Talk:Black War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Time for an overhaul

I'm going to embark on an extensive rewrite and expansion of this article, which provides poor coverage for a key part of Tasmanian, and Australian, history.

Working my way from the top:

  • The military conflict template is inappropriate and should simply be removed. Despite the use of "war" in the commonly-used term, the conflict between Tasmanian Aboriginals and European settlers was not a military conflict, despite the involvement of soldiers at different places and times, including the Black Line. As James Boyce notes (Van Diemen's Land, p.205): "Almost all the killing of Aboriginals was done by convicts and former convicts." But nor was it a civil conflict that would warrant the use of the civil conflict or civilian attack templates. Mangerner was not a "commander or leader" over a unified side in the same manner as George Arthur, and since most killings of Aboriginals took place without the knowledge or approval of Arthur, it's ridiculous to suggest Arthur was a "commander" in this "war". He was the governor of the colony in which this conflict was taking place.
  • The article, and lead section, contains no information on causes of the conflict, weapons, tactics, number and identity of the victims, provides no detail on where and when the conflict reached a peak or why it ceased, and also lacks a discussion of historians' difficulty in arriving at definitive statistics on Aboriginal population in 1803 and total Aboriginal casualties.
  • It contains too much detail on the 1804 Risdon Cove massacre and Truganini. Both the Charles Darwin account and HG Wells reference are unnecessary.
  • It lacks coverage of respected historical sources on whether the activities of this period could be described as genocide.
  • The article also makes an arbitrary, and unsourced, assertion that the timespan of the Black War is "best understood" as the period of martial law between 1828 and 1832. The starting point of the "war" has in fact been stated as 1824 (Nicholas Clements, James Boyce, Richard Broome), 1826 (Lyndall Ryan) and 1827 (Henry Reynolds). That range of dates needs to be acknowledged.

I'll start work on this soon but welcome any thoughts. BlackCab (TALK) 04:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded the major part of the rewrite and expansion I embarked on; what remains is a section called "Characterisation as genocide". This will encompass comments by Robert Hughes, Nicholas Clements, Richard Broome and Tom Lawson and possibly others. BlackCab (TALK) 12:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting an extensive overhaul on an important part of Tasmanian and Australian history which is largely ignored. Aaroncrick TALK 11:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An edit today by another user to the military conflict template highlighted the fact that I'd neglected to delete that template as discussed earlier. Despite the term "war", this was not a military conflict. I have now deleted that template. BlackCab (TALK) 02:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict template is perfectly appropriate. As various sources make clear, the events this article covers did involve warfare. Your view that conflicts aren't a 'war' unless they involve formed military units isn't very common these days. Most (if not all) Australian military historians regard the various frontier conflicts to have been warfare, with various authors noting that its important to recognise them as such so as to not obscure the fact that Indigenous Australians fought for their land. Nick-D (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, don't misrepresent my view. I did not say the Black War was not a war. My objection to use of the military conflict infobox template here is twofold: (1) my Oxford dictionary says the military is "relating to or characteristics of soldiers or armed forces .... members of the armed forces, as distinct from civilians and the police." (By contrast it says a "war" is "armed hostilities between especially nations"). With the brief exception of the Black Line and other isolated incidents the military was simply not involved. It was an entirely civilian conflict. (2) As discussed above, the parameters of this template have little relevance to the Black War. The belligerents on one side are listed as "British Empire, Tasmania and United Kingdom" which is nonsense and Governor George Arthur is named as the commander of this force, when he had no such role or intention. Most killings of Aboriginals took place without his knowledge or approval. The other belligerents are named as "Tasmanian Aboriginal Peoples" with that capitalisation. The article accurately describes the conflict between indigenous inhabitants and aggressive, acquisitive settlers; it does not need an inappropriate military template forced on it for the sake of it. BlackCab (TALK) 04:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly take your point on the infobox's current content, but that doesn't rule out using it - see for instance how it's used at the Australian frontier wars article, which is probably a good model here. I think that it's a better choice than Template:Infobox civil conflict as this wasn't a 'civil' conflict as appears to be hard-coded into the infobox given that it involved the expansion of British control into Indigenous Australians land. Nick-D (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just revised the infobox to take the above into account - what do you think? Nick-D (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the time to compare it with what is on the other frontier wars articles (I'm wikkying while I work) but that seems to work well. Thanks. BlackCab (TALK) 05:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: cc @BlackCab: I removed the military conflict infobox and was referred to this discussion. Inclusion is characterising the events in that way before the article begins, so does the box that selects one set of figures for 'casualties'. Is there an infobox for atrocities committed during invasions, another for the care and consideration given by colonial powers to their new subjects that counters this narrative. Regarding this a some sort of Napoleonic engagement sits well with some authors, others have referred to that as 'white-washing', any boxification is absurdly reductive. cygnis insignis 03:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what your second sentence means and the question of whether colonial powers gave care and consideration to the indigenous people in areas they were colonising is irrelevant. I removed the template back in 2017 but Nick-D argued for it to remain and came up with a compromise that I found reasonable. I'd be interested in the views of any other editors. BlackCab (TALK) 05:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies where it is not clear, I'm wavering between perplexed and annoyed at any inclusion and compromise. The infobox is reinforcing one challenged pov, academically devastated hypotheses on Tasmanian history (like the article title for that matter), and this derives from a label given in 1865? The military conflict box exists because of course it does, removing it from Emu War saw some very earnest arguments for its defence. My counter examples are attempting to illustrate the absurdity of outlining this as a 'war'. Bonus internet points for a title Black War. No indictment of the content of the article, which I haven't read, but have read enough to know viewing this as an engagement of enemy combatants is at least contentious. cygnis insignis 07:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like it or not, the period of armed conflict between the settlers and the indigenous inhabitants of Tasmania has long been known as the Black War, so the article title reflects that so users can find it. If there is a title that historians and others widely use to describe that period of conflict, then let's discuss it. The military confict box exists because a user argued for its retention after I had removed it in 2017. (See here). I had argued (see above) that it didn't meet the standard definition of a military confict. You can see the response. But I am interested in more opinions. BlackCab (TALK) 09:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a large literature describing this as an armed conflict or war, so the infobox is appropriate. Many modern historians also stress that it's important to note that the frontier wars were in fact wars (especially in light of the older historiography which wrongly portrayed Indigenous Australians as having not attempted to defend their lands). Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also note that Template:Infobox military conflict includes lots of fields which can be used to cover the non-military aspects of conflicts. These include the fields for results, territorial changes and notes, as well as the details for each of the protagonists. It's fairly flexible. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would seem to make the rest of the content redundant, just some finer details that doesn't address the important. 'It was a war, shit happens'. People resisted being corralled and shot in their own backyard, astonishing! That huge picture is amazing, the way that military historian captured the moment in the conflict, says all you need to know. It's milhist infobox, I know better than to argue against inclusion, how long was one in Emu War with all that earnest and thoughtful support. cygnis insignis 12:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing my best, but I still don't know what any of your last comment means. If it's an attempt at sarcasm, perhaps you could set that aside and engage in a rational discussion to advance a proper argument. BlackCab (TALK) 13:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dramatic irony I suppose, but yes, dripping with sarcasm; that can be read as an announcement that I'm too annoyed to be any use and now have a conflict of interest. Good, these events are too horrible for words and I get enough of that looking at extinction events. I'm cursed with seeking NPOV in article space, this was an outburst at reductive, patriarchal and militaristic categorisations. Soldiers, vague government directives, media campaigns, was the Northern territory intervention a military campaign? I dare not look for an article. And again, my objection is primarily to the info box, although I question whether the title emerged from the article or vice versa, what is the scope if the title frames the events as a 'war'. Were G. A. Robinson's action's a military manoeuvre, was he the warden at a POW camp? The notion that it finally credits people with being able to have an opinion and present resistance only glorifies and justifies death and atrocity. The twenty seconds that nearly all readers spend on an article is summed up in the box and big letters, no slight agaainst yourself as the article has the bits I expect to be here. cygnis insignis 14:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Context of wider colonial campaigns of genocide

Despite the claim that this is "the only true genocide in English colonial history" included in this article, this is demonstrably false. British genocide in the Americas is well known, such as the Beothuk of what is today Newfoundland who were hunted down until there was one survivor, who was put on display as a sort of curiosity. Or the famous Pilgrims of what become New England who butchered the Mystic Indians down to the last and erased (almost) all memory of them, leading most Bostonians to think the "Mystic River" is named in honour of religious conviction. There are examples of this across the British Empire, not to mention the actions of British settler states like the United States. The Black War has to be contextualized clearly as part of a global trend in African and New World settler colonialism.

I mean, guys, even Darwin talks about this. It's old hash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.51.121.115 (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of lede

I prefer this drafting of the lede wording:

The near-destruction of the Aboriginal Tasmanians and the frequent incidence of mass killings has been described by contemporary historians as an act of genocide.[1][2] The description of the conflict as a genocide has at times been contested by some historians especially in the 20th century. The debates surrounding the Black War have been described as "a microcosm of the wider debate about the impact of settler colonialism on indigenous peoples".[3]

Another editor has reverted it to what it reads now.

Could we please discuss and obtain consensus as to what wording is preferred?

My concern is that the current wording overstates the level of "debate"; when actually a consensus amongst most reliable sources is that this is subject an actual example of genocide, and no longer a matter of debate. Thanks. Jack4576 (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack4576 (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The existing wording is an accurate summary of the article and is much more concise. Quite a few experts in the field describe it as a genocide, quite a few do not. Those arguing that the Black War wasn't a genocide aren't just a fringe view, so no consensus. The statement "The debates surrounding the Black War have been described as 'a microcosm of the wider debate about the impact of settler colonialism on indigenous peoples'" doesn't appear in the article, isn't a summary of the article and is a classic case of weasel words. The lead is supposed to be an accurate summary of the article as it stands.
WP:LEAD. If you want to add a secion on the Black War in the histiography of Settler Colonialism and then summarise it in the lead, be my guest. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Anyone else able to add a third opinion? Jack4576 (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The words "a microcosm of the wider debate about the impact of settler colonialism on indigenous peoples" are a direct quote from a reliable source. Lead sections can be constructed from sources. Jack4576 (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @
    WP:FALSEBALANCE
    , and is well written.
  • Jack's statement, ...concern is that the current wording overstates the level of "debate", this is a valid concern and I think it correctly identifies a problem in the article.
  • Those arguing that the Black War wasn't a genocide aren't just a fringe view, so no consensus. Jack's version never asserted unanimity or that alternate views are fringe. The discussion has two sides which Jack’s version acknowledges. Consensus is a general agreement, not unanimity or the absence of other views, fringe or mainstream. Giving equal weight to all views regardless of their weight in reliable sources is
    WP:FALSEBALANCE
    .
  • “Quite a few experts in the field describe it as a genocide, quite a few do not. I think this implies that there is equal weight among reliable sources, when the weight from sources heavily leans to viewing the subject as genocide (see the appropriate section in the article for references). The current version of the lede implies greater weight to the “no genocide” view than the sources in the article reflect.
    WP:FALSEBALANCE
  • “"The debates surrounding the Black War have been described as 'a microcosm of the wider debate about the impact of settler colonialism on indigenous peoples'" doesn't appear in the article, isn't a summary of the article. The lede summarize the article, and this summarizes the genocide section.
  • and is a classic case of weasel words.”. Jack's version does not contain any weasel words, it is well written, the quote is very appropriate for the lede, and accurately describes the state of scholarship.
 // Timothy :: talk  04:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contribution, Timothy. In the interest of obtaining a robust consensus, I'll allow some more time for other editors to contribute their thoughts if they so wish.
If after a few days there are no further comments, I'll restore my previous draft as reflecting a newly found consensus in this thread. Jack4576 (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I've changed my mind. I'll restore it now. We can revert if there are further objections disrupting the consensus that has been reached here and now. Jack4576 (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus. Two people relying, with different points of view, within a couple of hoursof your posting does not constitute a consensus. I suggest you wait a few days and give other people a chance to comment. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does indeed constitute an interim consensus. Jack4576 (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I side with @Aemilius Adolphin and believe a more concise lead is appropriate. The rest of the information in the current version, while potentially informative doesn't add much to the lead and does feel editorialized- while acknowledging the debate exists is sufficient to inform the reader. Lostsandwich (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You address none of the concerns raised and affirmed by Timothy Jack4576 (talk) 05:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) The current version of the lead simply states that there a debate on the issue, which is an accurate summary of the article. It does not state or imply that there is a majority on either side.
2) The proposed revision states, "The near-destruction of the Aboriginal Tasmanians and the frequent incidence of mass killings has been described by contemporary historians as an act of genocide." It cites 2 sources. One is Clements who in fact argues that the Black War was NOT a genocide. The other is Lyndall Ryan which calls the dispute "a debate" thus supporting my view that we have an ongoing debate on our hands.
3) The statement, "The description of the conflict as a genocide has at times been contested by some historians especially in the 20th century" is plain wrong. All the cited reliable sources arguing that the conflict was not a genocide are from the 21st century.
4) The statement that the Black war "has been described by contemporary historians as an act of genocide" is meaningless. It is just as correct to say, "has been described as not a genocide by contemporary historians." There are historians and informed commentators on both sides of the debate.
5) "The debates surrounding the Black War have been described as 'a microcosm of the wider debate about the impact of settler colonialism on indigenous peoples'" How is this a summary of the genocide section? Nowhere in that section does it say that the Black War is a microcosm of the settler colonialism debate. It is weasel words because the author of this opinion isn't identified and there is no evidence in the article that it represents a consensus view. It is also dubious on the face of it because the debate over the Black Wars is about the specific details of that conflict which are obviously different from all the other unique examples of settler colonialism. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a false consensus. The overwhelming majority of contemporary respected scholars in this field acknowledge and describe the Black Wars as an example of genocide. Indeed, Raphael Lemkin regarded the war against Indigenous Tasmanians as a definitive example of what he meant by the term genocide.
I think we need more editors to weigh in here. It seems this attempt to reach consensus is deadlocked. Jack4576 (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is indeed the "overwhelming majority of contemporary respected scholars in this field" who acknowledge that, then the (reverted) edit would still be in error. You're arguing something entirely different from the reasons for the revision. As it stands, the (reverted) edit was done so because it was wordy and didn't improve the lead, not because it was or wasn't the consensus of the "overwhelming majority of contemporary respected scholars". Lostsandwich (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References in this thread

References

  1. ^ Clements 2014, p. 4
  2. ^ Ryan, Lyndall. "‘Hard Evidence’: The debate about massacre in the Black War in Tasmania." Passionate Histories: Myth, Memory and Indigenous Australia 21 (2010): 39.
  3. ISSN 1988-5946
    .
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_War&oldid=1220393958"