Some of the countries that have the least amount of recent conflict on their own soils have been created out of dispute. This chequered history is largely unacknowledged and unincorporated into national traditions.

The national histories of Australia, Canada and the United States have marginalised their indigenous inhabitants either through forced omission or wilful ignorance, and have only recently started the complex and difficult process of understanding and accounting for pre-European cultures. These countries and others have long held wars as defining points of national character; the War of Independence in the United States, Gallipoli and the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps legend for Australia and numerous wars in other countries, are celebrated and commemorated. In a shocking contrast, the wars of colonisation and dispossession were no less brutal or significant, but have been largely absent from national discussions. Citizens of these countries and the international community must re-evaluate the official and normative explanations of the foundation of nation-states like the three mentioned above, especially when these countries are held up as pinnacles of human development. While this process will be painful for those who hold on to claims of exceptionalism, both domestically and abroad, it is ultimately necessary that we take off the blinding shades of tautological history and reassess the foundation of these modern nation-states.

From the beginning of European colonisation of North America and Australia, indigenous populations were either brought into conflict or totally ignored. Upon arrival to the Americas, European settlers were confronted by a diverse indigenous population with radically different cultures and values. Property rights and sovereignty were starkly different from those in the old continent. The more transitory societies held deep and ongoing connection with the land, not only as a resource, but as an essential component of life that was to be respected. This alternate value system was so foreign to European colonialists that it was seen as illegitimate and thus was treated harshly. Frontier warfare was characteristic of the first decades of settlement in North America and Australia. This was essentially a government-sponsored program that aimed to open more land for farming and grazing. Unsurprisingly, the original inhabitants objected to this encroachment onto their land and both sides responded with violence.

Massacres were commonplace in Australia during this time, continuing until the early 20th century. As a result, the aboriginal population of Tasmania, an island only slighter larger than Lithuania, was wiped out. In the United States, similar wars were fought and forcible relocations took place with the aim of pushing Native Americans into the arid southwest, away from the potentially developable areas of the South and the East. Legislation such as the Calhoun Plan and the Indian Removal Act displaced entire communities to places wholly unfamiliar to them. Although attitudes changed away from violence in the 20th and late 19th centuries, indigenous populations were continually removed from national life. In many cases, it was government policy to breed out indigenous peoples.

In Canadian residential schools, First Nations peoples underwent abusive treatment whilst their own cultures were stamped out in favour of British norms and practices. Similarly, in Australia, missions were set up where Christian values were instilled as a way of assimilating indigenous people into the colonizer’s culture. However, programs went further and included removing children from their families and placing them in homes of Europeans. This was intended to “smooth the pillow of a dying race” as Betsy Yates wrote in her 1938 book The Passing of the Aborigines. Thus, although this was not conflict in the usual sense, attempts continued to be undertaken to wipe out indigenous populations or absorb them without their culture into the colonizer’s culture.

This exclusion and oppression of indigenous populations allowed the European population to become dominant and extract copious amounts of wealth from lands which were originally not their own. This was also conducted while maintaining an image of peaceful and legitimate settlement. The subjugation and elimination of native populations allowed Europeans to exploit natural resources without any opposition. More subtly, but also more sinisterly, by not acknowledging the original inhabitants, all of these countries can hold a history of moral superiority. Without critical examination, the history of these nations can be looked to as a model of development for the rest of the world.

Thus it is of primary importance that the citizens of these countries, and others with similar pasts, understand and recognise their histories of internal conflict and not shy away from having a complex and multi-layered national history. There have been important steps taken over the past decade, including apologies in both Canada and Australia and the collection and study of indigenous languages to preserve generations of culture despite the passing away of elders.

The solutions are multifaceted. We need to start recognising the land rights that are relevant to the history and current situation of the aboriginal populations. However, progress doesn't stop here. We need to create more meaningful and in-depth conversation about and with these populations when discussing national histories.