Book review: Fatal Contact is a timely account of how epidemics devastated our First Peoples

Book review: Fatal Contact is a timely account of how epidemics devastated our First Peoples

Review: Fatal Contact: How Epidemics Nearly Wiped Out Australia’s First Peoples by Peter Dowling (Monash University Publishing)

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains images and names of deceased people.

As Peter Dowling reminds us in his introduction to this book, violence on the colonial frontier accounted for many thousands of deaths among the First Peoples — a truth unremembered in a process of historical amnesia labelled the “great Australian silence” by anthropologist W. E. H. Stanner.

Australia’s sense of its past in collective memory, Stanner said in his famous 1968 Boyer lectures, was:

a view from a window which has been carefully placed to exclude a whole quadrant of the landscape […] a cult of forgetfulness practised on a national scale.

A great deal has shifted in our understanding of the past since Stanner shocked the historical profession into a halting engagement with the truth of Australia’s settlement.

Yet, as historian Billy Griffiths pointed out in the anthology Fire, Flood and Plague, a key part of the “great Australian silence” has been our continued willingness to see pandemic disease that eliminated the great majority of the First People as “inevitable and apolitical”.

Read more: Friday essay: the ‘great Australian silence’ 50 years on

In the face of the current pandemic, playing out on a global stage, Griffiths writes, we can observe that “it is not only about microbes; it is also about culture, politics and history”. The radically different consequences of this pandemic as experienced by different peoples has shown us we cannot blithely assume spread of disease is without responsibility.

This is what Dowling would have us understand in his timely and meticulous account of “the greatest human tragedy in the long history of Australia”. He examines the recurring outbreaks of fatal epidemics of smallpox, measles, syphilis, influenza and tuberculosis (TB), which “nearly wiped out Australia’s First Peoples”.

Catastrophic impact

At the time of colonisation, these diseases were so endemic in Britain that a high degree of immunity existed in the population, as well as medical strategies to control epidemic spread. But in the virgin-soil communities of Australia’s First Peoples, everyone was susceptible, with no-one spared. So there was no-one to provide basic needs for the sick.

The impact was catastrophic, as illustrated in the multiple accounts of the smallpox outbreak at Sydney Cove in 1789. This is widely known about now, but a wave of epidemics, including smallpox, continued to decimate the First Peoples well into the 20th century.

Courtesy of Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales.

Alongside smallpox, syphilis also reached epidemic proportions in the Sydney region in the first few decades of settlement, gradually extending into every corner of the continent.

The scourge of syphilis was apparent in the early colony in Tasmania and a major contributor, along with influenza, to the rapid mortality that had all but eliminated the peoples of the south-eastern quadrant of the island by 1830.

Courtesy of State Library of Victoria.

It was in Victoria where the magnitude of the disease was most apparent. In 1839, a cohort of Aboriginal Protectors were appointed to various districts across Victoria. They all reported overwhelming syphilis infection, accounting for as many as “nine out of ten” of the many sick and dying.

One reported of the First People in his district “the most extensive ravages […] will render them extinct within a few years”.

Another despairingly complained “no medicine has been placed at my disposal”.

Worst in camps

Epidemics reached into isolated First People’s communities well out of sight of authorities — the Spanish Flu of 1918 managed to spread its deadly tentacles into communities of the Western Desert. However, outbreaks were much more likely in the government-supervised camps, reserves, missions and stations, where dispossessed First Peoples were forcibly relocated.

Uniformly, these places of concentration had overcrowded and inadequate housing, low nutritional diets and bad water supply, combined with individual distress and depression — conditions favourable to the incubation and spread of diseases.

The First People’s high susceptibility to disease, Dowling argues, was probably a consequence of chronic untreated TB among those forced into camps and settlements.

He examines the settlement on Flinders Island in Tasmania between 1832 and 1847, which became infamous for its horrendous death rate, mythologised by the colonists who had expelled these people simply due to their “pining away”.

The records examined by Dowling show these people actually died of either TB itself or an associated respiratory illness worsened by TB’s immunosuppressant effects.

TB was also known to have been an efficient killer in the Victorian settlements at Lake Hindmarsh and Coranderrk: the attributed cause of more than 30% of recorded deaths in those places between 1876 and 1900. At these same settlements, a measles epidemic in 1874-5 killed 20% of people.

Courtesy of State Library of Victoria

It is no coincidence this was the same story as at the notorious concentration camps for dispossessed Boers the British created in South Africa at the end of the 19th century, where various epidemic diseases were allowed to rage.

Read more: The COVID-19 crisis in western NSW Aboriginal communities is a nightmare realised

As I write, I am acutely aware most communities of First Peoples have the lowest vaccination rates in the nation — even though the government has assured us repeatedly vaccination for these most vulnerable communities was their highest priority.

In despair, I repeat the mantra: the past is not even past.

The legal battle for indigenous peoples’ land in Brazil is also a fight for the planet’s survival

This week, the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) is resuming the judgment of the Xokleng case, a landmark trial that will define the future of Brazil’s indigenous peoples, and consequently of the world’s forests, biodiversity, and climate.

The court will analyse the scope of the indigenous territorial rights enshrined in the Brazilian Federal Constitution and decide whether or not these rights are limited by the so-called “marco temporal” thesis - or “the time limit trick” - which, if upheld, will put at risk the indigenous territories that have already been recognised by the state.

Let me explain. Brazilian constitutions have, since 1934, recognised indigenous rights to land, but the Federal Constitution of 1988 represented an important leap in the protection of these rights. In addition to establishing that indigenous peoples are entitled to the land they traditionally occupy, the constitution states that such rights are not created by, but merely recognised through state law. The constitution has made it the duty of the federal administration to demarcate all indigenous lands.

The “marco temporal” thesis aims to change that. It posits that indigenous peoples are only entitled to the lands they physically occupied on the date of the 1988 Federal Constitution. It will mean all the theft of indigenous lands that took place up until 1988 would, with the stroke of the pen, be sanctioned by the legal system. This restriction clause will erase the history of violence and displacement suffered by indigenous groups and block legal means of redress. It would also put at risk all territories that have been demarcated until today, since demarcation processes would be reopened and demands be made to prove indigenous presence in 1988.

The pressure to restrict indigenous land rights is enormous. Land grabbers, loggers, agribusiness, and the industrial and semi-industrial mining sectors are among those that have an interest in exploiting indigenous land. And if indigenous lands go, all other protected territories are likely to follow.

This will of course have a potentially devastating impact on the environment. A growing body of scientific evidence demonstrates the crucial role that indigenous land tenure plays in the battle against deforestation, biodiversity loss, and climate change. Data from the ICCA Consortium this year revealed that more than 30 per cent of the earth is conserved thanks to indigenous people and local communities. According to the UN’s Special Rapporteur for Indigenous Peoples from 2019, 80 per cent of the world’s remaining forest biodiversity lies within indigenous peoples’ territories. And in the most recent report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s top scientists attest in a unified voice that the contribution of indigenous peoples is critical for achieving the best-case scenario for our climate.

The “time limit trick” has been lurking for at least two decades amongst members of the National Congress involved in Brazil’s rural affairs. After his election in 2018, president Bolsonaro paralysed land demarcation processes across the country, arguing that indigenous presence on these lands in 1988 needed to be proven. In the judiciary, the “marco temporal” thesis is being pushed in hundreds of lawsuits in which indigenous land tenure is discussed.

The trial for the Xokleng will be a watershed case and decisive because it has been granted general repercussion status, meaning that whatever is decided in the dispute will be applicable to similar cases across Brazil. It refers to a territorial dispute between the Xokleng peoples and the state of Santa Catarina in which the “marco temporal” thesis was used to argue that the demarcation of the Ibirama La-Klãnõ indigenous land – inhabited by Xokleng, Kaingang, and Guarani indigneous groups - should be annulled.

Throughout the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, Xokleng were hunted by militias sent by settlers. In 1914, a reservation of 40,000 hectares - a small fraction of their territory - was demarcated, freeing up the remaining land for colonisation. This reservation was later reduced to 16,000 hectares, sanctioning the illegal encroachments. In the 1970s, a dam and conservation park created by the state further reduced Xokleng lands. After the Federal Constitution of 1988, a land demarcation process begun and, in 2003, the minister of justice recognised the Ibirama La-Klãnõ indigenous land with the extension of 37,108 hectares.

This land demarcation is now being questioned as a result of the “marco temporal” thesis, as are over 245 indigenous land demarcation processes that still need to be concluded by Brazil’s National Indigenous Foundation (FUNAI). Even the indigenous lands where the process has been concluded are not safe, especially those located in development frontiers that were consolidated far before 1988.

In the Xokleng trial, the Brazilian Supreme Court has the chance to bury the “marco temporal” thesis once and for all. To do so, it must fulfil its role as guardian of the Federal Constitution and declare it unconstitutional. This will hinder its further application in disputes involving indigenous territorial rights. It will also block the approval of the clause via a federal bill.

The indigenous peoples of Brazil are not idly standing by. Over 6,000 people from across Brazil have gathered at the Struggle for Life Camp in Brasilia for the Xokleng trial this week. Those who govern Brazil today envision a country without indigenous lands, and consequently without indigenous peoples. But their struggle is not only about protecting a way of life, it’s about the survival of our planet.

Luiz Eloy Terena is the general counsel for the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB).

Ana Carolina Alfinito conducts research on social movements, indigenous rights and legal pluralism in Brazil and is currently legal advisor at Amazon Watch.

Transitional justice for Indigenous Peoples should be a key federal election issue

“Transitional justice,” centred on accountability and redress for victims, refers to the ways countries emerging from periods of conflict and repression address large-scale or systematic human rights violations.

But applying transitional justice and its mechanisms, such as truth and reconciliation commissions, to the relationship between Indigenous Peoples and the Canadian state is contested terrain.

Scholars debate whether the term transitional justice makes sense in settler colonial contexts like Canada where there is no political transition to speak of, no massive regime change, no cessation of violent conflict and no progression from authoritarianism to democracy.

But this debate isn’t just academic — how we understand the term transitional justice and whether it applies to the Canadian situation could form the basis of policy decisions. And as we head towards an election on Sept. 20, justice for Indigenous Peoples should be a key campaign issue given the discoveries of hundreds of mass graves at the sites of former Indian Residential Schools.

Read more: Indian Residential Schools: Acts of genocide, deceit and control by church and state

The goals of transitional justice

The aim of transitional justice is to usher in a peaceful society after mass atrocity, periods of systemic human rights violations and violent authoritarian regimes.

Transitional justice is not a form of justice itself, but a way of understanding justice and its aims. The term first appeared in the 1990s as a way to describe the different approaches taken by nations as new regimes came to power and had to grapple with the massive violations of their predecessors.

Read more: Transitional justice: lessons from Kenya on what works, and what doesn’t

The term and concept have grown into their own field of study and practice to promote peace, generally focusing on a number of now-established approaches, including criminal trials, truth and reconciliation commissions, political reform and reparations.

Why is this debate important? Why should we care whether transitional justice applies to Canada? It’s important because transitional justice is not just a catalogue of mechanisms to address systemic human rights violations. It’s also the recognition that a nation is either undergoing monumental change or that it needs to — and that considerations of justice are necessary to support this transition.

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Graham Hughes

Those who believe the Canadian context does not demand transitional justice or who believe the word “transition” doesn’t apply in Canada are not fully understanding the term “transition” or the fact that it’s urgently needed here.

They see a transition as requiring political change of the type seen in a country emerging from violent conflict to peace or from authoritarian rule to democracy. Such transitions usually require the deposing of political leaders.

Some critics of transitional justice see the need for justice to address past harms or to rectify current injustices, but disagree that there’s a need for political transition. But they’re overlooking the massive societal and political transition that is required to restore or develop trust and confidence among Canadians and Indigenous peoples.

The goals of transitional justice

Instead, it’s better to take a big-picture approach and look at all of transitional justice’s options by focusing on its goals.

The goal in Canada should be, at a minimum, transforming a society in which mass human rights violations and settler colonial violences were and are commonplace, accepted and endured — the clean drinking water denied to many Indigenous populations, the over-representation of Indigenous children in the child welfare system, the forced sterilization of Indigenous women and stolen Indigenous land, to name just a few — into one where such violations are simply not tolerated.

Transitional justice in Canada is far bigger than merely addressing past wrongdoings or filling more public roles with Indigenous people (though these are valuable endeavours). The concept of transition should include societal and political change that focuses on establishing real relationships of value, trust and equity and recognizes many sovereignties. What’s needed in Canada is a fundamental shift in perspective.

Read more: Canada’s new governor general, Mary Simon, is poised to engage in her most challenging diplomatic mission yet

We also need to consider what peaceful co-existence looks like, and then consider what mechanisms and political actions would help pave a path to that new reality. All transitional justice options should be on the table, including those tried and commonly accepted approaches like reparations and criminal trials, but also more creative options that are specific to Canada.

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck

From the perspective of Indigenous Peoples, such place-based options must draw on the continuity of their rich history, values and practices of self-governance on their lands, rooted in ancestral ways of life.

This election campaign provides a real opportunity to discuss creative, place-based solutions. But recognizing and choosing to apply these solutions after election day requires our political leaders to accept that a major Canadian transition needs to happen. Embracing transitional justice will prevent Canada from simply accepting and prolonging the status quo.