Introduction
Or this structural critique, I have chosen three articles which tie together some key course themes, in an attempt to have a deeper exploration of the ideas they present. Barry Morris’ “Frontier colonialism as a culture of terror” explores the often-difficult relationship between the settler and the indigenous inhabitants, by examining the fictional realities and “otherness” created around the Aboriginal people by the settlers. Secondly, Russell McGregor’s “Assimilationists Contest Assimilation: TGH Strehlow and AP Elkin on Aboriginal Policy” explores the purpose and effects of the early, and failed assimilation policies of the government, in the context of their deliberate or accidental attempts to eradicate Aboriginality. Finally, …show more content…
However, despite citing numerous massacres and murders, and discussing the authoritarian power structures that potentially lead to destruction of culture– Morris falls short of calling it outright genocide, as is claimed by a number of other scholars. This is one of Morris’ strengths as it allows him to explore the coloniser/colonised relationship in a violent and complex frontier without falling into any of the pitfalls or intellectual impasse of genocide studies outlined by Dwyer and Ryan …show more content…
Morris very successfully demonstrates this false dichotomy through contrasting he period accounts of men like the stockman Thomas Foster, who despite testifying that he “observed nothing in them” to indicate fear or treachery was still concerned for his safety when travelling with Aboriginal men. Even slightly more positive depictions such as Clement Hodgkinson’s note that Aboriginals are closer to nature than “civilised Europeans” still defines them as an “other” and falls into the trap of only viewing them through a European perspective. The ability of Morris to show that regardless of whether Aboriginals are portrayed as a noble, romantic savage or as a violent, predatory savage they are still being defined through a European framework – and therefore framed as the colonial other – is vital to the understanding of the Aboriginal experience as a whole. He is able to convey the notions of Pierre Bourdieu – that while not engaging in physical violence themselves, the colonial institutions forcefully imposed cultural norms and practices, while attempting to eradicate the Aborigine “otherness” (Kalman,
Or this structural critique, I have chosen three articles which tie together some key course themes, in an attempt to have a deeper exploration of the ideas they present. Barry Morris’ “Frontier colonialism as a culture of terror” explores the often-difficult relationship between the settler and the indigenous inhabitants, by examining the fictional realities and “otherness” created around the Aboriginal people by the settlers. Secondly, Russell McGregor’s “Assimilationists Contest Assimilation: TGH Strehlow and AP Elkin on Aboriginal Policy” explores the purpose and effects of the early, and failed assimilation policies of the government, in the context of their deliberate or accidental attempts to eradicate Aboriginality. Finally, …show more content…
However, despite citing numerous massacres and murders, and discussing the authoritarian power structures that potentially lead to destruction of culture– Morris falls short of calling it outright genocide, as is claimed by a number of other scholars. This is one of Morris’ strengths as it allows him to explore the coloniser/colonised relationship in a violent and complex frontier without falling into any of the pitfalls or intellectual impasse of genocide studies outlined by Dwyer and Ryan …show more content…
Morris very successfully demonstrates this false dichotomy through contrasting he period accounts of men like the stockman Thomas Foster, who despite testifying that he “observed nothing in them” to indicate fear or treachery was still concerned for his safety when travelling with Aboriginal men. Even slightly more positive depictions such as Clement Hodgkinson’s note that Aboriginals are closer to nature than “civilised Europeans” still defines them as an “other” and falls into the trap of only viewing them through a European perspective. The ability of Morris to show that regardless of whether Aboriginals are portrayed as a noble, romantic savage or as a violent, predatory savage they are still being defined through a European framework – and therefore framed as the colonial other – is vital to the understanding of the Aboriginal experience as a whole. He is able to convey the notions of Pierre Bourdieu – that while not engaging in physical violence themselves, the colonial institutions forcefully imposed cultural norms and practices, while attempting to eradicate the Aborigine “otherness” (Kalman,