Did the events at Pinjarra WA in 1834 merit yet another official apology to Aboriginal people?

The only reference in the Apology to the purpose of the Pinjarra expedition is that “Following settler grievances and calls for protection, Governor Stirling then formed an intent to punish the Bindjareb Noongar tribe”. 

No mention is made of the fact that the major known purpose was to arrest persons wanted for the murder of a soldier (Private Nesbitt) and to ascertain whether the local tribe was responsible for the “almost unchecked commission of numerous outrages and atrocious murders on the white people resident in the district”.  At the outset of fighting at Pinjarra, an eyewitness account states that one soldier recognised “several of them to be of those who were present at Nisbett’s murder”.

The exact nature of the violence that took place on the day is contested.  Governor Dawson’s Apology noted that on the colonial side the casualties (from spearing) were one dead and two wounded, while Aboriginal losses were “impossible to determine”.  Accounts from the time generally put Aboriginal losses at 15 to 30 with one account suggesting up to 80 deaths.  The colonial force numbered about 25 police and soldiers, while one colonial account estimated that the “obnoxious tribe” numbered about 70 to 80 people.

Historian Keith Windschuttle argued that Pinjarra was “a real battle between warring parties, with casualties on both sides, rather than a massacre of innocents”.  It is possible to watch a debate on this matter between Windschuttle and Henry Reynolds, hosted by the ABC and draw relevant conclusions.

So, what is my assessment?

The initial conflict at Pinjarra was definitely more than a skirmish.  Available accounts suggest that the Aboriginal side stood their ground and threw spears before being fired upon and being overcome.  That said, resisting colonial force can be justified based on a perceived moral right on the part of original inhabitants to self-defence of one’s country.  Available accounts suggests that women and children were spared by the police suggesting that the estimate up to 80 Aboriginal deaths may be an exaggeration.

Insofar as the truth can be ascertained, the encounter seems to have had two distinct phases.  The initial fighting has the characteristics of a battle, with natives armed with spears fighting police and soldiers armed with muskets.  According to one account “the police rode forward, when the natives….. armed with spears, seeing only five men, commenced the attack. This little band, however, repulsed them.  After finding themselves in a losing position (following police reinforcements), the natives retreated into the Murray river”.

In the second phase, a number of accounts suggest that the Aborigines concealed themselves along the riverbank and were “gradually picked out of their concealment by the crossfire from both banks, until between 25 and 30 were left dead on the field and in the river”.  At this stage and based on such accounts, the accusation of massacre is arguable, based on those being shot at no longer being a threat.  Other accounts suggest that those in the river could still throw spears with surprising force and accuracy, making the notion of “massacre” less clear.

Overall, rising 200 years after the event and having access to written accounts from only one side, it is impossible to state with 100 per cent accuracy exactly what happened at Pinjarra in 1834.  It seems to be the case that native Aboriginal tribes in Western Australia were more hostile to colonists than in the Eastern states.  Present day morality is more sympathetic to the colonised than to the colonisers, even though the resulting nations in places like Australia, New Zealand and North America lead the world in many ways.  Similarly, if countries like Australia had been left untouched by the rest of the world, the indigenous population would have remained in a very backward state of development.

If shooting Aboriginal people that are no longer a threat represents a massacre and is morally unacceptable, then one must also consider whether attacks on white settler families should be similarly condemned.  Should Aboriginal people make any apology themselves?  Should we be judging past wrongs using contemporary moral standards or applying the moral standards of that time?

It seems to me that any apology for the events at Pinjarra in 1834 is a matter for the British, and that the Apology by the WA authorities is a combination of a stunt and a statement of ideology.

Given that the facts are not entirely cut and dried, I recommend that readers, especially in Western Australia, read both the Apology and the accounts from that time and form their own opinion.