Feinstein say'OK to hunt Humans!!

Vince · Last edited by Vince on Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:20 am; edited 1 time in total

Radar wrote:

Vince,

Wasn't it 1967 when it finally became illegal to hunt aborigines in Australia; Queensland I think was the last state, you had to hold a permit but if they were considered a pest? on farms they were able to be shot.

Correct me if Im wrong.

Radar

There is a bit of contention as to the legality of killing aborigines from 1788 to the mid / late 1800s. I don't think it was legal to kill aboriginals in the early days. However, it was not uncommon for them to be hunted down and shot for little or no reason.

In the 1838 Myall Creek Massacre trial, Justice Dowling took care to remind the jury that the law made no distinction between the murder of an Aboriginal person and the murder of a European person.

There are many documented cases in the late 1800s of Europeans being charged with killing aborigines, but usually they were not convicted, or were pardoned, because of the attitudes of the day. However when aborigines killed a European settler they were hunted down and killed, often by the Native Police.

Indigenous Timeline

1928

Conniston Massacre in the Northern Territory. Europeans shoot 32 Aboriginal people after a European Dingo trapper, and a station holder are attacked by Aboriginal people.

A court of inquiry says the Europeans' action was 'justified'. Aboriginal people are refused legal aid by the Federal Government.

Suz...here is a fairly reasonable writing on the struggles of Aboriginal people in Australia...

Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in 1960s Australia

There is one documented case of 12 European men being charged with killing 30 aborigines in what is known as the Myall Creek Massacre, but none were found guilty by the jury. Seven of the men were subsequently retried on other charges, found guilty and hanged.

A brief synopsis of the trials:

Trials

Beginning on 15 November 1838, the case was heard before the Chief Justice of New South Wales, James Dowling. The accused were represented by three lawyers (Foster, a'Beckett and Windeyer) paid for by an association of landowners and stockmen from the Hunter Valley and Liverpool Plains region including Henry Dangar, the owner of the Myall Creek station. The Black Association, as they called themselves, were led by a local magistrate, who apparently used the influence of his office to gain access to the prisoners in Sydney, where he told them to "stick together and say nothing." Not one of the eleven accused gave evidence against their co-accused at the trial, something that Gipps attributes to the magistrate's role.
First trial

The station hutkeeper, Anderson, the only white witness, was the key witness for the prosecution. He told the court how the twelve men had tied the victims together, and led them away. He also said that Edward Foley, one of the perpetrators, had shown him a sword covered with blood. Anderson's testimony was supported by William Hobbs and Magistrate Day, who had conducted the police investigation.

Justice Dowling took care to remind the jury that the law made no distinction between the murder of an Aboriginal person and the murder of a European person. The jury, after deliberating for just twenty minutes, found all eleven men not guilty. One of the jurors later told the newspaper The Australian that although he considered the men guilty of murder, he could not convict a white man of killing an Aboriginal person:

"I look on the blacks as a set of monkeys and the sooner they are exterminated from the face of the earth, the better. I knew the men were guilty of murder but I would never see a white man hanged for killing a black."

Second trial

Attorney-General, Plunkett however requested the judge to remand the prisoners in custody awaiting further charges from the same incident. Although all eleven were remanded in custody only seven were to face a second trial. The second trial was held on 29 November. Anderson, who had been the key witness at the first trial, gave an even more lucid account of the massacre at the second trial. He told the court that:

"While Master was away, some men came on a Saturday, about 10; I cannot say how many days after master left; they came on horseback, armed with muskets and swords and pistols; all were armed... the blacks, when they saw the men coming, ran into our hut, and the men then, all of them, got off their horses; I asked what they were going to do with the blacks, and Russel said 'We are going to take them over the back of the range, to frighten them'."

Anderson then gave evidence that the Aboriginal people in the hut had cried out to him for assistance. He said two women were left behind at the huts, one "because she was good-looking, they said so," and that there was young child who had been left behind, who attempted to follow its mother who was tied up with the others, before Anderson carried it back to the hut. There were also two other young boys who had escaped by hiding in the creek.

Anderson also gave evidence regarding the perpetrators return and them burning the bodies.

"I [Anderson] saw smoke in the same direction they went; this was soon after they went with the firesticks... Fleming told Kilmeister to go up by-and-by and put the logs of wood together, and be sure that all [of the remains] was consumed... the girls they left, and the two boys, and the child I sent away with 10 black fellows that went away in the morning... I did not like to keep them, as the men might come back and kill them."

Anderson said that he wanted to speak the whole truth at the second trial. He also said that he did not seek to be rewarded for testifying, rather he asked "only for protection." The trial continued until 2 am on 30 November, when the seven men were found guilty. On 5 December they were sentenced to execution by hanging. The sentence was ratified by the Executive Council of New South Wales on 7 December, with Gipps later saying in a report that no mitigating circumstances could be shown for any of the defendants, and it could not be said that any of the men were more or less guilty than the rest. The seven men were executed early on the morning of 18 December.

This was the first (and only) time in Australia's history that Europeans were hanged for the massacre of Aborigines. However, Europeans had been hanged for the murder of Aboriginal people some years prior to Myall Creek. See R. v. Kirby and Thompson [1820] NSWKR 11; [1820] NSWSupC 11.
Consequences

The case led to significant uproar among sections of the population and the media, sometimes voiced in favour of the perpetrators. For example, an article in the Sydney Morning Herald declared that "the whole gang of black animals are not worth the money the colonists will have to pay for printing the silly court documents on which we have already wasted too much time".

John Fleming, the leader of the massacre, was never captured, and was allegedly responsible for further massacres throughout the Liverpool Plains and New England regions.[citation needed] His brother, Joseph Fleming, was also linked to massacres in the Maranoa region of south-western Queensland.

John Blake, one of the four men acquitted at the first trial and not subsequently charged, committed suicide by cutting his throat in 1852. His descendants, say that they like to think he did so out of a guilty conscience.

Those executed, on 18 December 1838, were: Charles Kilmeister, James Oates, Edward Foley, John Russell, John Johnstone, William Hawkins, and James Parry.

Myall Creek Massacre

There was a Referendum in 1967 relating to Aboriginals, but there is no mention of shooting them.

Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in 1960s Australia

Elvis

good info there Vince.
and you are right Gel about the movie setting a great movie all the same.

gelandangan

Off topic..

At the same time, I also learn that all pistol shown in the movie are replica of pre 1860 guns, OTOH the plausibility of those revolvers to reach remote Australia within 2 to 5 years of their production year is questionable

Ominivision1

Also off topic:

So if the movie was set in 1860, than that would make Quigley's 1874 sharps rifle a blast from the future?

Suzanne

Thanks Vinnie that was interesting stuff. Freighteningly not unlike our history of killings of both blacks and native Indians here. Isn't it interesting that (given the history) these people still exist at all in these countries? Justice prevails because of our intolerance to human injustice. Works every time, but at the expense of lives. Well I guess there are some countries where it hasn't worked.....Our government's administration will learn this some day, but at what cost?

gelandangan

Ominivision1 wrote:

Also off topic:

So if the movie was set in 1860, than that would make Quigley's 1874 sharps rifle a blast from the future?

it is an experimental rifle with an experimental ammunition, so lets us experiment..

Pumpkinslinger

If "Quigley..." was set in the 1860 it make no sense at all. The rifle was an 1874 model, "Wild Bill" Hickok didn't become famous until the late 1860s and so on. I'm thinking about 1880.

PaulS

It was a movie....
If you remember the movie "Thunder Road" it was supposed to be set in 1955 but they had a 57 Fairlane...

gelandangan

I think it is still plausible to have the setting at 1860, afte rall, Quigley never say that his gun is model 1874.
And it is agreed that it is indeed a wildcat rifle (although they do not use the term "wildcat")

In fact one of the scene in the movie goes as so:

Quote::

Matthew Quigley: You know your weapons. It's a lever-action, breech loader. Usual barrel length's thirty inches. This one has an extra four. It's converted to use a special forty-five caliber, hundred and ten grain metal cartridge, with a five-hundred forty grain paper patch bullet. It's fitted with double set triggers, and a Vernier sight. It's marked up to twelve-hundred yards. This one shoots a mite further.

Elliott Marston: An experimental weapon with experimental ammunition.

Matthew Quigley: You could call it that.

Elliott Marston: Let's experiment.