Categories
News

Lady Chatterley's Lover Deemed Not Pornographic

Categories
News

Killer Smog Looms Over Donora

Categories
News

Aboriginals Killed at Pinjarra

The Pinjarra Massacre took place on 28th October, 1834. The event is remembered as one of the most horrendous massacres of Aboriginal peoples in Australia’s history.

Battle or Massacre?

Even now, close to two centuries later, the event in Western Australia is cause for significant controversy. Referred to as the Battle of Pinjarra in some histories – suggesting that the Aboriginal people’s deaths were part of a conflict involving mutual aggression, others argue that the term massacre is the only one capable of truly capturing the events that took place in Pinjarra. Ultimately, a case can be made for both explanations. The Aboriginal people in the region had shown aggression to the European Settlers there, although one could argue this was an inevitable consequence of Europeans moving into their territory. Just as significantly for those who call the event a massacre, among the Aboriginal people killed were a substantial amount of women and children.

Tensions Before Violence

[caption id="attachment_8723" align="aligncenter" width="800"] Panorama of the Swan River Settlement, 1831[/caption] The origins of the tragic events at Pinjarra came in the arrival of the first European settlers to Western Australia, in 1829. Led by Captain James Stirling, the Swan River Colony was quickly established in what is now known as the Peel region of Australia. This was a region which had been inhabited for thousands of years by the Bindjareb tribe, an indigenous people particularly renowned for their spear making ability. Tensions quickly started to form between the white, European settlers and the Bindjareb tribe. While the Aboriginal people initially placed the Europeans into their folk traditions, interpreting them as the returning ghosts of their ancestors, Stirling declared the region a territory of England, arguing that the Bindjareb should be accountable to English law. As the settlers expanded their territory, taking up more land as they established farms, settlements, and ultimately towns, conflict started to brew. One key issue was a fundamental difference in agricultural practices. The Bindjareb people practiced firestick farming, a method where parts of the bush were torched to enable hunting and encourage regrowth of the land. For the white settlers, with little understanding of the firestick tradition, it seemed like an attack, especially on the occasions when the fires spread into the land they had started to cultivate.

The Flash Point

Signs of discontent continued to mount in the region over the next few years, as the settlers desire for land increasingly put pressure on the Aboriginal population. In 1834, with the colonists struggling to feed themselves, Governor Stirling ordered the flour rations given to the Bindjareb as a means of keeping the peace to be cancelled. On 24th April a group of Bindjareb launched a raid on the mill at South Perth, stealing 445kg of flour, possibly as a result of a misunderstanding that saw them believe that the flour rations were payment for the land the settlers had taken from them. Eventually, three Bindjareb believed to have been involved in the incident were captured by the settlers, and publicly flogged. Several days later, in response to their humiliating punishment, the Bindjareb men formed a group and lead a retaliation against the settlers, killing one soldier and seriously injuring another. With tensions high, Governor Stirling set off on an expedition with a group of soldiers and police on 26th October. Taking a surveyor with them, they intended to expand the area of settlement to Pinjarra, a region with fertile land. It was also an area at the heart of the Bindjareb community. At some point on 28th October, Stirling’s party encountered members of the Binjareb tribe. His group divided into two, taking up strategically advantageous positions around the Bindjareb camp. Exact details of which side was the first to show aggression are not clear, with some sources arguing that the Bindjareb hurled their spears at Stirling’s men, while others claim Stirling’s forces opened fire first. Either way, after roughly an hour of fighting, the outnumbered colonists were forced into retreat. Only one settler had been killed in the fighting, although several, including Stirling, were injured. Even now, it is unclear how many Aboriginal people were killed, but estimates range from around fifteen into the hundreds.]]>

Categories
News

Constantine Receives Divine Vision

Categories
News

CIA Nemesis Allende Elected In Chile

involved in South American politics. To this day, documents are still classified about what actions the White House sanctioned in Chile as a means to remove Allende. Although not actively leading the coup which removed Allende, it is increasingly apparent that the CIA did everything within its power to support resistance to Allende, and destabilise his government. Born into a middle class family in 1908 in ValparaĂ­so, Chile, Allende studied medicine at university, where he also started to campaign as a marxist activist. In 1933 he helped found Chile’s Socialist Party, and four years later was elected to the country’s Chamber of Deputies for the first time. Over the next few years Allende’s political career flourished. From 1939 until 1942 he served as Chile’s health minister, while in 1945 he was elected to the Chilean senate for the first time. Prior to his 1970 election, Allende had run for the country’s presidency three times. His first attempt, in 1952, was blighted by his temporary expulsion from the Socialist Party, and he eventually came in fourth place in the contest. A second attempt, in 1958, was much more successful. Supported by both Chile’s Socialist and Communist parties, Allende finished a close second to the eventual winner, the Liberal-Conservative Jorge Alessandri. Allende’s third campaign, in the 1964 presidential election, marked the start of a major CIA initiative to prevent Socialism gaining power in Chile. The US intelligence agency underwrote more than half of the campaign of Allende’s main opponents, the Christian Democratic Party. Alongside funding the opposition, the CIA launched a propaganda campaign, using the press, radio, posters and films to denounce Socialism, and warn Chileans that a victory for Allende would lead to Soviet Union style brutality and dictatorship taking hold in Chile. Unsurprisingly, Allende’s opponent Eduardo Frei won the election comfortably. In 1970 the CIA again launched a massive campaign to aid Allende’s opponents and prevent him coming to power. This time the initiative proved less successful and Allende won 36% of the vote, placing him first out of the four candidates, although lacking a clear majority. Inaugurated on 3rd November, 1970, Allende soon set about reforming Chile’s society and economy along socialist lines. The Chilean government expropriated US owned copper mines in the country without offering any compensation. Nationalisation also extended to the country’s banks and other industries, while wages were increased by 40%, with businesses prohibited from increasing their prices. Over three years, these aggressive policies caused mounting controversy. Hyperinflation struck Chile, while accusations were made that Allende was circumventing the Chilean Congress, turning the country into the kind of autocracy seen in Cuba, or the Eastern Bloc of Europe. Considering Allende a dangerous force in South America, one accused of supporting more extremist political groups around the continent, the United States began to make attempts to destabilise his government. In 1970, President Richard Nixon had told his foreign secretary Henry Kissinger to facilitate a coup against Allende, a fact backed up by a CIA documented released several years later which claimed “It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup”. The United States attempted to set the conditions for an insurrection against Allende’s government in two ways, firstly by destabilising the country’s economy by cutting aid agreements, and secondly by actively looking for military leaders who could be persuaded to launch a coup. On 11th September, 1973, the US plan finally came to fruition. With the Chilean economy in crisis, a fact triggered by both internal and external factors, General Augusto Pinochet finally completed his coup, and Allende committed suicide to avoid capture. Although documents released since have revealed substantial US involvement in affairs in Chile in the early 1970s, the organisation was cleared of directly sponsoring Pinochet’s coup. Rather, the Church Committee investigation of 1975 concluded that they had created the conditions where Pinochet felt a coup could be successful. Democratically elected, Allende’s government was targeted by the United State’s for its socialist policies. Its successor, the dictatorship of Pinochet, was much more conservative, and allowed US investment back into Chile. It was also notorious for its brutal human rights violations. ]]>

Categories
News

The Battle of Trafalgar – Architecture and Imperialism

Categories
News

"Un-American" Activities in Hollywood

Categories
News

Rock Star Car Designer DeLorean Arrested On Drugs Charge

Categories
News

Cover-up of Paris Massacre Begins

Categories
News

Marie Antoinette – Incest, Child Abuse and Adultery?

Born in Vienna in 1755, Antoinette was the fifteenth child of Holy Roman Emperor Francis I and the Habsburg Empress Maria Theresa. Part of one of the most powerful families in Europe at the time, she soon drew the interest of other monarchies around the continent. At the age of fourteen she married the future Louis XVI, sealing a new alliance between former enemies Austria and France. Before Louis’ ascent to the throne Marie Antoinette was celebrated as a teen idol in France. Following his coronation however, she became increasingly unpopular. Although stories have inevitably been exaggerated or made up – most famously the belief that she responded to a peasants food shortage by declaring “Let them eat cake” – it is clear that she lived a life almost completely antithetical to her quiet, withdrawn husband. As France entered a period of political and economic turmoil, with support of the monarchical system increasingly sparse, Antoinette’s reportedly debauched life style drew greater and greater condemnation. Spending much of her time away from the king in her private castle, the Petit Trianon, rumours began to circulate of adultery, while pamphlets accused her of ignorance of the French people, greed, and debauchery. Of course, such depictions of the last French queen have stuck. We often consider her the archetype of the excesses of extreme wealth, failing to consider that such portrayals were likely often made with ulterior motives. Indeed, many historians since, such as Charles Duke Yong, have painted her as a generous, modest monarch who tried to reform the morals of the court. Undoubtedly, the French Revolution was a vital moment in the history of democracy, coming in a society which was deeply divided between class. But is accepting the cartoonish images of Marie Antoinette failing to grasp the true complexity of the factors at play in the conflict between monarchy and people?]]>