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.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.
Wait...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.
Reference per Australia's SBS TV service: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.
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.
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).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.
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.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.
"Afghan" immigrants in the 19th CenturyIts 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 .
True enough however that wont get you to anywhere near big numbers"Afghan" immigrants in the 19th Century
I'd like to add to this that (according to the registers of the Aboriginal Protection Board)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.