History is history, but you can dwell on it a little too much...

The ABC has a story up about the descendents of the Pinjarra massacre that happened in Western Australia in 1834:

In 1834, a band of soldiers, police and colonists led by Governor James Stirling, the leader of the Swan River Colony, attacked a group of Bindjareb Noongar people on the banks of the Murray River, killing many of them.

Estimates of the death toll vary, with official accounts showing the deaths of at least 15 Aboriginal people and one police officer.

However, Ms Martin, from the Bilya or "river tribe" of Bindjareb people, said her community had the number of Indigenous victims at more than double the official figure.

She said that was the type of truth-telling she wanted the Voice to facilitate.

Ms Martin said it was vital to put local leaders at the front of the process.

There is no context given, but there is a very lengthy Wikipedia entry that does (although the lack of citations for some claims is concerning).  Here's just a bit:

There had been numerous Aboriginal attacks on settlers in the preceding years. Notably, in February 1832, Private George Budge was ambushed by Bindjareb Nyungars, and speared to death near Peel’s garden. The following July, Sergeant Wood of the 63rd Regiment was speared and nearly killed.^[1] This was followed in July 1834 by the ambush and murder of Hugh Nesbitt, a servant of Thomas Peel and the wounding of Edward Barron.^[5] Following the Binjareb looting, by means of armed robbery, of the flour mill that provided rations to settlers and Noongars in the district, as well as the murder and mutilation of Nesbitt,^[5] Captain Frederick Irwin, the lieutenant governor in Stirling's absence, is said to have inflamed the situation by adopting a soldier's attitude to crush a warlike group of Aboriginals and reduce them to a state of subjection.^{[citation needed]}

I mean, there are many examples of such incidents around Australia, with Aboriginals disproportionately punished for their pushback against moves on their tribal lands.

But I have to wonder - in another decade, it'll be 200 years since this particular incident - if modern peoples can get over atrocities committed on a massive scale in the period 1939 to 1975 (<cough>, Germany, Japan, Americans in Vietnam), doesn't the call for "truth telling" for incidents 200 hundred years ago seem to be pushing that particular victim narrative a bit, um, unnecessarily hard?

It's a bit late to be prosecuting politicians and troopers from the time, too.

Anyway, interestingly, the report does give another example of indigenous folk who aren't convinced the Voice is a good idea, for practical reasons:

Opinions on the proposed Voice among other descendants of Pinjarra survivors are mixed.

Clarry Walley, who is a respected elder and figure in the Pinjarra community, said he was steadfast in his opposition to the Voice.

He said he was sceptical of the idea changes brought by the Voice would trickle down to smaller communities such as his own.

"I'll vote no," he said.

"It might make a difference for other people, but to some people, it's not going to make a difference. There's still going to be hardship and people are still going to be struggling, and it's not going to change that.

John Michael serves on the cultural advice committee for the Gnaala Karla Booja Aboriginal Corporation, which represents traditional custodians from a vast swathe of the state's south.

He said he was undecided about how he would vote in the Voice referendum.

He said he wanted more Aboriginal advice heard in the corridors of power, but like Mr Walley, wanted firm detail on what his community would get out of the Voice before he decided.

So, once again, a little to my surprise, the ABC provides the voices of local aboriginal elders who don't see the value in the exercise, which gives me "cover" to vote "no".   (Although, given the pretty gormless Warren Mundine's contradictory arguments, I would rather not vote at all.)

Update:  in terms of the total numbers of aborigines killed over time in reprisal killings, there is this estimate -

The research project, currently in its eighth year and led by University of Newcastle historian Emeritus Professor Lyndall Ryan, now estimates more than 10,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander lives were lost in more than 400 massacres, up from a previous estimate of 8,400 in 302 massacres. By contrast it is estimated that 168 non-Aboriginal people were killed in 13 frontier massacres.

The team developed a template to identify massacres and a process to corroborate disparate sources. They include settler diaries, newspaper reports, Aboriginal evidence, and archives from State and Federal repositories.

The project’s online map and database records the massacre site locations, details of the individual massacres and the sources corroborating evidence of the massacres.

Professor Ryan said new evidence, released today in Stage 4 of the project in partnership with The Guardian Australia, showed massacres intensified, particularly after 1860, a point in time when South Australia acquired the Northern Territory from NSW, Western Australia’s Kimberley region opened up and Queensland became a separate colony.

“More massacres happened in the period 1860 to 1930 than in the period 1788 to 1860,” Professor Ryan said.

“We find that the massacres are becoming better organised and there seems to be a more ruthless approach on the part of the perpetrators to the massacring of Aboriginal people.”

I don't know how good her work is, but the numbers are substantial, even if rubbery.   (

I will concede that any such killing that took place within the early 20th century is surprisingly recent - and carries with it the fact that they happened after Australia came into being.

Still, when it comes to terrible treatment of local people at the hands of colonists, I suspect the British in India would be hard to beat.  Even with the new nationalism in India, do the people really spend much time talking about apologies and reparations?