La sociedad de la información

Robinson reports one such conversation in January 1837 during an evening class. Robinson asked ‘Who made me?’ and one of the pupils, Penermeroick / Milton, answered ‘the Devil.’87 Classes continued the following day during which an

unnamed woman and a man, Makeaduru, who would soon be elected verger,88 were tested by Robinson. The woman was asked, ‘Who is God?’ To which she answered, ‘Eve.’ She was asked, ‘Who made you?’ To which she replied, ‘Heaven.’89 _{Makeaduru was asked, ‘Who made you?’ He replied, ‘My father.’}90 Robinson’s journal then says ‘Davy Bruny, one of the young teachers, responded to the woman saying, ‘what did you say “Eve”, you should say “God”, God is a spirit, is not a woman, God is a white man.’91

I speculated earlier on a possible conversation between Walter Arthur and his parents about the creation story in Genesis One, textually rendered in ‘Ben Lomond’ language and English. This response by Maiki about ‘God’ as creator is a reminder both of Woorraddy’s creation story of Moihernee and Dromerdeene, and of Robinson’s ‘sermon’ summary on Bruny Island in May 1829, discussed in Chapter Two. Again, it would have been a fascinating conversation between the Nuenone father and son on this topic. As Van Toorn notes regarding these responses: ‘it is difficult to know today—as it was difficult for Robinson in his time to know—precisely what the people “learned” in the classroom.’92

While Penermeroick, the unnamed woman, and Makeaduru may have misunderstood the questions, or misconnected their growing storage of prepared catechetical answers, it is possible that they did not misunderstand or misconnect but were giving alternate interpretations. Maiki answered the woman’s question not just with the answer expected from the ‘Wybalenna Catechism’, ‘God is a spirit’, but made two additional statements that God is not a woman, and God is a

88 _{Plomley, 1987, p. 421.} 89 _{Ibid., p. 417.}

90 _{This is reminiscent of Mannalargenna’s reply to Robinson that he ‘only knew what his father}

told him’, Plomley, 1966, p. 403.

91 _{Plomley, 1987, p. 417.} 92 _{Van Toorn, 2006, p. 61.}

white man. So although nothing in the Bible says God is a white man, Maiki had ‘learned’ from his lessons in the Orphan School, from Catechist and Commandant that God is a white man. This could mean God is a colonist93 like Robinson, Clark and others, thereby associating God with colonisation, or that God is at least the white man’s God. It could mean God is a dead Aboriginal who has jumped up into life again thereby associating God with Aboriginal ancestors visiting clans

again.94 Like the surviving examples of writing, these dialogues suggest multiple and varied ‘learnings’ were occurring.

Penermeroick’s answer to Robinson’s question ‘Who made me?’ could be much more disturbing. The answer ‘The Devil’ was one among many references to the Devil that stirred Robinson so often in his journal writing, particularly in the performance of the ‘Devil dance’.95 While Van Toorn suggests ‘some Aboriginal pupils were deviating from the script’96 there are follow up

catechetical examinations four months later which provide further information which needs to be considered. In these reports of 1st May Penermeroick and Makeaduru were in the same class, along with Moultehelargine / Ajax, another ‘older man’. Penermeroick was not questioned because of illness. In this report Makeaduru is described as ‘not perfect in his letters’. In response to ‘who made you?’ he answered ‘God’.97

93 _{A few years earlier Trugernanner had criticised Black Tom for saying he believed in the white}

man’s God, Plomley, 1966, p. 379.

94 _{Walter Arthur, ‘we skin black people died then arose from the dead became white men we}

begin to make friends of them call them father or Brother’, ML Robinson Papers, A7074 CY825.

95 _{Plomley, 1966, p. 301. It is curious that the man, Penermeroick carried the English name}

‘Milton’. Robinson refers to the author Milton and his book, ‘Paradise Lost’, in the notes of the creation story told by Woorraddy, Ibid., p. 373.

96 _{Van Toorn, 2006, p. 61.}

97 _{A further biographical note is added, ‘This pupil is a good husband and industrious – he holds}

the office of Clerk and Chapel Vesper is a stout man of about 30 years of age from the Central part of V D L’, ML Robinson Papers, A7066 CY551, p. 146.

On 9th and 21st May there were the quarterly examinations over which Robinson presided. Again, these men are in the same class as Moultehelargine and Maiki was their teacher. Makeaduru is described as ‘imperfect in his alphabet’. His only question was, ‘Who made you?’ to which he again replied ‘God’. It is reported that ‘this pupil is inattentive but is a good husband and a quiet well behaved man. He holds the office of Cook98 and Chapel keeper. Is stout made about 30 years of age from the central part of V. D. Land’. There is no report of Penermeroick being questioned. 99 The woman is unnamed so it is not possible to match her answers to any particular person’s catechetical examination.

There is a degree of speculation to any explanation, but it is clear that between January and May the records of Makeaduru’s answer to ‘Who made you?’ changed from ‘My father’ to ‘God’. It is possible to explain this as a ‘subaltern’ expressing outward compliance.100 Makeaduru was born about

1802/3101 _{and was one of the generation who were older than the colony. He could} be like Trugernanner regarding ‘God’ as belonging to the ‘white man’.102 Against this, however, is that in early February he was elected verger / Chapel keeper, for the Sunday services, for which he received 1/- per week.103 It is possible

Makeaduru performed this role for the sake of the money, or some other role, motivation or benefit. Being one of the oldest people at Wybalenna, elected by the people to the role, it may have been recognition of his seniority. Because of his age he is likely to have been in a leading role in clan ceremonies and possibly inter-clan ceremonies, so to have and be seen by his and other clans to have a role

98 _{Plomley, 1987, p. 420.}

99 _{ML Robinson Papers, A7044 CY548, p. 275.}

100 _{A subaltern in this context is a person of ‘inferior rank … [and] denied access to hegemonic}

power’, in Ashcroft, B., (et al), 2013, Post-colonial Studies. London; Routledge, pp. 244 – 247.

101 _{Plomley, 1987, p. 841.} 102 _{Plomley, 1966, p. 379.} 103 _{Plomley, 1987, p. 421.}

in the colonial religious ceremonies was probably also a factor. His performance as ‘verger/chapel keeper’ was in an audience of various Aboriginal clans and colonists, so was a multi-faceted-performance to clans and colonists

simultaneously. He therefore could have performed this role with multiple purposes and meanings, an example of multiple layers in simultaneous locales.

Post-colonial discourse on ‘liminality’ is relevant here. This liminal, or transcultural, space is one in which Aboriginal, colonial and Christian forms are, as yet, indefinable in this context. Makeaduru’s clan, and inter-clan role is being fulfilled in a new context of the chapel and simultaneously the role of verger is being fulfilled in a new context of Aboriginal clan and inter-clan relationships. It is not clear to what degree each element in the discourse is interpreting the other as Makeaduru is engaged in a ‘constant process of engagement, contestation and appropriation’104 simultaneously.

As mentioned previously those pupils with the most extensive knowledge were questioned and recorded at greater length. The written records were also part of the performance review of the catechist, commandant, and indeed the whole enterprise of the settlement. This is perhaps why so few variant answers are recorded in the examination records. Reporting a brief list of questions is suggestive of fewer ‘correct’ answers from the pupil. Unfortunately Makeaduru died 29th December 1837105 and so no further responses are known.

Another consideration is that the ‘variant answers’ come from Robinson’s personal journal, and not from any catechetical examination report. It is worth considering Robinson’s own motivations in recording the variant answers. On 20th

104 _{Aschcroft, 2013, p. 145.} 105 _{Plomley, 1987, p. 841.}

January 1837, immediately prior to asking the woman ‘who is God’, Robinson wrote:

Again put questions on the first principles of religion. The catechist said I did not ask those who had regularly attended. I assured him I had, and then asked the parties he referred to. They were equally at a loss. He referred me to a woman whom he said would understand who is God. She answered ‘Eve’; who made you, ‘heaven’. The catechist then said she did not understand my question and he purposed asking some questions. Constantine said he, who made you; answer ‘my father’. He was therefore

silenced.106

Following Maiki’s comment about God being a white man, Robinson wrote: The evening was concluded by singing by the natives. The parson was evidently astonished at my mode of questioning the

natives.107

As well as suggesting variant interpretations among Aboriginal people, Robinson’s journal entries of the variant answers are also part of his ongoing criticism of Clark and needs to be kept in mind as part of the context. Nor can the possibility be discounted that the answers given by these particular Aboriginal people was a way of embarrassing Clark in front of Robinson.

As well as these indications of diverse, some would say, subaltern responses to questions, the classes themselves were not fully attended by Aboriginal people, including those involved in the catechetical examinations. Clark’s records show

106 _{Plomley, 1987, p. 417.} 107 _Ibid.

that Aboriginal teachers and students were absent due to influenza epidemics,108 ophthalmia,109 or for no apparent reason.110 In April 1837 the results of the catechetical examination show that forty-six were present and twenty-two absent.111 _{This suggests Aboriginal people were not as regimented or regular in} their attendance or participation as might first be assumed, or later ‘missions’ practiced, but they were clearly learning the Christian faith through the catechism, writing and, probably more importantly, conversations with each other. This attendance of only two thirds of the students in April seems to have been the catalyst for an important development that actually strengthened Aboriginal voices and more diverse interpretations and expressions of Aboriginal Christian faith.

At the end of April 1837 Clark left Wybalenna for a few days to go to nearby Chalky Island. While he was away Robinson arranged the evening school on Saturday 29th _{April, where he says he ‘playfully asked them to commence to} exhort and admonish each other from the desk’. This was done by

Tongerlongerter / William, Rolepa, Philip, and Noemy. Noemy began and spoke ‘partly in his own and partly in English’.112 It is not clear if Robinson specifically asked them to use their first language, but given Robinson’s emphasis on learning English and the catechetical style of set answers, this seems unlikely. The

initiative for first language seems to have come from the first speaker, Noemy from the west coast.

These men and their messages will be examined subsequently because the only written records of interpreted notes are from addresses they, and others, gave

                                                                                                                108 _{Plomley, 1987, p. 680.} 109 _{Ibid., p. 684.} 110 _{Ibid., p. 681.} 111 _{Ibid., p. 688.} 112 _{Ibid., p. 439.}

in 1838. However, the timing of the decline in attendances, particularly at the catechetical examinations, seems to have stirred Robinson to try something different and seizing the opportunity, Noemy and others spoke first of all in their own languages. Also of interest is Clark’s reaction when he returned. He wrote to Robinson on 3rd May 1837:

I have the honour to state the very great satisfaction and delight I experienced on my return from Chalky last week in witnessing the native chiefs and others address their countrymen at the Saturday night prayer meeting particularly when I heard some of them introduce the name of God and our Lord Jesus Christ. To me this meeting afforded more heart felt delight than any I ever witnessed or assisted in thro the course of my life and called up the liveliest feelings of gratitude to my God for his goodness and love

I take leave respectfully to request your permission to form a class of the persons who you will please to select and on such days of the week as you will appoint to instruct them more fully in the Precepts of Religion and Truth to enable them to speak of the Truths of Revelation in their vernacular languages on those interesting occasions. I have already spoken to one or two of the Natives and it has met their approbation subject to your

approval.113(my emphasis)

Clark, like Wilkinson, attempted to encourage what was already occurring among the clans. Aboriginal people, particularly clan leaders, were discussing Christian faith with each other in their own first languages and the pidgin of the settlement.

They were exploring their own unmediated experience of God and their own interpretations of the mediated experiences of school catechisms and church services. However, Robinson ‘gave a negative’ to Clark’s request.114

Something seems to have changed between the April examinations and those in May. The first language sermons are at least part of the answer and another part could be that Robinson introduced monetary rewards in ‘Settlement currency’ for attendance and answering questions.115 In the April catechetical examinations forty-six of sixty-eight participated with twenty-two absent.116 On 9th _{May the picture was quite different. There were twelve male classes with a} total of forty-two students examined. The three female classes comprised twenty- eight students, giving a total of seventy Aboriginal people examined in the catechism.117 While Robinson refused Clark’s participation in ‘vernacular language’ classes, the continuation of first language addresses suggests the clan leaders were not as constrained.

The size and membership of the classes is of interest for a number of reasons, particularly the age and clan mix. Among the twelve male classes two had two pupils, seven three pupils, and three had four pupils. Only one class comprised all pupils from the same clan (the first class, all from Big River) and all others had pupils from at least two or sometimes three clans. In regard to ages all six

Aboriginal teachers were under eighteen years of age while only two pupils were in the same age cohort. Fourteen were identified as being in their twenties,

fourteen in their thirties, and seven in their forties. The widest age difference was

114 _{Plomley, 1987, p. 691.}

115 _{Ibid., p. 450. Later that year Walsh made a report and reiterated this recommendation, ML}

Robinson Papers, A7066 CY551, p. 149.

116 _{Plomley, 1987, p. 688.}

thirteen-year-old Maiki teaching thirty-year-old Makeaduru, forty-seven-year-old Moultehelargine, and forty-six-year-old Penermeroick.118

There were only three female classes: Mrs Dickenson’s with eleven pupils, Mrs Clark’s with twelve and Mary Ann’s with four. 119 _{Five pupils were under} twenty-six with twelve men in the same cohort; eighteen were between twenty- seven and forty with twenty men in the same cohort; and two between forty-five and fifty with four men in the same cohort. It is difficult to know how these demographic mixes and gender separation affected the learning but it is worth noting it as an element of the context. There was real potential for gender

differentiation in the interpretations of the Christian faith. Further examination of Aboriginal women’s interpretations will be a significant challenge due to the scarcity of sources.

Monthly examinations were also held in June120 where Clark reported that the students had generally not improved.121 _{So while Robinson had introduced} monetary rewards for school participation it did not have any immediate impact on their adherence to the set catechetical answers. It is noticeable that Robinson made no mention of the first language, or pidgin, addresses in his report to the Governor of 24th June 1837. Instead he maintained the façade of compliance among the Aboriginal people. The picture he gave the Governor was that religious and other instruction of the natives were conducted in the English language and ‘many speak it fluently and with a perfectly English idiom’.122

Robinson intensified his efforts on English language learning. In August he further separated Walter Arthur and Thomas Bruny from their cohort of young

118 _{ML Robinson Papers, A7044 CY548, pp. 266 – 307.} 119 _{Ibid., pp. 293 – 307.}

120 _{Plomley, 1987, p. 448.} 121 _{Ibid., p. 695.}

Aboriginal teachers. At a special meeting of the School Committee he annulled the rule for appointing Aboriginal boys as teachers, except for Thomas and Walter. He then appointed two of his own sons, George and Charles, as teachers and downgraded the other Aboriginal youths to ‘monitors’, assistants to the teachers.123 The attendance at the August examinations remained relatively high with eighty-nine students, forty-four males and forty-five females participating.124 Robinson’s English-only faith appeared to be in the ascendancy.