Talk:Aboriginal Tasmanians

Population in 1833 & 1835

From the lead section, paragraph 3: "by 1835 only some 400 full-blooded Tasmanian aborigines survived."

From the lead section, paragraph 4: "By 1833... George Augustus Robinson... had persuaded the approximately 200 surviving Aboriginal Tasmanians to surrender themselves."

I doubt that the population doubled in size in two years. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I expect that the difference is accounted for by already captured or relocated Tasmanian Aborigines. And if so, it should be edited for clarity. MathewMunro (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

conflict in the information, isolated until british colonisation ? yet named `Tasmania` after the Dutch explorer, Able Tasman, Dutch, not british

`isolated until british arrival`, yet, later paragraphs say, it was named Van Deimans land by the DUTCH explorer, Able Tasman, after which, the state is now named, TASMANIA, why the impression the british were the first here (or the rest of the globe), there is likely other explorers to visit Lutrawita, but never made it back to europe to tell of it/maps of it (possible Chinese exploration also), perhaps this needs addressing and not so pro british — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1424:4C01:5499:1F59:CAE7:D634 (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Good observation. I've changed the wording of the second paragraph to say "European" rather than "British". While Chinese visitation possibly happened, it's not well enough documented to incliude it here at this stage. HiLo48 (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Palawa/pakana used as way to say 1st peoples of Tasmania ?

For those peoples who do not know our true, and Original,one and only universally used Language, I point out that these two words were extracted from the books, Robinson by Plomley & Joseph Milligan, & they knew nothing, so why are these words being used today ?

Here is the truth:

Palawa = Its mine, and these peoples ! Kani = It belongs to us I tell you ! Pakana = Its mine, I own this ground !

I ask my peoples to please use "The true words" for Tasmanian Aborigine's - "Jiwa,Mehopeha'na" First Peoples Of Our Beautiful Big Heart Ground, for anything less than that is "Popi,mehaber' disrespectful to the memory of our beloved ancestors; Except that language is mostly revived from the recordings of the Melukerdee tribes and is not the same language or tribe of the Hobart or other areas.

Definition of Aboriginal

I am the last Tasmanian Aborigine with our peoples Original, True and Universal Language, and what is curious is that besides this fact, and my registered family DNA links, it seems that I remain unrecognized by the Hobart Aboriginal hierarchy that decides it. in fact in seeking recognition, I was deliberately diverted to the minister for Aboriginal Affairs in Victoria, {evidently a common practice} before being reconnected with the very person who diverted me at the Hobart office, I have been told that this individual will contact me shortly, and that was about 3 months ago,this is not the first time I have contacted this Office and been ousted; The reanimated language is heavily based on Melukerdee words - huon river area - there WAS NOT ONE LANGUAGE IN TASMANIA- WRONG! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.178.198.124 (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC) .ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! this is why tasmanian aboriginals today are represented by about 5 different councils... It is not appropriate to say there is / was only one language or tribal identity. the TAC for eg only rpresents some of the people the other councils cover their own folks.

Palawa

This is a name used by a very small minority of Tasmanian Aboriginal people. There was never one name for Tasmanian first nation people. This has been created by a few to gain funding. Greed is the motivator. Check out "Palawan" on Google. You will find a pacific Island. My ancestors were Tasmanian Aboriginal people, not palawa people. 2001:8003:163E:4700:ED0A:48B7:B6B8:1B0C (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Extinct?

There are no full-blooded Tasmanians since the 1870s, their language is gone, their culture is gone, their artefacts and skeletons are in museums. What remains other than a few claiming Cherokee princess-like descent? I have read around on the subject but I am not sure whether it is even appropriate to not call them extinct, as it would downplay the severity of this genocide. See this btw. Synotia (moan) 08:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned in the article (in addition to people with more remote or tenuous Aboriginal links) there is a community of people on/based in the Furneaux/Bass Strait islands off Tasmania, especially Cape Barren Island, mostly descended from Tasmanian Aboriginal women and European men. They are not full-blooded but many do have substantial Tasmanian Aboriginal ancestry, some being descended from several generations of half Aboriginals and one-quarter Aboriginals who married each other on those islands and developed a distinct identity. (Photographs of modern Tasmanian Aboriginal people of that island community and their way of life can be seen in the work of Ricky Maynard the Tasmanian aboriginal photographer, namely those depicting them in the activity of muttonbirding). It is not accurate to characterize them as having only "Cherokee princess-like descent". It is true that much of the culture died out, but some aspects survived and were remembered. (One interesting document of this is the "Westlake Papers" which contains the product of early 20th century interviews with mixed-race Furneaux islanders of the aforementioned community who describe some of the customs and elements of language they know from Aboriginal mothers/ grandmothers/relatives.). (The descendants of Fannie Cochraine Smith in mainland Tasmania also have documented Aboriginal ancestry but to a lesser extent.) There is in addition, as covered in the article you linked, the more recent phenomenon of people, from elsewhere in Tasmania, with more tenuous claims to Tasmanian Aboriginal origins, identifying and being counted as Aboriginal, likely inflating measured numbers. Skllagyook (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this interesting reply.

There is in addition, as covered in the article you linked, the more recent phenomenon of people, from elsewhere in Tasmania, with more tenuous claims to Tasmanian Aboriginal origins, identifying and being counted as Aboriginal, likely inflating measured numbers. Yep, that's indeed why I had linked that article. That blonde blue-eyed woman Sonya Searle looks whiter than me, and she is supposed to be Tasmanian Aboriginal? I thought to myself that if even people like her are accepted as aboriginal, it's a sign of desperation of sorts. Synotia (moan) 13:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily say it's a sign of desperation. As mentioned, for a long time there was (and still is) a - though small - core community of mixed-race Aboriginal descendants in Tasmania who were sometimes referred to pejoratively or semi-pejoratively as "half-castes" by the local whites in earlier decades (and who often have a perceptibly mixed Aboriginal/European physical appearance, though to significantly varying degrees - as you can see in some of Ricky Maynard's photos such as these here [1], this [2] and in Ricky Maynard himself, and elsewhere including among the crowd of Aboriginal descendants in the first photo of the article you linked and here [3]). Common surnames in that community include Mansell, Maynard, Green, Brown, Beeton, Thomas, and Everett (inherited from their white male sealer ancestors).

I would guess the increase in self-identified Aboriginals could be partly due to the lessening in stigma associated with Aboriginal ancestry and the new discovery or suspicion of that ancestry by some, the possible existence of a sort of cache or romanticism linked to indigenous descent, and the existence of government programs and benefits for Aboriginal people in Tasmania that likely did not exist before, among other factors. But, as discussed in the article, some of the people with more substantial and well-founded and documented Aboriginal connections are suspicious of/worried about this new influx of claimants. And previously, as the article mentions, it was more difficult to officially qualify as Aboriginal in Tasmania. Skllagyook (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Another source is the work of Norman Tindale, who interviewed mixed-race Tasmaniamln Aboriginal descendants on Cape Barren Island around the 1930s-40s, particularly what was told to him by a member of that Aboriginal community named Cliff Everett (including a brief Tasmanian Aboriginal language song taught to him by his full-blooded grandmother) - having discovered this after a mistaken initial impression that nothing was remembered. Some of this (along with some information from Westlake) is discussed in a book called "Into the Heart of Tasmania: a Search for Human Antiquity" by Rebe Taylor. Skllagyook (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

As Skllagyook says. In Peter Conrad's memoir of growing upè in Tassie, he mentions that such was the racism about that people of aboriginal descent went to considerable ends to hide it (a bit like hidden Christians in Tokugawa Japan. It was a grave social stigma, now gone. The husband of a niece, with an iconic surfer's appearance, heard recently that his paternal grandfather was of aboriginal descent. A late 'admission' which enabled the wider family to celebrate the acquisition finally to a mug Irish-English settler lineage of seriously Australian 'royal blood'. The phenomenon of asserting an exclusive identity over all the others one has in one's ancestral lines is not peculiar to tribes. The B'nei Anusim for example, to cite one of numerous cases. Identity is not genetic, but a complex set of cultural constructs.Nishidani (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the connection between the example of Tasmania and the B'nei Anusim, but I think it is important to recognize the different ways in which identity is constructed and expressed in different cultural contexts. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to understanding or defining identity, and we should be open to learning from a wide range of experiences and perspectives. Infinity Knight (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The way it is phrased in the article is terribly misleading. It says: 'For much of the 20th century, the Tasmanian Aboriginal people were widely, and erroneously, thought of as extinct and intentionally exterminated by white settlers.'

They were not wrong. They believed full-blooded Tasmanian Aborigines were extinct, and they were. They never said that there were no remaining descendants of full-blood Tasmanian Aborigines. Their position has been caricatured by people who are really just making a point that they consider Aboriginality to be inclusive of people who are less than half Aboriginal.

I would say there are no Tasmanian Aborigines left, only descendants of Tasmanian Aborigines, and remote ones at that. MathewMunro (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That is incredibly disresoectful thing to say. You are there incredibly racist. Aborignal Tasmanians are definitely not extinct. Ethnicity and culture is not about who is "full-blooded". None is China has the same genetic background as during first emperor, so I presume according your logic Chinese people are also extinct? (And so is every other group on the planet since people constantly intermix...) Modern aborignal Tasmanians ARE aboriginal Tasmanians because they do have ancestry AND have cultural memory/attempt to revive their culture - same way modern Chinese or modern European are not of the same genetic make-up as their ancestors, but as their direct descendants and successor of culture can claim being part of ethnic group. As long as Aborignal Tasmanians pay respect to culture of their ancestors, they will remain Aborignal Tasmanians, no much how mixed their blood is. Blond European looking person who has Aborignal ancestry IS still Aborignal, because it US not phenotype that matters but combined ancestry and culture. If European person has child with Chinese, this child is still European, event if they don't look as typical European - and the same way m 80.49.44.216 (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• is not phenotype that matters

80.49.44.216 (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Anyone wanting to copmment on ABoriginaltiy here MUST read Australian Aboriginal identity. Since 1992 in Australia, the indigenous identity of a person depends on a three-part test: biological descent from the Indigenous people; recognition of the person's membership by that person; and recognition by the elders or other persons enjoying traditional authority among those people. This is still in use today. Note that the terms full-blooded and hal-caste are not there. Eye colour and hair colour is irrelevant.The personal opinions of WIkipedia editors are also irrelvant. By the above definition, there are plenty of ABoriginal Tasmanians. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't care what they say, the powers that be are wrong. If you're 90% of European ancestry, and 10% of Aboriginal ancestry, you're not an Aboriginal with some European ancestry, you're a European Australian with some Aboriginal ancestry. MathewMunro (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. We live by sources. YOU are wrong unless you can provide a reliable source that says that. HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

That makes you Aborginal, since no other European has such ancestry. 83.22.86.207 (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST: Abel Janszoon Tasman

He is referred to, incorrectly, as "Abel Jansen Tasman" in the text, under "Early European contact" 2001:8003:3E26:B001:3496:39F6:ACED:C956 (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

George Augusta's Robinson

History moving 120.18.108.45 (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit request - migration chronology

There appears to be no citation or reference provided for the section under 'History' titled 'Migration Chronology'. The presence of different language groups is not in itself evidence for 'invasion', 'ancient conquests' or violence that 'mirrored the hostilities during colonial times'. That is a major extrapolation and no actual evidence is provided. Unless peer reviewed references can be provided to support these assertions, this section should be deleted. Duriand (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)