'Reading the tea-leaves' can help make sense of institutions - like the Australian War Memorial - that communicate selectively and prefer not to engage with their constructive critics.
A 99-page pdf released last month under Freedom of Information (FOI Ref. No. 2024-25-19) contains the Memorial's Style Guide, intended 'to encourage consistency across the Memorial'. It is labelled Version 1.0 and dated September 2024, although we understand this is a living document and Version 1.0 is by no means the final version.
A new table of 'wars and overseas deployments'
On page 23 of the Style Guide pdf is a table 'Wars and overseas deployments in which Australia has been involved'. For each entry in the table there is 'Name', 'Variant' (i.e. alternative name if there is one), and 'Dates of Australian involvement'.
The first entry runs '[Name] 'Frontier Wars'/[Variant] 'frontier violence, frontier conflict'/[Dates of Australian involvement] 'c. 1788-'. Then there are entries for 'New Zealand', 'Sudan', 'South African War (Boer War)', 'China (Boxer Rebellion)', 'First World War (The Great War)', 'Second World War', all with relevant dates, right down to 'Iraq War (2003-2013)'.
So the 'Frontier Wars' is classed as a war involving 'Australia', just like the two World Wars, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and all those other wars and deployments. And, unlike the other entries, the Frontier Wars entry shows no end date.
(The Memorial still uses the term 'Frontier Wars'. Defending Country's preferred term is 'The Australian Wars', for the wars fought on Country to defend Country, and the term 'Australia's overseas wars' for our other wars. For more, read the articles on this website under 'About' and 'Australian Frontier Wars'.)
Inscriptions and prescriptions
How does page 23 compare with the rest of the Memorial? Australia's war theatres are inscribed in bronze above the Memorial courtyard and Pool of Reflection. No Frontier Wars there; the earliest entry is 'Sudan', followed by 'South Africa' and 'China'. On the Roll of Honour, 'Soudan Contingent' is first, followed by 'China Contingent' and 'South Africa'. Again, no Frontier Wars.
The Memorial's website, however, carries a blog entry dated 27 January 2014, which says this:
The “Frontier Wars” were a series of actions that were carried out by British colonial forces stationed in Australia, by the police, and by local settlers. It is important to note that the state police forces used Indigenous Australians to hunt down and kill other Indigenous Australians; but the Memorial has found no substantial evidence that home-grown military units, whether state colonial forces or post-Federation Australian military units, ever fought against the Indigenous population of this country (emphasis added).
That blog effectively prescribed the Memorial's post-2014 approach to Frontier Wars: they happened but that was all. 'Home-grown military units' was carefully chosen wording, meaning troops recruited in Australia. 'British' troops were different: they were used 'to suppress the resistance of the Aboriginal population to British settlement' but not very often. 'British soldiers (as distinct from armed police and civilians) became involved only rarely, notably during the period of martial law in Tasmania between 1828 and 1832, and in New South Wales in the mid-1820s and late 1830s'.
The most important issue for the Memorial, then, was who had suppressed the resistance - not home-grown men but sometimes British. It would hardly have mattered, one suspects, to the Aboriginal population whether their resistance was being suppressed by British troops, colonial forces, police or settlers. The outcome - death and dispossession - was the crucial point for First Nations, not whether or which uniforms were worn by those suppressing them.
Uncertain trumpets
In recent years, the Memorial has waffled and wobbled. For example, Director Anderson confirmed to Senate Estimates in November 2022 (ACTION 4 ...) the position set out in the January 2014 blog that there was a lack of substantial evidence that home-grown military units fought against First Nations people.
Yet, advice (signed off by the Director) to the Memorial Council in August 2022 had contained 'five historical examples of colonial-raised [i.e. home-grown] forces that did take part in frontier violence', including two or perhaps three forces that could be classified as military. In other words, the Director’s evidence to Estimates did not reflect the advice to the Council.
Is the 2024 Style Guide table a breakthrough then? Inclusion of the Frontier Wars in a table of wars 'in which Australia has been involved' only makes sense if 'Australia' is taken to mean 'home-grown military units' or British troops under orders from colonial governments or police or Native Police or any other suppressors of First Nations resistance.
The table suggests the Memorial has moved on since 2014. Suppression of resistance is now recognised as the point of these wars, not who did the suppressing.
More tea-leaves
The Style Guide tea-leaves become murky again, however, in the section headed 'The Frontier Wars' (page 33 of the pdf), which lists a number of 'organised campaigns of warfare and warlike resistance' - Black War in Tasmania, Bathurst War, Eumeralla Wars, Kalkadoon Wars, and others - without really spelling out who was responsible for suppressing the resistance. There is a hint of 'genocide' in Tasmania, a mention of 'settlers' and the paramilitary Native Police in Queensland, and a quote from Colonial Secretary Earl Bathurst's 1825 instructions to Governor Darling 'to oppose force by force, and to repel ... Aggressions'.
A quick read of the section could take it as describing wars between First Nations people as much as against them. Compared with the table on page 23, page 33 is a cop-out.
Now to what may be the most important tea-leaves in this story. Memorial Council Chair Kim Beazley said this in Perth on 29 October 2024 :
They [Aboriginal people] were very difficult to get on top of and that's something that I will make sure the war memorial makes all of us understand exactly what that means, because they're entitled to the dignity of resistance (emphasis added but reflecting the strength of the phrase as originally uttered - see the video [mark 1:19:00]).
The Chair's emphasis on resistance is welcome but more action is needed. Time, and the efforts of the players, will determine whether those particular tea-leaves turn out to be insipid Peppermint Tea or robust Australian Afternoon.
An ideal future
Tea-leaf reading by outsiders is no substitute for clear and constant communication from the Memorial and a willingness to engage with people who support its mission but wish it would stop playing with words and faffing about (see note 1 below). There's a history of faffing about on The Australian Wars but there is also a clear direction for the future.
The people of Australia - First Nations and others - need a straightforward public explanation of the Memorial's position on The Australian Wars, over the name of the Chair of the Memorial Council and reflecting a decision of the whole Council. Off-the-cuff remarks, however passionate, misleading replies to correspondents, and unpublicised tweaks to internal documents like the Style Guide just do not cut it.
The public explanation should include statements that the Memorial Council's equivocal decision of August 2022 (note 2 below) no longer applies, that the Memorial's ludicrous allocation of part of 1.1 per cent of its space to the Frontier Wars (note 3 below) also no longer applies, and providing details of any current plan to fund Frontier Wars displays from public donations.
Notes
(1) See earlier posts (detail of lots of faffing about)
(2) Memorial Council decision of 19 August 2022
It was agreed that Frontier Violence perpetrated against Aboriginal Australians would, as in the previous Colonial Galleries, continue to be presented in the new Pre-1914 galleries.
It would provide a broader and deeper depiction and presentation of the violence perpetrated against Indigenous Australians.
Wherever possible it would relate to and inform, subsequent Indigenous military service to Australia, providing a context for that service.
The gallery will inform visitors of the significant institutions whose charter it is to tell the full story of Frontier Violence.
The gallery will be developed in full consultation with the Council throughout its development.
(3) Space allocation
The Memorial's own figures show that the Australian (Frontier) Wars will take up part of just 1.1 per cent of total gallery space after the current redevelopment. That 1.1 per cent (198 square metres) will be shared between the Australian (Frontier) Wars and the expeditions to the New Zealand Wars 1845-62 and the Sudan 1885.
Picture credit: 'An example of a tea leaf reading, showing what may be interpreted as a dog and a bird on the side of the cup.' (Wikipedia/MochaSwirl2011/Public Domain)
We will print without amendment (subject to our Moderation Policy) any response the Memorial provides to this post.
Defending Country supports the efforts of anyone associated with the Memorial, from the Council Chair and the refreshed Council down, to properly recognise and commemorate the Australian (Frontier) Wars.
More from
General
category
