AHC: Create a White Supremacist Australia

Implausibility of Super Bonus?


  • Total voters
    90
Australia was long time very apartheidist nation and even modern Australia is not most tolerate nations in the world. So just keep aparhteidist Australia around.
I think it would be possible if the Dutch had decided to colonize Australia before the British did, then later on the British take it over after the Napoleonic War (Just like they did to South Africa) and the Dutch speaking minority similar to Boers rebel and do something similar to the Boer Wars in South Africa. Afterwards the Dutch are recognized by British in this alternate Australia however the Aborigines on the other hand are completely ignored or perhaps betrayed leading to a similar or worse nation that is like Apartheid South Africa. An alternate extremely racist Australia that has a White Australia Policy that prohibits non-whites from immigrating, anyone who was non-white (except Aborigines) living in Australia before its founding in 1901 are deported or killed if refused and the Aborigines live in something similar to the Bantustans like South Africa.

That would be my way to make an alternate white supremacist Australia.
 
While "white supremacist" obviously evokes very negative connotations, it would be very hard to put a white supremacist Australia in history's list of evil regimes alongside Apartheid South Africa. Not because it wouldn't be a bad country, but because there aren't enough non-whites to oppress. Oppress Aboriginals? Aboriginals are a small fraction of the population, and were sufficiently oppressed as it was. Oppress Asians and other immigrants? Sure? But you have a comprehensively well-enforced White Australia policy and you've deported as many as you legally can and then some, so they also aren't large in numbers. Pretty much no Aboriginal rights and a strictly-enforced White Australia policy is as far as you can probably go. And I'm not sure that would be enough to get anything more than very stern criticism from the global community, considering Australia's economic strength (far more powerful than South Africa ever was). The fact you have 95% oppressing 5% instead of the other way makes a lot of difference.

You'd somehow have to get a dictatorial government to much further, since you'd need to violate Australian laws to do so. This would mean pogroms against the Asian community (and Jews, because why wouldn't ultra-racist Australia go after them?), and possibly genocide. By that I mean all Asians are rounded up and put on the first boat to wherever with nothing but the clothes on their back.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Like most things that happened in the past that have become hot button issues in the present the facts are far more nuanced than current slogans would have you believe.

The fact of the matter is that conditions for children in aboriginal communities was often horrific, with rates of abuse that would make the offenders in the Catholic Church recoil in horror. Large number of people in the stolen generation were actually voluntarily handed to the state by their mother to escape such abuse while others were rescued by authorities. Of course such a system was open to abuse and the underlying basis would be called racist in our "enlightened' age, but it is wrong to attribute a wholly sinister, eugenics motivation to an array of policies that spanned multiple jurisdictions over decades.
Wait...

WHAT?!

The AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT admits that the practices were intentionally racist on its own web site, that ONE IN TEN girls taken into the program were sexually abused.

I understand not wanting to own up to the abuses made by previous governments (the U.S. is probably one of the world leaders at this), but Australia's FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has accepted that they own this.

I am really disappointed to see this. Ten year totally clean record.

SMH

Kicked for a week.
 
Please correct me if I'm making some kind of error. I haven't looked into this issue specifically, so I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong.
Reference per Australia's SBS TV service:
Four key misunderstandings persist about modern Indigenous history and the referendum, which, indeed, passed with more than 90 per cent approval:

1) whether it gave Indigenous people the right to vote in federal elections

2) whether it gave Indigenous people the right to Australian citizenship

3) whether it gave Indigenous people the right to be included in the census, and

4) whether, up until the referendum, Indigenous people were classed as fauna.

The answer, to each, is no, although Peter Buckskin says he fully understands the confusion -- and even beyond the campaign of the time.

"Until that referendum, you weren't entitled, in a sense, to some benefits that all other Australians had entitlements to, and so changing that gave the opportunity for people to receive benefits, to ensure that they had those entitlements that all Australians were entitled to, and I think that gave the perception that it made us citizens."

A one-time researcher for the former State History Centre in South Australia, Pat Stretton, takes those perceptions even a step further.

"Lots and lots of Aborigines celebrate 1967 as the year they got the vote, and it doesn't matter if you say, 'No, no, you had the vote before then,' they'll still give you a fish eye* and say, 'We got the vote in 1967.' And they're much more correct than I am, because that's when they felt they were recognised by society and recognised as proper people with proper rights. So, you can say all you like -- 'Oh, I can show you, you had the right to vote ... whenever' -- and, if you didn't know you did, and if, in every other way, you were treated as if you didn't count, then why would you think you had the right to vote?"

Professor Buckskin points to Indigenous entitlement to social-security benefits, war pensions, child endowments and children's pensions as very real outcomes of the referendum.

That is because the referendum was actually aimed at addressing two parts of the constitution that had actively discriminated against Indigenous people.


It removed Section 127, which said Aboriginal natives shall not be counted in "reckoning the numbers" of people in the Commonwealth, that is, in the population Census.


And it amended Section 51, which prohibited the federal government from specifically making laws for the Indigenous people of any state.


The Aboriginal right to vote in most Australian states actually dated back legally to the 1850s, long before Federation.

Pat Stretton points out every state but Queensland and Western Australia allowed all male British subjects to vote.

That included Aboriginal men, and, in 1895, when South Australia gave women the right to vote, Aboriginal women shared that right.

Few Aboriginal people knew of their voting rights, though, and, after Federation, the 1902 Franchise Act allowed only those who had already been state voters to vote federally.


Even when the Chifley Government passed an Act in 1949 that anyone eligible to vote in state elections could now vote federally, many Aboriginal people still believed they could not.


Finally, in 1962, legislation extended the vote in federal elections to all Aboriginal people of voting age, but, even then, it remained voluntary and not well known.


That is why, even after Western Australia finally allowed the vote in state elections in 1962 and Queensland followed in '65, the '67 referendum appeared to many to open the door.
 
While "white supremacist" obviously evokes very negative connotations, it would be very hard to put a white supremacist Australia in history's list of evil regimes alongside Apartheid South Africa. Not because it wouldn't be a bad country, but because there aren't enough non-whites to oppress. Oppress Aboriginals? Aboriginals are a small fraction of the population, and were sufficiently oppressed as it was. Oppress Asians and other immigrants? Sure? But you have a comprehensively well-enforced White Australia policy and you've deported as many as you legally can and then some, so they also aren't large in numbers. Pretty much no Aboriginal rights and a strictly-enforced White Australia policy is as far as you can probably go. And I'm not sure that would be enough to get anything more than very stern criticism from the global community, considering Australia's economic strength (far more powerful than South Africa ever was). The fact you have 95% oppressing 5% instead of the other way makes a lot of difference.

You'd somehow have to get a dictatorial government to much further, since you'd need to violate Australian laws to do so. This would mean pogroms against the Asian community (and Jews, because why wouldn't ultra-racist Australia go after them?), and possibly genocide. By that I mean all Asians are rounded up and put on the first boat to wherever with nothing but the clothes on their back.

It was that small of a minority due to essentially a planned genocide and trying to breed the aboriginals out as well as trying to get them to adopt western culture forcefully (the last two leading to the Stolen Generation). Trust me, the government until then had done more than enough to be considered bad (a different type of bad to Apartheid South Africa and probably not as bad, but still pretty bad in its own right).

As for why racist australia wouldn't go after the jews, no reason really (unless i am completely wrong, anti-semitism was never a real mainstream position at all by any major political or public force) we only didn't accept the resettlement, maybe the resettlement is accepted but things go sour quick, that could bring in some resentment but it would be hard to do given that it was never a mainstream position. Maybe certain asian races perhaps (depending on the wars we partake in) could see a backlash against those communities however. As for a dictator, they were few and far between but they existed (my example being that Joh-Bjelke Peterson rises to power, he had significant rural support and was hardline enough and dictatorial enough that he could lead said nation).
 
Last edited:
While "white supremacist" obviously evokes very negative connotations, it would be very hard to put a white supremacist Australia in history's list of evil regimes alongside Apartheid South Africa. Not because it wouldn't be a bad country, but because there aren't enough non-whites to oppress. Oppress Aboriginals? Aboriginals are a small fraction of the population, and were sufficiently oppressed as it was. Oppress Asians and other immigrants? Sure? But you have a comprehensively well-enforced White Australia policy and you've deported as many as you legally can and then some, so they also aren't large in numbers. Pretty much no Aboriginal rights and a strictly-enforced White Australia policy is as far as you can probably go. And I'm not sure that would be enough to get anything more than very stern criticism from the global community, considering Australia's economic strength (far more powerful than South Africa ever was). The fact you have 95% oppressing 5% instead of the other way makes a lot of difference.

You'd somehow have to get a dictatorial government to much further, since you'd need to violate Australian laws to do so. This would mean pogroms against the Asian community (and Jews, because why wouldn't ultra-racist Australia go after them?), and possibly genocide. By that I mean all Asians are rounded up and put on the first boat to wherever with nothing but the clothes on their back.
There's other ways they can piss off the intentional community. Ally and share WMDs with South Africa, Rhodesia, & Israel. Send troops to fight the Cubans in Angola. Militarily destabilize Indonesia in support of insurgents to try and carve out a series of anti-communist/anti-Asian buffer states. Free Papua-In-Exile, the Permesta, East Timor, Christian Moluccas, things like that. Make large unilateral claims to Antarctica for Lebensraum (maybe to secure Antarctic uranium for previously said WMDs).

Honestly just the fact that they would be a natural ideological ally and supporter of South Africa is probably enough to get some weird looks in their direction at the UN without needing to go full rogue state at the same time.

edit: Get into sea battles with Japanese whalers and fishermen. Cause they're yellow. But also cause racist Australia loves whales apparently.
 
Last edited:
Err, yes technically Aboriginals could vote in the first election we had thats true, because the franchise was for all "men". Then after it was amended to include women, Aboriginals were kicked out of the franchise. Also can you tell me truthfully that even if they nominally had franchise that aboriginal people would have been capable of excersising it at all?
 
Of course, as there would have been plenty of Aboriginal people integrated into wider colonial society, just like in an all colonies with indigenous populations
 
Please correct me if I'm making some kind of error. I haven't looked into this issue specifically, so I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong.
The 1967 referendum altered matters so the 'People of the Aboriginal Race' were included in reckonings for census and parliamentary representation and moved indigenous affairs to a Federal level. The "flora and fauna" bit is a persistent myth (addressed here) abut the referendum.
 
Its tough because there are too few non whites to lord it over, aboriginal population bottomed out in the 20s and until the 50s Britain and Ireland were the prime sources of immigration .
"Afghan" immigrants in the 19th Century
 
For a white supremacist Australia they first need a lot more non-whites to be supreme over.
Either the Aboriginal population is much larger or a large non-white labour force is imported from elsewhere - probably either India or China.
Then various apartheid style laws can be introduced.
 
The AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT admits that the practices were intentionally racist on its own web site, that ONE IN TEN girls taken into the program were sexually abused.
I'd like to add to this that (according to the registers of the Aboriginal Protection Board)
  • one in 7 girls ran away while taken from their familiies
  • one in 11 became pregnant
  • one in 12 died
The figure of 10% of girls being subject to sexual abuse is almost certainly a significant underestimate; the report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission put the figure at an aggregate of 17%, with the rate depending greatly on where they were placed. Almost 30% of girls taken in by foster families suffered rape or sexual abuse.

If anyone is interested in more detailed information I suggest you see the Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families, better known as Bringing them Home. I warn you it's grim reading.

Despite this there are a number of Australian historians who seek to defend, deny or minimise the Stolen Generations and other unsavoury aspects of Australian history, probably the best known of these is Keith Windschuttle whose efforts to claim that "There were no Stolen Generations" have been torn apart by academic historians.
 
Top