- 03 Nov 2005 06:55
#748429
Following is a short essay and image analysis of an S. T. Gill artwork I have written. It covers the settlement of the Port Phillip region, treatment of the native population and common views held at the time by settlers.
Poor Harmless Natives
Note: The image has been known by the more provocative name “Poor Harmless Natives†but is now known as “Attack on Store Drayâ€.
The European settlement of the Port Phillip region beginning in 1834 had a great impact on the land and native people of the area. Not only did the Europeans bring a new culture that included the cultivation of land and production in search of wealth, but they also brought with them ideas and morals completely alien to the native population. The settlers saw the Aboriginal population as dishonourable and cowardly and in many cases even sub-human. The image, “Poor Harmless Natives†by S.T Gill is reflective of these ideas and attitudes shown towards the Aboriginals by the Europeans that would not help with conflict between the two groups in coming years.
“Poor Harmless Natives†depicts three Aboriginal men, bearded and unclothed, except for one with a loin cloth, stooped behind vegetation ready to ambush two settlers sitting by a fire and cart seemingly minding their own business. The symbolic meaning of this image represents the Aboriginals as uncultured savages due to their lack of clothing and as violent and cowardly, ambushing seemingly non-violent settlers. The appearance of spears held by the natives also denotes a sense of unsophisticated people who are technologically backwards. These are just some of the many reasons for the Europeans’ idea that the native population was inferior.
This idea that the Aborigines were inferior was prevalent amongst the settlers of the region, especially amongst those who settled the land to cultivate it and amass wealth. Robinson said that many settlers spoke of “dropping Aborigines as coolly as if speaking of dropping birds†and that the Aborigines “were not human, so killing them was not murder.†These views came about for a myriad of reasons but a central concept was the protection of new found land and the securing of wealth.
Henry Meyrick, a settler who used the land for sheep grazing stated, “If I caught a black actually killing my sheep I would shoot him with as little remorse as I would a wild dog.†The natives were seen as an unneeded nuisance by many settlers. They were seen to have attacked settlers and their homesteads and threatened livelihoods in their acts of theft of property such as sheep. Because the Aborigines seemed to have no “political or social organisations†they were seen as uncivilised and inferior to the Europeans, and with the added belief that the natives were technologically backward, they were generally seen as nothing more than animals.
The contempt shown towards Aborigines came out of the belief that they had no right to the land on which they lived. Richard Windeyer told the Aborigines Protection Society in 1838 that the land belonged “to him that would first cultivate itâ€. This notion came from the botanist, Joseph Banks, who deemed the land of Australia as “terra nulliusâ€, one of the reasons being that the Aborigines lived in a “state of nature†and had no civilly organised society. The European view that the land that was not owned could not be defended conflicted with the Aborigines who saw the settlement of what they deemed to be their land as a threat to their very way of life.
While these views were held by the majority, some chose not to show contempt towards the native people for their perceived inferiority. Many religious figures and people who opposed slavery, which was abolished throughout the British Empire in 1833 such as James Dredge, believed the Aboriginals had the same rights as others because they were “subjects of the Queen†as the land they occupied was the possession of the British Empire. George Mercer, a representative of the Port Phillip Association, in 1836 stressed the association’s anxiety to protect and “civilise†the native people “whose welfare and improvement†was one of the association’s “great objectsâ€. This led in later years to the establishment of missions by those who saw it their duty to “civilise†and help the native populace. Many of these missions failed in their attempts.
“Poor Harmless Natives†is representative of the attitudes expressed in the region at the time that saw the natives as violent, primitive beings, and the title of the piece is even an attempt to discredit those who wished to help the Aborigines through a sense of irony. The reality of the situation for many settlers was one of conflict with the native population and the piece clearly demonstrates this reality of the early years of settlement in and around Port Phillip.
This is a cross post from my new, historical blog > http://08081986.blogspot.com/
Poor Harmless Natives
Note: The image has been known by the more provocative name “Poor Harmless Natives†but is now known as “Attack on Store Drayâ€.
The European settlement of the Port Phillip region beginning in 1834 had a great impact on the land and native people of the area. Not only did the Europeans bring a new culture that included the cultivation of land and production in search of wealth, but they also brought with them ideas and morals completely alien to the native population. The settlers saw the Aboriginal population as dishonourable and cowardly and in many cases even sub-human. The image, “Poor Harmless Natives†by S.T Gill is reflective of these ideas and attitudes shown towards the Aboriginals by the Europeans that would not help with conflict between the two groups in coming years.
“Poor Harmless Natives†depicts three Aboriginal men, bearded and unclothed, except for one with a loin cloth, stooped behind vegetation ready to ambush two settlers sitting by a fire and cart seemingly minding their own business. The symbolic meaning of this image represents the Aboriginals as uncultured savages due to their lack of clothing and as violent and cowardly, ambushing seemingly non-violent settlers. The appearance of spears held by the natives also denotes a sense of unsophisticated people who are technologically backwards. These are just some of the many reasons for the Europeans’ idea that the native population was inferior.
This idea that the Aborigines were inferior was prevalent amongst the settlers of the region, especially amongst those who settled the land to cultivate it and amass wealth. Robinson said that many settlers spoke of “dropping Aborigines as coolly as if speaking of dropping birds†and that the Aborigines “were not human, so killing them was not murder.†These views came about for a myriad of reasons but a central concept was the protection of new found land and the securing of wealth.
Henry Meyrick, a settler who used the land for sheep grazing stated, “If I caught a black actually killing my sheep I would shoot him with as little remorse as I would a wild dog.†The natives were seen as an unneeded nuisance by many settlers. They were seen to have attacked settlers and their homesteads and threatened livelihoods in their acts of theft of property such as sheep. Because the Aborigines seemed to have no “political or social organisations†they were seen as uncivilised and inferior to the Europeans, and with the added belief that the natives were technologically backward, they were generally seen as nothing more than animals.
The contempt shown towards Aborigines came out of the belief that they had no right to the land on which they lived. Richard Windeyer told the Aborigines Protection Society in 1838 that the land belonged “to him that would first cultivate itâ€. This notion came from the botanist, Joseph Banks, who deemed the land of Australia as “terra nulliusâ€, one of the reasons being that the Aborigines lived in a “state of nature†and had no civilly organised society. The European view that the land that was not owned could not be defended conflicted with the Aborigines who saw the settlement of what they deemed to be their land as a threat to their very way of life.
While these views were held by the majority, some chose not to show contempt towards the native people for their perceived inferiority. Many religious figures and people who opposed slavery, which was abolished throughout the British Empire in 1833 such as James Dredge, believed the Aboriginals had the same rights as others because they were “subjects of the Queen†as the land they occupied was the possession of the British Empire. George Mercer, a representative of the Port Phillip Association, in 1836 stressed the association’s anxiety to protect and “civilise†the native people “whose welfare and improvement†was one of the association’s “great objectsâ€. This led in later years to the establishment of missions by those who saw it their duty to “civilise†and help the native populace. Many of these missions failed in their attempts.
“Poor Harmless Natives†is representative of the attitudes expressed in the region at the time that saw the natives as violent, primitive beings, and the title of the piece is even an attempt to discredit those who wished to help the Aborigines through a sense of irony. The reality of the situation for many settlers was one of conflict with the native population and the piece clearly demonstrates this reality of the early years of settlement in and around Port Phillip.
This is a cross post from my new, historical blog > http://08081986.blogspot.com/
Last edited by Bricktop on 03 Nov 2005 10:34, edited 1 time in total.
- By FiveofSwords
- By Steve Melton
- By Rancid
- By JohnRawls