1

Modelling Lemkinian Genocide

Ray Gibbons ( 2015)

Abstract: We can model Lemkinian genocide as a determinative process or as a complex adaptive behavioural system. The techniques of process analysis are well understood by systems theorists, but are rarely applied to the understanding of social history. The analysis and simulation of bounded dynamical social behavioural systems through evolutionary genetic algorithms that can show emergent meta-stable states corresponding to Lemkinian phases seems quite new.

For genocide historians and scholars, there is an endless circuitous debate about functionalism v intentionalism. In fact, they are co-determinate in the same way as functions (more properly events) and processes (with conditional triggers) are mutually dependent within a State driven intentionality envelope.

In colonial Australia, and also elsewhere that Genocide has occurred, Government intentionality is embedded in prescribed process models along an abstraction gradient at different levels of nested decomposition within a deterministic behavioural envelope defined by Government policies. As patterned events instantiate a process, the dynamical behaviour is represented as a set of case instances or contextually dependent process ‘states’.

Lemkinian Genocide is procedural. But it is also behavioural. Any normative societal dysfunction becomes a probability density function within a defined and procedurally determined social landscape. Therefore, an alternative to the procedural modelling approach is to consider normative colonial behaviour as a complex bounded dynamic behavioural system with emergent meta-stable states – occupation, extermination and subjugation – that conform to Lemkinian sub-processes (like the phase transitions in water). The process ‘states’ arise naturally from imposed constraint rules (with embedded intent). It is possible to simulate the complex systems behaviour within an evolutionary genetic algorithm.

2

Contents Lemkinian Genocide as a Process ........................................................................................................... 2

Indigenocide ........................................................................................................................................ 3

Lemkinian Genocide ........................................................................................................................... 5

Occupation Process ............................................................................................................................. 8

Type Occupation Process, showing Actionable Components ........................................................... 21

Lemkinian Genocide as a Complex Dynamical Behavioural System................................................... 24

Government dispossession policy: constraint rules ...................................................................... 27

Government extermination policy: constraint rule ....................................................................... 28

Goverment repression policy: constraint rules .............................................................................. 29

Genetic algorithm for politically driven and intentional Australian genocide – simplified logic diagram ......................................................................................................................................... 31

Lemkinian Genocide as a Process A process is a pattern of connected event types, of patterned purpose across a network of

actionable components. Within our analytical framework, a process is a defined and

repeatable series of actionable components, forming a directed graph1 with a specified

(intentional) originating trigger and sharing a planned or expected outcome. Therefore, if we

are to understand the Lemkinian genocidal process as a set of instantiations, we should work

from the pattern, rather than examine individual events, where it can be difficult to see the

overarching regular order of things, the cause and effect chain, the structure of normative

dysfunction. Put another way, it is difficult to establish evidence of genocide from an event; it

is easier to find evidence of genocide if an event is verified as an instance of the genocidal

process.

Of particular interest in our study are the processes of Indigenocide, Lemkinian

genocide, ethnic cleansing, invasive occupation, colonisation, settler sovereignty and mass

killing (along with its variant terms). The extent to which these processes overlap is

determined by their shared or common actionable components. 2

1 A directed graph is a network of nodes within some process, or across a set of processes, each node representing an actionable component. There can be many paths through the network, depending on the conditional trigger for any node. However, any graph has a consistent and uniquely identified input and output condition, which together define intent for the process. 2 See FWAYAF The Political Uses of Australian genocide.

3

You will not find these processes detailed in any Government procedure manual or set

of formal administrative instructions. They have emerged as a pattern of behaviour for any

Government that attempts to exercise its authority, or its aspirations for regional power,

within or outside its claimed sovereign borders or area of influence. Oppressive collective

behaviour almost always follows ordered purpose and repeats often enough for it to be

identified by the International Criminal Court and the United Nations. Sadly, retroactive

accountability is as difficult to achieve as it has ever been, often because of the reluctance of

nation states to cooperate or introduce relevant domestic legislation or the inability of the

world community to take effective preventative action. Australia is included in this

recalcitrance, so far as it is unwilling to expose its domestic policies (both past and present)

to international scrutiny, and its refusal to recognise genocide in the Australian criminal code.

In these domestic Australian policies, we include apartheid3 (until the 1960s) and Lemkinian

genocide, which still continues today, with many Aboriginals living in third world conditions

made worse by Government imposed disadvantage, causing excessive incarceration and

suicide rates, systemic alienation, and chronic despair with many of the characteristics of

trans-generational collective post traumatic stress disorder,4 particularly for remote

communities.

Indigenocide5 Dirk Moses of Sydney University sets out a five element linear process for indigenous

genocide, which we can clearly identify within the Australian experience, beginning with the

British invasion and continuing through to the generalised destruction of Aboriginal society.

This Moses textual model has both intentional (planned) and structural (systemic) elements.

Strictly speaking, this is a function model with process flow characteristics, where

functions are identified by noun descriptors. In contrast, a process model generally names

process steps in the form: [triggering condition]; [verb] [action]. Triggering conditions are

3 The practices of apartheid overlap Lemkinian genocide, as we investigate in FWAYAF Political Uses of Australian genocide. 4 The population effect may be epigenetic, but the epidemiological studies have not been carried out. 5 Genocide and Settler Society, Ed. Dirk Moses, Genocide and Settler Society in Australian History, p. 27. The textual Moses model is re-mapped to a flow diagram, to allow further analysis. A function model is decomposable into a hierarchy of subordinate component functions. A process (flow) model can also be decomposed (expanded) into multiple layers, one mapping to the other with increasing detail, along an abstraction gradient. The term indigenocide was first introduced by the historians Raymond Evans and Bill Thorpe. Both process and function models are examples of a system model, which is an ordered collection of things (sub-components) that share some common purpose.

4

associated with intentionality or a plan, or an expected action, where an agent or participant

or involved party chooses or is directed or coerced or influenced to do something within an

overall agreed objective based on some precipitating condition or event (general form is: if x

occurs then do y).

Process models may be further decomposed (mapped) into different levels of sub-

processes, through to workflow models (or operational procedures), which show how

individuals or work groups participate and cooperate in the overall process in order to achieve

some desired outcome (for example, that of a policy or strategy, such as Enact legislation to

alienate all ‘Crown’ land so it can be sold or leased to generate Government revenue).

I have graphically expanded on the textual Moses model to delineate and instantiate

Indigenocide sub-process descriptions. We will encounter many instances of these examples

(shown in italics) throughout the following pages6 of first hand experiences and despatches,

sufficiently often that they show the pattern of systematic and contrived oppression.

Figure 1. Indigenocide model (adapted from Dirk Moses and others)

1 Intentional Invasion (Colonisation). Example: If New Holland is ‘uninhabited’

(that is, if indigenous people do not cultivate the land or live in fixed dwellings) then

‘claim it in the name of the Sovereign’.

2 Conquest of Indigenous People (Indiscriminate killing of indigenous people).

Examples: If indigenous people resist their occupation then kill them and claim self-

protection, because their witness statement is disallowed under British law. If

indigenous people try to come back to their land, then ‘remove’ them to improve land

value. When you kill them, make sure there are no white witnesses who will testify.

3 Extermination (Indigenous people can barely reproduce themselves and come

close to extinction). Example: When indigenous people are conquered, then

encourage sexual predation to breed out Aboriginality, remove any coloured

children from their families, and move remnant Aboriginals to detention centres

where they can become extinct. If you have to report that any Aboriginals were killed,

6 Refers to FWAYAF Recollections of a (Homicidal) Frontier, for which this is merely a brief introduction.

5

downplay the number, claim they were shot while trying to excape from ‘lawful

arrest’ or ‘lawful custody’ or you were acting in ‘self-defence’, because their witness

evidence is disallowed and can never be used against you. In order to effect their

subjugation, introduce them to alcohol, tobacco and other drugs; deliberately infect

them with STDs, even children. Do not inoculate them for smallpox, let them die out.

When they are starving, offer them poor quality food such as flour, sugar amd offal so

their health is affected and they will die out more quickly. Use ‘gifts’ of poisoned

flour, because this gives you plausible deniability.

4 Derogation (Invaders classify indigenous people as vermin). Examples: They are a

sub-species and aren’t fit to survive. They are ‘black crows’ and ‘vermin’. They

should be exterminated. When they are reduced to begging in order to survive, mock

them for their plight.

5 Cultural Destruction (Invaders attempt destruction of indigenous culture).

Examples: When carrying out ‘dispersal’ operations, burn their hunting equipment,

shoot their dogs, and destroy their totems and bora. Do not pay them wages, but

instead offer low cost food with poor nutritional value; if you do offer them wages,

those wages must be paid to a ‘protector’ (usually a local policeman) who will keep

most of the money for himself, or transfer it to a Government account, where it can

become’ lost’ with no proper records of ownership.

Lemkinian Genocide7 Strictly speaking, under the Lemkin 1948 UN Genocide Convention, the term ‘genocide’ is

the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or majority part, of an ethnic, racial,

religious, or national group, and carries a moral and legal obligation for the UN to take

preventative action under international law, which means that if the United Nations

determines that genocide has occurred, it cannot legally be ignored. However, preventative or

retrospective action is rare. The Rwandan genocide was carried out in full view of the UN

and no intervention was taken.

The Lemkin Convention was watered down to remove any reference to the state, at

the insistence of the UN Security Council. Nations with the right of veto - nations such as

China, Britain, France, Russia or the US - consistently refuse to recognize any specific

occurrence of genocide which may implicate a state, because they themselves may be

culpable in certain instances. Consequently the Convention focuses on an individual’s 7 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention (Lemkin).

6

accountability, which can be problematic if there is a dearth of incriminating evidence

showing the individual’s involvement, often the case in the confusion of war or a generalized

breakdown of the rule of law, when many genocides tend to happen. But individual

accountability is also addressed by international legislation for War Crimes and Crimes

Against Humanity, although it is rarely prosecuted, even when there is clear and compelling

evidence, usually because of the unwillingness of the nation state’s ruling class to participate.

Under the UN 1948 Act, genocide is further defined as

… any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a

national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, such as: killing members of the group;

causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately

inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical

destruction in whole or part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the

group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. [Article 2]

Clearly, under this UN definition, the Aboriginals were the victims of genocide at the

hands of Britain and its settlers. But under the Convention, Britain (as a nation state) is

absolved and the individual perpetrators are long dead. Consider generally recognized

instances of genocide in Rwanda (against the Tutsis), Bosnia (against the Muslim minority),

Iraq (against the Kurds), Turkey (against the Armenians), Germany (against the Jews),

Cambodia (against its own people), the Dafur region of Sudan (against the native Africans),

America (against the native Indians), Australia (against the Aboriginals) – almost nothing

was done to prevent each genocide until the political and economic aims had been achieved,

and any punishment was usually selective, discretionary, and after the event, if it occurred at

all. Individuals involved in the Australian genocidal process were almost never charged and if

charged they were rarely convicted, apart from the isolated exceptions of the Myall Creek

miscreants and one or two other accused who were found guilty over a period of around one

hundred and fifty years. In sharp contrast, many Aboriginals were hanged for their resistance

activities.

7

Figure 2. Simplified Lemkinian genocide model. Each of these actionable components can be reduced to detailed sub-processes and repeatable activities.

The United Nations definition of genocide (genocidal process) means any of the following

acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or part, a national, ethnical, racial or

religious group. In Australia, all these Lemkinian defined acts were carried out by both

Government and settler society, and all were both intentional (planned) and systemic

(structural):

Killing members of the group: declarations of martial law; settlers openly spoke of

extermination and a ‘war of the races’; systemic massacres; policy of ‘dispersal’;

indiscriminate homicides; poisoning, imposed starvation.

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group: sexual predation;

stealing children; introduction of drugs and disease; destruction of hunting equipment,

dogs, totems and sacred sites; destruction of water holes and hunting grounds.

‘Dispersal’ was Government policy.

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its

physical and mental destruction: As Government policy, children were removed

from their families, and remnant Aboriginal populations were forcibly moved to

8

detention centres where they were expected to become extinct; derogation as

‘vermin’.

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group: Australian

Governments carried out a policy of eugenics towards the end of 19th century, in an

attempt to ‘breed out the recessive Aboriginal traits’; sexual predation was condoned;

repressive legislation meant that Aboriginals had to seek permission just to marry and

all aspects of their lives were Government controlled.

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group: This was Government

policy, enacted in legislation, what we now know as the ‘stolen generation’, also a

characteristic of the eugenics policy, which was intended to encourage the extinction

of full-bloods. The policy was preceded by the common practice of child abduction by

pastoralists and settlers and police, usually for child labour.

Occupation Process When Britain occupied Australia, it resolved with the sharp edge of genocide. The process of

invasive British occupation carries a primary affective aetiology, similar to the primitive

survival strategy of a slime mould or a cancerous growth. Colonial occupation necessarily

carries many of the characteristics of other violent and disruptive state sponsored processes,

including invasion, mass killing, dispersal, genocide and ethnic cleansing. Invasion and

occupation are mutual co-requisites. Occupation is an enabling pre-requisite for colonisation

and eventual settler sovereignty.

The commercial and political objectives of occupation demanded that indigenous

resistance must be suppressed or removed entirely, if the presumed rights of conquest and the

ancillary usurping laws of property were to prevail. The only successful counter strategy to

invasive occupation is to strengthen indigenous resistance to the prospective occupier or to

form a mutually beneficial alliance with the occupier. The British briefly considered a treaty

with the Aboriginals, but it was as quickly rejected when Britain believed it had the upper

hand against Aboriginal opposition to the occupation of their land. It was not always so. For a

considerable period, Britain was threatened by the superior numbers of Aboriginals, but as

their numbers plummeted through British violence, sexual predation and introduced disease,

Britain instead adopted a divide and conquer tactic which they had found effective in their

other colonies, and did not require an expanded military, which was expensive. In Australia’s

case, it was through the use of mounted Native Police, where Native was pitted against

9

Native. The strategy was sharpened by racist land and criminal laws and legislated Aboriginal

disenfranchisement.8

The invasion and occupation processes substantially overlap,9 and share a common

triggering event, being the British decision to invade Australia and claim a certain initial

geographic area for the Crown using armed force (or protection), followed by a period when

the territorial gains were fluidly consolidated through repression, subjugation and closer

settlement. The process was then replicated for other areas and depended upon mass killing

and ethnic cleansing for its efficient operation. Occupation can mean: the act of taking or

holding possession of a country, district, etc by military force; the act of occupying or state of

being occupied.10

We will use a biological trope to elicit the actionable steps involved in the repeatable and

patterned process of occupation, area by area, like the metastatic spread of a cancerous

growth.11

1. Invade and occupy the country held by other inhabitants. Seize their territory. This is

likened to an opportunistic invasion of a host by a pathogen made possible through a

weakened immune system or physical trauma or compromised genome.

2. When occupying numbers are weak, solicit the help of the original inhabitants in

locating food and water and obtaining directions. Subvert the cellular process to assist

with pathogenic metabolisation and replication.

3. Establish beach head settlements and protect them with armed force. Consolidate the

invasive beach head. Grow the lesion. Disarm or weaken the defensive auto immune

system protocols. Position for infective replication to other areas (Step 1).

4. Replicate the settlements through metastasization. Spread out from each settlement,

protect and hold. Metastasize the infection to other locations, using available

transport systems and pathways.

8 The British rules of evidence prevented Aboriginal witness testimony for most of the colonisation period, which meant that Aboriginals could be slaughtered without any real possibility of punishment for the perpetrators. Aboriginals were not allowed to vote until well into the 20th century. Government land legislation progressively made Aboriginals trespassers on their own land. 9 Ray Gibbons, For We Are Young and Free, Political Uses of Australian Genocide, 2014 10 OED. 11 Although the occupation process described here is set out in an Australian socio-political context, it equally applies (as a template or meta-pattern) to other forms of invasive occupation, including certain disease trajectories and the generalised vectorial morphology of environmental destruction.

10

5. Impose repressive measures against the original inhabitants. Evict or crowd out the

original inhabitants, without their consent. Obstruct their chances of an economic

future. Occasion cellular morbidity and death.

6. Coerce collaboration with the original inhabitants. Divide them and use one against

the other. This is similar to step 2, with a level of refinement.12

7. Impose the rule of one sided laws. Introduce land and property legislation to

legitimise ownership. Overcome host resistance by overwhelming its defensive

capabilities. Progressively increase the host debilitation.

8. Gather up and repress remnant populations and forcibly move them to detention

centres. This elaborates on step 7.

9. Continue the process until the entire country is occupied and turned into property.

This elaborates on step 7 and repeats from step 1.

10. Subjugate the indigenous inhabitants. Use them as forced labour. Use the women for

sexual purposes. Remove or exterminate any who resist. This elaborates on steps 2, 6

and 7. Step 2 is repeated as an opportunity presents for the invasive pathogen.

Although the processes are generalised (as meta-patterns) we will assume an Australian

contextual typology for which specific instantiations will apply, based on actual events. The

occupation process diagram shows a number of sub-processes: initial occupation, protection,

consolidation, repression, and subjugation. Different processes can and do share sub-

processes and their actionable components. The occupation process proceeded area by area,

where it repeated itself each time, driving the processes of colonisation and settler

sovereignty, each potentially enabled by ethnic cleansing and the sharp instrument of

genocide. It is possible to iterate13 forward or back between processes, sub-processes and

their actionable components, depending on specific triggering events, in themselves

statistically predictable within the political and economic objectives of the nation state. For

12 For example, in 2014 Israeli soldiers resigned en masse because they objected ‘to continue serving as tools in deepening the military control over the Occupied Territories’. They claimed that the military created divisions within Palestinian society by ‘recruiting collaborators and driving parts of Palestinian society against itself.’ [The Australian, World 13, September 13-14, 2014]. The British used a similar strategy against Aboriginals, but with a more lethal intent, involving extra-judicial or quasi-legal mass killing and terror with roving mounted police, charged with protecting the rights of squatters over the land and removing the indigenous inhabitants. The policy was euphemistically called ‘dispersal’. 13 Processes by their nature cannot go back in time. When we talk about iteration, we mean that a process can iterate through a separate (and later) instance of the model. For simplicity, we make no distinction between process flow and function flow. In general, a function (or sub-function) is represented by a noun; a process (or sub-process by a verb.

11

example, iteration A can repeat from step 3 (closer settlement) to step 1 (further exploration)

as the frontier expands, and there are many other variations; the iteration B example is from

step 5 (excessive incarceration) to step 2 (dispersal), which proceeded as one area was

subjugated and another was opened up for pastoral occupation.

In many cases of iteration, there can be a negative or positive feedback mechanism in

play, which has the effect of amplifying or tempering the effect of some particular actionable

component. In the political landscape of early Australia, Government policies usually

accelerated dysfunctional behaviour through positive feedback. For example, land alienation

and accelerated immigration policies caused more squatting and land sales, which then

caused demand for more land alienation, resulting in ethnic cleansing. Government chose not

to modify this iterative process, fully aware that it was causing great harm to the indigenous

population. Another example: Government policies (dispersal, military campaigns) further

drove Aboriginal dispossession and, if Aboriginals resisted the occupation process, they

were met with further repression and dispersal, with squatters joining in the ethnic cleansing

process (extermination) when the realised that the Government would not hold them legally

accountable for any mass killings (unequal justice). If negative feedback had been part of

Government policy, Australia might now be very different: Britain might have resiled from

its most damaging policies, enforced usufructuary land use, and have imposed strict

accountability for any instances of wilful murder. But this policy of amending behaviour

(based on learned experience) was never likely, when Britain itself was using one sided laws

and the use of armed power to enforce ethnic cleansing.

Detailed Modelling

Detailed modelling can expose the specific referents associated with a particular instantiation

of this and other processes. I am not aware that anyone has carried out such work to date.

These prescriptive events (trigger, action, and outcome) are a matter of actual history and can

therefore be verified, modelled and managed with discrete effort.

Case management (that is, actively maintaining a library of the instantiation of

actionable process components, or cases) is usually through a database of some kind, one that

allows us to order and navigate large numbers of cases through ICT14 and interrogatory

software. Case management and process flow management are quite different from say a

massacre database, which might simply hold a sequential un-normalised record of massacres

14 ICT: Information and Communication Technology.

12

with dates, details, numbers killed and those involved. Case management highlights the

essential patterned reusability and repeatability of the discrete elements (process steps) in the

larger overlapping patterns of colonisation, ethnic cleaning and so on, where a massacre data

base might be a useful persistent data store to support individual cases (process instantiations)

as they play out across multiple actors (or Involved Parties).

Process Architecture

The general process architecture for any actionable component is represented as:

Figure 3. Actionable component architecture

For any type of Aboriginal massacre, the model has the general type form:

Figure 4. Actionable component type architecture

For a single event, such as the massacre at Murdering Creek, or any other such event that was driven by the genocidal process, the simplified instance of the actionable type ‘dispersal’ 15 becomes:

15 FYAYAF Political Uses of Australian Genocide contains a semantic typology for words variously connoting ‘mass killing’.

13

Figure 5. Actionable component type instance architecture

But the Murdering Creek massacre was not isolated, nor was it simple. If we expand the

Murdering Creek event to show its relationships within the Occupation Process as a

contextual referent, it becomes clearer that we cannot separate Murdering Creek from

Government policy and practice. These nested actionable components are based upon the

Occupation Process model. Each level of abstraction (or process level) can iterate, depending

on the particular triggering conditions.

Figure 6. Process Flow decomposition for Australian Lemkinian genocide

14

This Process Flow decomposition derives from the process architecture, and reflects

the political and economic purpose for the occupation process.16 The identifiable pattern of

mass killing commences with initial occupation for an area, peaks through the consolidation

phase when all land is being acquired through alienation and sale, and levels off as larger

nominated areas are being portioned and reportioned for closer settlement. Ethnic cleansing

slightly lags the mass killing curve and continues strongly with other forms of removal and

subjugation until the Aboriginal problem is finally solved. Unencumbered land has greater

value for Governments and pastoralists. Usufructuary use was rarely tolerated unless

Aboriginal labour can be exploited, and not at all when a system of Government detention

centres was established.

Case Instance Summary

The instantiation of the Lemkinian genocidal process in Australia is summarised as a case instance of the Process Flow decomposition, using the Murdering Creek massacre17 as an example or contextual referent.

On Case ca. 1864, Yandina cattle run, mass killing by a gang of eight people (comprising a

‘policeman’, the Yandina station manager, North Maroochy timber getters, probable

Yandina stockmen, and others) of Aboriginals at Lake Weyba:

Process Occupation

Process Trigger Impose settler sovereignty on occupied land through armed force

and legislation (the wider area of SE Queensland – Kilcoy - Wide Bay – Mary Valley

– Maroochy – Chinchilla - was first occupied in the 1840s through 50s; the Yandina

run area was first occupied in the 1850s because the land was more marginal for

grazing);

1837 London: Select Committee Enquiry into Native Mistreatment;18

1842 Waste Land Act (UK);19

Australian Constitutions Act 1850 (UK);20

16 See Appendix. 17 See Ray Gibbons, academia.edu In Search of History: the massacre at Murdering Creek 18 http://catalog.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?BBID=6357526&DB=local See FWAYAF Recollections of a (Homicidal) Pastoral Frontier. 19 //ozcase.library.qut.edu.au/qhlc/documents/AustralianColonialWasteland1842.pdf See FWAYAF Documents that Shaped Australia for transcript.

15

Australian Waste Lands Act 1855;21

1855 Torrens Title Land Act (SA);22

Queensland Crown Lands Alienation Act, 1860;23

1861 Queensland Select Committee of Enquiry into the Native Police Force.24

Sub-Process Consolidation (the local Yandina run area – Maroochy shire - was

being consolidated by pastoralists through the 1860s

Sub-Process Trigger Assert authority through policing, legislation and self-

protection +policy; Queensland’s separation from NSW in 1859 and land alienation

legislation in 1860

Component Closer Settlement (the Yandina run area is broken up for closer

settlement in the 1870s)

Component Trigger Remove Aboriginals (Ethnic cleansing) through deliberate

Government policy; following the 1868 Macalister Act allowing land alienation for

closer settlement

Sub-Component Dispersal (Dispersal ‘mass killing’ commenced for the Yandina run

area in the 1860s. Removal and mopping up of Aboriginals continued to the end of the

century, given further force by the 1897 ‘Protection’ Act.)

Sub-Component Trigger Use roving mounted police to ‘disperse’ Aboriginals;

encourage para military killings by pastoralists to remove ‘vermin’

Event condition 1863/4, ambush massacre of Aboriginals on the Yandina cattle run

caused by desire to punish Aboriginals who were hostile to the intrusion of cattle, the

occupation of their bora, and random killings by stockmen.

Instantiation In 1862 the area around Yandina run was frequently being threatened

by Kabi Aboriginals who objected to the occupation of the culturally important

Yandina bora and the intrusions of cattle. 20 http://foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/vic3_doc_1851.pdf. See FWAYAF Documents that Shaped Australia for transcript. 21 A version of this is available at www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/A/AustnWastA1855.pdf See See FWAYAF Documents that Shaped Australia for transcript. 22 A version of this is available at http://foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/sa8_doc_1858.pdf See See FWAYAF Documents that Shaped Australia for transcript. 23 http://ozcase.library.qut.edu.au/qhlc/documents/CrownLands-AlienationOf_24VIC15.pdf See FWAYAF Documents that Shaped Australia for transcript. 24 http://Archive.aiatsis.gov.au/removeprotect/92123.pdf last accessed 21 August 2013 (167 pages). See FWAYAF Documents that Shaped Australia for transcript.

16

Yandina stockmen were shooting at Aboriginals on their way to the bora.

The irreplaceable bunya pine lands were being invaded by timber getters, in spite of

the 1842 proclamation by Gipps, gazetting the pine forests from encroachment.

The 1842 Kilcoy massacre was still firmly in the memory of the local tribes.

In the late 1840s, the Mary Valley was rapidly being colonised by pastoralists.

Aboriginal killings were indiscriminate and condoned.

A random killing of Puram on the Maroochy River was reported by Petrie in the late

60s.

Roving police units were conducting ‘dispersal operations’ between Sandgate, North

Pine, Mary Valley and Maryborough in Wide Bay. A contest for the land was in

progress across the pastoral frontier of SE Queensland.

The Queensland Government was enacting legislation to make Aboriginal

dispossession have the force of law.

The David Jones family were conducting reprisals in the 1840s against Aboriginals

on their properties in the Mary Valley. The entire area was on alert, pastoralists were

trigger happy, and Aboriginals were alarmed.

Police had a base camp in the 50s and 60s at Yabba Creek near Manumbar and at

Sandgate and elsewhere. Bligh, Wheeler and other police officers were rampaging

across SE Queensland. They were killing as they went, all with the support of

Government.

In 1859, Queensland had just separated from New South Wales and the squatter

dominated Government was eager to flex its authority. The 1860 Crown Lands

Alienation Act meant accelerated occupation of Aboriginal land.25 Land alienation

legislation was focussed on revenue generation, and in particular on Government

gaining revenue from the sale of Aboriginal land, and when we read the various land

acts, we see that the Government wholly ignored the rights of Aboriginals in a riot of

racist dispossession. It was not so much that the Government ignored the rights of

Aboriginals; it was that Government and settlers did not believe Aboriginals had any

land rights at all.

The 1861 MacKenzie enquiry into brutal police killings at Manumbar and Wide Bay

and around Brisbane exonerated those responsible and concluded that the

25 http://ozcase.library.qut.edu.au/qhlc/documents/CrownLands-AlienationOf_24VIC15.pdf See FWAYAF Documents that Shaped Australia for transcript.

17

Government should accelerate predatory police dispersal methods and make them

more efficient. In 1864, the Queensland Government appointed David Seymour as

Police Commissioner to subdue the Aboriginal problem through force.

The Yandina run was marginal for grazing and successive leaseholders were

frustrated in their ambitions to turn a quick profit. William Chippindall, possibly John

Farquarson (in his role as a stockman), possibly Richard Jones Senior, and others

conspired to ambush Aboriginals on Lake Weyba. In 1864, they used a carefully

constructed ruse to lure them to their death. An unknown number of Aboriginals were

murdered.

The same event trigger or justification was to be used innumerable times over the

next 50 years or more, as pastoralists pushed for sovereignty over the land and

waves of repressive legislation cemented the gains with a jackboot on the neck of

Aboriginal society. The trigger was ‘remove the vermin’ to gain unencumbered use of

the land. Where the vermin were to go was never considered, not by pastoralists, not

by Government, until sometime late in the Century when the Aboriginals no longer

presented a threat and they could simply be mopped up and removed to detention

centres.

Involved Parties Direct: Yandina station manager (Chippindall), a ‘policeman’

(possibly Farquarson in his role as a stockman), timber getters (probably Richard

Jones Senior and others), stockmen, Kabi Aboriginals. Indirect: Landowner (Scott),

Queensland Government (Macalister, MacKenzie, among others), various landowners

from Maroochy to Wide Bay (Fleming, Goggs, Vickery, Landers, Jones), James Low,

Tom Petrie, William Pettigrew, police officers (Walker, Bligh, Wheeler, Morisset),

Police Commissioner (Seymour).

Outcome Event Trigger(s) The Creek where the massacre took place became known

as Murdering Creek. It still carries that name, although the precise reasons were

(until now) buried in myth. Massacres and ethnic cleansing were further normalised

as acceptable behaviour for settler society, in order to solve the Aboriginal problem

and achieve unencumbered possession of the land.

The Yandina killing party planned and conducted an ambush on local Lake Weyba

Aboriginals to teach them a lesson and keep them quiet. There was no investigation.

The massacre became widely known, but no one would reveal specific details at the

time. As a result, Aboriginals continued their resistance.

18

Settlers continued the pattern of violence. They deliberately attempted to corrode

Aboriginal society by offering rum, tobacco and poor quality food in exchange for

access to women and cheap labour.

Government refused to prosecute criminal settler behaviour and denied Aboriginals

the right to own their land. Government treated Aboriginal use of their own land as

trespass, with lethal consequences for entire tribes, particularly if stock were killed

or a settler was speared. The oppressive pattern was irrevocably being set, with no

sign from Government that it would change from its planned course in alienating

(confiscating) more land for the colonists.

Britain began to take a back seat, as colonial self-government took over. In 1868, the

Crown Lands Alienation Act (Queensland) introduced by Macalister paved the way

for closer settlement,26 making the Aboriginal situation far more vulnerable. A casual

reading of the Queensland land Acts show they were focussed on generating revenue;

and with the Aboriginals beaten and subjugated, they rated no mention whatsoever in

most land legislation, certainly not their rights, which were presumed simply not to

exist.

The Queensland pastoral frontier began to move north, where it became a killing field

until the end of the century. Police and pastoralists mercilessly destroyed tribe after

tribe.

The Government introduced more blackbirded Kanaks as indentured labour, after

their successful use in the Mary Valley.

The Government continued to alienate Aboriginal land for sale, with no plan for

where Aboriginals were to live, the eventual solution being to round up the survivors

and forcibly remove them to detention centres, where the Government rigidly

controlled their lives under the 1897 Queensland Aboriginals Act.

Component Iteration Dispersal, further occupation of other areas, followed by more

dispersal, then more consolidation.

Data Stores Massacres, Actors (Involved Parties), Legislation (Land, Aboriginal),

Locations, Primary Sources, Events, Place Names, Tribes (Range, Location, Culture),

Case Scripts

26 http://ozcase.library.qut.edu.au/qhlc/documents/CrownLandsAlienationAct1868_31Vic_46.pdf See FWAYAF Documents that Shaped Australia for transcript.

19

Primary Sources 1860 Crown Lands Alienation Act (Qld), 1868 Macalister Act for

Closer Settlement (Qld), Fred Fink Collection (Nambour), 1861 Queensland

Commission of Enquiry into Police Methods (MacKenzie), Elaine Brown newspaper

clippings.

Secondary Sources Low to Bull letter; Bull’s anecdote.

End case.

Murdering Creek Summary: Actors and Agencies

This is a simplified model for the British occupation process, showing the Involved Parties

and their roles, as settler sovereignty tightened its grip, from de facto to de jure. The process

repeats, area by area, like a wave, as it sweeps the Aboriginal population away. The North

Maroochy area and Murdering Creek were no exceptions.

The occupation process presents a pattern that is universal in its application; it is often

successful, which is probably why it is frequently used. For a start, it is clearly intentional

and by its state-sponsored procedural nature, it is deterministic with a defined outcome or

strategic objective, usually to achieve political and economic hegemony over a certain

geographical area. Without supra-national restraints, there is little to stop the aggressive

violation of human (and other) rights by one powerful belligerent against another less

powerful party. Compassion does not normally carry a ‘gun’ (that is, some kind of coercive

force such as the use of weapons or counter-repressive legislation), but greed and self-interest

often do.

Britain presumed territorial Sovereignty, the right of occupation and the right to

impose British law. All land was claimed for the Crown, leaving Aboriginal society

homeless. Invasive occupation included official and unofficial (but condoned) mass killing,

imposed malnutrition and disease, sexual predation, intentional relocation, eugenics and

forced assimilation.

After the ‘occupation’ process is completed, it is very difficult to roll back, because

other consolidating processes have begun which tighten the invader’s control, including

legislation around the laws of property and what constitutes a crime within ‘civil society’.

20

Figure 7. Simplified model of the Australian occupation process, showing the role of Involved Parties.

Figure 8. Murdering Creek massacre process flow diagram in the context of Queensland Government policy (1860 - 1865)27

27 For a more complete list of the racist Queensland legislation for the early 1860s, see this document: The Political Uses of ‘Dispersal’ in Early Queensland (Post Separation)

21

Type Occupation Process, showing Actionable Components

22

23

24

Lemkinian Genocide as a Complex Dynamical Behavioural System

Genetic or evolutionary rule based algorithms help us find structure in messy datasets. They

resolve ‘fitness for purpose’ or ‘best fit’ through an iterative process. If we define ‘purpose’

as the depopulation and destruction of Aboriginal society, the genetic algorithm shows how

the purpose was achieved through a political process that amplified the dysfunction of settler

society, cataclysmically reduced Aboriginal numbers in 120 years by over 90%, and

transformed the Australian continent into white property through Lemkinian genocide. This

genocidal pattern corresponds to a determinable set of sub-processes or states within an

intentionality envelope defined by Government policy. It presents as a nested decomposition

along an abstraction gradient, from overarching political objectives to armed occupation.

Genetic algorithms allow us to model how the behaviour of a dynamical system

evolves or shows emergent behaviour, through a pattern of meta-stable states. A dynamical

system is a system that maps from some abstract space into itself, as for an iterative process

flow nested decomposition that we saw earlier. An abstract space is the set of potential

system states. The mapping can repeat iteratively over discrete or continuous time. An

attractor is the characteristic behaviour of a system, which may discretely map a series of

stable states or patterns as it transforms from one pattern to the next, like phase transitions

with H2O, or the set of phases in Lemkinian genocide. 28

For Australian genocide, it is almost irrelevant what the initial conditions prescribe, as

the dynamical rules (or Government policies) will ensure that the stages of Lemkinian

genocide or characteristic behavioural states will follow. The Australian genocidal process or

collective behavioural pattern corresponds to a deterministic dynamical system (intentional)

with some co-variant stochastic (or probabilistic density functional) characteristics.29

By externalising the governing dynamical rules in an evolutionary algorithm, we can

determine the emergent behavioural properties of a complex system without the need to use 28 MIKHEIL KAPANADZE and GIA SIRBILADZE, Genetic Algorithm Approach for the Identification Problem of the Discrete Possibilistic Dynamic System; Ben Goertzel, From Complexity to Creativity Computational Models of Evolutionary, Autopoietic and Cognitive Dynamics, 1997; Kirsty Kitto, Modelling and Generating Complex Emergent Behaviour, PhD Thesis, QUT, 2006; Bernard Chazelle The Convergence of Bird Flocking, 2009 www.cs.princeton.edu/~chazelle/pubs/flocking.pdf ; Felipe Cucker and Steve Smale Emergent Behavior in Flocks, 2007 https://people.mpi-inf.mpg.de/~mehlhorn/SeminarEvolvability/CuckerSmale.pdf 29 Steven H. Strogatz, Exploring Complex Networks, Department of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics and Center for Applied Mathematics, Cornell University, Nature, Vol 410, 8 March 2001 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6825/pdf/410268a0.pdf

25

real time workflow models and persistent data stores, which show intentionality as an

abstraction gradient along a hierarchical nested process decomposition.30

Flocking Behaviour in Settler Society

We can model groups of individuals to behave as a collective organism or entity, according to

simple rules expressed in a genetic algorithm. Flocking behaviour in birds has been

extensively studied, and seems relevant without exception to all species, including humans.

We have the equivalent shoaling behaviour of fish, or swarming by insects, or the herding

instinct by land animals.

The basic algorithmic rules for ‘flocking’ behaviour in its variant forms are expressed

by a deceptively simple rule set:

Rule 1: Separation. Avoid crowding neighbours.

Rule 2: Alignment. Steer towards average heading of neighbours.

Rule 3: Cohesion. Steer towards average position of neighbours.

Table 1. Genetic rules for flocking behaviour in dynamical systems

The algorithm gives rise to emergent structures, where individuals, acting according

to certain rules within a given environment, form collective behaviours (or identifiable and

patterned ways of acting) as a group.

The model originates from the idea first proposed by Viczek et al that bird i adjusts its

velocity towards the average of its neighbours’ velocities and the distance between birds

remains bounded for both continuous and discrete time. The mathematical model shows

continuous aggregate behaviour by the group.

From Viczek, let IR2 be replaced by Euclidean space IE3 and let the heading θ be

replaced by the velocity v.

The genetic model that contains the ‘flocking’ rule set is:

xi (t + 1) = xi(t) + vi(t) (1)

vi(t + 1) = (1/ ni(t)) Σ j∈Ni(t) vj (t)

30 Previously, we have presented an instance of this dynamic process behaviour in the form of static contextual referents or case instances of a type process. Although these diagrams are valuable, they carry a lot of information and can be difficult to read. Genetic algorithms provide an overview of the system behaviour and help us understand how Lemkinian genocide evolved through the political process.

26

where xi, vi ∈ IE3 for i = 1,...,k and time t = 0, 1, 2 ....

Here Ni(t) = {j ≤ k | || xi(t) − xj (t) || ≤ r} and ni(t) = # Ni(t) for some r > 0.

[Viczek, Cucker]

If we now apply the same genetic algorithm (Rules 1, 2 and 3) to squatters,

functionally spreading out along the pastoral frontier to select new land, we arrive at an

exactly similar result, where squatters show convergent ‘flocking’ behaviour, acting as an

organic group. These ‘flocking’ rules define the pastoralists’ invasion front and the

corresponding rise of settler supremacy from de facto to de jure. The flocking behaviour for

invasive occupation resulted in a violent competition for the land and an extended land war,

ultimately won by the superior force of weaponry and one-sided legislation.

Genocidal constraint rules for settler society and emergent behaviour

We can reinforce this herding squatter behaviour if we add overriding conditional rules

introduced by Government31 for dispossession, extermination and calibrated repression. It is

possible to model these policy driven rules in an executable genetic programme. The policies

resulted in significant Aboriginal depopulation. We may consider them as constraint rules,

which manage pastoralists’ land rush behaviour in an orthogonal space.

The constraint rules define the political and societal parameters set by Government for

invasive occupation, like the House rules in a game of cards, within which the players are

intent on maximising their stake in a competitive process.32 In effect, these Government

‘constraints’ specify the rules for genocide in a positive feedback process, where the

dysfunctional collective behaviours are deliberately amplified and normalised by formal

Government actions. The observed pastoral society behaviour followed these Government

bestowed genocidal rules (intentionalism) and was further driven by untempered settler self-

interest (functionalism).33

31 The term ‘government’ is used in the general sense, beginning with successive British Governments from 1788 until the various Australian colonies were granted self-government, and then State Governments until Federation in 1901, and finally including the Commonwealth Government from 1901. 32 The role of collective constraints on innate individual behaviours within some system is consistent with the principles of strong emergent system properties. The stability of the system suggests a set of constraints of some kind on the collective properties of the system, which the parts must obey if they are perturbed from their original states. [Yaneer Bar-Yam, A mathematical theory of strong emergence using multi-scale variety, 2004] http://www.necsi.edu/research/multiscale/MultiscaleEmergence.pdf 33 Individuals produce collective patterns through their behaviour. The central limit theorem is fundamental to probability theory and states that if each of a large number of independent individuals contributes a small

27

The question then is: if the Government had modified its ‘constraint’ rules, and been

more disposed to humanitarian concerns for Aboriginal welfare, would the resulting

collective behaviour have been different? For example, if the Government had limited and

managed the availability of Aboriginal land for white pastoralism, would genocide have been

less likely? I think the answer is an unqualified ‘yes’.

Government dispossession policy: constraint rules Rule A: Dispossession. Government policy does not allow Aboriginals to own land.

Government land policy over an extended period of around 150 years was

the direct cause of massive Aboriginal depopulation (> 90%).

Corollary: Genocide was the intent and outcome of Government land

policy.

Indicators:

a) There were no Aboriginal landowners until late in the 20th century.

b) Having been dispossessed of their land, Aboriginals became

trespassers, able to be removed or shot by police and pastoralists

without fear of prosecution.

Accountability: Negative feedback constraints on Aboriginal human rights

abuses were almost non-existent. Prosecutions were rare and convictions

rarer still.

Rule B: Dispossession. Government alienates ‘Crown’ land for allocation to

squatters.

Indicators: Government land grants and later legislation excluded

Aboriginals.

Accountability: Negative feedback constraints on human rights abuses

were almost non-existent.

Rule C: Immigration. Government accelerates immigration through subsidisation

arrangements, which increases the demand for more land.

randomly distributed quantity to some total output, then that total output is distributed according to a Normal distribution. Moreover, the standard deviation of total output increases in proportion to the square root of the number of individuals. For settler society, we can ascribe output to the aggregate number of acres selected by each settler or land speculator, as the pastoral frontier continued its rapid advance across the continent. Some speculators consolidated their land holdings to areas over a million acres. The central limit theorem is a probabilistic density function measure of some subject of interest by a given large population. http://www.math.uah.edu/stat/sample/CLT.html .

28

Indicators: Immigration legislation (pre-Federation) encouraged

Aboriginal dispossession.

Accountability: Negative feedback constraints on human rights abuses

were almost non-existent.

Rule D: Disenfranchisment. Aboriginals were not allowed to testify in court as

witnesses, nor were they allowed to vote until a referendum in 1967, when

they were finally granted citizenship. Their basic human right were

denied over the peak killing and depopulation period, until the mid 20th

century.

Indicators:

a) Rules of evidence were racist and discriminatory.

b) Australian Constitution Act 1901 (Cth) discriminated against

Aboriginals.

c) State based legislation allowed Government to control the lives of

Aboriginals in detention centres.

d) Aboriginals were not allowed to vote until the 1967 referendum.

Accountability: Negative feedback constraints on human rights abuses

were almost non-existent.

Government extermination policy: constraint rule Rule E: Depopulation. If Aboriginals trespass on their land, or kill stock, or resist

their dispossession, squatters or the police are permitted to exterminate

them without punishment. ‘Nigger hunts’ are common, as is poisoning.

Indicators:

a) Compared with precontact population, severe full-blood

population loss by 1911 (>90% overall),34 with associated large-

scale destructon of Aboriginal society and culture.

34 Among many others, John Harris reminds us: ‘The awful but surely undeniable fact of Aboriginal history, the one fact that transcends all other facts and all other estimates, reconstructions, analyses, guesses, misrepresentations, truths, half-truths and lies, is the fact of the immense and appalling reduction in the Aboriginal population during the first 150 years of European settlement. This must be the starting point of any morally responsible discussion of the past treatment of Aboriginal people and therefore must precede any discussion of death by violence.’ [Hiding the Bodies: the myth of the humane colonisation of Aboriginal Australia, Aboriginal History, 2003, Vol. 27, p. 81]. I agree, but would note that the word ‘European’ should be replaced by ‘British’. To state otherwise is to diminish the direct responsibility of Imperial Britain in the intentional and calibrated process of Aboriginal genocide and cataclysmic depopulation.

29

b) In 120 years, there are very few prosecutions of white perpetrators,

and almost no convictions, apart from those involved in the 1838

Myall Creek massacre.

c) Aboriginal malnutrition and starvation become increasingly

evident through the 19th and early 20th centuries, although

Governments deny their policies are the cause, and many deny the

evidence altogether.

d) Alcoholism and family violence increase, symptoms of despair and

generalised post-traumatic stress.

Accountability: Negative feedback constraints on human rights abuses

were almost non-existent. Prosecution of whites was extremely rare.

Considered together, these constraint rules (A to E) also specify Government ethnic

cleansing policy in the first (primary) wave of depopulation (it was followed by a secondary

wave of subjugation, whose effects we still observe today). The collective effect of these

Government constraint rules operating on an acquisitive, racist and land-obsessed society was

a strongly emergent but normatively dysfunctional social system behaviour that equates to

politically driven Lemkinian genocide.

To complete the rule set for the primary socio-political-economic behavioural wave,

further repressive Government policies caused heavy additional depopulation through

restrictions on marriage, the breaking up of families, sexual predation, poor nutrition, forced

detention and excessive levels of incarceration.

Government repression policy: constraint rules Rule F: Encourage sexual dispossession. Because white women are scarce,

allow and encourage sexual predation and miscegenation. Attempt to

breed out the Aboriginal trait through eugenics. Do not punish the

sexual offenders.

Indicators:

a) A large half-breed population. Sexual predation was rampant,

but often denied [Gribble].

b) Misuse of Aboriginal women was not illegal, so there were no

prosecutions to discourage the practice, which was rife at the

frontier in particular.

30

c) Severe full-blood population loss by 1911 (>90% overall),

with associated large-scale destructon of Aboriginal society

and culture.

d) Sexual predation was accompanied by sexually transmitted

diseases, which further reduced the reproductive viability of

the Aboriginal population.

Accountability: Negative feedback constraints on human rights abuses

were almost non-existent.

Rule G: Introduce disease. Do nothing to protect the Aboriginal population

from diseases against which Aboriginals had no natural immunity:

syphilis, gonorrhoea, measles, influenza, smallpox, and diphtheria

among others.

Indicators:

a) No Aboriginal was ever inoculated against smallpox.

Deliberately introduced venereal disease had a severe trans-

generational depopulation effect.

b) Severe full-blood population loss by 1911 (>90% overall)

with associated large-scale destructon of Aboriginal society

and culture.

c) Infected white males were not officially discouraged from

sexual predation, confirming that Government and pastoral

society regarded the welfare and wellbeing of an Aboriginal

woman as of little concern.

Accountability: Negative feedback constraints on human rights abuses

were almost non-existent.

The collective herd behaviour, further emphasized by the Government constraint rules

(A to G), is characterised as racist and intentionally genocidal, within the Lemkin definition.

The rule based behaviour can be modelled through a genetic algorithm. The algorithm

simulates the process of Aboriginal depopulation for the primary phase of dispossession, and

excludes the ongoing destruction of Aboriginal society and culture through Government

repression and subjugation, a Lemkinian process that is still evident today.

31

Genetic algorithm for politically driven and intentional Australian genocide – simplified logic diagram

Figure 9. Simplified flowchart of genetic algorithm for Australian genocide (Lemkinian) The flowchart forms the basis for an executable evolutionary genetic algorithm that simulates the politically driven Australian genocidal process.

32