Controversial Batman Pact - Essay Example

Name Student Affiliation Date Batman’s Treaty Deed Introduction Batman’s treaty was an agreement between Port Phillip Association and Kulin nation and local indigenous leaders in 1835. In this contract, the Aboriginal leaders are said to have agreed to grant their 240,000 hectares land to Batman in return for axes, flour, blankets and other goods1. He also promised to be giving them an annual rent. However, this treaty was immediately disputed and has remained controversial up to today. This historical disparity surrounds the issue of whether the indigenous people really understood the meaning of their approval of the contract. This paper will discuss whether there was a mutual understanding between Batman and the Aboriginal people. There are several historians who are of the view that there was a mutual understanding between the Aboriginal people and Batman but on the other hand they are those who argue that there was no mutual understanding. Some historians claim that the treaty was an expedient trick which took advantage of the Aboriginal while others have celebrated and perceived the treaty positively. This paper will look at the evidence such as presence of figures of authority during the signing, the originality of signatures of the Aborigines in the deed, items that Batman offered in exchange for the land, Aboriginals’’ concept of land ownership, and Aboriginals’ knowledge of white settlement . The first part will examine the evidence that proving the lack of mutual understanding between the two parties while the last part will look at evidence demonstrating the existence of a mutual understanding between the two. This paper will conclude with a reasoned conclusion as regard this issue after weighing the strengths and weakness of the evidence put forward by these various historians. Many historians view this treaty as being opportunistic trickery. The approach of the Port Philip Association can be said to be more pragmatic than ethical and can be considered fraudulent in several respects. Batman’s treaty is a disgraceful example of colonial dishonesty and egocentricity. The claim of Batman that he negotiated with the Aborigines can be said to be a trick to thwart the motivations of pastoralist and swindle the British Government. Macintyre argues that the treaty cheated the Aboriginal people out of their territory in exchange for a number of ‘trinkets’2. The items that Batman offered the local people bribed them into passivity. According to Presland, the treaty was a fraud3. The Aboriginal people had persistently resisted European expansion and hence it is doubtable how they could have agreed to sign an agreement giving away their large track of land unless they didn’t understand what they were getting into4. Those historians who accept this contact argue that viewing it as opportunistic trickery is undermining the Aboriginal people’s intelligence and their comprehension of the white man settlement. The Aboriginal people understood that they agreed to something crucial just as Batman was. Blainey argues that there was a mutual understanding between the Kulin and Batman and therefore, accepts the account of Batman as regard the treaty. Another issue that has been greatly disputed by many historians concerns the signatures on the contract. Most have argued that Batman forged the signatures. The striking similarity between the Kulin chiefs’ signatures on the treaty and the markings made in the journal of Batman are baffling. Moreover, Van Toorn explicitly argues that Batman in his own journal describes how he forced the signatures of the chiefs himself5. They argue that the Kulin chiefs may have refused to sign the treaty, and this forced Batman to forge their signatures. Furthermore, some historians argue that Batman negotiated with tribal elders and not chiefs and in reality they did not have power among the Kulin and hence did not have the right to sign the treaty. William Buckley, who had lived for more than 30 years with the Wathaurung community, supported this claim by arguing that there were no chiefs who had superior rights to sell the land; they only had power over their families6. If indeed the signatures on the contract were forged by Batman, then there is no way it can be termed as a treaty as it did not meet the Western legalistic requirements. An agreement under Western law requires that both sides agree and not just presenting a signed paper. The discovery that Batman’s treaty did not meet this requirement is redundant. For Batman’s treaty to be meaningful, he had to look for powerful people among the Kulins to negotiate with. Batman’s claim that he found such figures of authority is disputed bearing in mind that there were no such persons in the Kulin people as they did not have the flair of reason needed for social government7. A claim is put forward that the Kulin people could not understand anything that was going on. The fact that the Kulin people did not have leaders means that no land could be negotiated. However, one historian argues that the Kulin could not have resisted signing the treaty as there was a special relationship between them and the settlers in Melbourne during the first several years. This is the first evidence that point out that an agreement might have been reached between the two parties and signed. The Aboriginal people may not have understood the treaty as their concept of land ownership was entirely different from that of white man8. The European believed in private ownership of land while the Aborigines believed in community ownership of land. The concept of selling and buying land did not exist among the Aboriginal people, and therefore, there is no way they could have sold their land to the Association. Batman’s entitlement to this land was grounded on the European concept of territory ownership and legal agreements. The Aborigines could not have understood this concept as it was entirely foreign to them. To the Aborigines, land was about belonging not possession and to them land can belong to different people and cannot be sold9. William Buckley’s claim that the Kulin had no chiefs is contradictory. At one point, Buckley is saying that the kulin had no chief but at another point he is saying that no chief has superior rights over land. Barwick has showed that the Kulin has authoritative figures and that Batman negotiated with men of power. According to Barwick, these men were known as clan-head, usually called ngurungeata by some Kulins10. These men had authority over the land management, and strangers were required to seek the permission of these mean to have temporary access to the land so as to ensure their safety. The idea that such powerful men were involved makes it acceptable that the Kulin indeed knew what was taking place. The fact that the Kulin could not exchange land is also questionable as Buckley claimed that he was given land by Aboriginal people11. While we understand the intentions of Batman in purchasing the land, we do not understand the Kulins’ intentions. The other factor which shows that there was mutual understanding between Batman and Kulins is the fact that Batman included seven Aborigines who he had worked with for several years, meaning that they understood the Kulin12. The leader of this group, known as Pigeon, and this team played a significant part during the negotiations. These people came from a region that was just a few languages groups from Port Phillip and hence they were more likely to be familiar with ceremonies like tanderrum. This rules out the explanation that the Kulin mistook the enfoeffment ceremony for tanderrum ceremony. Moreover, the treaty was signed in Geelong area which neatly fitted the lands of the Yaluki-William and Wurundjeru-balluk and the lands of two clans around Geelong that they married. This challenges the idea that the translators used by Batman did not understand the local language13. The fact that the kulin who participated can remember the whole process of signing the deed shows that the event was important to them. This is evident when William Barack remembers the signing process despite it taking place when he was a young boy. The same can be said of Batman. The attitude in Batman’s Journal, correspondence as well as commentaries to and by allies demonstrates that he firmly believed that he had reached an agreement with the Aboriginal people. It is not possible for such a reaction growing just from fraudulence. The evidence of the items traded seriously undermines the claim that the Aborigines knew nothing about the white settlement. Port Phillip’s people trade routes can be traced as far as what is now known as New South Wales14. Dispossession of indigenous land had been taking place at a high rate as shown by the vast expansion of white settlement on their northern side for more than 40 years. It is concluded that the Port Phillip’s Kulin people had some knowledge about this spreading out and its adverse effects given that the Aboriginal message systems were considered to be very effective15. This was the kind of news that did travel at a very high speed among the Aborigines. There is excellent evidence which demonstrate that the Aborigines around the Murray’s South region had some idea about white man although they had direct contact with him. The dismissal of the treaty as being trickery also corresponds to the dismissal of Kulin knowledge and agency. Those opposed to this treaty portray the white man as something monstrous that people need to be cautious of. But the fact that Pigeon and his friends worked with Batman for numerous years shows that the white man is someone who is accommodative and friendly. If the aim of Batman was to limit settlement to only the Port Phillip association, the chiefs would have made an informed decision that day of the agreement. Hence, the treaty can be understood as peacekeeping on the frontier whereby the Kulin were trying to curb the destruction that had taken place to their north16. Barwick argues that Batman handed over the items he had promised to give, although some historians claim the contrary. The goods were delivered by a ship to the Aboriginal people. In fact, Wedge stated that the Port Phillip Association fulfilled all the promises it had made to the Aborigines and this is evident through the peace that existed between the settlers and Aborigines. If Batman had not fulfilled his obligations, then there would have been hostility between the two groups. The argument that the Kulin played a passive role in the Batman’s deed amounts to demeaning them. Historian believed that it was not possible for Batman and the Kulin chiefs to commonly agree to a restricted white settlement. Wedge felt that the two parties had come to an agreement and the Europeans’ failure to comply with the agreement over the next few years can be attributed to the Kulin’s rising unrest. The Association had not only stopped paying rent as promised but also the settlement had turned to be very much unlimited. The first victim of the unrest was Gellibrand, the lawyer in charge of drafting up the deed17. According to Barwick, Batman put it clear he was buying land but the clan-heads took it that they were holding a tanderrum and so Batman is not to blame in this case. The enfeoffment and the tanderrum ceremonies had one thing in common: the transfer of a large piece of land. Most of the behaviours of the Aborigines who came into contact with Batman were in line with ritual behaviour just as those of Batman18. Therefore, what was endorsed may have been an ideal case of mutual lack of understanding created by cultural incommensurability as well as a fluke of ritual. Backwick argues that the misunderstanding may be attributed to some similarities between the tanderrum ceremony and the enfeoffment ceremony. A claim is put forward that Batman came to Port Phillip region with Aboriginal interpreters from New South Wales and it’s more likely that they didn’t speak the same language as wurundjeri people. Most historians therefore conclude that the Wurundjeri might have thought that Batman was giving them gifts in return for access and usage of their land and that they were supposed to pay back by sharing their resources19. To Wurundjeri, this transaction is called tanderrum. However, Batman treaty was grounded on enfeoffment that entails the passing of a large track of land between the participants in the ceremony. Conclusion There was a mutual understanding between Batman and Aboriginal people in the signing of the treaty deed. Batman negotiated with persons who had power in the Kulin community. The signatures were authentic, meaning that the Aboriginals leaders signed the treaty. Aboriginal people knew the items that Batman had promised in return and Batman delivered the items he had promised. Batman’s treaty recognized Aborigines concept of land ownership. Finally, the aboriginal people had knowledge about the white settlement. We can therefore understand this treaty if we pay proper attention to the situation that the Aboriginal people found themselves in that forced them to sign it. The Batman’s treaty needs to be considered as that point whereby the settlers and the Aboriginal people unsuccessfully tried some accommodation and not as an act of trickery or opportunistic misunderstanding. Batman’s treaty was mostly undermined by those people who perceived to lose the most from legitimacy and not the Kulin. These people wanted unlimited access to the Indigenous land and had no intentions of accommodating them as they did not see any future for them. Bibliography Attwood, B & Doyle, H., Extracts from Possession: Batman's treaty and the matter of history, Miegunyah Press, Carlton, Vic., 2009, pp. 36–9, 52–8, 63–6. Barwick, D., Rebellion at Coranderrk. Canberra: Aboriginal History, 1998. Boyce, J., 1835: The Founding of Melbourne and the Conquest of Australia, Melbourne: Black Inc., 2013. Campbell, A., John Batman and the Aborigines. Malmsbury, Victoria: Kibble Books, 1987. Ford, L., ‘Indigenous sovereignty and its historical occlusions: the North American and global contexts of Australian settlement’, Australian Indigenous Law Review, vol. 12, no. 1, 2008, pp. 69–80. Ford, L., ‘Empire and order on the colonial frontiers of Georgia and New South Wales’, Itinerario: Geographies of Empire, vol. 3, 2006, pp. 95–113. Frost, A. ‘New South Wales as terra nullius: the British denial of Aboriginal land rights’, Australian Historical Studies, vol. 19, no. 77, October, 1981, pp. 513–23. Gammage, B., extracts from The biggest Eestate on earth: how Aborigines made Australia, Allen and Unwin, 2011, pp.139-146 Hirst, J., ‘How sorry can we be?’. In Sense and Nonsense in Australian history, edited by John Hirst. Melbourne: Black Inc.: 2005: 80–103 Hunter, A., ‘Treaties? The Impact of inter-racial violence in Tasmania on proposals for negotiating agreements with Aboriginal people in Western Australia in the early 1830s’, Australia and New Zealand Law and History E-Journal, 2006, pp. 1–15. Kenny, R., 'Tricks or Treats: A case for Kulin knowing in Batman's Treaty' History Australia, vol. 5, no. 2, 2008, pp. 38.1- 38.14. Macintyre, S., A Concise History of Australia, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. McHugh, P., Aboriginal societies and the common law: a history of sovereignty, status, and self-determination, Oxford University Press, New York, 2004, pp 91–8. Murray, R. ,‘Balance and accuracy rather than history wars’. The Weekend Australian Review. November 2006: 11–12: 12. Powell, J.M., The Public Lands of Australia Felix: Settlement and Land Appraisal in Victoria 1834–91. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1970. Presland, G., Aboriginal Melbourne: The lost land of the Kulin peoples. Melbourne: McPhee Gribble, 1994. Reynolds, H, The law of the land, Penguin Books, Ringwood, Vic., 1992. Van Toorn, P., 2001. ‘Transactions on the borderlands of Aboriginal writing’. Social Semiotics 11 (2): 209–227. Read More