Talk:British colonisation of Tasmania

Comments on initial cut of this article
OKelly please bear in mind that a central policy of Wikipedia is WP:NPOV, that articles should be written in a neutral point of view. Jeremy Paxman may have the luxury, two hundred years on, of labelling British colonization as genocide in his own book, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and must maintain neutrality. We must also be careful about judging historical events using the cultural norms of today. So, if modern day historians assess what went on as genocide, the article needs to be phrased that way. It also needs more and better references to show that this is a conventional view (Paxman is not an authority in these matters). Also, the introduction should be a summary of what is to come. Placing large amounts of text about genocide claims is not appropriate for the intro, and certainly not in the opening sentence, which is supposed to succinctly define the words used in the title. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't understand. If an historian says it was genocide then why isn't it a genocide? OKelly (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, take Armenian Genocide and look at the introduction: note how it is multiply referenced, and that the main dissenting view (Turkey's) is also included, without giving WP:UNDUE weighting to it, as it is a minority point of view. I don't know whether it's the consensus view that the British colonization of Tasmania was "genocide", but to claim this in an article and frame it as the majority point of view will require more than just a Paxman reference.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But which of the involved parties do not think it was a geoncide? OKelly (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that you need to back those pretty serious claims up with references, plural. Genocide, quoting from that article, is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group".  That's a serious allegation.  Please read WP:REDFLAG: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources".  If you just have Paxman's word for it, then the article needs to be worded accordingly.  "Jeremy Paxman has claimed that..." etc.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So basically I need to add more references from both ethnic groups? That is difficult because there are very few history books written by Parlevar. The subject goes in depth at this article → See Black War: Section: Definition: "The descriptions of the Black War differ, ranging from a series of small conflicts and massacres to assertions that the methods used during the conflicts constitute genocide. The Black War was one of many conflicts used as an example to define the term genocide as it began to be used in the 1940s." Also see: List of massacres of Indigenous Australians. OKelly (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I added the reference from Paxman's book after a plea for references from OKelly. Over two pages of his book, Paxman talks about the trapping, spearing, shooting, bludgeoning, poisoning and mutilation of the indiginous tribes. I used Paxman's book because I happen to be reading it at the moment but I have plenty of others and when I have a bit of spare time I'll see what else I can find. I believe these atrocities were carried out by convicts, not the authorities who took steps to prevent them, and this needs to reflected in the article although it could be argued that the British didn't do enough and were indirectly responsible by negligently dumping the convicts there in the first place. Paxman specifically mentions the word 'genocide' as does Niall Ferguson in his book, "Empire, How Britain Built the Modern World".--Ykraps (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The article now says that It has been claimed by historians such as Jeremy Paxman and Niall Ferguson, that the British colonisation of Tasmania led to severe social effects for the native aborigines of Tasmania.


 * "Severe social effects for" seems a remarkable euphemism for "the mass deaths of".


 * But this isn't the only oddity here. It's said that Paxman is a historian. That's news to me. Wikipedia (of course not a reliable source) says that he's a British journalist, author and television presenter, not that he's a historian. This squares with my picture of him. Clearly he has a great interest in and unusual knowledge of history (I haven't read this book of his, but I've read and enjoyed another), but this doesn't make him a historian.


 * Further, the claim that Paxman and Ferguson (whatever their respective statuses as historians) said this is itself sourced not to Paxman and Ferguson but instead to Newman, Terry (2005) Website. Looking further down in the page, I hazily infer that this means, not any website, but instead this web page at tas.gov.au -- a web page that doesn't mention Paxman or Ferguson (or indeed Newman). Something is mighty strange here.


 * So the Tasmanians were living in Tasmania, the Brits arrived, and the Tasmanians all died. The Brits indeed had, uh, severe social effects on the Tasmanians. Some of these "social effects" are well documented, in books from university presses (and comparable publishers) about the history of Australia (or Tasmania, or colonialism, or the British empire, or disease transmission) by historians (or epidemiologists, anthropologists, etc). It's these that need to be consulted and cited.


 * Did these "social effects" amount to "genocide"? Well, the Tasmanians all died off, and the Brits made an amply-documented deliberate contribution to this. But how much of the killing was deliberate and how much not so (the result of the spread of bugs to which the Tasmanians had no resistance, etc)? One can read up the facts and infer for oneself whether or not it was "genocide", but such inferences (especially for such an emotive issue) risk the later charge of "original synthesis". Far safer to be meekly derivative and see what published historians (and perhaps also other authorities whose dispassionate judgements obviously merit consideration) have said: who has called it "genocide", and where? -- Hoary (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Clive Turnbull's Black War looks promising (although later research should be considered), and of course there's Guns, Germs, and Steel, as well as good recent histories of Australia/Tasmania. -- Hoary (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Severe social effects seems to be a good way to include mass deaths alongside, systematic abuse and torture, disease, alcoholism, loss of hunting grounds, limitation of their nomadic lifestyle, unwanted attempts to clothe, educate etc. I agree it is somewhat of an understatement for the first three but is more than suitable for the rest but if you have another suggestion... Nor is it as simple as saying "The British arrived and the Tasmanians died, QED", there is some suggestion that they were already dying (certainly Charles Darwin thought so). Paxman isn't a historian but his book is extremely well researched and his printed sources are listed on pp312-343, Niall Ferguson however most certainly is. Both refer to it as genocide but as I've already said, it isn't that simple. Also let's not lose sight of the fact that this is an article about the colonisation of Tasmania and not the death of its native inhabitants (not trying to trivialise their deaths) so this section shouldn't dominate. If it becomes the focus of the article, someone will suggest merging it with Black War.--Ykraps (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes it has been merged with Black War before when the article was mainly about aboriginal deaths. OKelly (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Paxman isn't a historian but his book is extremely well researched and his printed sources are listed on pp312-343. I'm not arguing against that. But Paxman should not be described as a historian when he isn't; if Paxman's sources are specified then all the more reason to go straight to them without using him as an intermediary; and a footnote shouldn't be positioned where it may wrongly suggest that it provides evidence that Paxman said something. &para; True, the mass death of the indigenous population isn't the whole story of colonization, but it is (as you concede) an important one, and it's certain that claims in a WP article for and against anything that (even if unjustifiably) has been called genocide will be scrutinized by the curious and sceptical. -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes but what are the exact specifications required to be an historian? i.e are you an historian for simply writing a history book? Because if so, the Paxman would be an historian. Also I don't think it matters if you are a full-time historian or not, as long as your work is well referenced by trusted sources. OKelly (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, come on. I'd have thought it obvious that there are no exact specifications required for becoming a historian (unlike, say, a midwife or a chartered surveyor). Instead, there are various achievements that, when combined, suggest that the term "historian" is justified. These include publication in peer-reviewed academic journals about history, the teaching of history within tertiary education, publication of other history material designed for undergraduates and above in history (and not only for the casual reader) and being referred to as a historian by people who know what they are talking about. (And yes indeed, some people who are indubitably historians don't combine all of these.) Tony Judt was a historian. Paxman is not a historian (other than incidentally). This is not to denigrate his book, which for all I know may be excellent, and certainly not to denigrate him. Writing stuff about history that's well referenced by trustworthy sources does not make you a historian; if it did, the better history undergraduates would be historians, and indeed the better among Wikipedia writers about history would be historians too. The genuine historian has a wealth of experience that should go toward a sense of perspective, and also a reputation to put on the line. -- Hoary (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, not everyone who is good at history is automatically an historian, but we are getting off topic here. The discussion is about whether the British colonisation of Tasmania resulted in a genocide or not. If Paxman is not an historian (by your definition) but believes it was a genocide, then we'll have to take his word for it. — BUT only if he can verify his claim with many trustworthy sources, which is the point I am trying to make. OKelly (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, we do not have to take Paxman's word for it. There are various people whose word will be more authoritative. It's particularly important not to take his word for it here, because this claim is particularly likely to be contentious. &para; Meanwhile, the article still says that Paxman is a historian and still suggests that "Newman, Terry (2005) Website" provides evidence that Paxman and Ferguson say this. Now, if Paxman provides sources for his claim, as you say, that's excellent news. Follow up these sources. -- Hoary (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Why are we arguing about whether it was genocide or not. The word genocide isn't used in the article. I have changed the word historian to author, which I assume will be acceptable. The claim that there were difficulties for the indigenous people, as far as I'm aware, isn't disputed by anyone and so probably doesn't require a reference but just in case I have added two, something usually reserved for an extraordinary claim.--Ykraps (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes lets finish this. Does anyone NOT think that the British colonisation of Tasmania resulted in a genocide? Because as Hoary said, 'severe social effects' seems to be a bad euphemism for genocide. OKelly (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I did not say that. But putting aside what I did or didn't say, Ykraps sensibly points out that the article doesn't (or anyway didn't) mention the word "genocide", and so there's no pressing need to decide whether a genocide occurred. -- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's like this. Pat Ferrick changed the word 'genocide' to 'severe social effects' and argued that you need better sources if you want to call the colonisation a genocide. Over time the references have proven that it was in fact a genocide, with opinions of historians like Fergeson and (authors) like Paxman. OKelly (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If we want to use the word genocide in the article, we will have to make abundantly clear that it is the opinion of Paxman and/or Ferguson. ".....modern authors such as Jeremy Paxman and Niall Ferguson have described these actions as genocide" or similar.--Ykraps (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It was a "near genocide" because there is a surviving community. There is a wealth of good quality sources of relevant historical information, eg Lyndall Ryan, Patsy Cameron, Cassandra Pybus, James Boyce, Nicholas Clements, Henry Reynolds Lindaseaborn (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Purpose, title and scope
I think that this article needs to better define itself vis à vis the History of Tasmania one. The current title suggests to me that it should cover more detail of the period than its "parent" article, with a Main redirect from there, but it seems to be mostly concerned with the effects on the Indigenous people, with little detail about the colonisation history and process. It would be nice to see overlaps and discrepancies ironed out and most of the detail in this article, with just a summary of the period left in the parent article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, there is too little information about the colonization process. In an attempt to change that I added to teh Agricultural section, but would like to do more research and possibly add more in terms of colonization, rather than just the impact. Hist491lcd (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

This article should be renamed the British colonisation of lutruwita
I believe this article should be renamed the British colonisation of lutruwita.

Although Tasmania is a name given to the island during colonisation, it was not the name given to the colony or the island during the article's outlined period between 1803 and 1830.

Between 1803 – 1825 the island was included as a part of the Colony of New South Wales. The island was called Van Diemen's Land, an anglicised adaptation of the Old Dutch name Anthoonij van Diemenslandt (Anthony Van Diemen's land) bestowed by Abel Tasman during his voyage of discovery in 1642.

Van Diemen's Land became its own self-governing colony in 1825 and wasn't called Tasmania by anyone until the establishment of the Colony of Tasmania in 1856. Therefor a logical name for the article might be the British colonisation of Van Diemen's Land.

However, I believe the name of this article was chosen because through a contemporary lens we now know this island as its second colonial name "Tasmania", simply because it is newer.

In saying that, as modern academics discuss the ongoing effects of colonisation and concepts such as decolonisation, it has become more contemporary in western society to formally acknowledge First Nations place names. lutruwita is the contemporary name given to Tasmania by Tasmanian aborigines (Palawa) in the Palawa kani language, similar to Aotearoa being adopted by New Zealand. The Tasmanian Government acknowledges lutruwita as the name of the island given to the island by its First Nations peoples. 

As others have noted, the article is mostly concerned with the effects of colonisation on the Palawa, therefore I think it would be entirely appropriate to use the contemporary name that they call their island. CineBrick315 (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)