The Australians could be as racist as all hell. However they were often rather particular who they were racist to. American blacks were often considered "allright" whereas indigenous Australians were considered the lowest of the low. I often thought that remarkable. What was even more interesting was once the Armed Services overcame their colour bar, the Indigenous Australians who were recruited found they were treated exactly as well as the White soldiers. Kath Noonuccal Walker often remarked on how well she was treated in her military career. It was quite an eye opener for both the Indigenous Australians and the White soldiers. My old WO who had served in Korea had served under "Reg" Saunders, the first Indigenous Australian to be commissioned. He wouldn't hear a bad word said about Indigenous Australians. Today, we have NORFORCE which has about 75% Indigenous soldiers amongst it's numbers. They regularly patrol the Top End. They are a valuable resource which we ignored for too long.
Rearm the ANZACs for the Pacific War.
- Thread starter Peg Leg Pom
- Start date
The Australians could be as racist as all hell. However they were often rather particular who they were racist to. American blacks were often considered "allright" whereas indigenous Australians were considered the lowest of the low. I often thought that remarkable. What was even more interesting was once the Armed Services overcame their colour bar, the Indigenous Australians who were recruited found they were treated exactly as well as the White soldiers. Kath Noonuccal Walker often remarked on how well she was treated in her military career. It was quite an eye opener for both the Indigenous Australians and the White soldiers. My old WO who had served in Korea had served under "Reg" Saunders, the first Indigenous Australian to be commissioned. He wouldn't hear a bad word said about Indigenous Australians. Today, we have NORFORCE which has about 75% Indigenous soldiers amongst it's numbers. They regularly patrol the Top End. They are a valuable resource which we ignored for too long.
We still "pay our own way" on all pieces of military adventurism that we have become embroiled in.
Pity Washington doesn't care. The history of US - Australian relations is all one way it seems. Washington takes and doesn't give. We have requested American help in 1960 with the West New Guinea dipuste, in 1965 with Konfrontasi, in 1975 with East Timor and in 1999 with East Timor again. In each case, Washington has refrained from getting involved and has placed a greater priority on Indonesian relations than on Australia's. The best we got was a Marine Expeditionary Group that sat off shore in Dili harbour in 1999 and an accassional helicopter flyover for a month.
The big issue was a political one. The Act by which the Commonwealth accepted the Northern Territory from South Australia had a clause where the Commonwealth would build the N-S TransCon from Darwin to a point on the northern SA border. Whenever there was an effort By the Commonwealth to build the railway to Darwin via Queensland, SA would point to the legislation and remind Canberra of its obligations.
Not in any way disputing the racism that existed, and still exists, but the first of these is a myth and I seriously doubt the veracity of the second.
NSW counted Indigenous Australians as "fauna" rather than as "human beings". The states refused to allow Indigenous Australians to be counted for the census, perceiving them as "non-productive" for the purposes of the taxation which was how the Commonwealth exacted payment from the newly created states. Only South Australia allowed Indigenous Australians the right to vote before 1967 and there they attempted to make it as difficult as possible for them to undertake their franchise (usually by locating the polling booth as far as possible from the Indigenous settlements/missions).
The fauna myth is just that. ABC Fact Check exposed it leading up to an anniversary of the '67 referendum and Wikipedia even has an entry. Basically, some state government departments included Aboriginal Affairs along with, for example, the environment. That's part of where the myth comes from. It's clearly ridiculous to draw such a conclusion from that fact alone, but it's part of it. The other myth, which you've also repeated, is that Indigenous Australians weren't counted for the Census. They often were, and in a rather racist context by asking questions such as the percentage of someone's blood. What they didn't do was count them as part of the total population figure. It's believed this was originally due to not wanting Aboriginal people to impact on how electoral boundaries were drawn, but it's not entirely clear what it was about. The voting comment is another myth. Most states allowed Aboriginal people to vote well before the '67 referendum, which is very much misunderstood.
If you're interested this is a good article: parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22library/prspub/JTZM6%22
Last edited:
I stand corrected. The Census issue is a mixed one and as I read the original conference minutes, the greatest issue was that Indigenous Australians were considered "non-productive" and so, because of the way the Commonwealth was funded originally, they should not in the view of the colonies be counted. As if that was limited to what were once called "full bloods" as against "half bloods" I have no idea. All I know is that Indigenous Australians were not counted. Which is how the 1967 referendum came about, the main part of the questions were Indigenous Australians to be counted in the census and accorded citizenship. I am aware that individual states had limited franchises for Indigenous Australians. They could be classified as "whites" if they swore to give up their association with their fellow Indigenous Australians or they might have served in WWII, however the majority of Indigenous Australians were treated as if they were children because of the policies of paternalism. They needed permission to marry and they couldn't drink alcohol or they needed permission to move around the countryside.
Not the case either. The main result of the referendum - besides the symbolic, which arguably has become more important - is that it allowed the federal government to make laws concerning Aboriginal people, which previously was solely the domain of the states. This has facilitated federal support specifically for Aboriginal people. Also, the citizenship claim is another myth. Honestly have a read of the article. And to be clear I am not in any way disagreeing that Aboriginal people faced, and still do, albeit to a lesser extent and certainly not in law, racial discrimination and disadvantage.
Last edited:
Yes, the federal Gov’t was happy to turn a blind on this, and let the states do whatever. QLD the worst, followed by WA.
The following are official publications from the time (also warning about the language used in them reflects the time they were written, and not just regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples)
Year Book Australia, 1936 pg. 457 (69 of the linked pdf) shows some contemporary information collected.
A bulletin Summary relating to full-blood aboriginals from the 1933 Census notes the following for the table Estimated and recorded population in each state:
@Fred the Great thanks for the article
Year Book Australia, 1936 pg. 457 (69 of the linked pdf) shows some contemporary information collected.
A bulletin Summary relating to full-blood aboriginals from the 1933 Census notes the following for the table Estimated and recorded population in each state:
At the Census of 30th June, 1933, aboriginals who were civilised or semi-civlised, and who were either in employment or living in proximity to settlements, were enumerated. No attempt was made to obtain particulars concerning nomadic aboriginals.
@Fred the Great thanks for the article
Yet US geography, even in the southwest doesn't quite have to deal with the long drought/intense flooding cycle of inland Australia , particularly in the Lake Eyre basin that the old line from Port Augusta to Alice Springs skirted along the western edge of. Any railway line from Bourke in far west NSW or western Qld would have to pass through the eastern part of the basin through the Channel Country that notoriously floods millions of hectares for weeks at a time when the rains come. Our geography is a lot older and less active than yours, while the climate, particularly in the inland is far different from North America.
Last edited:
It was from a book about the contribution that Indigenous Australians had made to the defence forces...
You can't cite who made these serious proposals? Or was it just another myth?
"As Japanese forces advanced towards Australia, the northern coast was fortified for defence. Some White Australians believed that Aboriginals, particularly those who had worked in the pre-war pearling industry which was dominated by the Japanese, would assist the enemy but this proved false. In fact, Aborigines overwhelmingly gave their support to the defence effort." from the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in the Armed Forces entry in Dennis, Peter, The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History, 2nd Ed., Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, 2008. Entry written by Robert A. Hall.
Dr Hall has two other publications on indigenous service in the Second World War. Might be one of those.
Dr Hall has two other publications on indigenous service in the Second World War. Might be one of those.
No, I can't cite it. I read it over 20 years ago now. I'll have a hunt 'round but I won't guarantee I can find it again.
Here it is! Robert A. Hall, Fighters from the Fringe: Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Recall the Second World War, 1995, Aboriginal Studies Press
Last edited:
The Japanese held an opinion that all Asian people's would rise up and fight for Japan against the European colonial powers. This was rarely the case especially when various liberties happened that would not be approved under Geneva conventions. Australia may have a poor history with regards to certain aspects of treating our First People's. Today the Aboriginal contingent in the ADF is very important and respected. Having said that the history books and indeed the men i knew who fought in Darwin and the surrounds never mentioned the Aboriginals in a negative light. In fact several pilots would have died if not for the Aboriginal Tribes saving them and getting them to safety. The Northern Territory is very very unforgiving land with 100's of poisonous and deadly creatures. Go get fresh water meet a Crocodile. Walk without being careful get bit by a snake. Eat the wrong fruit die in agony.
I recall a story during the war when a plane had to make a forced landing on the coast up there and after 3 days of slowly dying having not found any fresh water the exhausted crew were approached by a very laid back First Peoples Australian who told them that he had waited for 3 days before approaching them in case they were Japanese. Upon being asked what he (and the other First Peoples with him) would have done had they been Japanese the response was 'finished you off'
You also fail to mention the greatest and most terrible threat to humans.
So terrible that I don't blame you for not mentioning it.
I of course refer to 'Drop Bears' <Shudders in horror>