Menu Top
Latest History NCERT Notes, Solutions and Extra Q & A (Class 8th to 12th)
8th 9th 10th 11th 12th

Class 11th Chapters
1. Writing And City Life 2. An Empire Across Three Continents 3. Nomadic Empires
4. The Three Orders 5. Changing Cultural Traditions 6. Displacing Indigenous Peoples
7. Paths To Modernisation

Theme 6 Displacing Indigenous Peoples

This chapter examines the histories of the native peoples of America and Australia, focusing on the impact of European colonization and settlement. Following the Spanish and Portuguese colonization of South America (discussed in Theme 8), other European powers, particularly from the eighteenth century onwards, established settlements in various parts of the world, including other areas of South America, Central America, North America, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.

This influx of immigrants from Europe led to the displacement of many indigenous (native) populations, who were often forced out of their ancestral lands. These European settlements were referred to as **‘colonies’**. As the European populations within these colonies grew, they eventually gained independence from their European ‘mother countries’, forming new states or countries.

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, migration from Asian countries also contributed to the changing demographics of some of these nations. Today, in many of these countries, populations of European and Asian descent form the majority, while the number of native inhabitants is comparatively small. Native peoples are often less visible in urban areas, and their historical presence and cultural contributions (such as place names derived from native languages) have sometimes been overlooked or forgotten by later populations.

Historically, textbooks in countries like America and Australia often presented a Eurocentric narrative, focusing on European ‘discoveries’ of these continents and giving minimal attention to the native peoples, frequently portraying them as simply hostile to Europeans. However, from the mid-nineteenth century, native peoples began to be studied by anthropologists. Later, particularly from the 1960s, efforts were made to encourage native peoples to document their own histories, either through writing or by dictating their accounts (oral history). Today, it is possible to access historical works and fiction written by native authors, and museums increasingly feature galleries of native art and exhibits showcasing indigenous ways of life, sometimes curated by native peoples themselves.

The term **‘settler’** is used specifically for Europeans who established permanent homes and communities in these colonies, distinguishing them from temporary visitors or traders. Examples include the Dutch in South Africa, the British in Ireland, New Zealand, and Australia, and various European groups in America. English became the official language in many of these colonies, although French is also an official language in Canada due to its history of French colonization.

Names given by Europeans to Countries of the ‘New World’

The names assigned by Europeans to regions of the 'New World' often reflected their own explorers, languages, or encounters with native peoples. Some examples:

The practice of naming places after European locations or individuals is further evidenced by the large number of place names in the Americas and Australia that begin with ‘New’ (e.g., New York, New South Wales).

European Imperialism

The Spanish and Portuguese empires in the Americas had largely consolidated their control by the seventeenth century. From that time onwards, other European powers – **France, Holland, and England** – intensified their trading activities and began to establish their own **colonies** in various parts of the world, including America (North, Central, and South), Africa, and Asia. Even Ireland was effectively treated as a colony of England, with much of the land owned by English settlers.

By the eighteenth century, the driving force behind this expansion was clearly the prospect of **economic profit**. However, the nature of European control in these colonies varied. In **South Asia**, trading companies like the English East India Company gained political power, defeated local rulers, and annexed territories. They often retained existing administrative systems, primarily focusing on collecting taxes and facilitating trade. Later, they developed infrastructure like railways, exploited mineral resources through mining, and established large-scale agricultural plantations.

In **Africa**, European activity was initially confined mostly to coastal trading. Only in the late nineteenth century did European powers venture significantly into the interior. This led to European countries agreeing to divide Africa into colonies among themselves.

The term **‘settler’** is used specifically for Europeans who established permanent homes and communities in these colonies, distinguishing them from temporary visitors or traders. Examples include the Dutch in South Africa, the British in Ireland, New Zealand, and Australia, and various European groups in America. English became the official language in many of these colonies, although French is also an official language in Canada due to its history of French colonization.

North America

**North America** is a vast continent stretching from the Arctic Circle to the Tropic of Cancer and from the Pacific to the Atlantic Ocean. Its geography is diverse, featuring the Rocky Mountains in the west, the deserts of Arizona and Nevada, the Sierra Nevada mountains, the extensive Great Plains, the Great Lakes, major river valleys (Mississippi, Ohio), and the Appalachian Mountains in the east. Mexico lies to the south. Canada, a large part of North America, is heavily forested. The continent is rich in resources like oil, gas, and minerals, supporting large industries in the USA and Canada. Modern agriculture in these countries is extensive, producing wheat, corn, and fruit, and fishing is a major industry in Canada.

However, the development of large-scale mining, industry, and agriculture in North America is a relatively recent phenomenon, primarily occurring over the last 200 years with the arrival of immigrants from Europe, Africa, and China. Before this, the continent was home to diverse **native peoples** who had inhabited the land for thousands of years.

The Native Peoples

The earliest inhabitants of North America are believed to have migrated from Asia via a land-bridge across the Bering Straits over 30,000 years ago, gradually moving southwards during and after the last Ice Age. Evidence suggests human presence dating back at least 11,000 years. The population grew as the climate stabilized around 5,000 years ago.

These diverse groups of native peoples lived in bands or villages, often located along river valleys. Their livelihoods combined hunting, fishing, and gathering with cultivation of vegetables and maize. They undertook long journeys to hunt animals like bison, which were abundant on the grasslands, particularly after they acquired horses from Spanish settlers in the seventeenth century. Their approach to hunting was often subsistence-based, killing only what was needed for food. They did not practice extensive agriculture or seek to produce a large surplus, and therefore did not develop kingdoms or empires comparable to those in Central and South America.

While there were occasional conflicts between tribes over territory, the concept of individual or tribal **ownership of land** in the European sense was generally not central to their worldview. They saw the land as a source of food and shelter to be used, rather than owned. A significant part of their culture involved forming alliances and friendships, cemented by the **exchange of gifts** (like Wampum belts made of shells), which served as a form of acquiring goods rather than through market exchange. (Examples of Wampum belts). (Examples of Wampum belts). (An image of a Wampum belt is provided).

Photograph of a Wampum belt, made of coloured shells sewn together in patterns, used by Native American tribes for alliances, treaties, and recording history.

Numerous languages were spoken across North America, primarily through oral tradition as they were not written down. They believed that time moved in cycles, and each tribe had accounts about their origins and their earlier history which were passed on from one generation to the next. They were skilled craftspeople and wove beautiful textiles. They could read the land – they could understand the climates and different landscapes in the way literate people read written texts.

The term **‘Native’** refers to someone born in a place; historically, Europeans used it to describe inhabitants of colonized countries. Various terms have been used in English for the indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australia, reflecting changing perspectives and sometimes misinterpretations (e.g., ‘Red Indian’ based on a mistake about geography). Currently, **‘native American’** or **‘indigenous people’** are commonly used terms. In Canada, organized native groups are recognized as **‘First Nations peoples’**.

Names of native tribes are often given to things unconnected with them: Dakota (an aeroplane), Cherokee (a jeep), Pontiac (a car), Mohawk (a haircut)!

Answer:

This is an observation highlighting the appropriation of Native American tribal names for commercial products or cultural styles (like a hairstyle). It points to a historical process where elements of Native American culture or identity have been taken and used in ways often disconnected from the actual people or their original meaning, sometimes without permission or benefit to the tribes themselves. This practice can be seen as a form of cultural assimilation or erasure, where the names become detached from their living source and are used as commodities or identifiers by the dominant culture.

Encounters With Europeans

Early European explorers and traders reaching the north coast of North America in the seventeenth century after arduous transatlantic voyages found the native peoples to be initially friendly and welcoming. Unlike the Spanish conquistadors in South America, whose primary motivation was often the search for gold, these early adventurers came to **trade in fish and furs**. Native peoples, being expert hunters, readily assisted in this trade.

Further south, along the Mississippi River, the French encountered natives who engaged in regular gatherings to exchange handicrafts and food items. In exchange for local products (furs, etc.), Europeans offered goods like blankets, iron vessels (which replaced native clay pots), guns (useful for hunting), and alcohol. The introduction of **alcohol** had a particularly negative impact on native communities, leading to addiction and dependence, which European traders exploited to dictate unfavorable terms of trade. (Europeans, in turn, acquired an addiction to tobacco from the natives).

Early European settlement in North America involved various groups. Some were traders, others were individuals seeking a new life free from religious persecution or economic hardship in Europe. From the seventeenth century, groups of Europeans, including Protestants fleeing Catholic countries and Catholics fleeing Protestant countries, migrated to America to escape persecution and establish new communities based on their own beliefs.

Key Dates: Early European Contact and Settlement in North America:

A native prophecy recorded on stone tablets by the Hopi tribe (who now live near California) foresaw the arrival of people resembling turtles across the land, later interpreted as the Spanish Conquistadores in armor. An encounter where a Spanish man dropped a "trinket" into a native's outstretched hand expecting a handshake is said to have signaled a challenging time ahead, hinting at a clash of values.

Mutual Perceptions

In the eighteenth century, many western Europeans held a limited and often biased view of native peoples, defining **‘civilised’** based on criteria like literacy, organized religion, and urbanism. To them, the native peoples of America, lacking these features in the European sense, appeared **‘uncivilised’**. Some, like the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, romanticized natives as ‘noble savages’, untouched by the perceived corruptions of European civilization. Others, like the English poet William Wordsworth (who had never met a native American), viewed them as having limited imagination or emotion due to living close to nature.

However, writers who actually interacted with native people often held different perspectives. Washington Irving, a younger writer who met native people, described them differently from poetic depictions. He noted their taciturn nature around white strangers but described them as expressive and humorous among themselves, even mimicking Europeans. He observed how white settlers often treated natives as inferior, "little better than animals."

From the native perspective, the goods they exchanged with Europeans were seen as **gifts given in friendship**. European traders, however, viewed these goods (fish, furs) as **commodities** to be sold for profit in Europe. Natives did not understand the concept of a distant market or fluctuating prices based on supply and demand, finding it puzzling that Europeans sometimes gave them many items for goods and sometimes very little. They were also troubled by the Europeans' greed and rapid slaughter of animals like beavers for furs, fearing the animals' revenge for such destruction. Native folk tales sometimes depicted Europeans mockingly, portraying them as greedy and deceitful, although the depth of this perception was understood by Europeans only much later.

Following the traders, **settlers** began arriving in America from the seventeenth century. These included groups seeking religious freedom or opportunities to own land. As long as land appeared 'vacant' (unoccupied by European-style farms or cities), settlement was less problematic. But as Europeans moved further inland, closer to native villages, conflicts arose. Settlers used iron tools to clear forests and establish farms, fundamentally changing the landscape.

Natives and Europeans perceived forests and land use differently. Natives had deep knowledge of the land and its features, including tracks invisible to Europeans. Europeans envisioned forests replaced by cultivated fields. Thomas Jefferson, the third US President, dreamed of a country of small European farms. He viewed natives as 'uncivilised' because they did not cultivate land for sale and profit and did not believe in 'owning' land in the European sense. Some historical figures, like Jefferson, held views that today would be seen as justifying the displacement and even extermination of native populations.

ACTIVITY 1. Discuss the different images that Europeans and native Americans had of each other, and the different ways in which they saw nature.

Answer:

This is a discussion prompt exploring the contrasting perceptions between Europeans and Native Americans:

European Images of Native Americans: Initially mixed (friendly, welcoming) but quickly evolved to viewing them as 'uncivilised' due to lack of European literacy, organized religion, and urbanism. Some romanticized them as 'noble savages' untouched by civilization's corruptions. Others, especially settlers focused on land acquisition, saw them as lazy, primitive, and not making "proper" use of the land. They were often depicted as hostile (especially in later justifications for conflict) and physically distinct ('Red Indians').

Native American Images of Europeans: Initially welcoming, seeing them as potential friends or trading partners offering new goods. However, they were quickly seen as greedy, deceitful (especially in trade), disrespectful of the land and animals (slaughtering for furs), and disruptive. They were puzzled by European concepts like land ownership and the market economy. Some folk tales depicted Europeans negatively, highlighting their perceived flaws.

European Views of Nature: Europeans generally viewed nature as a resource to be exploited and transformed for human benefit and profit (e.g., clearing forests for farms, extracting minerals). Land was seen as property that could be owned, bought, and sold. They sought to "improve" or "civilise" nature by imposing their own agricultural and urban systems.

Native American Views of Nature: Native peoples often had a deep spiritual and holistic connection to nature, viewing the land, rivers, animals, and elements as sacred and interconnected. They saw themselves as part of nature, not separate from or superior to it. Land was a source of sustenance to be used communally and respected, not owned individually or commodified. Their practices aimed for balance with the environment.

In summary, Europeans generally saw natives as inferior and nature as a resource to dominate and own, while natives saw Europeans as often greedy and disrespectful, and nature as a sacred, communal entity to be respected.

The Native Peoples Lose Their Land

The modern countries of **Canada** and the **United States of America** originated at the end of the eighteenth century, initially occupying only a fraction of their current territories. Over the next century, they aggressively expanded control over more land to reach their present sizes. The USA acquired vast areas through purchase (Louisiana Purchase from France, Alaska from Russia) and war (from Mexico). Throughout this expansion, the **consent of native peoples living in these areas was generally not sought** or considered necessary. The westward expansion created a constantly shifting **western ‘frontier’** for European settlers. As this frontier moved, native populations were systematically forced to retreat and relocate.

Dates related to Expansion and Displacement:

As settlement expanded, natives were often pressured or forced to move after signing treaties ceding their land. The prices paid were minimal, and instances of Americans (European settlers) cheating them by taking more land or paying less were common. Even high-ranking officials saw nothing wrong with dispossessing natives, arguing they did not make 'maximum' use of the land. Officials in Georgia argued that the Cherokee tribe, despite adopting many American ways, were subject to state laws but lacked citizens' rights. In 1832, US Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Cherokees were a distinct sovereign community not subject to Georgia laws, but President Andrew Jackson defied this judgment and ordered the army to forcibly remove the Cherokees from their land. This brutal forced migration, known as the **‘Trail of Tears’**, resulted in the deaths of over a quarter of the 15,000 people forced to move.

The settlers justified taking native land by claiming natives were lazy and did not 'improve' the land through extensive agriculture or adopt European customs (English language, European dress). They believed natives were destined to 'die out'. The prairies were cleared for farmland, and the wild bison, central to the native hunting lifestyle, were nearly exterminated by 1890, effectively ending the traditional native way of life on the plains. The completion of the transcontinental railway systems in the USA (1870) and Canada (1885) further facilitated settlement and expansion, rapidly changing the landscape and connecting the continent.

ACTIVITY 2. Comment on these two sets of population data.
USA: 1820 Spanish America: 1800
Natives 0.6 million 7.5 million
Whites 9.0 million 3.3 million
Mixed Europeans 0.1 million 5.3 million
Blacks 1.9 million 0.8 million
Total 11.6 million 16.9 million

Answer:

This data highlights significant demographic differences between the USA (an English-speaking settler colony) and Spanish America (Spanish/Portuguese speaking colonies) in the early 19th century, reflecting different patterns of colonization and interaction with native populations and enslaved people.

  • Native Populations: The native population in Spanish America (7.5 million in 1800) was significantly larger than in the USA (0.6 million in 1820). This suggests that the initial impact of disease, conflict, and displacement on native populations was less severe in Spanish America by 1800 compared to the areas that would become the USA by 1820. Spanish colonization began earlier (16th century) and involved different forms of social and labor organization (e.g., encomienda system) which, while exploitative, may have integrated larger native populations within colonial society to some extent compared to the direct displacement model often seen in the USA's westward expansion.
  • White Populations: The white population in the USA (9.0 million in 1820) was much larger than in Spanish America (3.3 million in 1800). This reflects the massive scale of European (primarily English and later other European) settlement in the USA in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, a key characteristic of its development as a settler-majority nation.
  • Mixed European/Native Populations: Spanish America had a very large population of mixed European and native descent (Mixed Europeans - 5.3 million in 1800), significantly larger than the relatively small mixed population in the USA (0.1 million in 1820). This highlights a fundamental difference in colonial societies: Spanish America had a greater degree of intermarriage and mixing between European settlers and native populations, leading to the development of a large mestizo population, whereas in the USA, segregation and conflict led to less integration and smaller mixed populations.
  • Black Populations: The population of Black people (primarily enslaved Africans) was larger in the USA (1.9 million in 1820) than in Spanish America (0.8 million in 1800), although the overall total population of Spanish America was larger. This reflects the heavy reliance on African slave labor, particularly for plantations, in the USA compared to Spanish American colonies (though slavery and African labor were also significant in Spanish America).

In summary, the data indicates that the USA was rapidly becoming a white-majority settler nation with a relatively small native population and a significant enslaved African population. Spanish America, while having a smaller white population, had a much larger native population that survived colonization, a large population of mixed descent, and a smaller but still significant enslaved population, reflecting a more complex and integrated (though still hierarchical and often exploitative) colonial society compared to the dominant model of displacement and segregation in the USA.

Meanwhile, native peoples were systematically pushed westward. They were given land in other areas (often less desirable, sometimes in arid regions), sometimes under treaties promising perpetual ownership. However, these agreements were frequently broken if minerals (lead, gold, oil) were discovered on their new lands, forcing them to relocate again. Many tribes were forced to share land originally allocated to single tribes, leading to conflicts among them. They were confined to small, often unfamiliar areas called **‘reservations’**.

Native peoples resisted this displacement through armed revolts (e.g., in the USA from 1865-1890, Metis revolts in Canada). However, these rebellions were ultimately crushed by the US and Canadian armies. By the late nineteenth century, resistance had largely ceased.

Anthropology

It is notable that the subject of **anthropology** was introduced in North America from the 1840s, partly driven by a curiosity to study the perceived differences between native ‘primitive’ communities and European ‘civilised’ societies. Some early anthropologists held the view that, like certain groups in Europe, the American natives were destined to 'die out' as 'primitive' peoples disappeared with the advance of 'civilization'. This view contributed to the prevailing mindset that justified displacement and the end of the native way of life. (An image shows a native lodge moved to a museum, symbolizing the removal of native culture from its original context).

Photograph of a Native American lodge or dwelling that has been relocated from its original mountain setting and placed in a museum in Wyoming. Illustrates the historical practice of removing native artifacts from their context for display.

The Gold Rush, And The Growth Of Industries

The discovery of gold in California in the 1840s triggered the **‘Gold Rush’**, attracting thousands of Europeans seeking quick wealth. This fueled the rapid construction of railway lines across the continent, linking the east and west coasts. Thousands of Chinese workers were recruited for this arduous labor, contributing to the diverse immigrant population. The US transcontinental railway was completed by 1870, followed by Canada's in 1885. This rapid infrastructure development facilitated further settlement, resource exploitation, and industrial growth.

Industries in North America developed not just to support growing populations but specifically to manufacture equipment for the expanding railway network and machinery for large-scale agriculture. Industrial towns and factories multiplied in both the USA and Canada. The USA transformed from a relatively undeveloped economy in 1860 to a leading industrial power by 1890.

**Large-scale agriculture** also expanded dramatically. Vast areas, particularly the prairies, were cleared of native vegetation and divided into large farms. This agricultural expansion was accompanied by the near extermination of the bison by 1890, eliminating the foundation of the native hunting lifestyle on the plains. The invention of **barbed wire** in 1873 was crucial for farmers, allowing them to fence their large properties and protect them from wild animals or wandering livestock. By 1892, the continental expansion of the USA was declared complete, with the land divided into states and no longer featuring a moving 'frontier' for settlers. Shortly after, the USA began to establish its own colonies overseas, becoming an imperial power.

Photograph showing a cattle ranch on the prairie, symbolizing the goal of poor European immigrants seeking land ownership.
Photograph from the 1840s, depicting people panning for gold as part of the California Gold Rush.
Colour print from 1909, depicting immigrants arriving and being welcomed by the United States, illustrating the ongoing process of immigration.

The climate in the southern regions of the USA was too hot for European outdoor labor, and experiences in South America had shown that enslaved natives died in large numbers. This led plantation owners to import **slaves from Africa**. Although anti-slavery protests led to a ban on the slave trade, enslaved Africans already in the USA and their children remained in bondage until the abolition of slavery after the American Civil War (1861-1865). Even after abolition, African Americans faced significant segregation and struggles for civil rights, which continued into the twentieth century.

The Canadian government faced internal political issues, particularly from French settlers in Quebec demanding autonomy after British conquest in 1763. This was resolved only in 1867 by forming Canada as a Confederation of autonomous states, which was a more pressing concern than addressing the issue of native rights at the time.

Constitutional Rights

The **‘democratic spirit’** that fueled the American War for Independence in the 1770s became a core part of the USA's identity, contrasting it with European monarchies. The US Constitution enshrined the individual's **‘right to property’** as fundamental, a right the state could not override. However, initially, these rights – democratic rights (like voting) and property rights – were primarily limited to **white men**. This excluded women, Native Americans, and enslaved Africans.

Historians like Daniel Paul have highlighted the irony that figures like Thomas Paine, a champion of democracy, reportedly used Native Americans as models for social organization, suggesting their example may have influenced European democratic thought, even as their own rights were denied.

The Winds Of Change...

Conditions for native peoples in the USA and Canada began to see some improvement only in the 1920s. A survey in 1928, *The Problem of Indian Administration*, detailed the poor health and education facilities in reservations. White Americans began to feel sympathy for natives whose cultural practices were suppressed while they were denied the benefits of citizenship. This led to the landmark **Indian Reorganization Act of 1934** in the USA, allowing natives in reservations to buy land and access loans, providing some level of economic self-determination.

In the 1950s and 1960s, governments in both the USA and Canada considered ending special provisions for natives, aiming for them to assimilate into the dominant European culture. However, natives resisted this. In the USA, the **‘Declaration of Indian Rights’ (1954)** saw natives accepting citizenship but demanding protection of their reservations and cultural traditions. In Canada, a similar government proposal in 1969 to end aboriginal rights met with strong organized opposition and protests. This issue was not resolved until the **Constitution Act of 1982**, which formally recognized the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of native peoples in Canada. While details are still being worked out, native peoples in both countries, despite drastically reduced numbers, have successfully asserted their rights to their cultures and, particularly in Canada, to their sacred lands, a level of assertion not possible in the late 19th century.

The text draws parallels between the treatment of various groups in different historical contexts, noting how rationalizations were used to justify unequal treatment:

Philosophers like Karl Marx commented on the American frontier as a space for unchecked capitalist expansion and profit-seeking.

Australia

Like the Americas, **Australia** has a very long history of human habitation. The **‘aborigines’** (a general term for various native societies) are believed to have arrived over 40,000 years ago, possibly from New Guinea via a former land-bridge. In their own traditions, they did not migrate but had always been present on the continent. Their history is often understood through the concept of the **‘Dreamtime’**, which blends past and present in a way difficult for Europeans to grasp.

In the late eighteenth century, Australia was home to hundreds of distinct native communities, each with its own language (many of which are still spoken today). The Torres Strait Islanders in the north are another group of indigenous people, distinct from the Aborigines. Together, indigenous peoples constitute a small percentage of Australia's current population. Australia is sparsely populated, with most towns historically and currently located along the coast, as the vast central region is arid desert.

The Europeans Reach Australia

The story of European interaction with native peoples and the land in Australia shares many similarities with the Americas, though it began much later (primarily from the late eighteenth century). Early European sightings by Dutch travelers occurred in the seventeenth century (1606). Abel Tasman landed on Tasmania in 1642.

In **1770**, British explorer **James Cook** reached Botany Bay and claimed the eastern part of the continent for Britain, naming it **New South Wales**. **British settlement** began in **1788** with the establishment of a **penal colony** (a colony for deporting convicts) at Sydney. Many early settlers were convicts given freedom after serving their sentence, provided they remained in Australia. Facing limited options, they readily took over land for cultivation, often displacing native peoples.

Initial reports from Captain Cook described natives as friendly. However, his death in Hawaii (not Australia) was later used by colonizers as a justification for subsequent violence against native peoples elsewhere. Europeans did not foresee the devastating impact their arrival would have on native populations, leading to a near 90% mortality rate in the 19th-20th centuries due to diseases, loss of land, resources, and conflict.

Early settlement practices in Brazil (using Portuguese convicts) had faced native resistance, leading to their abandonment. The British continued the practice of using convicts in Australia after it was no longer feasible or necessary in the independent American colonies.

A Description of the Sydney Area in 1790 (Box). ‘Aboriginal production had been dramatically disturbed by the British presence. The arrival of a thousand hungry mouths, followed by hundreds more, put unprecedented pressure on local food resources.
So what would the Daruk people have thought of all this? To them such large-scale destruction of sacred places and strange, violent behaviour towards their land was inexplicable. The newcomers seemed to knock down trees without any reason, for they were not making canoes, gathering bush honey or catching animals. Stones were moved and stacked together, clay dug up, shaped and cooked, holes were made in the ground, large unwieldy structures built. At first they may have equated the clearing with the creation of a sacred ceremonial ground…Perhaps they thought a huge ritual gathering was to be held, dangerous business from which they should steer well clear. There is no doubt the Daruks subsequently avoided the settlement, for the only way to bring them back was by an official kidnapping.’

– (P. Grimshaw, M. Lake, A. McGrath, M. Quartly, Creating a Nation)

Answer:

This account describes the early impact of British presence on the Daruk people and their land near Sydney in 1790. The arrival of a large number of settlers (initially over a thousand convicts and others) dramatically disrupted the Aborigines' traditional lifestyle by placing "unprecedented pressure on local food resources," suggesting overexploitation or disruption of hunting/gathering grounds. The most striking insight comes from the native perspective on the settlers' actions. To the Daruk people, the settlers' behavior seemed "inexplicable" and "strange." They observed the large-scale destruction of trees without apparent purpose (from the Daruk perspective, tree felling was related to specific needs like making canoes or finding honey). The settlers' construction activities (moving stones, digging clay, building structures) were alien and seemed violent towards the land, which the Daruk people viewed as sacred. The account suggests the Daruks initially tried to interpret these activities within their own cultural framework, perhaps seeing the clearing as the creation of a ceremonial ground, but ultimately concluded the settlers were engaged in "dangerous business." This led the Daruks to avoid the settlement, highlighting the profound cultural misunderstanding and the devastating impact of the settlers' activities on the native people and their relationship with the land, culminating in official kidnapping as a means to force interaction.

The Development Of Australia

The economic development of Australia under European settlement focused primarily on a few key sectors: **vast sheep farms** (wool became a major export), **mining** (following gold rushes in the mid-19th century), **vineyards**, and **wheat farming**. These activities, often requiring significant labor, formed the basis of Australia's prosperity. As in the Americas, the establishment of large farms involved clearing vast areas of land.

Key Dates: Development of Australia:

When the Australian colonies federated in 1901, a new capital city was planned and built. A suggested name, "Woolwheatgold," reflected the key products of the economy. The capital was eventually named **Canberra**, derived from a native word meaning "meeting place."

Some native peoples were employed on farms, often under harsh, exploitative conditions akin to slavery. Later, Chinese immigrants provided cheap labor, similar to their role in the Californian Gold Rush. However, concerns among the European population about dependence on non-white labor led to policies banning Chinese immigration. Until 1974, Australia maintained a discriminatory policy ("White Australia" policy) to prevent large-scale immigration of non-European people, particularly from South Asia or Southeast Asia, reflecting prevailing fears and racial prejudices.

The Winds Of Change...

From the latter half of the twentieth century, a shift began in how native peoples were viewed and their histories acknowledged in Australia. In 1968, anthropologist W.E.H. Stanner highlighted the historical neglect of Aborigines in historical narratives ("The Great Australian Silence"). From the 1970s, there was a growing movement to understand native cultures not merely as anthropological subjects but as distinct communities with unique worldviews, knowledge of nature, and rich traditions (stories, art, skills). This coincided with similar movements in North America.

Underlying this was the crucial question, articulated by historian Henry Reynolds, of why Australian history had been written as though it started with European arrival, effectively erasing the long indigenous history ("Why Weren't We Told?").

Since the 1970s, significant efforts have been made to rectify this historical neglect. Universities have established departments for studying native cultures, art galleries have created galleries for native art, and museums have expanded their exhibits to showcase indigenous life and culture, often with native involvement in curation. Native Australians have also increasingly written their own histories and life stories. These efforts are seen as vital for preserving cultures that might otherwise be forgotten.

From 1974, **‘multiculturalism’** became official policy in Australia, aiming to give equal respect to the cultures of native peoples and immigrant communities from Europe and Asia. (Poem by Judith Wright illustrates the themes of cultural loss and recognition).

JUDITH WRIGHT (Box). JUDITH WRIGHT (1915-2000), an Australian writer, was a champion of the rights of the Australian aborigines. She wrote many moving poems about the loss created by keeping the white people and the natives apart.
‘Kathy my sister with the torn heart,
I don’t know how to thank you
For your dreamtime stories of joy and grief
Written on paperbark.
You were one of the dark children
I wasn’t allowed to play with–
Riverbank campers, the wrong colour
(I couldn’t turn you white.)
So it was late I met you,
Late I began to know
They hadn’t told me the land I loved
Was taken out of your hands.’

Answer:

Judith Wright's poem "Two Dreamtimes," addressed to her Aboriginal friend Oodgeroo Noonuccal, is a poignant reflection on the historical separation and injustice faced by Indigenous Australians. Wright, a white Australian, acknowledges the barrier that existed in her youth ("dark children I wasn't allowed to play with – Riverbank campers, the wrong colour"), highlighting the racial segregation and prejudice ("I couldn't turn you white") that kept white Australians and Aboriginal people apart. The "loss created by keeping the white people and the natives apart" refers to the missed opportunity for connection, understanding, and shared experience, as expressed in the difficulty she had in meeting and getting to know her friend until later in life. The poem then shifts to a deeper sense of regret and guilt as Wright comes to understand the history of colonization ("They hadn't told me the land I loved / Was taken out of your hands"). This realization of how the land beloved by white Australians was unjustly taken from the original inhabitants underscores the dispossession and trauma inflicted on Indigenous peoples. The poem beautifully captures the theme of lost connection, historical injustice, and the belated recognition of the deep spiritual bond between Aboriginal peoples and their sacred land ("dreamtime stories").

From the 1970s, as human rights gained international attention, the Australian public became increasingly aware that, unlike the USA, Canada, and New Zealand, Australia had no treaties with the native peoples formally acknowledging the European takeover of land. The government had historically claimed the land was *terra nullius* (land belonging to nobody), effectively ignoring indigenous presence and rights. This led to significant agitation for recognition of native rights.

This movement resulted in inquiries and important legal and symbolic changes:

These developments represent significant steps towards historical acknowledgment and reconciliation, although challenges remain. Native peoples continue to assert their rights and cultural identity.

Key developments from the 1970s onwards:

ACTIVITY 3. Comment on the following statement by the American historian Howard Spodek: ‘For the indigenous [people] the effects of the American Revolution were exactly opposite to those of the settlers – expansion became contraction, democracy became tyranny, prosperity became poverty, and liberty became confinement.’

Answer:

This is a prompt for critical commentary. Howard Spodek's statement powerfully highlights the starkly contrasting experiences of the European settlers (who became Americans) and the indigenous peoples as a result of the American Revolution and the subsequent formation and expansion of the United States. It challenges the celebratory narrative of the American Revolution by exposing its devastating consequences for the native population.

  • Expansion became contraction: For the settlers, the Revolution led to the expansion of their territory and power across North America. For indigenous peoples, it led to the contraction of their lands, their forced removal, and confinement to ever-smaller reservations.
  • Democracy became tyranny: For the settlers, the Revolution established a democratic republic based on principles of liberty and self-governance (though initially only for white men). For indigenous peoples, this 'democracy' meant the imposition of rule without their consent, the violation of treaties, and forced displacement by the state (often through military force), which they experienced as tyranny.
  • Prosperity became poverty: The expansion of the USA brought prosperity to many settlers through land ownership, agriculture, and industrial development. For indigenous peoples, it led to the loss of their land, resources, and traditional livelihoods, resulting in widespread poverty and dependence on the state.
  • Liberty became confinement: For the settlers, the Revolution secured liberty and freedom from British rule. For indigenous peoples, it led to the loss of their freedom, self-determination, and mobility, and confinement to reservations under the control of the US government.

Spodek's statement serves as a critique of historical narratives that focus solely on the positive outcomes of the American Revolution for the settlers while ignoring or downplaying the catastrophic impact on the indigenous inhabitants. It underscores the need for a more comprehensive and critical understanding of this period from the perspective of all groups involved.

ACTIVITY 4. In 1911, it was announced that New Delhi and Canberra would be built as the capital cities of British India and of the Commonwealth of Australia. Compare and contrast the political situations of the native people in these countries at that time.

Answer:

This is a comparative activity focusing on the political status of indigenous peoples in India and Australia in 1911.

Political Situation of Native People in India (around 1911):

  • India was under British colonial rule (British Raj).
  • While there wasn't a unified "native" political status across all of India (which was immensely diverse), many indigenous groups (often referred to as tribal communities) were integrated into the broader social and administrative structure of British India, albeit often marginalized and subject to discriminatory policies (e.g., Forest Acts impacting their traditional forest use).
  • They were subjects of the British Crown, like other Indian populations, but often lacked significant political representation or autonomy within the colonial system.
  • Resistance against British rule was present among various Indian communities, including some tribal groups, but there wasn't a widespread, unified political movement specifically for indigenous rights across the subcontinent in the same way as in Australia or North America later.
  • Their land rights were often precarious under colonial administration, but the scale and speed of direct land dispossession and displacement were different from the ongoing frontier expansion model in Australia.

Political Situation of Native People in Australia (around 1911):

  • Australia had recently federated (1901) into the Commonwealth of Australia, but it was still part of the British Empire.
  • Aboriginal people had largely been dispossessed of their land through settlement and violence, with no treaties made with them. The concept of terra nullius (land belonging to nobody) legally underpinned European claims to the land, denying indigenous sovereignty or prior ownership.
  • Aboriginal people were generally not considered citizens and were largely excluded from the political process (e.g., voting rights were denied or restricted).
  • They had little to no political representation or voice in the newly formed Commonwealth government or state governments.
  • Policies aimed at assimilation, including the forced removal of children of mixed descent, were ongoing.
  • Their situation was one of severe political marginalization, disenfranchisement, and ongoing control by government authorities.

Comparison and Contrast:

  • Legal Status: In India, native groups were broadly subjects of the British Empire, integrated within the colonial administration's legal framework (though often discriminated against). In Australia, Aboriginal people were largely outside the formal legal framework as recognized landowners or citizens; their prior connection to the land was denied by terra nullius.
  • Political Representation: In 1911, neither group had significant political power. However, the concept of a unified Indian nationalist movement seeking self-governance or rights for all Indians existed, which wasn't mirrored by a unified political movement for indigenous rights across Australia at that scale.
  • Land Rights: Land rights were a major issue in both contexts. In Australia, the core issue was the fundamental denial of prior ownership and ongoing dispossession without treaty. In India, while colonial policies impacted land use and ownership, the legal basis differed, and some community land rights might have had more recognition in certain areas compared to the almost complete denial in Australia.
  • Dispossession Model: The primary model in Australia was direct dispossession and displacement through settlement frontier expansion and denial of prior rights. In British India, control was exercised over existing populations, and while land policies were often exploitative, it wasn't solely based on denying the very existence of prior rights in the same way as terra nullius.

In summary, while both groups were under colonial rule and faced marginalization and land issues, the political situation of Aboriginal Australians in 1911 was arguably more precarious due to the legal doctrine of terra nullius, the complete absence of treaties, and their exclusion from citizenship and political processes, compared to the complex, diverse, and evolving situation of indigenous groups within the broader context of British India.