Aborigines survive!

[BurningWickerman]

I was thinking, Australia was pretty much the last place to be colonised by massacring the inhabitants 1860's+. And they still have a relatively large population of aborigines. Now what if aborigines either put up so much resistance, the british couldn't be bothered and colonisation stopped outside a few ports and coast towns and very South-East australia or the british declared the genocides unlaawful (law lord case or something). Could Australia remain just another large native-filled outpost of the british empire and how would this change the British Empire. I can imagine Austrlia being considered a middle of nowhere desert with a few strategic outposts ( I say imagine ) while the subjects are largely ignored. Would Aborigines technology improve over time or just be ignored? And more importantly could the empire hold on to Australia well into the 20th century because of its perceived unimportance.

 

[rewster]

No, the aborigines had no ability to put up much greater of a resistance. However, if the British had had a change of heart about simply killing people and taking their continent, then perhaps we'd have an aborigine majority in Australia.
If the Brits had simply thrown up some outposts, Aborigines technology would most definitely improve over time... this is true of every single occurance of a technologically advanced people coming into contact but not immediately destroying a less advanced people. You can be sure it would be the Aborigines themselves who do the job of obtaining the new technology, mainly through imitation... they will not simply wait for the British to hand it to them.

There's no reason why Australia wouldn't still be under British rule, until such time that the aborigines become sufficiently organized to call for independence, or the British never do find a use for an entire continent.(huh?)

 

[Jared]

No, the aborigines had no ability to put up much greater of a resistance.

Quite. The major problem was the same as in the Americas... European diseases were highly lethal. And, of course, the difference in tech levels.

However, if the British had had a change of heart about simply killing people and taking their continent, then perhaps we'd have an aborigine majority in Australia.

We-ell... not really. Or not without a very, very different history of colonization in Australia. The aforementioned diseases played a big part here. But more importantly, hunter-gatherer cultures, while typically producing healthier individuals, don't have a high population density. Even a relatively limited British settlement (or by any other agricultural society, come to that), would still probably have a majority of the population.

And the problem with producing a change of heart was that the government in London gave strict orders to respect the 'natives'. It didn't work, by and large. The settlers who did arrive had no concept of communal property and saw the land as empty. So they moved in, with a resultant clash of cultures... and the results of that are obvious.

If the Brits had simply thrown up some outposts, Aborigines technology would most definitely improve over time... this is true of every single occurance of a technologically advanced people coming into contact but not immediately destroying a less advanced people. You can be sure it would be the Aborigines themselves who do the job of obtaining the new technology, mainly through imitation... they will not simply wait for the British to hand it to them.

I have my doubts, actually. The differences in tech levels are too great to be completely acquired through imitation. You need agriculture, mining, industry, domestic animals, and a whole host of other things to be acquired at once, plus a major change in the outlook of the Aborigines. I doubt that they could acquire these in enough time to make a difference. (If it wasn't the British claiming Australia, another power would likely have done so, the French being the most obvious).

 

[rewster]

We-ell... not really. Or not without a very, very different history of colonization in Australia. The aforementioned diseases played a big part here. But more importantly, hunter-gatherer cultures, while typically producing healthier individuals, don't have a high population density. Even a relatively limited British settlement (or by any other agricultural society, come to that), would still probably have a majority of the population.

I think the idea was in fact that there was a very different history of colonization. Like... an incredibly limited British settlement.

And the problem with producing a change of heart was that the government in London gave strict orders to respect the 'natives'. It didn't work, by and large. The settlers who did arrive had no concept of communal property and saw the land as empty. So they moved in, with a resultant clash of cultures... and the results of that are obvious.

They'd have to have a change of heart in allowing settlement too then, I guess.

I have my doubts, actually. The differences in tech levels are too great to be completely acquired through imitation. You need agriculture, mining, industry, domestic animals, and a whole host of other things to be acquired at once, plus a major change in the outlook of the Aborigines. I doubt that they could acquire these in enough time to make a difference. (If it wasn't the British claiming Australia, another power would likely have done so, the French being the most obvious).

I never said completely acquired. I said their technology would definitely improve. Most likely they'd take to domesticated animals first, then later agriculture when and where they could work it. Assuming the British simply languished with a few coastal outposts, 145 years of interacting with the natives would have led to a very different Australia. Who knows what it would look like, what wars may have broken out between tribes, how far farming would have spread, etc.

 

[pa_dutch]

I've heard that before Europeans discovered Australia, traders had been visiting the northern coast from the Indonesian port of Makassar in search of sea slugs called trepang, prized in China for medicinal purposes. It is possible that Chinese merchants could have known about Australia, as well. Maybe you could go somewhere with that, perhaps having merchants form permanent colonies in Arnhem Land and/or Aboriginal tribes embrace Islam before the British can get there. Australia would still fall under British dominance, most likely, but perhaps it would be a much different place, at least in the north.