Batman’s “Treaty”, Aboriginal History, and Why I’m Reflecting on It

I want to begin by being clear about what I am — and am not — claiming in this piece.

I am not a historian or academic. What follows is my understanding, shaped by reading, reflection, and my lived experience as an Aboriginal man.

I am a descendant of Wiradjuri and Ngarigo peoples, with my more direct lineage being Anaiwan. I write from that standpoint alone, and I remain open to correction, dialogue, and respectful debate.

What Batman’s Treaty Is Commonly Said to Be

Batman’s Treaty is often described as an agreement made in 1835 between John Batman, an Australian grazier, and a group of Wurundjeri and Boonwurrung Elders, for the “purchase” of land around Port Phillip, near what is now the Melbourne CBD.

That description is important, because it places the event where it belongs:

• With Wurundjeri and Boonwurrung people

• On Kulin Nation Country

• In what later became colonial Victoria

It is not a story about Wiradjuri, Ngarigo, or Anaiwan Country. And it should not be blurred or expanded beyond that context.

Batman’s “Treaty”, Aboriginal History, and Why I’m Reflecting on It

Why the Word “Treaty” Matters

The use of the word treaty carries enormous weight.

In international and Aboriginal contexts, a treaty implies:

• Mutual understanding

• Authority to negotiate

• Recognition of sovereignty

From my understanding, Batman’s agreement did not meet those standards.

The document was rejected by the British Crown shortly after it was made.

It had no legal standing, and it relied on European concepts of land ownership that did not align with Aboriginal law, governance, or custodianship. Yet despite this, it continues to be spoken about as if it represents a genuine act of negotiation or consent.

That ongoing framing is what concerns me.

Why This Matters to Me as a Descendant

Although Batman’s Treaty does not involve my own ancestral Nations, it matters because of what it represents in Australian historical storytelling.

It is often used — implicitly or explicitly — to soften the reality of colonisation. To suggest that land was “bought”, rather than taken. To imply consent where there was none recognised by law, culture, or power.

As a descendant of Aboriginal peoples whose Countries were invaded without treaties of any kind, I am wary of narratives that seek to make colonisation appear more orderly, ethical, or benign than it was.

What I Don’t Claim

I do not claim:

• That Batman dealt with my ancestors

• That his actions were unique

• That this single event explains colonisation

What I do claim is a right to question how this story is used, repeated, and taught — particularly when Aboriginal voices are often expected to accept simplified or comforting versions of history.

An Invitation to Thoughtful Discussion

If you understand Batman’s Treaty differently, I welcome respectful engagement.

If you have sources, perspectives, or lived knowledge that add nuance, I am open to learning.

If this piece unsettles a familiar narrative, I believe that discomfort is worth sitting with.

History is not static. Our responsibility is not to defend it, but to understand it more honestly.

This is my understanding — offered openly, and without claiming final authority.