Is rape an untold story?
Clare Wright, in her wonderful book The Forgotten Rebels of Eureka, quite rightly posits the high degree of probability that a number of widows and women with absent husbands were raped at this time. She has been much criticised by a number of male bloggers, as there is not a single solitary scintilla of hard evidence that such attacks occurred.
There is an extraordinarily conservative school of history that won't consider any historical possibilities that are not supported by written or hard and fast archaeological evidence, preferably endless piles of it, under their noses. Alternative interpretations of that material, or possibilities based on probabilities are regarded as anathema. Naturally, the idea that aliens purposefully led the miners astray so they could get bodies to dissect is in all probability an extremely unlikely possibility, so unlikely it can reasonably be dismissed as bollocks (and, as far as we know, no-one has suggested such a possibility).
But, the probability that victorious fighters on a post-battle rampage would rape any available women while the adrenalin was rushing is extremely high. In fact, off the tops of our heads we can't think of very many exceptions to this unfortunately prolific "rule". The likelihood is even greater if the troops are undergoing a period of total indiscipline, which was almost certainly, indeed, we would argue absolutely certainly the situation immediately after the soldiers' success at the stockade. It's clear many, if not all of them ran amok, murdering, burning, and rampaging, either out of their officers' control or with the implicit or even explicit approval of their officers.
Of course, this requires some thought about why no word of any rapes has snuck into the public sphere. However, remember that even now, in the 21st century, there are many people who blame rape victims for what happens to them. Even now, many men find it incredibly difficult to stay with partners who have been raped, or in cases we know even if they have successfully evaded assault. In 1854, these outcomes didn't just apply to "many" men, it would have been a rare man to whom it didn't apply, and a rare person who didn't blame the victims, even under the circumstances.
Even if people accepted that the women were forced by violent men, it would again be a rare person who didn't view the victims as permanently damaged goods. And most of them would have had children they had to support. And if their men walked out, as thought it was them who had been violently and brutally physically assaulted, as though it was them who were the victims, they would have been left destitute. And how do destitute women survive? All too often it was by prostitution. Facing that little lot, it's no surprise they chose not to say anything, except perhaps to one another, if they knew other victims.
And let's face it, to whom would they report the crime? Oh, yes, that's right, the same insufferable arseholes who raped them.
So, even though we think it's a probability rapes occurred, in reality we can't really place it above a possibility, albeit a strong possibility. But why on earth are people still so fussed about this possibility over 160 years later that they feel duty bound to be so offensive to the theorist who has the perspicacity to raise it as a possibility?
There is an extraordinarily conservative school of history that won't consider any historical possibilities that are not supported by written or hard and fast archaeological evidence, preferably endless piles of it, under their noses. Alternative interpretations of that material, or possibilities based on probabilities are regarded as anathema. Naturally, the idea that aliens purposefully led the miners astray so they could get bodies to dissect is in all probability an extremely unlikely possibility, so unlikely it can reasonably be dismissed as bollocks (and, as far as we know, no-one has suggested such a possibility).
But, the probability that victorious fighters on a post-battle rampage would rape any available women while the adrenalin was rushing is extremely high. In fact, off the tops of our heads we can't think of very many exceptions to this unfortunately prolific "rule". The likelihood is even greater if the troops are undergoing a period of total indiscipline, which was almost certainly, indeed, we would argue absolutely certainly the situation immediately after the soldiers' success at the stockade. It's clear many, if not all of them ran amok, murdering, burning, and rampaging, either out of their officers' control or with the implicit or even explicit approval of their officers.
Of course, this requires some thought about why no word of any rapes has snuck into the public sphere. However, remember that even now, in the 21st century, there are many people who blame rape victims for what happens to them. Even now, many men find it incredibly difficult to stay with partners who have been raped, or in cases we know even if they have successfully evaded assault. In 1854, these outcomes didn't just apply to "many" men, it would have been a rare man to whom it didn't apply, and a rare person who didn't blame the victims, even under the circumstances.
Even if people accepted that the women were forced by violent men, it would again be a rare person who didn't view the victims as permanently damaged goods. And most of them would have had children they had to support. And if their men walked out, as thought it was them who had been violently and brutally physically assaulted, as though it was them who were the victims, they would have been left destitute. And how do destitute women survive? All too often it was by prostitution. Facing that little lot, it's no surprise they chose not to say anything, except perhaps to one another, if they knew other victims.
And let's face it, to whom would they report the crime? Oh, yes, that's right, the same insufferable arseholes who raped them.
So, even though we think it's a probability rapes occurred, in reality we can't really place it above a possibility, albeit a strong possibility. But why on earth are people still so fussed about this possibility over 160 years later that they feel duty bound to be so offensive to the theorist who has the perspicacity to raise it as a possibility?