Bushwalk Australia

This appeared in the local news sheet and thought some may wish to lend their support. I thought of placing it in the Victorian section however it really pertains to all how have visited or have an interest. You will need to contact Ian Stappleton for more information on how to get your hands on a copy. Not sure if he is up to speed with creating an E petition. Many place names have been hijacked over the years by people with influence.

There is already a Mt Jack further up the kiewa valley between yackandandah and dederang. I'm not sure that having two Mt Jacks in NE Victoria is a particularly fine idea.

Having two Mt Jacks near each other is something that the Geographic place names advisory panel will consider. While unfamiliar with the renameing process, I'm tending towards history having more sway than signatures. Cope will still have a hut, saddle, creek and more named after him. If part of The Bluff can be renamed Mt Eadley Stoney then renaming Cope is possible.

Mt John?

puredingo wrote:Mt John?

Mt Jack Wells? But then for consistency, Mt Jim would have to become Mt Jim Brown.

slparker wrote:There is already a Mt Jack further up the kiewa valley between yackandandah and dederang. I'm not sure that having two Mt Jacks in NE Victoria is a particularly fine idea.

Could that be the reason why there was a name change from Mt Jack to Mt Cope?

MickyB wrote:

slparker wrote:There is already a Mt Jack further up the kiewa valley between yackandandah and dederang. I'm not sure that having two Mt Jacks in NE Victoria is a particularly fine idea.

Could that be the reason why there was a name change from Mt Jack to Mt Cope?

Possible. Also, there would be limited scope for new names in the vallies, and more people would object to renaming. One smallish distant peak will not connect with most people, and by the time it was renamed it might well be too late. This is what happened with Mt Eadley Stoney. Finally, naming the mountain Cope gave rise to a handful of other Cope features, something probably not possible near Beechworth.

The main point is that the mountain had a name, and this was changed. Now it may be changed back.

It's a tad ironic that bushwalkers and conservationists are tending to side with the cattlemen, but it fits, at least with my views. I've long held that cattle (and feral animals and plants for that matter) are no good for national parks. I've also held that the cattlemen made significant contribution to alps, and that this should be recognised.

Lophophaps wrote:

MickyB wrote:

slparker wrote:There is already a Mt Jack further up the kiewa valley between yackandandah and dederang. I'm not sure that having two Mt Jacks in NE Victoria is a particularly fine idea.

Could that be the reason why there was a name change from Mt Jack to Mt Cope?

Possible. Also, there would be limited scope for new names in the vallies, and more people would object to renaming. One smallish distant peak will not connect with most people, and by the time it was renamed it might well be too late. This is what happened with Mt Eadley Stoney. Finally, naming the mountain Cope gave rise to a handful of other Cope features, something probably not possible near Beechworth.

The main point is that the mountain had a name, and this was changed. Now it may be changed back.

It's a tad ironic that bushwalkers and conservationists are tending to side with the cattlemen, but it fits, at least with my views. I've long held that cattle (and feral animals and plants for that matter) are no good for national parks. I've also held that the cattlemen made significant contribution to alps, and that this should be recognised.

if it is to be changed i would rather support a suitable indigenous name. without getting all black armband and PC about it, the reason that Jim and Jack could run their cattle up there was because the indigenous people were moved off with violence. I'm all for celebrating history but it goes back further than a melbourne judge and some cattlemen. It would also have more congruence with the wider region - which is the Bogong High plains; not the Stockman's High Plains.

Edit: Jack Wells already has a feature named for (by) him : Jim and Jack creek at Cobungra Station - named for Jim Brown and jack Wells. Apparently, they also named J. B. Plain (Jim Brown), Mount Jim, Mount Blowhard, Sugarmat, Mount Niggerhead, Mount Feathertop, Mount Fainter, Flour Bag Plain and Horse Hair Plain. It's safe to state that there's plenty of stockman's representation in the naming of features on the Bogong high plains and environs.

Edit2: it appears there is another Mt Jack near orbost as well... which would make Mt Cope a third Mt jack should it be changed....

slparker wrote:There is already a Mt Jack further up the kiewa valley between yackandandah and dederang. I'm not sure that having two Mt Jacks in NE Victoria is a particularly fine idea.

There are two Mt Miserys in Victoria, as well as two Mt Despairs, and at least three Spion Kopjes - two of which are in the ANP. An extra Jack isn't going to hurt anyone. They could just officially swap the names of the current Jack and Cope, so Jack is back where he belongs.

north-north-west wrote:

slparker wrote:There is already a Mt Jack further up the kiewa valley between yackandandah and dederang. I'm not sure that having two Mt Jacks in NE Victoria is a particularly fine idea.

There are two Mt Miserys in Victoria, as well as two Mt Despairs, and at least three Spion Kopjes - two of which are in the ANP. An extra Jack isn't going to hurt anyone. They could just officially swap the names of the current Jack and Cope, so Jack is back where he belongs.

Swap - what good idea. This could work, and should be submitted to the Geographic place names advisory panel for consideration.

There are also two Mt Eccles in Victoria, one in the southwest and one in Gippsland. Which makes it even more pertinent to have a look at this:

http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/685304/Fact-Sheet_Budj-Bim.pdf

Lophophaps wrote:

north-north-west wrote:

slparker wrote:There is already a Mt Jack further up the kiewa valley between yackandandah and dederang. I'm not sure that having two Mt Jacks in NE Victoria is a particularly fine idea.

There are two Mt Miserys in Victoria, as well as two Mt Despairs, and at least three Spion Kopjes - two of which are in the ANP. An extra Jack isn't going to hurt anyone. They could just officially swap the names of the current Jack and Cope, so Jack is back where he belongs.

Swap - what good idea. This could work, and should be submitted to the Geographic place names advisory panel for consideration.

I take it that this is satire.

You don't think that changing the name of a prominent land feature in a regional, well populated area so that a feature in a non- populated area can be changed is a good idea and will not be objected to?
The population of he Kiewa and yackandandah valleys might have something to say about it, if it ever got through the nomenclature board consideration process.

I see the misty eyed romanticism of restoring the toponym of this feature but I fail to see why it is of such importance that it would be privileged over other features of local significance or, in 2016, we ought not see this for what it is: privileging colonial farmers over the indigenous people.

Given that jack and jim's farming endeavours were contemporaneous with aboriginal dispossession it seems insensitive to celebrate it. In fact why are they celebrated at all?
What makes jack wells activities in the region so significant that we ought to change one, or two, land features to celebrate it? He ran cattle over country already burnt clear by the owners? He named features already named by the owners? He walked tracks already made by the owners? He exploited economically the country granted to him by a bureaucratic functionary? What right did he have over this land?
These are the questions that those advocating this change will need to satisfy for the nomenclature board to consider a change and these are the objections that the public might raise. There are two indigenous land councils with interests in this area who would be strongly advocating for an indigenous name. They are descendants of the indigenous people dispossessed of this land and could potentially demonstrate native title.
If any name has primacy over this feature it is not jack wells', as the naming board would be aware as it is 2016, not 1950.

slparker wrote:I see the misty eyed romanticism of restoring the toponym of this feature but I fail to see why it is of such importance that it would be privileged over other features of local significance or, in 2016, we ought not see this for what it is: privileging colonial farmers over the indigenous people.

Given that jack and jim's farming endeavours were contemporaneous with aboriginal dispossession it seems insensitive to celebrate it. In fact why are they celebrated at all?

Being consistent with your view I hope you choose not to avail yourself of the hospitality, comfort and safe haven now afforded to many who walk the High Country, which is attributed to the heritage of those who scourged the land and have now been kicked off (I refrain from using the term dispossessed deliberately and am most happy they are now gone), leaving such huts to our pleasure, we having done nothing to deserve the protection they offer. Many of the tracks and trails we walk today are vestiges of early European settlement and they too should be avoided. There is considerable room in this country to celebrate cultural diversification and still be sensitive to the indigenous past. I would argue Victoria has made a significant contribution to reflect indigenous place names and this was done by the early settlers without the need to be forced by any authority or government. An indigenous name was sought and not found.

That misrepresents what I wrote. I asked why we ought to rename Mt cope to Mt jack when the jack in question has no qualities worth celebrating, so far as I can discern. I assume the opposite- that he, and his ilk, were the first on the scene to exploit the land prepared well for cattle (inadvertently) by the owners. Their motives were mercenary.
Moreover, as their grazing was contemporaneous with aboriginal dispossession, I conclude that it's likely that the managers and workers of cobungra station are likely to have been involved with direct violence against aboriginal people at this frontier.
I have no evidence of this but if it did not occur is likely to be the only frontier in colonial Australia where it did not.

I have reservations in 2016 in reviving colonial toponymy. It is my opinion that it is naive to assume justified, beneficial intent and actions in the first settlers anywhere in Australia.

That later settlers built huts that are useful today is a different argument. That colonials built roads is also a different argument. Happy to argue those points bur they are tangential to the topic of renaming of Mt cope to Mt jack.

slparker wrote:That misrepresents what I wrote. I asked why we ought to rename Mt cope to Mt jack when the jack in question has no qualities worth celebrating, so far as I can discern.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion on that assuming it is one founded in some sort of knowledge of the individual. Conversely others can have a differing view.

slparker wrote: I assume the opposite- that he, and his ilk, were the first on the scene to exploit the land prepared well for cattle (inadvertently) by the owners. Their motives were mercenary.
Moreover, as their grazing was contemporaneous with aboriginal dispossession, I conclude that it's likely that the managers and workers of cobungra station are likely to have been involved with direct violence against aboriginal people at this frontier.
I have no evidence of this but if it did not occur is likely to be the only frontier in colonial Australia where it did not.

This seems to be an opinion based on nothing more than speculation and assumption. Jack and Jim worked closely with the local tribe and I am led to believe got on quite well. They had a local guide with them. There is no evidence to say they mistreated any indigenous people and your assertion should be withdrawn without evidence of fact. Slighting someones name now does not go well toward your argument. Aboriginal place names reflected something important about a place. This place seems to have no importance to them so I cannot see giving an indigenous name will matter to them. Changing it back to the original name given is question at hand. Support the change or don't. Or start your own movement to name it something you prefer.

Xplora wrote:

slparker wrote:That misrepresents what I wrote. I asked why we ought to rename Mt cope to Mt jack when the jack in question has no qualities worth celebrating, so far as I can discern.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion on that assuming it is one founded in some sort of knowledge of the individual. Conversely others can have a differing view.

Well you propose naming a mountain after some bloke- you convince me what qualities he has to deserve such an honour.

slparker wrote: I assume the opposite- that he, and his ilk, were the first on the scene to exploit the land prepared well for cattle (inadvertently) by the owners. Their motives were mercenary.
Moreover, as their grazing was contemporaneous with aboriginal dispossession, I conclude that it's likely that the managers and workers of cobungra station are likely to have been involved with direct violence against aboriginal people at this frontier.
I have no evidence of this but if it did not occur is likely to be the only frontier in colonial Australia where it did not.

This seems to be an opinion based on nothing more than speculation and assumption. Jack and Jim worked closely with the local tribe and I am led to believe got on quite well. They had a local guide with them. There is no evidence to say they mistreated any indigenous people and your assertion should be withdrawn without evidence of fact. Slighting someones name now does not go well toward your argument. Aboriginal place names reflected something important about a place. This place seems to have no importance to them so I cannot see giving an indigenous name will matter to them. Changing it back to the original name given is question at hand. Support the change or don't. Or start your own movement to name it something you prefer.

you are naive to infer from the historical record that because these two stockmen employed a local guide that they were amicable. The region has documented instances of settler aboriginal violence. The aboriginal people were severely depleted at this time.
It is speculation that the settlers on cobungra station were involved in this violence, yabsolutely, Its an inference based upon statistical likelihood. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and It is no smear to question whether any settler on the frontier was involved in violence against aboriginal people, it is a frank inference from the historical record.

It is plausible that they had friendly relations but it was less common than the reverse. What do you think the settlers on the frontier did when the local aboriginal clans wanted their land back?
Given what we don't know is as uncertain as what we do know I maintain that is wrong to celebrate Jack Wells just because he was the first white person in the region.

The mythologising of frontier settlement without recognition of the destructive aspects is not just wrong historically but plays further into the mythos of the 'pioneer' when we know that, in general, the first pioneers on the frontier were most often murderous, rapacious opportunists.
Don't believe me? Read some colonial history by contemporary historians.

Moreover, the cynic in me would say that this is a frankly political move by the MCA to further their own ends. Perpetuating this myth eulogises the 'cattleman pioneer', keeps the myth in the public consciousness and furthers the aims of the MCA. The aims of the MCA include the economic exploitation of the national park - with all the well documented environmental consequences.

Oh, yes I do enjoy staying at the odd high country hut located, as they were, on camping grounds already used by aboriginal people led to by roads already established in the high country by aboriginal people. Tawonga huts, the last ones I visited before winter, are on an established aboriginal road past the Fainters. Also, Most of the huts were built in the 20th century and were built by stockmen, for stockmen and are a far cry from, for example, the bush walker's hut built by Deny King in SW Tasmania. Built by a miner for bush walkers.

Forgive my cynicism but I just don't buy the stale old myths anymore. I admire the bush culture, knowledge and fortitude of those that farmed the alpine areas but that does not extend into ignoring our earlier history of frontier violence and nor will I participate in the lionisation of a historical figure who has no clear right to be iconised by toponym.



And don't worry, I will oppose this move if it gets to the public submission process.

My comment about a swap idea was intended as a joke. The mountain was called Mt Jack, and was renamed Mt Cope, with dubious connections. The proposal is to have the name as it once was, not that complicated. All submissions on the matter will hopefully be considered. If I was assessing the matter I'd be interested in facts.

I'm reliably advised that there's no record of an Aboriginal name. I'm unaware of any formal connection by the proponents to the Mountain Cattleman's Association. However, there are descendants who, unsurprisingly, agree with the proposal. The destructive aspects of white settlement will not be forgotten. Making the name as it once was seems to me to have limited connection to how Aboriginals were treated 150 years ago. Might not the acceptance of a white name by the Aboriginal community be taken as a sign of reconciliation about those dark days? Something like this worked in post-apartheid South Africa.

There was limited or no land ownership by Aboriginals. Tribes had areas where they were predominate, but that's all. One reason for disagreement between settlers and Aboriginals is that the latter took animals belonging to the former, who saw this as a crime. Aboriginals objected to land they used for hunting, gathering and spiritual connection being made unavailable. Settlers could not comprehend this, a clash of cultures.

slparker wrote:if it is to be changed i would rather support a suitable indigenous name. without getting all black armband and PC about it, the reason that Jim and Jack could run their cattle up there was because the indigenous people were moved off with violence.

it appears it is too late for that. You have shown your armband. There is no need to turn this into a debate about race. I acknowledge the terrible things done to aboriginals in the past but this is simply informing people of a petition to change the name of mound of dirt back to the original name. Why are you so upset. You have no evidence Jack did anything wrong. Don't support the petition but please come up with something more than you have as a good reason. What reason do you have to keep the name Cope? Was he more deserving of the name? Rest assured those behind this petition have nothing to do with the Mountain Cattleman's association and have more of a connection with the BHP than most.

Hi xplora,
I'm not particularly upset. It's just my opinion that is a thoughtless idea.
I don't think renaming a mountain is a trivial thing. That there are more Mt jacks in vic makes it somewhat ludicrous.
My own bias is clearly that nomenclature ought to be significant and have contemporary resonance, as well as historical significance.
I simply cannot find any reason to think that jack wells is a figure worth naming a mountain after and, given the context of the historical period in which he lived, it is my opinion that it's sends the same old message about our colonial past.
In 2016 I believe we ought to reconsider the hegemony of colonialism, reconciliation and all that.
I'd never thought of myself as a conservative but I'd prefer to keep Mt Cope as Mt Cope rather than Mt Jack. Cope was not an insignificant regional figure, particularly his pro bono defence of the Eureka miners.
http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/cope-th ... encer-3258

slparker - I do respect your views and you are right to say changing the name of a mountain is not a trivial thing. All views should be considered. Even the name change of the other nearby mountain brought its own controversy which is still unresolved. Thank you for your contributions.

slparker wrote:My own bias is clearly that nomenclature ought to be significant and have contemporary resonance, as well as historical significance.

I'm not at all sure that bias is the right word. Instead of "bias" I would say "view". The aspects cited above to consider when changing a name sum this up very well. Should Cope be kept as the name? What did he do? Ask if Jack deserves to have his mountain name back. Should there be an Aboriginal name? There will hopefully be more details so that all involved can form views based on facts. Certainly there will be emotion - many feel connected to the mountains, including MCA, Aboriginals, conservationists and bushwalkers. We must listen to each other with open minds and being prepared to change one's view. My views on this issue change as more details come to light. It's very pleasing that people care about the mountains to be involved in matters like this, feral horses, feral plants, the proposed Falls Creek to Hotham track, Tarkine, Thre Capes, and many others. We've come a long way since Lake Pedder.

Lophophaps wrote:I'm reliably advised that there's no record of an Aboriginal name.

There is no record but there are descendants of the dhudharoa and yaithmatung who might like there two bob's worth.

Lophophaps wrote:I'm unaware of any formal connection by the proponents to the Mountain Cattleman's Association.

the petitioner has written books for the MCA.

Lophophaps wrote:Might not the acceptance of a white name by the Aboriginal community be taken as a sign of reconciliation about those dark days? Something like this worked in post-apartheid South Africa.

The local indigenous people (yes they're still here - I work with a dhudharoa woman) might have something to say about the prospect of naming a mountain after a settler who was present at the time of their ancestor's dispossession of that very land versus the prospect of an indigenous name or keeping it how it is. I doubt if they would see it as reconciliation but i'm sure they will have their say.

Lophophaps wrote:There was limited or no land ownership by Aboriginals. Tribes had areas where they were predominate, but that's all. One reason for disagreement between settlers and Aboriginals is that the latter took animals belonging to the former, who saw this as a crime. Aboriginals objected to land they used for hunting, gathering and spiritual connection being made unavailable. Settlers could not comprehend this, a clash of cultures.

I don't agree with the former but agree with your latter statement.
The indigenous connection to land was not defined by them as we would describe property rights but it would be a very literal reading of the matter that stated that they did not regard the land as theirs. When squatters arrived they ultimately resisted the occupation of the land with violence. in the first meetings they would often attempt to accommodate the interlopers into their country but as access to hunting grounds and trespass onto sacred areas was effected without due regard to protocol or reciprocity violence would ensue. Typically violence was also provoked by abduction of women, due to the lack of women on the frontier. It is true that access to women and land was sometimes bartered for. it is also true that not all squatters were violent, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

From a legal perspective, the Mabo case established that the indigenous people did not relinquish their rights to the land during colonisation. They still own the land - i thought everyone knew that in 2016? Mind you they have to establish this by native title application: see yorta yorta v vic government.

The concept that settlers had primacy, legally or otherwise, over the land on which they squatted has long been abolished.

Anyway, just a different perspective on this issue.

slparker wrote:There is no record but there are descendants of the dhudharoa and yaithmatung who might like there two bob's worth.

Are you certain they have not been consulted?

slparker wrote:the petitioner has written books for the MCA.

Honest question - which books are these? Were the books written for the MCA or about mountain cattleman as a matter of history?

slparker wrote:The local indigenous people (yes they're still here - I work with a dhudharoa woman) might have something to say about the prospect of naming a mountain after a settler who was present at the time of their ancestor's dispossession of that very land versus the prospect of an indigenous name or keeping it how it is. I doubt if they would see it as reconciliation but i'm sure they will have their say.

We should change many other names as well including Mt Jim?.

slparker wrote: It is true that access to women and land was sometimes bartered for. it is also true that not all squatters were violent, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

I found a map prepared by an aboriginal council which shows the massacres of aboriginal people in Victoria and the High Country does not rate a mention.
It is well regarded that Jack and Jim were the first European's to explore the Bogong High Plains and much of this was done before they introduced cattle. If they had been surveyors or geologists would they deserve more recognition? What makes the efforts of Jack and Jim less deserving than other explorers? What makes this particular magistrate Cope more deserving? What gives a magistrate the right to change the name of a feature already named? I have read one account that he changed the name himself. Possibly he felt a previous magistrate, Alfred Wills, had a mountain named after himself in the same area and wanted equal recognition. Perhaps we should change the name of Mt. Howitt. He too was a stockman early in his exploring life and strangely enough ended up a magistrate around Omeo after Alfred Wills. Righting an historical wrong is not always about aboriginal reconciliation and there is not need to make it so in this instance. If it were of significance then I would support it. Your argument so far attributes guilt to a man simply by the association of his profession.

Xplora wrote:

slparker wrote:There is no record but there are descendants of the dhudharoa and yaithmatung who might like there two bob's worth.

Are you certain they have not been consulted?.

No. But, if not, they will during the process.

Xplora wrote:Honest question - which books are these? Were the books written for the MCA or about mountain cattleman as a matter of history?.

I don't have them but if you look up Ian Stapleton he has a close relationship with the MCA (which he admits in the the article in the Myrtleford paper). But that's not the point, the point (as i made earlier) is that this perpetuates the pioneer cattleman mythos. This keeps the MCA in the public eye and from a political perspective I am against that.

Xplora wrote:We should change many other names as well including Mt Jim?.

That's not the point at issue. The point at issue is whether we ought to rename Mt Cope to Mt Jack. I am happy to debate the appropriateness of nomenclature of other toponyms in NE Victoria, truly I am, but the issue is the renaming of Cope to Jack.

Xplora wrote:I found a map prepared by an aboriginal council which shows the massacres of aboriginal people in Victoria and the High Country does not rate a mention.
It is well regarded that Jack and Jim were the first European's to explore the Bogong High Plains and much of this was done before they introduced cattle. If they had been surveyors or geologists would they deserve more recognition? What makes the efforts of Jack and Jim less deserving than other explorers? What makes this particular magistrate Cope more deserving? What gives a magistrate the right to change the name of a feature already named? I have read one account that he changed the name himself. Possibly he felt a previous magistrate, Alfred Wills, had a mountain named after himself in the same area and wanted equal recognition. Perhaps we should change the name of Mt. Howitt. He too was a stockman early in his exploring life and strangely enough ended up a magistrate around Omeo after Alfred Wills. Righting an historical wrong is not always about aboriginal reconciliation and there is not need to make it so in this instance. If it were of significance then I would support it. Your argument so far attributes guilt to a man simply by the association of his profession.

[/quote]

The aboriginal people were nomadic. The nation that roamed over the high country also dwelt in the valleys throughout NE Victoria. I am not stating that the deaths occurred at or around Mt Cope; I am stating that frontier violence occurred where europeans came into contact with aboriginal people - in the hunting grounds which correlate with the same areas were stock were managed and people settled. These were contemporaneous with the activities at Cobungra station. It's not about whether there is evidence that there is frontier violence at Cobungra or documented to be committed by Jack Wels; the issue is that there is a high index of suspicion because of the general level of violence in colonial Australia at the frontier. The message it sends is of the same old privileging of invading colonials. It is not appropriate to lionise people in this period of history at the frontier unless we know for certain that they are lily-white.

There were massacres in the Ovens valley and both the cobungra area and the high plains are likely to have had conflict as did the rest of Australia where most aboriginal deaths were unrecorded. Again, only a reading of colonial history would tell you this because, not surprisingly, those with a vested interest in perpetuating settler myths won't mention it. is this guilt by association? You betcha. But the point is that I am not asserting that jack Wells was a killer, I am asserting that he was in an area and in a profession where we know that there was a fair level of violence against aboriginal people and this association is sufficient to be wary about celebrating the man.

That wills, cope, jim, howitt etc had featuures named after them does not mean that Jack should have a mountain named after him. It is 2016 not 1840 - the principles of nomenclature are different now then in colonial times. We wouldn't name Mt everest 'everest' now, we wouldn't call Uluru 'ayaer's rock;' now and we wouldn't call the murray river that if it was to be named now.

This petition is really begging the question and the question should be: 'what ought this mountain be named' not 'this mountain ought to be named Jack'

Again what makes Jack Wells deserving of a mountain being named after him, when there may be other more suitable names - even the existing one.

The petition sounds very lovely, romantic and with a misty eyed folksiness that is very appealing but if you scratch the surface of australian history you see a festering sore that the people behind this petition can't see or won't admit. I see little to celebrate in Jack Wells or the frontier history of NE Victoria. Unless you are privy to information that he was a moral saint I have grave reservations about celebrating him.

Now that's my opinion but I haven't declared it lightly. I have researched colonial history to the point where I am certain that my reservations have basis in reason, as conjectural as it is. It's time we moved past celebrating every little thing about our colonial past especially at the frontier. I get it that you support the petition, good luck with it, but don't be surprised if people object to it. It's not a slight on Jack Wells, Ian Stapleton, xplora or anyone who supports it.

its about moving on from what was a time of horror that 3% of the population are still living with and in 2016, when we are preparing for reconciliation, i believe that it is totally misguided.

I have said all i need to say on the matter, I believe, - if you don't like hearing it, fair enough but you posted it in a public space and there is nothing that I have written that I would not say to the MCA, Ian stapleton or the Wells family in a public forum.

“Reconciliation,” he scoffed. “Reconciliation is a myth. The only reconciliation I believe in happens one on one. That’s what we’re doing now.” He gestured to the table, hands opening gracefully, conductor to orchestra.

“Which is?”

“Speaking to each other on a level. One on one. And this – me and you, sitting together at a table – this is very symbolic. Isn’t it?”

An extract from The Terrible Truth by Cal Flyn. The quotes are attributed to Ricky Mullett of the Kurnai people who have claim in the area mentioned and have been consulted. I consider you wrong that the question is not about renaming the mountain Jack. It is not renaming a mountain if the mountain was in fact named Jack. It is about taking away an unlawful name and restoring the original. It is not about reconciliation, MCA or guilt by association. Jack Wells was an explorer of the Bogong High Plains and deserves his place in history as much as any other explorer. He did not deserve to have it stolen by a privileged Judge who was appointed in charge of the Court of Mines in Beechworth. The earliest map I can find with Mt. Cope on it was produced in 1877 and authorised by Thomas Couchman, the secretary of Mines. Can you see a connection?

Xplora wrote:“Reconciliation,” he scoffed. “Reconciliation is a myth. The only reconciliation I believe in happens one on one. That’s what we’re doing now.” He gestured to the table, hands opening gracefully, conductor to orchestra.

“Which is?”

“Speaking to each other on a level. One on one. And this – me and you, sitting together at a table – this is very symbolic. Isn’t it?”

An extract from The Terrible Truth by Cal Flyn. The quotes are attributed to Ricky Mullett of the Kurnai people who have claim in the area mentioned and have been consulted. I consider you wrong that the question is not about renaming the mountain Jack. It is not renaming a mountain if the mountain was in fact named Jack. It is about taking away an unlawful name and restoring the original. It is not about reconciliation, MCA or guilt by association. Jack Wells was an explorer of the Bogong High Plains and deserves his place in history as much as any other explorer. He did not deserve to have it stolen by a privileged Judge who was appointed in charge of the Court of Mines in Beechworth. The earliest map I can find with Mt. Cope on it was produced in 1877 and authorised by Thomas Couchman, the secretary of Mines. Can you see a connection?

according to the 2010 Native Title Claim submitted by the Kurnai/Gunai People v State of Victoria Kurnai land ends at Dinner plain. North of dinner plain, where Mt Cope sits, is not Kurnai country.

http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/home/your ... +agreement

but, since you mention the kurnai - these very same people who are the traditional landowners of, and who had lived around, cobungra station - the home of Jack Wells:



Henry Meyrick in a letter to his mother dated 30 April 1846, confirmed Black's comments. He noted that ‘The blacks are very quiet here now, poor wretches. No wild beast of the forest was ever hunted down with such unsparing perseverance as they are. Men, women and children are shot whenever they can be met with … I have protested against it at every station I have been in Gippsland, in the strongest language, but these things are kept very secret as the penalty would certainly be hanging … For myself, if I caught a black actually killing my sheep, I would shoot him with as little remorse as I would a wild dog, but no consideration on earth would induce me to ride into a camp and fire on them indiscriminately, as is the custom whenever the smoke is seen. They [the Aborigines] will very shortly be extinct. It is impossible to say how many have been shot, but I am convinced that not less than 450 have been murdered altogether’.
Men, women, and children were shot wherever they were met with. Despite the fact that these things were kept secret, he had protested in the strongest language at every station he had visited in Gippsland. He was proud that he had never participated in any atrocities, but as he was powerless to prevent them, had decided to remain aloof and know and say nothing.

and this contemporary letter in victoria;

'The best way [to procure a run] is to go outside and take up a new run, provided the conscience of the party is sufficiently seared to enable him without remorse to slaughter natives right and left. It is universally and distinctly understood that the chances are very small indeed of a person taking up a new run being able to maintain possession of his place and property without having recourse to such means — sometimes by wholesale — but I do not think that this is by any means common, and it its only outside that they are ever called upon to act in so brutal a manner, it, however, seems to be little thought of here as it is only done in defense of self or property … I believe, however, that great numbers of the poor creatures have wantonly fallen victims to settlers scarcely less savage though more enlightened than themselves, and that two thirds of them does not care a single straw about taking the life of a native, provided they are not taken up by the Protectors.'

http://www3.slv.vic.gov.au/latrobejourn ... -g-t7.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gippsland_massacres

This was the prevailing tone of settler/aboriginal relations on the victorian frontier in the 1840s. yes it is possible that jack Wells was an innocent in these violent times. But the point is that celebrating squatters or stockmen might well be insensitive, at best, an error of attribution, at worst. I think that a critical view ought to be placed on the renaming of Mt Cope.

I have no reason to think that Jack Wells is deserving of a mountain in Victoria being named for him. I won't be signing the petition and will advocate against the renaming if it is presented to the board for the reasons that I have outlined at length.




'

How about calling it "Mt. Politically Correct" ? a.k.a Mt. P.C.

paidal_chalne_vala wrote:How about calling it "Mt. Politically Correct" ? a.k.a Mt. P.C.

The board doesn't like acronyms, how about Mt Denial?

Denial is a river in Egypt!.

paidal_chalne_vala wrote:Denial is a river in Egypt!.

And in Tasmania.....