Mansell, Michael --- "Book Review - Fate of a Free People" [1995] AboriginalLawB 42; (1995) 3(74) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 19

• Book Review-Fate Of A Free People

---

Book Review -

Fate of a Free People

by Henry Reynolds

paperback, Penguin Books, Melboune,1995

Reviewed by Michael Mansell

If Henry Reynolds' latest book, Fate of a Free People, does nothing else, it will make for lively debate.

Fate of a Free People re-examines the history of the Aboriginal relationship with Tasmania's colonial invaders. It does not, as many orthodox historical accounts of this period have done, focus on the atrocities committed against Aborigines, although they are dealt with.

It is a book re-appraising and exposing some of the myths arising from the colonial takeover of Australia: were Aborigines tamely enticed to surrender their lands and sent off to Flinders Island; once there, did the Aboriginal people succumb entirely to white control of them and their lands?

Unlike other historians - Bonwick, Plomely, et al - Reynolds' analysis of Tasmania in the 1800s is neither based on romantic paternalism nor on racism: Reynolds looks hard at the factual events of colonisation, the invasion of the territory of Aboriginal groups and the people who owned the territory, and the fierce blood-letting response of Aborigines to the white incursions.

In doing so, Reynolds is able to consider, in context, a petition to Queen Victoria dated February 1946, signed by 8 Aborigines at Wybalenna settlement, Flinders Island. It is this petition which sets the scene for a very easy-to-read and well-constructed book. The petition, in which one of its authors, Walter George Arthur, is at the heart of Reynolds' argument: that there was an agreement reached between Aborigines and the colonial government; that it was breached; and that Aborigines complained strongly about the breach.

The knowledge of the petition which becomes the core of Reynolds' examination is not a recent discovery. Many historians have trivialised the petition because, Reynolds believes, they assumed that Tasmanian Aborigines were "incapable of taking political action on their own behalf" and that the petition represented little more than the result of manipulation of Aborigines by feuding white commandants. By examining events of the period leading up to the making of the petition - the extensive Aboriginal resistance which threatened the very success of the colony - Reynolds is able to challenge the baseless opinion of other historians. It becomes apparent from the forced changes in colonial policy that the colonial powers were at their wit's end about what to do with ,the Aborigines. It was a despairing colonial administration, Reynolds points out, which sought the services of George Augustus Robertson, who in turn made promises to the Aborigines. Hence, Reynolds points nut, the petition represented more than a bun-fight between white overseers - it referred to a broken promise on matters of substance.

If there was an agreement, what were its terms? Reynolds, unfortunately, does not pursue this in any detail. However, he reproduces Robinson's own written account which clearly refers to his promise that Aborigines would return to their homelands in summer periods, and would he taken care of. The Aboriginal petitioners spoke of being free citizens dependent for their rights on the government. Most importantly, the petition states, "... Mr Robinson made for us and with Colonel Arthur an agreement which we have not lost from our minds since and we have made our part of it good," that is, "... freely gave up our country to Colonel Arthur then the Governor after defending ourselves".

Henry Reynolds' Fate of a Free People is not his first excursion into Tasmanian history. The author of several books, notably The Other Side of the Frontier and The Law of the Land, Reynolds is regarded as one of the most learned historians dealing with this period. It is not easy to dismiss the possibility of a binding agreement between Aborigines and the colonial government when an historical researder such as Henry Reynolds makes out a case. But are such promises made to Aborigines of any legal significance today?

French J, in the Waanyi native title decision, was unsympathetic to such a proposition. In that matter, 16 documents, including dispatches from England, detailed colonial policy of preserving Aboriginal rights where pastoral leases were allocated. However, no such reservations in favour of Aborigines were included in the leases the subject of the native title claim, although they were relied on and used extensively in Western Australia. According to French J, these dispatches merely expressed concern by the colonial powers for the welfare of Aboriginal people and did not amount to a "contract, promise or engagement". This decision is not binding, as the Tribunal is not a court. It also does not sit well with North American experience, which shows a more sympathetic understanding of what Indians thought they were agreeing to, and which showed a greater willingness of North American judges to protect Indian interest.

Reynolds' reliance on one petition to substantiate his assertion of a treaty in Tasmania is, however, fraught with risk. Information is lacking about who Robinson dealt with, what was said between Robinson and the government, and how the government perceived the arrangement reached between Robinson and the Aborigines. Such material is not readily available.

Henry Reynolds has used the scant material available well to forge a serious questioning of the arrangement made by Robinson with Aborigines. Robinson was clearly the government's agent. He clearly made promises. Robinson acknowledges the breaches of the promises. So, too, do Aboriginal petitioners. Are these facts brought out by Henry Reynolds to have no legal meaning?

Already, Aborigines in Tasmania have given notice of their intention to pursue possessory title claims through the Supreme Court. The litigation is dependent on historical material of the type mentioned by Reynolds. The timing of the book could not have been better.

Henry Reynolds represents a modern historian freed up of the cultural bias of historians of a past generation. Reynolds does not surface as an enlightened historian simply because lie adopts a generous view of the survival of Aboriginal rights. Nor does he romanticise the Aboriginal resistance of the invasion (for he makes clear that Aborigines fought back, and quite violently at times). His frankness with historical facts and events is accompanied by a contemporary view that historical views which shake the present should be examined, so that all the consequences of the past, and not just the negative ones suffered by Aborigines, are realised. It is this approach which stamps him a good distance ahead of the pack. His book is enthralling, and the questions raised likely to be debated for some considerable time in the future.