Why no Australian Aboriginal Reservations?

Johannes Parisiensis · Aug 14, 2014

In Canada and the United States, swathes of lands were "reservated" for the use of the Natives, lands they were able to administrate more or less autonomously; in the neighbouring French New Caledonia, the Kanaks are organised in chefferies and grandes-chefferies ruling terres coutumières and under their native civil law.

I would like to know why such reservations - swathes of land held by an Aboriginal tribe - have never been established in Australia. Was it because of the terra nullius doctrine held until 1992 and summarised twenty years earlier?

twovultures · Aug 14, 2014

Johannes Parisiensis said:
Was it because of the terra nullius doctrine held until 1992 and summarised twenty years earlier?

That was my understanding of it. Whereas the U.S. and Canadian governments recognized that the native tribes owned land (and could therefore sell it, albeit under varying levels of coercion and duress) the authorities in Australia just never recognized any aboriginal claim to land.

PimpLenin · Aug 14, 2014

Here is a link that may help : Link

I've been to the Jervis Bay Territory, which has a vast majority Aboriginal population but isn't a specific "reservation."

Tonymecury · Aug 14, 2014

http://press.anu.edu.au/anzsog/immigration/mobile_devices/ch04s03.html

twovultures · Aug 14, 2014

PimpLenin said:
Here is a link that may help : Link

I've been to the Jervis Bay Territory, which has a vast majority Aboriginal population but isn't a specific "reservation."

That's interesting, I'd heard of the missions but not of the reserves. Were they created by the state or national governments?

Johannes Parisiensis · Aug 14, 2014

twovultures said:
PimpLenin said:

Here is a link that may help : Link

I've been to the Jervis Bay Territory, which has a vast majority Aboriginal population but isn't a specific "reservation."

Click to expand...

That's interesting, I'd heard of the missions but not of the reserves. Were they created by the state or national governments?

The important point is that these reserves weren't the property of a specific tribe nor were ruled by this tribe, in boundaries put by the Federal government.

Dominic · Aug 14, 2014

Arguably the resettlement of Tasmanian Aborigines on Flinders Island could be called a "reservation", but this was hardly the same as what took place in North America.

Shahrasayr · Aug 15, 2014

I believe it may have to do the fact that the British considered the Aboriginal people little more than animals. They were even classified as such when the British got a control on mainland. The reason the native Americans were given reserves was because of the 'noble savages' concept applied to them by Colonial and the American authorities.

Ultimate Paragon · Aug 15, 2014

I think one of the main reasons was that many didn't believe the Aborigines were human.

Johannes Parisiensis · Aug 15, 2014

Shahrasayr said:
I believe it may have to do the fact that the British considered the Aboriginal people little more than animals. They were even classified as such when the British got a control on mainland. The reason the native Americans were given reserves was because of the 'noble savages' concept applied to them by Colonial and the American authorities.

Shahrasayr said:
I think one of the main reasons was that many didn't believe the Aborigines were human.

Were the Aboriginal people really counted along the wildlife? I sometimes heard this affirmation but had not yet found evidence of this.

Tripwire · Aug 15, 2014

Shahrasayr said:
I believe it may have to do the fact that the British considered the Aboriginal people little more than animals. They were even classified as such when the British got a control on mainland. The reason the native Americans were given reserves was because of the 'noble savages' concept applied to them by Colonial and the American authorities.

I think the real reason Native Americans were given reservations at all was simply to prevent warfare. A native tribe and the US army/colonial militia would fight, a couple dozen to a couple hundred white civilians and god knows how many Indian civilians would be killed, the Native American tribe would be defeated, and the natives would be forced to sign a peace treaty limiting them to smaller and smaller amounts of territory, or total removal out west. But the reason the US government preserved reservations at all was to try and control the Native Americans and keep them from immediately going to war with the settlers again. Native American warriors were grossly outnumbered, but they had had access to guns for hundreds of years, knew the territory, and were good fighters.

Also, much of the interior of Australia was considered wasteland and whites just plain didn't want it.

usertron2020 · Aug 15, 2014

Johannes Parisiensis said:
Were the Aboriginal people really counted along the wildlife? I sometimes heard this affirmation but had not yet found evidence of this.

Is it true that Whites conducted "hunting safaris" against the Tasmanians? As if they were buffalo on the plains or gorillas in the mist?

Sucrose said:
I think the real reason Native Americans were given reservations at all was simply to prevent warfare. A native tribe and the US army/colonial militia would fight, a couple dozen to a couple hundred white civilians and god knows how many Indian civilians would be killed, the Native American tribe would be defeated, and the natives would be forced to sign a peace treaty limiting them to smaller and smaller amounts of territory, or total removal out west. But the reason the US government preserved reservations at all was to try and control the Native Americans and keep them from immediately going to war with the settlers again. Native American warriors were grossly outnumbered, but they had had access to guns for hundreds of years, knew the territory, and were good fighters. (1)

Also, much of the interior of Australia was considered wasteland and whites just plain didn't want it. (2)

1) Also, Native Americans had a population density much greater than the Australian Aborigines with a terrain enabling them to be able to survive further west.

2) The Australian Outback is far more hostile to survival than the US interior. 70% of Australia is desert. Just imagine if the entire US west of the Appalachian Mountains matched that of the terrain of the Gadsden Purchase.

Dathi THorfinnsson · Aug 15, 2014

Johannes Parisiensis said:
Were the Aboriginal people really counted along the wildlife? I sometimes heard this affirmation but had not yet found evidence of this.

Forget about the horrors of the Martians, the single most horrifying line in the "War of the Worlds", to me, was when the narrator sort of excuses the Martians for treating humanoids as livestock, 'considering the Tasmanians, and they at least looked like us' (massive paraphrase, it's been a long time, and emphasis added).

Socialist HG Wells('s narrator, still) considered Tasmanian aborigines to be animals that LOOKED human. ~1900!!!!!

So, ya, I think that was a pretty wideheld opinion if someone in England still holds it.

Das_Colonel · Aug 15, 2014

Dathi THorfinnsson said:
Forget about the horrors of the Martians, the single most horrifying line in the "War of the Worlds", to me, was when the narrator sort of excuses the Martians for treating humanoids as livestock, 'considering the Tasmanians, and they at least looked like us' (massive paraphrase, it's been a long time, and emphasis added).

Socialist HG Wells('s narrator, still) considered Tasmanian aborigines to be animals that LOOKED human. ~1900!!!!!

So, ya, I think that was a pretty wideheld opinion if someone in England still holds it.

I've looked into this, and it's hard to find anything concrete or official policy.

But we were certainly seen as at or marginally animal level.

Gurroruo · Aug 16, 2014

Its probably because the Aborigines are extremely primitive

Shahrasayr · Aug 16, 2014

Johannes Parisiensis said:
Were the Aboriginal people really counted along the wildlife? I sometimes heard this affirmation but had not yet found evidence of this.

Yep. This was the Draka scenario from OTL. This is why I hate colonialism.

Sucrose said:
I think the real reason Native Americans were given reservations at all was simply to prevent warfare. A native tribe and the US army/colonial militia would fight, a couple dozen to a couple hundred white civilians and god knows how many Indian civilians would be killed, the Native American tribe would be defeated, and the natives would be forced to sign a peace treaty limiting them to smaller and smaller amounts of territory, or total removal out west. But the reason the US government preserved reservations at all was to try and control the Native Americans and keep them from immediately going to war with the settlers again. Native American warriors were grossly outnumbered, but they had had access to guns for hundreds of years, knew the territory, and were good fighters.

Also, much of the interior of Australia was considered wasteland and whites just plain didn't want it.

You're probably right, I guess. But one thing that is true is the fact that Indigenous Australians didn't have the concept of warfare very clarly defined. They were the most peaceful and ,'innocent' you could call it, society.

Sharunaku · Aug 16, 2014

What contributed to the British classification that made Native Americans "allies" but Aboriginals "animals"?

Shahrasayr · Aug 16, 2014

Sharunaku said:
What contributed to the British classification that made Native Americans "allies" but Aboriginals "animals"?

I'm not sure but it may have to do with the fact the Aboriginals wore little to no clothing and had a more 'negroid' look. Their ceremonies could have been considered very savage by the British.

Let's not also forget that the two types of British that first landed in Australia were 1). The conservative white aristocrats and 2). uneducated Prisoners.

Demothenes · Aug 16, 2014

Shahrasayr said:
Let's not also forget that the two types of British that first landed in Australia were 1). The conservative white aristocrats and 2). uneducated Prisoners.

I agree, there was never a wave of middle class idealists to Australia. Where the penal colonies were in America you saw the same sort of opression of the natives. Mostly because those who were there were uneducated and less motivated to come to America for religious or moral reasons. Georgia was a penal colony for a while and they committed a horrible crime by shipping the Cherokee, who at that point were almost european in lifestyle, to Oklahoma. The president who signed that law was Andrew Jackson, who was also a uneducated frontiersman. The Scotch-Irish were paid to come to America to fight Indians because of their warlike reputation.

ND4 · Aug 16, 2014

Das_Colonel said:
I've looked into this, and it's hard to find anything concrete or official policy.

But we were certainly seen as at or marginally animal level.

Oh, I was going to ask if you were Aboriginal which I think would be pretty cool but you're Tasmanian? Not that not's cool because Tasmania is a cool island and all! Also, yeah colonialism sucks.