Apartheid-like Institution in Australia?

Treatment of the Aborigines in Australia was bad, but eventually got better with the times, how can, and how would Australia be affected by the continued suppression and oppression of Aboriginies in a South Africa style Apartheid? Could this have lasted as long as the South African apartheid?

Not enough Aborigines to make an Apartheid system worthwhile. Aborigines are only 3% of the population.

Aborigines don't all die off from diseases? For an Apartheid system, as opposed to something like Jim Crow, you need Aborigines making up at least 70% of the population of Australia. That's going to be difficult without the widespread use of agriculture pre-contact.

Kidblast said:

Not enough Aborigines to make an Apartheid system worthwhile. Aborigines are only 3% of the population.

Aborigines don't all die off from diseases? For an Apartheid system, as opposed to something like Jim Crow, you need Aborigines making up at least 70% of the population of Australia. That's going to be difficult without the widespread use of agriculture pre-contact.

Click to expand...

Thanks, atleast I know it isn't possible without a POD far back in time. What would you think would be necessary?

Zeldar155 said:

Thanks, atleast I know it isn't possible without a POD far back in time. What would you think would be necessary?

Click to expand...

There is another approach. Get the early settlers to set up proper plantations in larger numbers than OTL (see Blackbirding), like say in Fiji, the southern US, etc. Then, you will have a larger population of non whites, which might help in your quest.

Given that the States were not federated into the late 19th century you could well end up having a South Africa like situation (although different, as all the colonies/states would be principally British)

Julius Vogel said:

There is another approach. Get the early settlers to set up proper plantations in larger numbers than OTL (see Blackbirding), like say in Fiji, the southern US, etc. Then, you will have a larger population of non whites, which might help in your quest.

Given that the States were not federated into the late 19th century you could well end up having a South Africa like situation (although different, as all the colonies/states would be principally British)

Click to expand...

Even then you would only get Jim Crow, not Apartheid.

Kidblast said:

Even then you would only get Jim Crow, not Apartheid.

Click to expand...

How large could the non-white population of Australia get if the settlers did like Julius said then? Also, if apartheid is proven to be impossible in Australia, how long do you suppose Jim Crow-like laws could last?

As others have said you need a significant (over 40%) non-white population to create a need for such policies. But as Julius Vogel points out before Federation you had 6 separate colonies all with different demographics (though all British majority) and economic structures. It is very hard to imagine a scenario which would see the large scale importation of non-white labour into Tasmania whether from Africa or elsewhere in the Pacific. However in Northern Queensland you have the climate for plantation agriculture and a thriving sugar industry, so if you keep the Colonies disunited and lop Brisbane and Southern Queensland off and give them to NSW and then boost the importation of Pacific Islanders you could have a North Queensland that is 40% non-white and with that you have the potential for Jim Crow/Apartheid, it would only be an exaggeration of OTL, there is a reason it's called the Deep North.

Arachnid said:

As others have said you need a significant (over 40%) non-white population to create a need for such policies. But as Julius Vogel points out before Federation you had 6 separate colonies all with different demographics (though all British majority) and economic structures. It is very hard to imagine a scenario which would see the large scale importation of non-white labour into Tasmania whether from Africa or elsewhere in the Pacific. However in Northern Queensland you have the climate for plantation agriculture and a thriving sugar industry, so if you keep the Colonies disunited and lop Brisbane and Southern Queensland off and give them to NSW and then boost the importation of pacific Islanders you could have a North Queensland that is 40% non-white and with that you have the potential for Jim Crow/Apartheid.

Click to expand...

That is largely what I was planning to say

Re the Jim Crow - is this taken as meaning a lesser form of exclusion - as much informal application of the rules, as formal legislative exclusion?

Julius Vogel said:

That is largely what I was planning to say

Re the Jim Crow - is this taken as meaning a lesser form of exclusion - as much informal application of the rules, as formal legislative exclusion?

Click to expand...

The difference between segregation and Apartheid is that blacks in South Africa weren't citizens of the South African republics. Their South African citizenship was revoked and instead they were citizens of their tribal "homelands", which were "independent" from South Africa, even though their independence was only recognized by South Africa.

In contrast, segregation in America was founded on the idea of "Seperate but Equal". Blacks were considered to be citizens of the United States, and de jure had civil rights. Blacks in South Africa had no civil rights in South Africa because they weren't "citizens".

So for example, blacks in America had the right to travel freely within the US. This was not available to blacks in South Africa because, like any other country, South Africa did not permit "aliens" free travel throughout the country despite the fact that these "aliens" were born there.

There are more differences, but that's the biggest philosophical difference. The end result was very similar, but the philosophical basis for each system was quite different.

Hmmm, maybe the White Australia immigration laws are something that happens much later, causing a larger influx of foreign immigration to the area, causing a backlash leading to segregation style laws?

As apartheid is something quite impossible, really, concerning Australia.

Simple really. Mass immigration of indentured Indian and African workers into Australia, to grow cotton, after a cotton blight hits India really hard shortly after a more brutal civil war irreversibly damages the Southern plantation cotton system. These workers eventually stay in Australia. After a revolution in Britain leads to a socialist republic there, Australia ends up instituting an apartheid system under which Indians and Africans are resident aliens, with recognized citizenship of their homelands (which their homelands refuse to recognize either). Thus, apartheid.

You can do the same thing with Pacific Islanders, you can claim some blackbirded Fijian or Papuan is actually a citizen of Papua and not an Australian.

Kidblast said:

The difference between segregation and Apartheid is that blacks in South Africa weren't citizens of the South African republics. Their South African citizenship was revoked and instead they were citizens of their tribal "homelands", which were "independent" from South Africa, even though their independence was only recognized by South Africa.

In contrast, segregation in America was founded on the idea of "Seperate but Equal". Blacks were considered to be citizens of the United States, and de jure had civil rights. Blacks in South Africa had no civil rights in South Africa because they weren't "citizens".

So for example, blacks in America had the right to travel freely within the US. This was not available to blacks in South Africa because, like any other country, South Africa did not permit "aliens" free travel throughout the country despite the fact that these "aliens" were born there.

There are more differences, but that's the biggest philosophical difference. The end result was very similar, but the philosophical basis for each system was quite different.

Click to expand...

Right, I thought that might be the point.

I think we can all agree that Grand Apartheid is unlikely but deliberate and severe restrictions of another kind could occur

Can Australia support a plantation-style economy? Because the best parallels I see that could create this sort of situation is plantation slavery or near-slavery like in the US and Brazil. Less labor-intensive work is going to mean non-whites working in the same professions whites are, creating so much intermingling that such a restrictive system would be impossible to maintain. Kind of like how areas where slaves were only used for domestic work and the like were able to quickly abolish slavery.

I think you need major economic separation between the two classes if the demographics are going to come from importing huge numbers of people. The mere presence of large numbers of non-whites isn't going to create a Jim Crow system, because that was the result of the forcible abolition of slavery in a region long dominated by it.

As I said earlier most of Australia can't support a plantation style economy, though they do crow cotton on the Murray River, but North Queensland can, it's wet and humid enough that "plantation" crops like sugar and banana's thrive and it's conveniently close to Pacific Islanders full of potential forced labourers.

When still an independent colony, there was actually quite a degree of what you are suggesting - the imported Pacific Islanders were known locally as "Kanakas" and they worked on sugar cane and pineapple plantations, for the most part. However, with the coming of Federation, the other colonies were staunchly opposed to entrenching an imported non-white group, and as a condition of federation, Queensland agreed to the mass deportation. Important additional notes for allohistorical ventures - there was essentially no opposition in Queensland to the deportation - the local farmers were fully supportive of the White Australia policies, which additionally had the full support of all the significant political parties of the time. Additionally, there were other PIs deported by the Act, most of them indentured labourers in NSW. The Wiki article on Kanakas and the Act are quite good.

As for an apartheid-type system: as mentioned, there simply aren't and weren't enough non-whites in Australia by the time responsible government was on the table, let alone federation. That being said, there was substantial legal discrimination, particularly against Aborigines: until 1962 their right to vote federally was based on their right to vote in their state, and Qld and WA refused them that right; until 1967 they weren't counted as people on the census; between 1869 and 1969 their children were routinely confiscated by church missions and states and federal government workers. I think that rather than approaching the topic from the POV of "How could you get an Australian apartheid" you should ask what you're wanting from the state - if you want officially entrenched racism, that's pretty much what you have until the late 1960s. If you want to continue it beyond that, then you need to look at the changes in the social and political landscape that came at that time.

What about an Australian mandate of New Guinea. Could that potentially have Apartheid like systems?

Beedok said:

What about an Australian mandate of New Guinea. Could that potentially have Apartheid like systems?

Click to expand...

Well southern Papua New Guinea was effectively run as an extension of Queensland in OTL as the Territory of Papua prior to the acquisition of German New Guinea off Germany in WW1, when the two were united into the Territory of New Guinea. But it was such a horrible place and the locals so fierce that no one wanted to go there so there was no need for an apartheid style regime because there weren't enough whites.

Beedok said:

What about an Australian mandate of New Guinea. Could that potentially have Apartheid like systems?

Click to expand...

I don't think that the mindset behind creating racial homelands was in place. I think you'd probably get something along the lines of de-facto second class citizenship, and that would be heavily dependent on the natural resources of PNG being exploited on a large scale while Australia is in charge. Again, though, you need to butterfly away the social and political changes of the 60s and 70s, because that's when Australia started moving away from institutionalised racism.

If you're looking at getting PNG into Australia on a permanent basis, then I think you'd probably be looking at the mandate being take on as a separate territory - so you'd have a Territory of Papua and a Territory of New Guinea.