Stateless Nations (part 2)
With debates on the Constitution, Recognition and a possible Treaty ramping up in the mainstream media it’s time to expose the lies that have conveniently masked Australia’s history. Indigenous people farmed, managed and governed the continent for millennia. In this three-part series JD Anthony reflects on Bruce Pascoe’s Dark Emu, Bill Gammage’s The Biggest Estate on Earth, Melissa Lucashenko’s The First Australian Democracy and Abdullah Ocalan’s The Roots of Civilisation to ask “Is it possible for us to see that the past was not more primitive and savage than the present, and that the future need not be barbaric?”
Pieces of the puzzle
So over time I came to realise that what I’d learned at school wasn’t really true. Two recent books by Bruce Pascoe and Bill Gammage consolidated and clarified Australian history for me, but other readings both dovetailed with this realisation and challenged it at the same time. Not “challenged” as in denying their revelations, but asking a more basic question – is there more to WHY things are like this?
Together with Pascoe’s and Melissa Lucashenko’s work, Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan’s treatise on Middle Eastern history helps to explore this question with a complicated process not unlike putting together a huge jigsaw puzzle. Although a lot of the pieces are still upside down or even on the floor, a big picture is emerging in my mind:
We’ve been lied to:
Aboriginal people managed the whole continent as one great estate, using fire carefully to herd animals and birds, domesticate plants, sow seeds, harvest, irrigate and store food for the off-season. They lived in villages and even towns, worked with stone and wood, navigated rivers and lakes and even sailed out to sea. The hunter-gatherer tag, the “nomad,” has been a convenient lie promulgated by colonisers who ignored the fact of prior Indigenous possession of the land. Without this lie there would be no doubt about Aboriginal entitlement to “land rights.” Bruce Pascoe’s Dark Emu – Black Seeds: agriculture of accident? establishes this as forthright polemic, in easy to read non-academic style. He upends what we thought we knew about pre-colonial Australia. Aboriginal himself, he chose to not rely on his own people’s oral history but includes over 160 references from many early white invaders and chroniclers. In particular he draws on the research of historian Bill Gammage.
The evidence is there if we care to listen and learn:
Gammage, along with other historians such as Rupert Gerritsen, has established the facts with an enormous degree of scholarly care. In The Biggest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines Made Australia he challenges the persistent myth – or should that be “lie” – that the first Europeans here found the continent barren and ugly and nothing like “home.” In fact many early accounts use the language of praise – the countryside was park-like! Similar to a gentleman’s estate with large trees dotted across lush grassland. Our heroic explorers could canter easily through a gentle, tended landscape with no thick underbrush or scrub to hinder progress. But they never asked how it came to be like this, and were shocked when within a generation the soil had been compacted by sheep and cattle and the bush invaded the park. Eric Rolls presented a case study of this process in his 1981 book about the Pilliga, which I read at the time but did not understand. Gammage opens our eyes to the fact that in 1788 Australia was no wilderness, but a sophisticated, successful and sensitive farming regime extending across the continent. Fire was not an indiscriminate way to reduce fuel, but a carefully employed tool ensuring that certain plants and animals flourished, and that resources were abundant and predictable. The land was managed.
Heaven on Earth:
Both Gammage and Pascoe attribute the seamless nature of this land management to spiritual factors, commonly called The Dreaming. Us ‘whitefellas’ struggle with the idea because, in my case at least, we’ve been brainwashed by Christianity. Spirituality equates with religion which must align with a historic, traditional idea of hierarchy. God the Father at the top and most of us at the bottom, like a pyramid. We can relate to and debate variations on that concept, even if we proclaim as atheists. But a dream time? Well a lot of our problem lies in the words themselves, something explored by Christine Nicholls who points out that “Dreaming and Dream Time” were labelled in English by Francis Gillen, the post- and telegraph-master at Alice Springs in the late 19th Century. She writes that: “dream-related terminology serves to erase the complexities of the original concepts in the many different Indigenous languages and cultures, by emphasising their putatively magical, fantastic and illusory attributes” when the Indigenous people understand the concepts “to be reality, religion and Law.”
The so-called Dreaming is grounded in the earth itself, providing a total framework for every aspect of existence. Everyone had a role and everything – plant, creek, animal, whatever – was cared for. Pascoe in particular talks of the Songlines that connected one side of the country to the other, North, South, East and West. “The cultural, economic, genetic and artistic conduits of the songlines brought goods, art, news, technology and marriage partners to centres of exchange.” The Dreaming, encompassing Law and Lore, ensured both balance and survival across the continent and it’s adjacent islands thousands of kilometres wide.
If one were to read just parts of these books, Gammage’s Chapter 4 “Heaven on Earth” and Pascoe’s Chapter 6 “The Heavens, Language and the Law” would be essential.
It may be impossible for us today to grasp the real nature of the Dreaming, spiritual and ecological, but Pascoe gets to another core question on page 130: “If we accept that Aboriginal people were managing their landscape and economy across cultural and geographical boundaries we need to wonder how that co-operation was wrought without resort to the physical coercion and war common in other civilisations … there has been no time identified when those trade routes were used for wars of possession … while individual acts of violence are depicted in Aboriginal art there is no trace of imperial warfare.”
Melissa Lukashenko wrote in Meanjin how the Aboriginal paradigm “was founded upon the four ethics of autonomy, balance, compassion and land/identity, (and) led to a stable, predictable polity on the east coast.” The anthropologist W.E.H. (Bill) Stanner saw this in central Australia too, writing: “its principle and its ethos are variations on a single theme – continuity, constancy, balance, symmetry, regularity … There are no wars or invasions to seize territory. They do not enslave each other. There is no master–servant relation. There is no class division. There is no property or income inequality. The result is a homeostasis, far-reaching and stable.”
The white explorer Sturt noted “we seldom or never saw weapons in the hands of any of the natives of the interior” and Gammage quotes anthropologist Mervyn Meggit saying there was “little reason for all-out warfare between communities. Slavery was unknown, portable goods were few, and territory seized in battle was virtually an embarrassment to the victors, whose spiritual ties were with other localities.” The Dreaming protected land and property until 1788 (Gammage uses the term “1788” as a catch-all for British invasion even though it took generations to conquer the entire continent) so that foodstores, tools and other possessions could be left in safe places, with no threat of theft or vandalism. There were no police, rather connected communities and a commonly accepted cultural-religious system of rules and behaviours. People could leave their villages to go to other places for ceremony or trade or cultivation, and when they returned everything would be as they left it. Both Pascoe and Gammage cite many examples of this, with extensive notes taken from explorers and early settlers.
It raises but doesn’t explain the question of “governance” in the old days although Pascoe does discuss decision-making processes, Elders, democracy, roles and procedures. In fact many reviewers (Such as Melissa Lukashenko) use his work to proclaim pre-1788 Australia as a model for democracy today. What emerges from these readings is that Indigenous society managed itself through spiritual law and mutual obligation, but without the apparatus of a “state,” without bureaucracy. Governance without Government – stateless governance no less!
So we could re-phrase Australian history thus – an empire invaded the country of self-managing nations who had long lived at peace with each other. Technological superiority and ruthless ideology (or Christian law, remembering that the English sovereign is also the head of their church) enabled a fairly quick victory, although the frontier wars continued well into the 20th Century. (Such wars are only touched on by Pascoe and Gammage, and are more deeply documented by Reynolds and others.) The first nations had long settled the land and were managing it well, but were almost wiped out and their country taken from them.
Thus the basis of the High Court’s Mabo decision could be seen as wrong – the early British colonists were invaders, not settlers. The colonies were conquered not settled. The conquerers were organised as a sovereign state but the conquered were not – their form of governance was unrecognisable to the invaders. In truth they did govern themselves, with laws, rules, roles, responsibilities, respect, consequences and even punishments for transgressors. This was sovereignty in a different guise, without the hierarchy that the British took for granted. The Australian Law Reform Commission has pointed out that, had “Australia been treated as a ‘conquered’ colony, Aboriginal customary laws, to the extent that they had not been expressly abrogated, would presumably have been recognised, at least in their application to Aborigines.” This of course is why Henry Reynolds and other “frontier war” historians have been subject to such attack and even vilification from right wing and conservative media. The Australian establishment must maintain the fiction that the country was peacefully settled and was basically empty.
Settlement and surplus:
What these authors show, in detail, is that the continent was in fact settled – by the original inhabitants, the Aboriginal people. Over 30,000 years or more they developed a system of agriculture and commerce, an economy that produced a surplus and enabled a settled lifestyle. They stored their surplus for later use and worked but a few hours a day. They had abundant time for rich cultural and religious celebrations. Pascoe in particular cites early colonist accounts that marvelled at Aboriginal stature, health and living standards. Their lives were not nasty brutish and short (to misquote Hobbes) and they were not nomads nor hunter-gatherers.
But a strange question now arises – their agricultural achievements and intensification of settlement provided a surplus of food and resources, in a similar way to the documented history of the Middle East in Neolithic times. There, from about 10,000 – 7,000 years ago, farming resulted in two concepts of “civilisation” – a sedentary lifestyle and a guarded food surplus. Guarded because other groups or peoples would come and steal – ransack, rape, pillage fill all the old stories and myths, such as the Bible – whatever was not behind a wall or locked gate. The tremendous human achievement of sedentary, agriculture-based societies in most of the world was always accompanied by the rise of militarism, group violence, organised religion (temples, priesthoods, taxes, written ledgers and records, bureaucracy) as Ocalan has described in his Prison Writings: The Roots of Civilisation. David Graeber also documents this transition in Debt: the first 5,000 years. Graeber in particular shows how temples were not simply religious centres but the beginnings of the state, with extensive records of taxes, debts, payments and even harvests falling due in the future.
But not in Australia. Settlements and agriculture but … no locked doors, food surpluses left unguarded, no bureaucracy, no hierarchy. Religious belief and an all-encompassing sense of the sacred but … no temples or priesthood or taxes.
In short, no appropriation of that surplus by an emerging elite.
Why was this so?
To be continued: Tomorrow … Democracy, Women and Patriarchy.
This article was originally published on Ranterulze.net.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
9 commentsLogin here Register here
Beautiful submission! When I will share with the family! During my stint in NT, I met with many aboriginals (who preferred to be called ‘countrymen’) a tale was told to me by an elder whom stated that when the tribes became too populous they tribes would stop breeding to prevent overpopulation and over consumptions of supplies to ensure the longevity of the tribe. Fascinating detail for supposedly barbaric tribals and a detail that is testament to their productivity and understanding of social management that belies their so called nomadic lifestyle which is complete BS. Also in QLD I hear there are cave paintings of aborigines with red hair, and in WA of aborigines with blonde hair!
Their medical knowledge was also astounding.
I think you conception of Christianity of a hierarchy is also a product of imperial ambitions. Jesus did not praise the Pharisees of His time and I very much doubt he would have praised the more modern Pharisees of the Catholic (and other) churches. In fact, Church heirarchy is in contradiction to the teaching of Christianity who stated: “And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9). In fact He taught that all people were equal as brothers and sisters, and that we were not to judge each other (i.e consider ourselves better than others at any time). So, yes Christianity does a have concept of hierarchy – but it is a very flat hierarchy with God at the top and everyone else on the same level immediately below.
So perhaps while we are pulling apart the false notions we have of imperialism and Indigenous culture, we could also consider what other false notions we have been fed in the service of selfishness of a few.
You say that Aboriginal culture allowed everyone equal ownership of the land, well Christianity does the same. This is implied in: “I tell you, make friends for yourselves by your use of dishonest wealth, so that, when it fails, they will welcome you to eternal dwellings” (Luke 16:9).
This is explained in other texts as follows:
” Look, every earthly rich person who possesses much more goods and money than he needs for his earthly livelihood, is compared to Me more or less an unrighteous steward because I am the only true owner of the goods, and the goods that he calls his own are all together unrighteous mammon.” (http://jakob-lorber.cc/index.php?s=%22unrighteous+mammon%22&l=en&b=GGJ)
This is very similar to Rousseau’s philosophy of:
“The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying ‘this is mine’, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not anyone have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows, ‘Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody’”(1).
Cook stole from just One Tribe when he named ‘Possession Island’ somewhere near Torres Strait he declared Terra Nullius. On that Island? Or the nearest tribal land?
Later the 700 tribal lands were overcome, one by one, each little war with one small tribe, all the way across Australia, as the newcomers arrived in the tribal lands.
From my understanding, each tribe had clearly defined boundaries, with a definite culture, the rule of law, and spiritual beliefs mostly described as similar to all tribes; or in our language, they each had the characteristics of a state.
The last tribe was met by the white man around 1960 in the Tanami Desert in SW NT.
By my reasoning, I say the Aboriginal peoples, If they were ‘One State’ could have the mass to defeat the “invasion”.
The Map of the tribes, the numerous languages spoken, meant certain defeat by more rapacious human greed exuded from the bowels of Europe, and armed with superior weapons.
One Treaty is not, appropriate.
We are, I believe, obliged to honour each tribe by seeking a separate treaty with each ‘state’ and provide them with ‘compensation and recognise their concerns,’ starting by providing assistance to those who still hold the language, laws and culture, to record these very ancient languages as part of Australia’s vast history. Then perhaps, we may understand how far we have to go, before all Australians can claim we are becoming reconciled with each other.
I start here as a White Fella, to declare I am proud to be born into a nation whose cultures and languages and rule of law, may go back perhaps 100,000 years.
I am, we are, we’re all Australians.
Terrific article reference essential reading, “Dark Emu” and “The Biggest Estate on Earth” – finally putting many of the lies claimed by Europeans to account.
Anyone can cherry-pick any religious text to find something that supports whatever opinion someone wants to sell.
A handy guide to the Abrahamic religions (and how to use them) is found here:
Knock yourself out, Matt, you’ll find a handy quote to fit nearly any circumstance.
Yes, if one cherry picks then one can take things out of context – I see it in academic writing all the time – however, if one looks at the whole ….
Many Christians make this claim, which leaves me wondering if you have really studied the bible.
If so, you would know the bible consists of tales told by men, cobbled together with the intent of political and other vested interests. In other words, the bible is a collection of disparate stories claimed to be of divine origin when all the evidence points towards the imagination of men.
Also, if one is to take the bible “as a whole” does this mean one is supposed to keep slaves? Stone adulterers? Slay foreigners? Of course, you can just cherry-pick the nasty bits out, I guess…. but that would not be looking at the bible “as a whole”.
I think you are correct in saying that various political and vested interests have come into play over the centuries. Perhaps that fact that the bible records all this warts and all is a testiment to its authenticity? However, as regards the teachings of Christianity, I think one need look no further than the new testiment – in that Jesus pulls up the pharisees of his time for their ‘stonings’ etc as portrayed here:
In any case, my belief is based on more than just the text as I explain here:
An article that I read recently stated that upon arrival of humans in Australia, large animals became extinct as has happened consistently in other parts of the world, . Australia used to be grazed by large marsupials which, limited vegetation and fire. It was only after the extinction of large herbivores that fire became a natural part of the landscape as fuel loads increased due to lack of grazing.
I think you are correct in saying that various political and vested interests have come into play over the centuries.
Political/vested interests were there right from the fireside chat by shepherds onwards – religion was and remains about power.
Perhaps that fact that the bible records all this warts and all is a testiment to its authenticity?
(Apologies Godwin law ref) Mein Kampf is full of warts – need I say more?
regards the teachings of Christianity, I think one need look no further than the new testiment
First I need to know if you believe in the “Jesus was the son of God” story, if so I recommend you check out the story of Mithras. The Mithras story was in vogue well before the Jesus story, however, both of these protagonists had in common virgin births, a type of deity and were resurrected after death, for more information, please reference:http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Jesus_and_Mithra
Matt, you also need to know I was taught Christianity as a child – Sunday school and all that. I am familiar with many of the positive tales about Jesus such as Jesus’ admonishment of stoning a woman for adultery. Nice tale, many religious teachers well before the time of Jesus preached similar good sense. Asking people to be good to each other did not start with Jesus. Besides there remains no evidence that a man called Jesus actually existed, that he was, instead, a compilation of the many itinerant preachers who hiked about the Middle East 2000+- years ago.
As for your link to Candobetter
I do believe in love, what I don’t believe is a prescribed type of love as espoused by religion – any religion, be they the 3 Abrahamic religions, Hindu, Buddhism or totem worship.
Now, I got out of my sick bed to reply. It is not difficult, I have had these same arguments with many Christians before you. Apart from the usual Sunday School teachings (which cherry picks all the good stories), I have read the bible (both testaments) in full.
If you have any further arguments, bring ’em on, I may not reply immediately, but at least I know how to spell “testament”.