all in this text – and I do not think we are ever meant to. For this book to succeed, our presence must be a footnote; the past. The book was marketed on its release, and in subsequent reviews in various newspapers etc., as a part of ‘reconciliation’; of ‘truth-telling’. What reconciliation, or truth-telling is it, I ask you, if the very people who Tongelongeta fought for, are excluded entirely from the process? We have had no voice here, and the book suffers for it.
Most crucially, key pieces of information are either wholly untrue, or missing altogether. In the first few pages, the authors label us, and Tongelongeta, as Oyster Bay (a fiction), and state that there is no recorded name for us. I should inform you here, that there is – we are Paredarerme. This is the actual name for the colonial name 'Oyster Bay' nation. It comes up if you google ‘Oyster Bay’ and has been recorded in colonial texts ("Parrdarrama") and passed down in oral history, and community spaces, and known beyond any doubt. Much of this conflict is dismissed in the book by the authors' claiming there is 'no consensus' on these things - naming practices, for example, and what is or isn't known in the (Aboriginal) community. I can tell you that there most certainly is. Had the authors asked us, they would know too.
This is perhaps what I find most frustrating, and degrading, with this book. The very real facts that our communities hold become nothing; what is in fact self-evident becomes murky and confused. The authority of the book and its claims, which comes from settler historians' perceptions of us, both then and now (I include here, both Reyonolds and Clements), is no small thing.
It is important to tell these stories – but at what cost? This is not an accurate telling (I want to go more into every fault or error, but to do so would take up nearly every page of the book), and the repeated un-truths ruin the power of the book entirely for me.
archytas's review
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
This is the history of a war as well as a man, and due to the nature of the record, the war comes through more strongly than the man. Reynolds and Clements - Reynolds on big picture, Clements on the detail - briefly reconstruct what we know of this leaders' life before the Black War, before getting into the main section of the book.
I'm not naturally inclined towards military history, and I'd be lying if I said I found every sentence fascinating, but this builds such a compelling case for acknowledging this as a foundational war in Australia that I was gripped by the narrative as a whole. Those who do quite enjoy military history are going to love it.
I'm not naturally inclined towards military history, and I'd be lying if I said I found every sentence fascinating, but this builds such a compelling case for acknowledging this as a foundational war in Australia that I was gripped by the narrative as a whole. Those who do quite enjoy military history are going to love it.
More...