Just to pick up on the single instance. Abaroo (who is placed in a boat to go to Sydney) actively discourages a young suitor who is doing his best for her to stay. Consent is probably not the right concept to use in societies where obligations and rights extended in all directions, in a sense consent may well have not come into the picture. Insofar as the evidence shows, willingness indeed latter enthusisiasm for the project were not lacking in Abaroo (I did not refer to it but when she did arrive in Sydney she used what was made available to her to an extent that amazed the European observers - much the same as Benalong had during his captivity).
But this is beside the point. Our modern sensibilities tend to hide social brutalities, no such comfort exists for kin-societies, nor did their exist many sanctions outside bodily harm. I remember a South African San band where a young moody man had much upset the the camp - this got to the point that many in the camp wanted the problem resolved. The discussions that followed ended with the decision that if he did not change his ways soon he would be killed ( which to our mind is somewhat similar to saying that we would murder our teenage son unless he cheered up a lot). Luckily, and probably by conivance he met a young women and his personality changed immediately (which in this case saved his life).
What do we make of such casual brutality? It sounds obscene that someone might be killed for such a minor social problem, but of course in these small desert bands this was no minor problem, it threatened collective existence. Those that took the decision were the elders, though discussion had been widespread - does this equate to the dominance of the elders who merely for the sake of an easy existence would kill this young man? Or was it simply one of the few options open to them - as I think was the case.
Similarily in the instance of Benalong's revenge on the "daughter" of his enemy. Is this patri-archy at work or tribal politics and warfare working through the available means? What are the underpinnings of patri-archy as we know it, what does it prerssupose - this has to be answered before we even know whether it is applicable.
Feminism has introduced a profound reduction notion into historical explorations, one which helps not at all in understanding the demonstrtated dynamics left behind in the records (one has to consider the many punishments Benalong suffered, which all seems to be related to the capture of this girl and the political effects this generated with the Botany Bay people). It is little to be wondered that we find it difficult to understand societies where the person was the acknowledged respository of the social forces at work. Broken bones, spearings etc are brutual but there is much in history that is, it is in trying to understand the specific reasons and their origins where things get really difficult.
Brad all I can say is if this is merely the result of patri-archical despotism (which can be found in other societies at different stages of development readily enough) what is its social and economic basis for it (readily manifest in peasant economies, but much less tractable elsewhere). In aboriginal society it has often been found, but I believe this is an illusion, just because something looks the same as something else does not mean that it is the same. The dynamics of pre-contact aboriginal society simply does not make room for such "despotism", it has no basis.
I hope this is a useful viewpoint, or at least a point in an important debate (I say this in the light of the theoretical havoc advocated by the feminist movement and uncrirtically absorbed across the left).
Greg Schofield Perth Australia
--- Message Received --- From: Brad DeLong <jbdelong at uclink.berkeley.edu> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 16:06:39 -0800 Subject: Re: Pre-historic human societies (Grant Lee)
Kidnapping... rape... theats to murder... fierce beatings... broken bones...
God knows that the First Fleet is a serious competitor for the title of Worst Pre-Twentieth Century Social Formation, but why should one look at Abaroo as consciously playing her social role rather than as a victim of patriarchal despotism?