Shootings

[motto (RIP)]

No response Guyvapeur. Not because nobody cares but because 'what can be said in the face of these senseless killings that seem to have become part of our lives?' It's not only law enforcement officers that are the victims. The pre-disposition of people to perform violence on each other appears to be increasing generally. Last night a 19 year old man was fatally shot in a Sydney street. This sort of thing didn't used to happen.
It is a complex issue of which access to firearms is only a part. After WW1 & 2 hundreds of thousands of men trained in the use of firearms returned to civilian life with easy access to guns but shootings were a rarity. In Australia these shooting rampages started happening around the time that the generation that fought WW2 was handing over the reins to the following generation.
The great Australian poet Henry Lawson uses a line in one of his poems that refers to 'rotting in a deadly peace'. I suspect that he perceived something of the big picture. We've had it too good for too long. It seems that violence, lamentably, is part of the human condition in one form or another and always will be.

David

Shots fired into the front of a house in Sydney overnight. This never used to happen either. Now it's not uncommon at all in Sydney and Melbourne and firearms legislation is vastly more restrictive than it was when I was a youth.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by motto

After WW1 & 2 hundreds of thousands of men trained in the use of firearms returned to civilian life with easy access to guns but shootings were a rarity. In Australia these shooting rampages started happening around the time that the generation that fought WW2 was handing over the reins to the following generation.

David, you mean shootings of white people were a rarity. Australian ex-servicemen shot thousands of Aboriginal men, women and children over the years, sometimes several hundred at a time, ably assisted by police of course. I suspect that would qualify as a "shooting rampage".

[rob love]

One change to this recent occurrence is that the media is not playing up the shooter, making him infamous and thereby offering infamy to the next guy who wants to go on a spree. It will do nothing to boost the media's sales, and I find it rather incredulous that they have done this. Good on them.

Too often, within days of the shooting, we hear every minute detail possible about the shooter, along with every known photo of him. Hopefully, if this is the media's new operandi on these horrible events, they can stick with it.

[motto (RIP)]

Tony, bad things happened in the isolation of the countryside in the 19th century, I don't doubt that but what actually went on is largely confined to hearsay and what is believed by any individual is dependant on their natural inclination and allegiances.
What I am trying to identify and comment on here are the changes in community attitudes and behaviour in my lifetime plus two generations. When I was born in 1948 there were still huge numbers of people around who were born in the late 1800s. By then the 'aboriginal massacres' were a thing of the past and I strongly object to them being associated in any way with returned servicemen from WW1 & 2.
Rob, I agree entirely, the media have played a large part in perpetuating this aberrant behaviour.

David

[chris vickery]

Re the media;
Blood and guts and sensationalism sells news, bottom line.
As Rob points out, I think the average citizen has had enough and finally news outlets are realizing this. Personally I hold most news reporters at about the same level as lawyers and politicians- scavengers making a living from the world's misery and despair at every opportune moment.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by motto

When I was born in 1948 there were still huge numbers of people around who were born in the late 1800s. By then the 'aboriginal massacres' were a thing of the past and I strongly object to them being associated in any way with returned servicemen from WW1 & 2.

David, my comments are in no way intended to impugn the reputation of Australian ex-servicemen. I'm only interested in history, and getting it right, without fear or favour. We've grown up with a lot of myths in this country and they need to be dismantled, because they don't do us justice. Most especially they fail to recognize Australian military achievements, particularly in WW1. Lamentably so in fact. That's my own pet bugbear, so I guess that says something about my "natural inclination and allegiances." I could rave on at length about the subject but it's a bit off topic here.

As you say we're discussing changes in society since the WW1 generation, specifically the rise in senseless gun killings in our own lifetime, and possible causative factors. I mentioned the earlier killings in passing because the question of "shooting rampages" came up, and I was pointing out that it's not an entirely new phenomenon. It has no real bearing on the modern situation, but since it's under question I'll deal with it here for the record.

The chapter in Australian history I'm referring to was the War Service Land Settlement Scheme, which ran from 1915 into the 1960s. It was this scheme which opened up much of rural and outback Australia to white settlement. Known also as the "second dispossession" it evicted Aboriginal populations off their reserve land for subdivision and allocation to ex-servicemen, including those who had not served overseas. Aboriginal ex-servicemen were ineligible, although it's reported that one managed to qualify in NSW.

Contrary to popular belief, much of the land was fertile farmland which was cleared and cultivated by Aboriginals, including commercial enterprises like hop plantations and market gardens. Often these were established with the assistance of Missions. Likewise in more remote areas the Missions assisted in the establishment of stations, and these were subsequently acquired under the scheme, eg:


"In 1921 two returned servicemen, Leonard Overheu and Frederick Hay, applied for a grant under the War Service Land Settlement Scheme. Nulla Nulla station was excised from the Marndoc Aboriginal reserve with the traditional owners, the KIng River Aborigines, removed and forced to live on the outskirts of Wyndham. The two men planted cotton, peanuts and kept a small herd of cattle. Hay, along with his friend James Dunnett ran the station while Overheu worked as a bookkeeper in Wyndham to provide cash flow."

I won't go into details of Hay's reported behaviour over the next 5 years, or the incident in which he was killed by an Aboriginal named Lumbia. Hay's death was reported to police by Rev. Ernest Gribble from the Forrest River Mission:

"On hearing of Hay's death Gribble rushed to Wyndham where he swore in Richard Jolly and Bernard O'Leary as special constables under the supervision of Constable Regan and tasked them with finding Hay's killer. The Aboriginal community supported the arrest of Lumbia and Gribble supplied two Aboriginal men from the mission who knew Lumbia to escort the patrol."

The patrol also included Overheu, his house boy Tommy, and another ex-serviceman Daniel Murnane. To cut a long story short, a massacre ensued and Lumbia was brought to trial where he pleaded guilty to Hay's murder. The initial death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment after it was successfully argued that Hay had provoked the attack. Gribble reported the massacre to Inspector E. C. Mitchell of the Western Australian Aborigines Department in Wyndham, who visited two of the massacre sites identified by Tommy. Mitchell sent a telegram to the Chief Protector, A.O. Neville: "Shocking revelations, saw place Forrest River, rocky higher bed where natives chained small tree killed there then bodies burnt improvised oven". A Royal Commission was launched and evidence gathering parties uncovered further sites identified by Tommy, but when Overheu heard of these investigations, Tommy vanished, presumed murdered. The Royal Commission proceeded:

"None of the Aborigines named to the Commission who had witnessed the massacres or who had relatives killed were called to testify. The Royal Commission found that 11 people had been murdered and the bodies burned."

Many years later Overheu's brother Charles went on record: "They all got together up there and there was a bloody massacre because I think they shot about three hundred natives all in one hit and there was a hell of a row over it. It was all published in the papers and somebody let the cat out of the bag and anyhow the government and the judges in those times they realised what the trouble was and the whole thing was hushed up you see."


Two years after the Forrest River massacre came the Coniston massacre in NT, the last known massacre of Indigenous Australians:

"The massacre occurred in revenge for the death of dingo hunter Frederick Brooks. Official records at the time stated that 31 people were killed. The owner of Coniston station, Randall Stafford, was a member of the punitive party for the first few days and estimated that at least twice that number were killed between 14 August and 1 September. Historians estimate that at least 60 and as many as 110 Aboriginal men, women and children were killed. The Warlpiri, Anmatyerre and Kaytetye believe that up to 170 died between 14 August and 18 October.


An earlier massacre occurred at Mowla Bluff WA in 1916:

"Responding to the brutality of the white station manager, some local men gave him a beating. In reprisal, an armed mob which included officials and residents rounded up a large number of Aboriginal men, women and children who were then shot. The bodies were burned. One account states that three or four hundred people were killed and only three survived."


It's worth noting that Aboriginals who managed to join the armed services in WWI did not experience discrimination during their service.


On the subject of post war massacres (amongst white Australians) we also need to examine the history, as they fall into distinct categories, and statistically the threat posed to Australians by spree shootings appears to be a myth. I'm probably not saying anything new there, but as a non gun owner I've never given it much thought before.

[maple_leaf_eh]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

David, my comments are in no way intended to impugn the reputation of Australian ex-servicemen. I'm only interested in history, and getting it right, without fear or favour. We've grown up with a lot of myths in this country and they need to be dismantled, because they don't do us justice.

....

On the subject of post war massacres (amongst white Australians) we also need to examine the history, as they fall into distinct categories, and statistically the threat posed to Australians by spree shootings appears to be a myth. I'm probably not saying anything new there, but as a non gun owner I've never given it much thought before.

Tony:

That was an instructive posting. Canadians had less overtly sanguine methods of separating the natives from their lands, but giving no less one-sided results. America's outright war with their first nations peoples has been well documented and romanticized.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by maple_leaf_eh

Canadians had less overtly sanguine methods of separating the natives from their lands, but giving no less one-sided results.

Yes I imagine your Treaties would have been rather one-sided Terry, although hopefully a little more than the usual "beads and blankets" deal! We only ever had one Treaty in Australia, when John Batman established Melbourne in 1835. Somewhat amusingly it was originally named Batmania! It was certainly cheap by today's prices:

"For 600,000 acres of Melbourne, including most of the land now within the suburban area, John Batman paid 40 pairs of blankets, 42 tomahawks, 130 knives, 62 pairs scissors, 40 looking glasses, 250 handkerchiefs, 18 shirts, 4 flannel jackets, 4 suits of clothes and 150 lb. of flour."

Evidently four of the tribal elders were kitted out in suits! Shortly afterwards however Batman's Treaty was voided by the Governor of NSW, which at that time included what is now the state of Victoria. No further treaties were negotiated in Australia, which was a big mistake for which we've paid a heavy price ever since. Countless billions have been spent in economic support for dispossessed populations, and the problem remains intractable today. If their reserves had been protected under Treaties we wouldn't have these problems, certainly not to the same extent. Contrary to popular belief they were well established in crop farming and grazing, largely with the assistance of Christian Missions. As such they were fully independent and contributing to the economy, and by late 19th century their produce was even winning first prize at International Exhibition. All that ended in the early 20th century when State governments resumed their reserves, much of it going to the 40,000 ex-servicemen after WWI under the Soldier Settlement scheme. Unfortunately most of those ventures failed, largely due to lack of farming experience. Lessons were learned however and the scheme was far more successful after WWII.

It's an interesting chapter in Australian history, because even as military history enthusiasts we tend to forget what happened to servicemen on their return. WWI was particularly brutal and many returned crippled and maimed, not to mention psychological damage. They arrived home to high unemployment followed by the Great Depression, with minimal government support. The Soldier Settlement scheme was intended partly to populate rural Australia, but also to address the problem of homelessness and street loitering. This stands in stark contrast to post WWII Australia, which enjoyed full employment from 1945 to 1975. There were jobs aplenty and we had to embark on a massive immigration program to supply labour. While Europe and Britain struggled under food rationing for years, here in Australia we enjoyed a "golden age" which saw massive population growth, with the post-war generation known as "baby boomers", and the rise of a huge and prosperous middle class which came to define Australia as the Lucky Country. These are the "good old days" we pine for in many ways, when a man could build a brand new house in the inner suburbs of capital cities, in which to support a wife and a tribe of kids on one wage! Not too many WWI diggers enjoyed that kind of prosperity, and of course it's impossible for young people in today's housing and job market. Some of this no doubt feeds into the generational gun crime rate David mentions, although there are many other factors as well.