Why I don't have public social media profiles anymore

 Perhaps this headline is inaccurate. I do have one public social media account - an instagram that I barely use. I had intended on populating it, but the longer it has existed, and the more Instagram pesters me via notifications regarding their features, the less likely I have become to actually use it. I don't see this changing.

It goes like this: I used to have public Facebook, and microblogging via Twitter. I don't now. This has led to many folks trying to access my personal Facebook and Instagram accounts with little luck. In a more innocent time, I may have accepted their friend requests, but nowadays, not so much. It's nothing against them, it's more the desire for peace and sanctuary.

For me, deleting my Twitter account came to a head nearly three years ago. I was on holiday, for the first time in ages, and following six lockdowns, and I found myself sitting in the Arctic Circle with the aurora going on over my head, stressing about something playing out on that platform. It was actually making me physically ill - because of my stress, I was being hit by waves of nausea and panic. So I signed out of the account then and there, deleted the app, and never signed in again. 

The person who caused this trigger event was not responsible for me leaving the platform. They were simply an aggrieved person acting out in what was a long list of Twitter events. Twitter lent itself to performative callout culture being mistaken as "taking action". I myself had contributed to that on many occasions. Yet the problem was, during the six lockdowns in Melbourne, it also became a bit of an outside lifeline for me. Isolated from the world, and feeling like I was in an abusive relationship with the state government, I (like many others) turned to the platforms to maintain connection. This connection was often superficial, and the longer it went on, the less it did to stop my descent into deep depression such as I had not experienced for fifteen years. I was not in a good spot at all, but it took for me to be somewhere else trying to enjoy life to finally realise this and take action. 

There's an additional part to this. At roughly the same time, I became a political candidate. What's more, despite my having little chance of winning in the safe seat I ran in as an actual local, I was targeted by a bunch of hacks who were seemingly unaware of their latent racism. As such, my public social media spaces became a place where my words were twisted for memes, and my mental health was of no great importance to those looking to score points in their peanut gallery. What started as an action to promote democracy in my local area turned into a time period where suicide ideation became a reality. What's more, I was completely unequipped to deal with my own mental health issues, so they consumed me, and those close to me. When the election was finally over, and I had the opportunity to resume a private life, I took it.

Social media was responsible for me having a side gig as a commentator in the first place, but it is not going to be a part of my future. The longer I was on it, and the more I saw those of us who are not white cis men being targeted for being uppity enough to take back some space, the more futile I felt it was. My words have the same right to be out there without personal harassment as the words of those white dudes, existing in the spaces to be considered by the readers. I, and any other commentator from a similarly marginalised perspective, should not have to put up with the shit we do for simply existing.

So yes, I will not be returning to public social media any time soon, though I continue to write, and commentate. I will leave that for those who still have the will for it and get something out of it. For those still interested in what I have to say, check out my Linktree for updated article listings. Also, keep an eye out - ideas are brewing and all this family history research I have been doing potentially serves another purpose. 

Peace, and for those still holding on in those toxic online spaces, I salute you. You are made from tougher stuff than I.

The Marigold - family history series

 Today, I believe I solved a mystery that was 150 years old. It's one that I have referred to before - my maternal grandmother's lines and how, while her paternal line just unfolded before me with ease and I watched as I became the descendant of a brown dude who was a revolutionary, her maternal line just brickwalled.

I am no closer when it comes to her maternal grandfather, John McVeigh. I still believe I am in the ballpark with my idea that we have some misspelt surnames there, and potentially a couple of convicts, but I cannot be sure.

Eliza Louisa Hibbert though, I am now reasonably certain I have solved. For fans of Downton Abbey, it's a "Marigold" story. And probably one that, if I wasn't so stubborn while also driven by accuracy, I may not have solved.

Eliza was my first clue that, when encountering relations on Ancestry, you need to question everything. If things don't fit, people will shoehorn stuff in, mainly in the hope they can construct their family trees. 

Eliza was very shoehorned, but I guess it was understandable why she was. According to her marriage and death certificates, her parents were Joseph Hibbert and Eliza Sarah Kipps. They had a number of children, including a daughter named "Louisa Elizabeth", and Eliza Sarah actually gave birth to her final child when she was 47 (terrifying thought to me at 47 right now!). People had misidentified Louisa as Eliza Louisa yet when it came to the records, it didn't fit. This woman was 9 years older than Eliza's husband John, yet marriage certificates and cemetery records showed her being seven years younger than him. Further digging showed that Louisa married a man named George Podesta, and that she died in 1912. 

Yet despite what Eliza Louisa's marriage and death certificates stated, no birth certificate existed for her. What's more, she does not appear on her named mother's death certificate. She does appear on her named father's death certificate, but as "Louisa Eliza" and with an illegible age. Had she been born to Eliza Sarah and Joseph, Eliza Sarah would have been 45 - not impossible, particularly considering the one younger brother, but certainly not usual.

                                {segment - Joseph Hibbert death cert}
 

When Eliza Louisa died, it was June 1947 and she was listed as being 74 years old. Her beloved husband John followed her to the grave a mere couple of weeks later. She was fondly remembered by my nanna Lorna as being a warm woman, who was like a mother rather than a grandmother to her because Avis was out making her boots. Nanna actually lived with her grandparents and her mother until she married at 18. Eliza Louisa was a steadying influence in a house of rather strong-willed individuals.

Therefore if she had a birth certificate, it would have indicated that she was born in 1872 or 73. Eliza Sarah did not give birth in that year. She did, however, have two daughters who would have been old enough then to have children - Sarah Avis (18yo), and Louisa Elizabeth (16yo).

Perhaps I should have taken closer notice of Joseph Hibbert's death certificate, because the first clue was there. But then again, I don't know that I would have got it from the listed "Louisa Eliza".

The answer appears to be this: according to the records, on the 10th of August, 1872, Sarah Avis Hibbert gave birth to a daughter named "Louisa Eliza Londriggan" in Panton Hill, Victoria. Her mother, Eliza Sarah, was listed as the witness. The father was a man listed as "Edmond Londriggan", who was a 28 year old brickmaker from Ireland. Allowing for misspellings and so forth, this man does not appear to exist - there are no records for him in Victoria beyond this birth certificate, and I haven't found him on passenger lists for migration, nor cemetery records. He doesn't seem to exist elsewhere in Australia either - I located an "Edmund Longrigan" in a NSW cemetery, but he was too young. Sarah Avis was listed as married to this man, and carrying his surname too, yet no marriage record exists. Victoria was the best record-keeping state in the country. 

When it comes to Sarah Avis' death certificate though (1890), no daughter named Louisa Eliza Londriggan is listed, and nor is a first husband named Edmond. She is, however, shown as having married firstly, a man named William Townsend to whom she had two children (both did not survive infancy), and then secondly, to a man named Robert Moyes to whom she had a son named Francis. On her marriage certificate to Townsend (who was more than twice her age), she was listed as a "spinster", rather than a widow or divorcee, thus making her stated marriage to Londriggan prior unlikely.

I can, therefore, only come to the conclusion that "Louisa Eliza Londriggan" is my second great-grandmother Eliza Louisa Hibbert. Louisa Eliza would have been exactly 74 years old in June 1947 when Eliza Louisa died. I believe Sarah's parents brought up Eliza Louisa as their own, thus hiding Sarah's "illegitimate" child in their already huge brood, and freeing her up to marry at the age of 21 without the stigma or shame society put on unwed mothers at the time. I also believe that in "adopting" Eliza Louisa, they switched her name order around as there was already a daughter named Louisa in the family. Finally, they gave her their surname, and that was the "maiden name" she carried to her grave.

Perhaps if there are living descendants of Francis Moye who test on Ancestry, I will be able to confirm all this. As it stands though, the dates are right, and this explains the absence from both Sarah and Eliza Sarah's death certificates, but the presence on Joseph's. It explains the unfindable "father". It also explains why I do match up genetically with other descendants of Eliza Sarah and Joseph - I am of that flock, but just a further generation along than what our family knew.

I will never know if Eliza Louisa knew any of this. I hope she did, but regardless, if she didn't, I am glad that she still grew up with her family. And she went on to create and nuture a family of her own, to which, I am proud to now know and be a part of.

Around the world with the Wallers

 Since I have returned from the Netherlands, I have been watching back-to-back episodes of Who Do You Think You Are? on SBS's On Demand. It's a rather peculiar thing to do, but has been spurred by watching other people go through their journeys and seeing what it is that I may have missed.

To recap, my holiday to the Netherlands was spurred not only from severe burnout and lingering background depression, but also my discovery that I am the 5th great-granddaughter of Dutch-Burgher revolutionary Pieter Quint Ondaatje. There was definite and defiant joy at finding out that I had such an incredible political figure in the mix there, but also that the "white side" of my family ended up not being terribly white at all. His grandson, James George Waller, who to me is 3rd great-grandfather, is the one who migrated here, and though his own migration trip remains a mystery, his line and parentage is not. Indeed, once I uncovered it, this was the most complete line I had, and it turns out that the one migrant-of-colour I have on my maternal side of the family was the only person who came here who had any money behind him at all. The rest were very working class, and two lines lost everything in the Sacramento shipwreck.

What has struck me watching all these episodes though is while I may have all the documents linking my descent from Quint and Christina Hoovenaar, and while I may have seen a great many places associated with him while in the Netherlands, I am missing two links. I don't know much about their daughter Hermina Wilhelmina, why she stayed in the colonies long enough to meet and marry British ship-builder James Waller, and what her life was link as an educated woman-of-colour sailing the world. I also don't know much about James George Waller, why it was that he chose Australia when he had sisters who went to Canada and Jamaica, and what his life was like. He was a man of colour with means in the early days of Melbourne, and he was clearly adored by his children. He showed progressive values and I am trying to ascertain if he, like four generations before him, was also a member of the Freemasons. Conversely, he also suffered hardship - his wife, Caroline Hodges from Bristol, appears to have died of alcohol-related illness. And I do wonder how his non-white heritage played out for him, particularly in the later part of his life where Australia was actively legislating for an end to non-white migration.

But watching these episodes of others has highlighted the mysteries I still need to solve. As well as the lives of Hermina, then James George, that is. I, for example, need to know what it is that my great-great-grandmother Eliza Louisa Hibbert does not have a birth certificate. I need to know whether I am right about her husband John McVeigh's parents in Sydney, and need to know whether they were convict descent (seems likely - they were Irish descent and not wealthy) or whether I have barked up the wrong tree here. I have, after all, had to run with the assumption that the surname has changed spelling (or was misspelt due to illiterate forbears) in order to find records that match dates and places. Staying with the Irish, I need to know John Henry Robinson's story beyond him being born in Dublin. I have names for parents, but being very common Irish names (John Robinson and Mary Farrell), that doesn't narrow it down. A man that adored by his family cannot have simply appeared from nowhere. The biggest mystery of all though remains on dad's side: did Frank Gillen know he fathered my great-grandmother Mary, and how did he come to do so (beyond the obvious)? How, also, did this influence his research with Baldwin Spencer on the Arrernte? 

Part of me sort of hopes SBS sees me here, and decides they want me on this show so they can unpack some of these stories. Truth is, I have spent a fortune on government records because sloppy research, and shoehorning records on Ancestry, had led to distant relations making mistakes that I had to correct. But I don't have the additional money to dig in the above any further. Particularly given Irish records can be precarious due to their history of colonisation by the English. I cannot help but feel that many co-descendants, due to their whiteness, have stopped at the ethnicity estimates. I don't understand their lack of curiosity with regards to the actual people involved, because the minute you drill down, you work out the ethnicity estimates mean little. But perhaps they were simply looking for validation of their identity, and as someone who has been "othered" my entire life, I did not need that validation. I know who I am.

If people do take on these journeys, my advice is to take everything on Ancestry with a grain of salt. The presence of names and records can be overwhelming, but they are only really as good as the people who have been on the system before you. You need the certificates, and you need the stories. The historical echoes lie in those stories, and not the faulty ethnicity estimates. 

Revisiting a major problem I have with the Buffyverse

 I think I have figured this blog out: it will live again, but it must live in ways that I can enjoy it. Whether it's me ruminating on my family research finds and the socio-political and historical significance of them, or it's me throwing down some random thing about pop culture, or it's a post bagging out the colony - I need to be able to enjoy writing again. And this is going to be a place where I do just this. Hope the two readers I have enjoy it too.

I have been rewatching Buffy and Angel again, and two things have brought this on. The first was the untimely death of Michelle Trachtenberg, who played Dawn Summers. The second was the announcement that a reboot series was on its way, and that it would include Sarah Michelle Gellar, while series originator Joss Whedon would not be included. Whedon being elsewhere is not surprising - in the intervening years, just how problematic the dude was with those he worked with has been documented in a number of places, and I will barely delve into that here. The extent of the complaints are easily findable. My curiousity though of how this show will grow what existed before it led me back to revisiting what actually did happen before. 

Here's a basic - both series have not aged well. I am not terribly surprised. For me, they were more of an enjoyable and female-centric romp rather than the cutting-edge feminism they were often touted as. They broke ground by taking a blonde-bimbo prototype character and instead placing her as the protector of the world, they featured the first prime time lesbian kiss, and at least in Buffy, men were in supporting roles. However, I had problems with certain things back then. For starters, why did almost every dude Buffy have sex with turn evil after the act (except for the boring one we all hated), if he wasn't already evil? What sort of purity self-flagellation was that? And the show is littered with ableist slurs, Buffy is kind of racist at times (assuming Robin Wood was from "the hood", for example), and for some bizarre reason, the only thing that could send Spike on a redemptive path was a rape attempt, even though the bloke had been redeeming somewhat for two seasons prior. Also, what the fuck was Xander, in general?

My biggest problem though always related to Cordelia. I was not surprised when, only a couple of years ago, Charisma Carpenter went public about her experiences being written out of the series, because way back then, her trajectory was just so incredibly problematic. They started with a vapid rich bitch, set about redeeming her over the years so she became a warrior in her own right, then just threw her out. And why? Well, essentially because the woman behind the character had the hide to be pregnant. 

It was truly fucked. Why? Because as a plot device, Cordelia had already managed to be impregnated twice (once in her head), via demons trying to spawn. Her body was up-for-grabs as far as pregnancy went, as long as they could control the narrative. The femaleness of it was exploitable as an incubator of life, provided that life was created in a non-consensual manner, and needed to be destroyed for the good of the world.

And so, when Charisma Carpenter fell pregnant, so it seemed the showrunner set about punishing her for doing so, by turning her own pregnancy into an evil thing, set in motion by a sordid act, that needed to be destroyed for the good of the world. What's more, it appeared to be greatly excused for what it was by the Buffyverse, for some "greater good" that was the maintenance of Whedon's legendary status. As I watched it unfold, it made my skin crawl, and as I found out over the years that my suspicions about Cordelia's arc then exit started to be confirmed via actors speaking out over the years, I was not surprised.

Why couldn't Cordelia have a positive and wanted pregnancy on the show? Why couldn't her pregnancy be written into the storylines in a good way? It wasn't like they didn't have the opportunities to do this. Gruselug, for example, was a half-demon from Pylea who Cordelia started a consensual relationship following his exile from his home dimension. Perhaps instead of exploring some sort of growing romantic connection with Angel, the two of them could have remained in an uncomplicated camraderie while she shacked up with a bloke who, himself, could have had an expanded role fighting the good fight permanently? Or maybe she could have pursued single motherhood, and brought her own child up in this alternate reality of demons and good-doing? Perhaps she could have decided to be a surrogate for the assumed pansexual Lorne? Who knows - they didn't explore a positive vision of pregnancy, then motherhood, for the character.

Instead, they had Cordelia boff a son-like figure in a pity-fuck scenario to fall pregnant. Then the minute she was pregnant, she became evil. Then her child essentially destroyed her as she birthed it, leaving her unable to function beyond that point. Finally, after being in a coma for a while, they brought her back to set Angel on the "right path", only to finally kill her off. It was, in a word, disgusting.

I actually cannot imagine what it must have been like for that actor to have her pregnancy so abused. Carpenter has stated that Whedon was mad with her, that he asked her if she was going to "get rid" of it, and that he called her fat. But I can imagine that as they then set about abusing her character in the storyline, the poor woman had to put on some serious game face just to continue fronting up on set. For a bloke so often celebrated for his "pro-feminist" work, it was all pretty misogynistic work by Whedon. Did Carpenter even get the opportunity to enjoy her pregnancy, and is it any wonder she has also indicated she suffered from post-natal depression?

Rewatching it now, it's making my skin crawl with added ick, cast into relief by both my own ageing process, but also the cast revelations over the years. I can't actually believe, with the power of retrospect, that this was ever considered OK. And I hope, with the reboot, these lessons have been learnt and truly, a new era of the show really does take it to new, actually feminist, places.

Perimenopausal crap.

 I am here to whinge, and am taking a break from my regularly scheduled family history posts to do so. Let's go for some old school feminism, hey?

I have been perimenopausal now for at least three years, however when the clock turned over on 2025, so too did my advancement in this process. I feel like I am going crazy - a couple of years ago, I labelled this entire process "reverse teenagehood", yet had no idea just how accurate this would be the closer I came to my 47th birthday. The thing is though, despite this going on for a few years already, I feel completely unprepared, and I totally believe this shouldn't be the case.

The feeds of my social media accounts are jammed with teas and supplements that apparently alleviate the symptoms of "the change". Yet the only symptom they actually talk about alleviating is hot flushes (flashes, whatever - I will be calling them flushes as I have seen them refer to both). Same sort of thing happened in a work meeting the other day - hand-held fans were suggested as a merch item to highlight reproductive leave. Thing is, I am yet to have a hot flush. I am pretty convinced at this point that they will not feature amongst my symptoms, and though I am deeply curious as to what it might be like to have one related to perimenopause, the only time I have experienced something approximating this was when I was taking Tramadol for my back pain. 

I have noticed too that when we see this process portrayed on screen, hot flushes again end up being the only symptom highlighted. Borgen, for example, had the main character leave a meeting to run her wrists under cold water and change her shirt. There was one scene featuring a "surprise period", but certainly, this didn't disrupt her anywhere near as much. If I were to think about other portrayals over the years, this has been the only constant.

I cannot help but think that the reason why hot flushes are the only thing we ever see addressed in the public sphere is because they are the most sanitised symptom you can portray. It is the symptom that has utterly nothing to do with our "bits". Yes, it is a symptom that does impact about 75% of women going through this reproductive life transition, but 100% of those who menstruate experience menstrual disturbances. Things are a bit more complicated than us simply feeling a bit too hot on occasion.

Why am I writing this now? Well, since the beginning of the year, I have experienced the following:

1. A cycle that lasted 51 days. 
2. Two weeks' worth of spotting.
3. Flooding, and pain that could not be abated by panadeine forte. The flooding actually came on the same day I had my regular check-up with a repro health practitioner so that was rather inconvenient. Every day, I leave the house with a full suite of menstrual products "just in case"
4. Phantom PMT. One of my surefire signs of an incoming period has long been that I will eat everything in the house, then order DoorDash because I am "hungry". This has meant that I am two or three days off starting a cycle. I have still had this symptom in all its glory, but with a "no show" event.
5. Two mini migraines - until late last year, I had not experienced a migraine since my early 40s.
6. Some serious "downs". I find myself pushing away the world, in general, at times. My mood has not been stable, and though there are many factors contributing to that, it is also being exacerbated by the hormonal.
7. Sexual dysfunction. Who knew the body not maintaining that regular series of events could impact that side of things? Well, probably all of us, but again, I cannot think of a portrayal of a woman in her late 40s on-screen that reflects that scenario, even if I have heard women jokingly referring to it all as "men-on-pause".
8. Sleep disturbances. To be fair, I have always struggled with insomnia, but lately, it has reared its head more regularly.
9. Severe inflammatory symptoms, and neuropathy. Some days I wake up, and everything just aches. My body also randomly feels exhausted. The neuropathy in my feet has been a constant for about a year, and though that may have other causes, the timing is deeply suspicious. 
10. Iron deficiency and possibly also Vitamin B deficiency.
11. A feeling of deep excitement and appreciation when I discovered that one of the toilets in at work had a bidet installed in it, and therefore my stress of potentially experiencing a "flood event" at work was alleviated a little.

It's only March.

In some aspects, I have privilege here. I acknowledge, for example, my friends who are parents and have teenage daughters adjusting to their developing bodies at the same time that they are adjusting to theirs. That must actually be hell. I also have the privilege of having a reproductive life that has had clockwork precision, so I therefore can identify these shifts easier than those who have been plagued by irregular periods, PCOS, and so forth. 

But I have NFI what is going on. And nor, it seems, do most other women my age going through this. We're all navigating a series of symptoms that may have all, or nothing, to do with our changing bodies, and even doctor Google is not being much assistance. And to top it off, capitalism has decided I need ads for symptom-relieving tea in my social media feed. Medically, there appears to be not much available except for HRT. Given I never responded well to synthetic hormones such as the Pill, I am unlikely to be gravitating towards that any time soon. There needs to be more out there, but given the male default has greatly framed medical science, and time and time again we are hit with evidence that women's pain is not taken seriously by the profession, I doubt any alternatives will be on the market by the time I am through all this.

On the plus side though, I am at least finding that your average Generation X woman is significantly more likely to whinge openly about all this. The generations before us seemed to suffer more in silence, or if they didn't, they were more likely to be ignored. I am also thankful that reproductive leave is hitting workplace agreements at the same time I am going through this. It does highlight the importance of us to talk openly about the impacts perimenopause has on our working lives to create working conditions that take this into account. 

We also need to change the dialogue, because it is rare that I actually see the word "perimenopause" used. Everything seems to be labelled as "menopause", and this is erasive. A couple of months ago, I wrote as much with the argument that they want us to believe, as women, that the real problem is our loss of fertility and how sad this apparently is. The processes leading up to this, however, are complicated, variable, distressing, and can go on for years, so why is it shelved as far as its importance goes?

Anyway, writing to rant. Hoping this resonates with others. In solidarity. 

The Apology - 17th anniversary

 17th anniversary of the Apology.

I acknowledge my great-uncle whose song about his own experiences as a stolen kid became an anthem for Stolen Gens mob, nationwide - https://youtu.be/v3ytJioxKzI?si=Or-y9Ws6kkjccU7n

I acknowledge my grandmother, whose story as a stolen kid at The Bungalow and Jay Creek was preserved in the Between Two Worlds exhibition - https://territorystories.nt.gov.au/10070/702243

I acknowledge my great-grandmother Alice, who fought hard to keep the connections of family alive by riding her camel hundreds of kms to see her stolen kids - https://alicespringsnews.com.au/.../31/bungalow-days-matter/

I acknowledge my grandfather, his siblings, my dad, uncles and aunties, and their cousins, who were all born under the NT wardship acts and thus had their movements. marriages and dwellings controlled and documented by the state. Not officially "stolen" per se, but the reality is that because they were all wards, there was little real choice people had but to adhere to what the authorities were imposing on them.

Finally though, I acknowledge my great-grandmother Mary, her mother Alethe (Alice, Angelina) and the fact that these two were essentially "ground zero" for studies that became the basis of stolen generation policy due to my now known great-great-grandfather's research work with Baldwin Spencer. Even in 2025, how does one grapple with that legacy? I'd argue that claiming it proudly and uncritically while erasing these two Arrernte women is not the answer - https://blackfeministranter.blogspot.com/.../the-question...

Always remember, so it never happens again.

Learning about colonisation - a long way to go. - Supplementary part to my family tree research

 "You should be thanking your lucky stars that it was the English who colonised you, and not the Dutch/Portuguese/Chinese/insert other group here. You'd all be dead if that were the case".

If I had a dollar... well, let's just say that reparations would no longer be necessary because my dream industrial warehouse convert in the inner north would be fully realised, and I could hire someone who can actually use a stove so I would never have to eat one of my own meals again. Anyway...

All Aboriginal people have heard this claim. Some racist has spat it at us, as a form of defence when we positively assert our identities, in a way of derailing our arguments. It's a lazy way of pointing at some "other", in a classic racist Australian tactic, in a bid to get us to shut up.

As it has turned out though, my family tree research has uncovered that I am the product of two different colonial products. I exist due to the British colonisation of Australia, as well as the Dutch colonisation of Sri Lanka. For all intents and purposes, because my life has been shaped by the former - from racist school yard taunts to becoming involved in the Indigenous sovereignty movement - I am reasonably across how it works to this day. I am the descendant of two people impacted by the wardship policies, three people who were "taken" by welfare due to this, and now, also, anthropologists and the protectorate system. My Arrernte heritage is why I have been othered my entire life, and fighting for pride in this when Australia remains so damn ignorant of its legacy is why I am who I am today. 

But now, I also am a member of the famous Ondaatje family. And as such, this taunt that racists have flung at me so many times over the years has been cast into sharp relief. Suddenly, I have been found myself needing to know more about the Dutch history of colonisation. My knowledge on this front, not unlike those who have throw this feckless taunt my way, is woefully lacking. And so beginneth another research journey for one who is, frankly, addicted to knowing everything she can.

There is no question that Dutch colonisation has been fucked. That it has led to pain, suffering, death, apartheid, and so many other things over the centuries. HOWEVER, what is inescapable about my Ondaatje line is that they are "Burgher" peoples, and that in contrast to the situation here in Australia, the Burghers are a distinct ethnic group that formed due to the intermarriage of colonials and locals. No such distinct ethnic group here, with its own customs and traditions, has formed due to intermarriage of Aboriginal people and colonisers. We are either "Black" or "White", and the act of positively identifying as Aboriginal is a form of resistance in the face of genocide, assimilation policies, and ongoing colonial agendas. In short, they tried to wipe us out, so it has set up a binary and a need to reinforce our Indigenous heritage in the face of erasure.

So what then is the difference between these colonial processes that has led to a different ethnic group versus an ongoing attempted annihilation? One night, I was drinking at a favourite dive bar in Adelaide, and I hit a fellow Aboriginal mate who knew more than I did up with this question. In a very surface level response, this friend stated that one of the key differences was, very simply, the motive for colonisation. In the case of the Brits here, the motive was the formation of a prison colony so they could shove society's undesirables elsewhere. In the case of the Dutch in Sri Lanka though, as well as religion, it was the spice trade.

What does this ultimately mean? In the case of the Brits, they were expanding their empire, and their goals meant that they were not reliant on the locals to do so, regardless of any sentiments expressed by the Crown. They wanted the space, they needed the land, and so they set out getting it by any means possible. There was no need to learn the local language. As long as Aboriginal people were dying around them and they were still safe, there was also no need to establish trade partnerships. There was some need to enslave locals and put them to work in order to make these ventures successful, but this was done by force and people were compelled to adhere as their homes were starved of resources required to rear non-native animals and crops.

Conversely, when trade is the driving reason for colonisation as what the case was in Sri Lanka, there is a compulsion for colonisers to build up relationships. To integrate into existing communities. My ancestor Quint Ondaatje was noted as being able to speak five different languages proficiently, and certainly, in both the case of Sri Lanka and Indonesia, Dutch colonisers are noted as learning the local language as a way of strengthening trade partnerships. Quint's (and my) ancestor Ondaatchi - the Tamil physician - was celebrated for his knowledge, was integral in providing health care to the colonisers, and he himself converted to Lutherism and adopted the names Michael and Jurgen. In short, in order to succeed in his career, he needed to walk in these two communities, and so too did his employer, the governor. So as such, because trade formed the basis of colonisation, it meant colonisers were more likely to learn the languages and customs, foster positive relationships, and marry in. Force could not be the (sole) basis of the exchange because had it been, the Dutch East India Company would have never have got off the ground. And so from this, a distinct ethnic group that remains as a remnant of that history exists, and I am a descendant of this legacy.

There's one further part to this: those who make the header jibe seemingly forget that the Dutch actually did come to this land before the Brits did. And while there was no active colonisation here by the Dutch, the tale of the Batavia shipwreck states that not only did the people onboard spent more time killing each other than any locals, but that also two mutineers were left on the mainland, where it is thought by some that they survived by marrying into the local communities.

Colonisation has devastated the world. It has led to genocide, enslavement, entitlement, and white surpremacy. The Israel-Palestine conflict exists to this day because colonial powers took it upon themselves to carve up lands that weren't theirs, in a bid to maintain allyships, access to resources, and wallpaper over their own genocidal ambitions. Globally, colonisation is directly responsible for the wealth and health disparaties between the global north and south. But if I have learnt anything from all this, it is that not all colonisation has operated the same.

I recently, truthfully, stated in a public speech that I believe "full decolonisation is not possible", and perhaps this was an individual rather than broader Indigenous community reflection. I think instead, we are in a point in history where we grapple with this legacy while also finding ways to protect land, culture, family, and history, and this comes about via a formal treaty agreement. But as well as me being at peace with the fact that I am the biggest city Black ever created, I now also know that I am the product of two colonial processes. My heritage is complex, and untangling it all when it makes up my very fibres is, in essence, near impossible. It raises other questions too, particularly with regards to how these forebears interacted with the White Australia Policy, and whether this colonial Dutch heritage was erased due to colonial British projects. But I am also thankful that, via knowing more about my roots, I have come to understand more about colonisation globally. As a knowledge-seeker dedicated to lifelong learning, I will always be thankful for that opportunity.