A Jewish Australia

[DMA]

The Aboriginal population was probably less than a million at its peak, and the low population density and nomadic lifestyle of the Aborigines meant that they weren't decimated by epidemics immediately after contact like the Native Americans.

The 1 million figure has been pretty much rejected by just about everyone these days. That figure came from an era when it was very convenient to have such a small Aboriginal population, in the light of British colonisation, when the Aboriginals were considered to be on the way out. In fact so-called "official" census records indicated, at one point in time (1950s from memory), that the Aboriginal population had fallen to be a low as 58 000.

However, as I posted above, the so-called "accepted" Aboriginal population figures these days are between 1.5 million to 3.3 million. I accept the 3.3 million figure as the historians etc now pushing the 1.5 million figure are still of the pro-white group. It goes without saying that I'm not of that group

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

However, as I posted above, the so-called "accepted" Aboriginal population figures these days are between 1.5 million to 3.3 million. I accept the 3.3 million figure as the historians etc now pushing the 1.5 million figure are still of the pro-white group. It goes without saying that I'm not of that group

Your figures make the point even better: The Aborigines, for a host of reasons, are not going to be able to resist modern European settlers. Those that try will be slaughtered. Those who attempt to live peacefully with Europeans will be dead of plague, starvation, and alcohol in a few years.

 

[DMA]

Your figures make the point even better: The Aborigines, for a host of reasons, are not going to be able to resist modern European settlers. Those that try will be slaughtered. Those who attempt to live peacefully with Europeans will be dead of plague, starvation, and alcohol in a few years.

Well history is against you there. The Aboriginals fought tooth & nail to defend their territory after the first few years. It's a little known part of Australian history & one which many historians & polticians have tried to cover up.

In fact when the British ran into the very large inland tribe, called the Wiradjuri, the British soon discovered, to their horror, that they had a full on war on their hands. More importantly, the Wiradjuri weren't defeated. Instead they fought the British to a standstill & a truce was entered into. I guess, though, when your tribe numbers around 500 000, you have to be taken seriously.

 

[Douglas]

Where could I find some history on the Aborigines and their wars with the white colonists? It occurs to me I've never heard the details on how the Aborigines got decimated.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

Well history is against you there. The Aboriginals fought tooth & nail to defend their territory after the first few years. It's a little known part of Australian history & one which many historians & polticians have tried to cover up.

In fact when the British ran into the very large inland tribe, called the Wiradjuri, the British soon discovered, to their horror, that they had a full on war on their hands. More importantly, the Wiradjuri weren't defeated. Instead they fought the British to a standstill & a truce was entered into. I guess, though, when your tribe numbers around 500 000, you have to be taken seriously.

But where are the Wiradjuri today?

The inland tribes would probably have been left alone at first, if the emphasis is on making self-supporting coastal settlements.
The most optimistic course of action is that the settlers would eventually treat with the Aborigines and leave them with internal autonomy in their own native lands. Unfortunately, this did not work well for the American Indians, for example. However, given Australia's size, the Aboriginal reserves are likely to be much larger, and the chances of Aborigines practicing their traditional way of life much better.
It is one of the great tragedies of history that almost no scenario about modern settlement of Australia can plausibly work out in the Aborigines' favor.

 

[DMA]

Where could I find some history on the Aborigines and their wars with the white colonists? It occurs to me I've never heard the details on how the Aborigines got decimated.

On the internet it's very hard to find. Even a decent academic text is hard to find as most articles etc around are more hysterical nonsense as much as anything. However, any works by the Australian historian Henry Reynolds are usually pretty good. Likewise there's a text called Blood On The Wattle, even though it has its problems. Maybe better ones are:


Lippmann, L. Generations of Resistance, Melbourne, 1994

Lowe, D. Forgotten Rebels, Sydney 1994


From memory you can download Lowe's text from the internet, but don't ask me what the URL is as I lost it years ago.

But forget about any military history published somewhere as I don't think anyone has written anything like that as far as I'm aware.

Your best bet is to simply Goggle away to your heart's content. Try maybe "Bathurst War", "Aboriginal history", or something like that. Also try Goggling for the great Aboriginal leader "Windradyne" or his tribe the "Wiradjuri."

 

[DMA]

But where are the Wiradjuri today?

Oh they're still alive & well today, spread out over a region the size of England. In fact 5 or so years ago they gained about half of Canberra's territory under the Native Title Act, not to mention a few places in New South Wales.

Granted, though, they've had their problems, especially after their great leader Windradyne died. Booze was their biggest problem, not to mention the discusting treatment by the British authorities from the 1850s onwards.

The inland tribes would probably have been left alone at first, if the emphasis is on making self-supporting coastal settlements.

That would fit the OTL pattern.

The most optimistic course of action is that the settlers would eventually treat with the Aborigines and leave them with internal autonomy in their own native lands. Unfortunately, this did not work well for the American Indians, for example. However, given Australia's size, the Aboriginal reserves are likely to be much larger, and the chances of Aborigines practicing their traditional way of life much better.

Again that's not overly dissimilar to the OTL at first. You see the coastal tribes were numerous, but low in numbers. An estimate of between 1 000 to 5 000 members of such tribes wouldn't be unusual. So overcoming them through one means or another wasn't overly difficult for the British.

However, once over the mountains, which lie about 80kms to the west of the coastline (all along the eastern coastline of Australia - a distance of some 3 000kms), Aboriginal tribal structure is very different wherein you have few tribes, but very large populations. It depends on the tribe & location, of course, but we're talking tribes of 10 000 to the size of the Wiradjuri at 500 000.

So again the scenario you've outlined is possible, although the outcome maybe a stronger & tougher opposition once European expansion occurs.

It is one of the great tragedies of history that almost no scenario about modern settlement of Australia can plausibly work out in the Aborigines' favor.

Yeah, it probably won't be much different, although it depends how vigourous the early expansion takes place. If we're talking the British here, other than some isolated Jewish colony, then I would agree that the OTL is more than likely to be repeated. Although again that depends on whether they are prepared to acknowledge their treaty(s) in a manor akin to those made with the Maori's just across the Tasman Sea (which happened around the same time BTW).

If, however, we're talking about a single Jewish colony, then it's a completely different story, where I'd say the Aboriginals have more than an even chance to continue, although, I'd say, with changes taking place within their own cultures & structures through their exposure, albeit limited, to the Jewish colony in question.

 

[hexicus]

On the internet it's very hard to find. Even a decent academic text is hard to find as most articles etc around are more hysterical nonsense as much as anything. However, any works by the Australian historian Henry Reynolds are usually pretty good. Likewise there's a text called Blood On The Wattle, even though it has its problems. Maybe better ones are:

I had heard that Henry Reynolds is considered one of the main 'black armband view of history' historians. If Keith Windshuttle is one of the 'pro-white' historians then Reynolds is surely anti-white, rather than just neutral.

Not saying that I have a strong view on the subject myself, but the field seems to be full of activists, whatever their persuasion, and short on evidence. It would be fascinating if Australia could support a non-agriculutral population of 3.3 million though (and a 500,000 strong army). It opens up possibilites for alternate histories involving pre-British empires.

 

[Nekromans]

Why did I think "Hun" when I saw this thread?

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

I agree with you, DMA, Jewish Australia would look a lot better for the Aborigines. However, "better" is still far from "good"

 

[DMA]

I had heard that Henry Reynolds is considered one of the main 'black armband view of history' historians. If Keith Windshuttle is one of the 'pro-white' historians then Reynolds is surely anti-white, rather than just neutral.

First off, the term 'black armband view of history' was made by our Prime Minister as a deliberate insult to anyone who challenges his VERY pro-white view of Australia. Reynolds, it is true, is pro-Aboriginal, but his work is first & foremost of a good academic. And if his work exposes many of the bad things white people did to the Aboriginals in the past, then so much the better so that we can get a full picture of what went on instead of the cover-up that's gone on for 200 years.

Next about Windshuttle - I don't know what all the fuss is about him. I've read a couple of his works, most notably a text called The Media & it has a very left-wing bent to it wherein he shows how the commerical media in Australia is held captive by the almighty advertising dollar.

But these fights, between historicans, politicans, & the like, is typical where history is in this country these days. It's all political where name calling & the like has more to do with history, whether it be in the media, journals, even within university depts, than any actual history research these days. having been a part of it, I take little notice of such name calling games & instead read what they write.

Not saying that I have a strong view on the subject myself, but the field seems to be full of activists, whatever their persuasion, and short on evidence.

Yes, there is a lot of hysteria going on which doesn't help decent academic inquiry. But as I said, there are some works around worth the read - even Renyolds

It would be fascinating if Australia could support a non-agriculutral population of 3.3 million though (and a 500,000 strong army). It opens up possibilites for alternate histories involving pre-British empires.

I know. I wrote one.

 

[DMA]

I agree with you, DMA, Jewish Australia would look a lot better for the Aborigines. However, "better" is still far from "good"

Well it depends if the Wiradjuri still get half of Canberra in your AH

 

[Kidblast]

I'm still trying to figure out when this would occur....

Methinks Herzl and Zionism is way too late, but Sabbatai Zevi is too early....

Hmmm this is a conundrum to be certain....

 

[DMA]

I'm still trying to figure out when this would occur....

Methinks Herzl and Zionism is way too late, but Sabbatai Zevi is too early....

Hmmm this is a conundrum to be certain....

Well I'd say the best way to have a successful Jewish colony, would be as a British Crown Colony set up somewhere between 1789-1800. There would be several favourable sites along the east coast from Brisbane all the way down to Melbourne.

Alternatively, when South Ausralia was colonised in 1836, it was set up as a "Free State" meaning no convicts. It was supposed to be rather "liberal" in its ethos, so a Jewish colony loyal to the British Crown could be set up somewhere around Adelaide or anywhere between Adelaide & the Victorian border.

 

[MarkA]

Yes it was. It was around the 1890s.

In fact the Kimberly homeland idea was again looked at in the 1930s, whilst Tasmania was also revisted during WWII. Needless to say neither idea was successful for a second time.

Trying to establish a Jewish homeland prior to British settlement is even harder, as the British soon discovered within a few months of setting up shop in Sydney in 1788. This is an extremely harsh land & the first colony almost failed within 2 years. Just as importantly, several early attempts, by the British, to set up colonies elsewhere in Australia did fail - some with dire consequences (such as death) for the settlers involved.

So if the British had such troubles, considering they had the back-up of the Empire to call upon, I don't see anyone else having much success.

Having said that, if the British gave their blessing for a Jewish colony, to be set up somewhere a few years after Sydney (say some time between 1789-1799) as a Crown Colony with a British Governor etc, then the chances that it could be successful, & develop into a prominent Homeland which may have some autonomy at a later date, is certainly on the cards.

Do not forget Arthur Caldwell's proposal for a Jewish homeland in the 1930's in Australia.

 

[DMA]

Do not forget Arthur Caldwell's proposal for a Jewish homeland in the 1930's in Australia.

Was that the Kimberly idea or was there another location?

 

[Wendell]

May I suggest something slightly different.....

How about New Zealand instead, or, better yet, New Zealand a few centuries earlier?

 

[DMA]

How about New Zealand instead, or, better yet, New Zealand a few centuries earlier?

The Maori's might have something to say about that

 

[Wendell]

The Maori's might have something to say about that

Not if we can get Jewish settlement there before 1000 CE.

 

[Mojo]

Not if we can get Jewish settlement there before 1000 CE.

How far back was it when Jews got to China. I know there were reports of a lost jewish tribe in Japan so possibly a large group of Jewish trader settle in China and being trading with Indonesia and hear of a land down under. Maybe not before 1000 CE but prehaps close.