An Australian Aboriginal State

A feature I've noted frequently recurring, at least in American TLs, is the creation of a Lakota or Sioux state, usually in a 'fragmented US' timeline. Yet at the same time there's been practically no talk of the creation of an independent or semi-independent state run by, and primarily composed of, Australian Aboriginals.

Admittedly, they have substantial disadvantages; Australia never had a Battle of Little Big Horn or indeed many of the climactic advantages of the US. Yet there was Aboriginal resistance; estimates say that about 2500 Europeans died in frontier conflicts over the course of Australian history.

So, is there any way in which an independent or semi-independent Aboriginal state might emerge in Australia? By 'state', I mean it has to have a system of government, international recognition, and some form of legal authority within its borders. The rest is up to you.

Personally, my best bet lies in when the Northern Territory was divided into Northern and Central Australia; the population was almost entirely Aboriginal, with Alice Springs little more than a telegraph station. If you could prevent Alice Springs from being built up much more than it was, you could have a gradual movement for independence tying in with land rights.
 
So, is there any way in which an independent or semi-independent Aboriginal state might emerge in Australia? By 'state', I mean it has to have a system of government, international recognition, and some form of legal authority within its borders. The rest is up to you.
Given that the Aboriginals were just hunter gatherer tribes each making their own way in the Australian wilderness, there is not much if anything for a state to be built on. In contrast Amerindian tribes were large and organised.

Personally, my best bet lies in when the Northern Territory was divided into Northern and Central Australia; the population was almost entirely Aboriginal, with Alice Springs little more than a telegraph station. If you could prevent Alice Springs from being built up much more than it was, you could have a gradual movement for independence tying in with land rights.
The land rights would have to be conceded by the Australian government and as long as they don't concede any, tough for the Aborigines.

To take the Amerindian comparison, whilst tribes may have been removed from various areas, they were usually either moved to another albeit not so good or as in the case of the Black Hills bought out (although in that case for various reasons the money has not been paid). In effect, they have remained sovreign entities.

In contrast, I don't believe (although I am not than happy to be corrected on this) any Aborigine tribes were treated in the same fashion and any land thet have is government land returned to them.
 
Such a state would only e possible if an organised resistance stromng enough to give the settlers pause develops in Australia. The US and Canada were settled under an assumption of a people of lesser right being displaced. You could take their lands by purchase or conquest and impose your will on them with little care because they were primitives, but the whole thing still happened within the context of law. Australia, OTOH, was settled as 'terra nullius' - the Aborigines simply weren't accorded any rights to it, being thought of as transient phenomena. Thus, they would have to win to make a claim stick.

hmmmmm. A Polynesian cultural influence at an earlier stage? The Maori seem to have done more or less OK for themselves...
 
Given that the Aboriginals were just hunter gatherer tribes each making their own way in the Australian wilderness, there is not much if anything for a state to be built on. In contrast Amerindian tribes were large and organised.

Actually, that's a common misconception. There were many Aboriginal 'nations', who had clearly defined land and cultural homogenity. For example, the Wiradjuri nation occupied much of New South Wales, and had clearly defined cultural traditions. The Aborigines weren't simply hunter-gatherers with the same traditions Australia-wide, but a variety of complex tribes each with their own traditions and territory. And they weren't exactly small, either, with the Wiradjuri possibly having over 10 000 inhabitants (even if I find DMA's estimate of 500 000 highly dubious)
 
Maybe have the Wiradjuri chief, Windradyne watching the British, learning how they use their guns and then stealing them all. By mid-1824, you could have the colonists in Bathurst fleeing back to Sydney for safety. There were only thirty-two troops and about 1200 other British in Bathurst at the time.

Or have a Governor after Macquarie unlike Brisbane, willing to keep the greedy and aggressive Macarthur and Oxley at bay.
 
The real flaw here is that your POD has to occur prior to the settlemetn of the first colony in 1788. As part of the establishment of the colony, New South Wales, the Privy Council declared the whole of Australia to be Terra Nullius which effectively makes the issue of land rights moot. Remember that Terra Nullius was not revoked until, I believe 1991.

With the legal fiction available, there is no nasty treaty like the treaty of waitangi in NZ or all the treaties in the US and Canada causing difficulties.

Therefore the only ways to get an Aboriginal state are to either assume that Terra Nullius is a non starter, or posit an Aboriginal tribal structure that can successfully rsist and force a treaty. If you had to pick a tribe to do that, it wouild have to be the Larrakeyah up in the Northern Territory, often referred to as "Australia's Zulus"
 
If you haven't read my Windradyne - Wiradjuri - The Bathurst Wars TL yet, here's the link Makarrata: The Legacy of Windradyne (The Bathurst Wars). Admittedly I took a rather negative attitude in the aftermath of the War, akin to the OTL, than I could have, but I'm not overly sure whether better things could have happened.

Having said that, a semi-independent Wiradjuri state could have survived in some form, given that various Governors abided by various agreements/treaties, not to mention Crown Law, until 1901 & thus it may have joined as an Original State. It could have, furthermore, dramatically changed Australian society insofar as the White Australia Policy may have never had taken place, let alone Aboriginals treated as 3rd class citizens in their own country. And such radical things would not have been out of character for Australia, at the time in question, considering the other radical political ideas that were common place; such as the universal franchise (men & women) for all Australians over the age of 21; the union movement being involved in workplace relations; the labour movement fully represented in the political arena through the ALP; not to mention the (so-called) utilitarian - egalitarian - nonclass society that had grown across the country.

Just another note about Aboriginal population levels - In truth no-one actually knows what the population levels were. In fact it's probably safe to say know one knows the current exact figure regardless of last week's census. The figure of 500 000 for the Wiradjuri, I'll admit, cannot be proven beyond a shadow of doubt. This figure, though, is repeated often in modern day Wiradjuri literature. But yes, much lower figures are also quoted here & there. The same can be said for figures on overall Aboriginal populations in 1788. They're either around 300 000 or up to around 4 million (if not higher). So in the end it depends upon who you're willing to believe. I completely reject the low figures, because these were complied by ignorant white historians with a political wheelbarrow to push - in other words Terra Nullius not to mention the White Australia Policy.

More importantly, recent archaeological evidence, not to mention an outpouring of Aboriginal studies & the mainstream historical acceptance of indigenous oral history, has clearly demonstrated that the Aboriginal population level prior to 1788 was well over 1 million. And, depending upon any one particular study, not to mention the political convenience (or inconvenience), the overall population number seems to be raising accordingly regardless of the conservative nature of historical study. As a result, personally, I’m prepared to accept the figure of about 3 to 3.3 million Aboriginals living in Australia around 1788, whilst the Wiradjuri population figure of around 500 000 sounds reasonable to me.
 
Well, DMA, the problem with an independent Wiradjuri state is that the Bathurst War is integral, and for that you need much higher casualties than in OTL. I've read your TL, which I found fascinating, but I've found no sources which show any amount of European casualties higher than 20, or anything that says Windradyne visited Paramatta any later than 1824, by which time the Europeans had barely broken a sweat. I'm not doubting your facts, I'd just like some more clarification, since from what Google has said so far it wasn't so much a war as a series of brief skirmishes, followed by a massacre. 20 white casualties aren't enough to ensure Wiradjuri independence.

Of course, if there was a sustained war in which the Wiradjuri proved a major difficulty for the Europeans, then yes, your theories from then on prove eminently plausible, and I apologise for questioning you. But I just don't see the evidence that the Wiradjuri did sustain such a war or would have had the capability to sustain such a war. If they had, though, I see the possibility of a Wiradjuri protectorate, which eventually gets absorbed as a state, as being a very interesting scenario.
 
Well, DMA, the problem with an independent Wiradjuri state is that the Bathurst War is integral, and for that you need much higher casualties than in OTL. I've read your TL, which I found fascinating, but I've found no sources which show any amount of European casualties higher than 20, or anything that says Windradyne visited Paramatta any later than 1824, by which time the Europeans had barely broken a sweat. I'm not doubting your facts, I'd just like some more clarification, since from what Google has said so far it wasn't so much a war as a series of brief skirmishes, followed by a massacre. 20 white casualties aren't enough to ensure Wiradjuri independence.


I'm affraid you'll have to forget all about Google, or the internet for that matter, & go off to a decent university library or some such & do the research the good old way. And just as importantly, you'll be pushed to find any "hard" evidence to support much of anything about the Bathurst Wars. Much of it is either hearsay, oral history, or generalisations - especially from the Wiradjuri side of affairs - whilst on the British side it was deliberately either kept to a minimum or not mentioned at all. As such I'll admit that my facts aren't verifiable, but what I've said is based upon at least something that I've come across with my historical research over the years.

BTW I did my BA (with a major in history) at CSU @ Bathurst, so I could actually, not only chat to the locals at Wiradjuri Centre there, but also with the senior lecturer (Robin McLaughlan) who also took an interest in the Bathurst Wars. So in many respects I've had personal access to much information that wouldn't be on the internet nor easy to access through a local library. But by all means contact CSU @ Bathurst or visit your local university library if you can & start from there.


Of course, if there was a sustained war in which the Wiradjuri proved a major difficulty for the Europeans, then yes, your theories from then on prove eminently plausible, and I apologise for questioning you. But I just don't see the evidence that the Wiradjuri did sustain such a war or would have had the capability to sustain such a war. If they had, though, I see the possibility of a Wiradjuri protectorate, which eventually gets absorbed as a state, as being a very interesting scenario.


No need to apologise :) If you don't ask questions, well you'll never learn a thing IMHO ;)

Now I'll admit that my TL is more like this sustained war, that you've mentioned, & this does differ somewhat from the events of the OTL. However, Morriset (the British Commander) was often writing to Sydney for reinforcements. And the various deployments I mention in the TL are on the historical record. So again, even though the Bathurst War is played down in the "official" history, why has the British got 3 of their infantry regiments running around the Bathurst region if there isn't a major war going on? Why is Morriset constantly asking for reinforcements? Why are the colonists in the region, including the convict labour, arming themselves with weapons? As I said, all this is on the "official" historical records somewhere - even though you do have to look for them the hard way.

But back to my article & it's just that, in the aftermath period of my AH Bathurst Wars, the OTL more or less reasserts itself until the 1960s onwards. In this sence I took a rather fatalistic & pessimistic view of what may have happened after the leading players, like Windradyne & Governor Darling, were no longer around to be involved in the affairs of the Colony & the Wiradjuri People. And take note that Darling did "protect" the Wiradjuri from European excursions, as per the Parramatta "agreement", until replaced by the Crown because of the said Parramatta "agreement". Having said that, though, things could have been more positive insofar as you could have your scenario of an Aboriginal State.
 
If you haven't read my Windradyne - Wiradjuri - The Bathurst Wars TL yet, here's the link Makarrata: The Legacy of Windradyne (The Bathurst Wars). Admittedly I took a rather negative attitude in the aftermath of the War, akin to the OTL, than I could have, but I'm not overly sure whether better things could have happened.

Having said that, a semi-independent Wiradjuri state could have survived in some form, given that various Governors abided by various agreements/treaties, not to mention Crown Law, until 1901 & thus it may have joined as an Original State. It could have, furthermore, dramatically changed Australian society insofar as the White Australia Policy may have never had taken place, let alone Aboriginals treated as 3rd class citizens in their own country. And such radical things would not have been out of character for Australia, at the time in question, considering the other radical political ideas that were common place; such as the universal franchise (men & women) for all Australians over the age of 21; the union movement being involved in workplace relations; the labour movement fully represented in the political arena through the ALP; not to mention the (so-called) utilitarian - egalitarian - nonclass society that had grown across the country.

Just another note about Aboriginal population levels - In truth no-one actually knows what the population levels were. In fact it's probably safe to say know one knows the current exact figure regardless of last week's census. The figure of 500 000 for the Wiradjuri, I'll admit, cannot be proven beyond a shadow of doubt. This figure, though, is repeated often in modern day Wiradjuri literature. But yes, much lower figures are also quoted here & there. The same can be said for figures on overall Aboriginal populations in 1788. They're either around 300 000 or up to around 4 million (if not higher). So in the end it depends upon who you're willing to believe. I completely reject the low figures, because these were complied by ignorant white historians with a political wheelbarrow to push - in other words Terra Nullius not to mention the White Australia Policy.

More importantly, recent archaeological evidence, not to mention an outpouring of Aboriginal studies & the mainstream historical acceptance of indigenous oral history, has clearly demonstrated that the Aboriginal population level prior to 1788 was well over 1 million. And, depending upon any one particular study, not to mention the political convenience (or inconvenience), the overall population number seems to be raising accordingly regardless of the conservative nature of historical study. As a result, personally, I’m prepared to accept the figure of about 3 to 3.3 million Aboriginals living in Australia around 1788, whilst the Wiradjuri population figure of around 500 000 sounds reasonable to me.

Hey David,

I haven't heard about your timeline, but I will definitely mark it down for a read. I agree that Australia at the time of federation had become a very radicalised society and that an Aboriginal state was thus a possibility. I wouldn't have said likely, but nonetheless possible. I will have a look at your justification and give you my opinion as a Dyiringanj son of the Yuin nation. ;) BTW, I understand from a brother that there is increasingly archeological evidence that Aboriginal peoples were not all nomadic; some had definitely settled. When I lay my hands on his information (not likely to be soon as he lives on the other side of the continent), I will let you know.

From the research of some indigenous people, I was going to write my own TL on Aboriginal people that gave their population a figure well above the 300,000, which I have always thought is ridiculously low. The absolute minimum for which I would settle would be 360,000 (but even that is a stretch given the number of languages and cultures involved). I would place the upper limit at about 3.5 million. So your figures are at the upper end of the scale, but nonetheless feasible.

When you talk about the Wiradjuri population, are you talking about all the people of the Riverina? If not, I think half a million is excessive probably by a margin of about 20%. Again, there is scant evidence - it is just my gut instinct.
 
I haven't heard about your timeline, but I will definitely mark it down for a read. I agree that Australia at the time of federation had become a very radicalised society and that an Aboriginal state was thus a possibility. I wouldn't have said likely, but nonetheless possible. I will have a look at your justification and give you my opinion as a Dyiringanj son of the Yuin nation. ;)


Well I hope that you find my TL fitting & proper. I'll ask for forgiveness now for getting anything wrong :eek:

I sadly don't think that an Aboriginal State is likely either, hence I went with the OTL more or less in the "aftermath" period in my TL :(


BTW, I understand from a brother that there is increasingly archeological evidence that Aboriginal peoples were not all nomadic; some had definitely settled. When I lay my hands on his information (not likely to be soon as he lives on the other side of the continent), I will let you know.


Yes I've come across the same thing myself. Alas I've never found anything on the internet to supprt this, but then again it is the internet afterall (& my academic training makes me feel sick when people think the intenet has all the real answers, whilst university libraries are considered unreliable... :eek: ) Anyways, it seems Victoria may have had several more or less permanent settlements - especially along the coast. It's also possible that other locations had permament settlements as well in NSW in the Hunter Valley region for example.


From the research of some indigenous people, I was going to write my own TL on Aboriginal people that gave their population a figure well above the 300,000, which I have always thought is ridiculously low. The absolute minimum for which I would settle would be 360,000 (but even that is a stretch given the number of languages and cultures involved). I would place the upper limit at about 3.5 million. So your figures are at the upper end of the scale, but nonetheless feasible.


I didn't think anyone supported the 300 000 figure anymore - the usual low figure I hear quoted these days is around 750 000. And that figure came onto the scene around the 1970s. Since then the figure has been slowly going up in number. Henry Reynolds says it was over 1 million, whilst the likes of Lorna Lippmann says around the 3.5 million figure. I go for the higher number for lots of reasons, some of which you've mentioned, whilst not forgetting the politics involved with wanting to keep the Aboriginal number low. Such things (ie about the population level amongst other things) may change when Aboriginal Studies matures academically over the next decade or two.


When you talk about the Wiradjuri population, are you talking about all the people of the Riverina? If not, I think half a million is excessive probably by a margin of about 20%. Again, there is scant evidence - it is just my gut instinct.


I'll plead guilty here. The 500 000 figure is what I understand to be the claim for the entire Wiradjuri population - not just the "clans" of the central plains etc around the Bathurst-Orange-Dubbo-Mudgee region (where the events of my TL take place).
 
David, I read the timeline and enjoyed it very much.

The idea I have for a future timeline is that the Aboriginal people, through contact with the Chinese, begin to develop agriculture and mining, as well as an understanding of masonary and archery. Maybe the Chinese trade them some horses. And you end up getting a number of developing civilisations in Australia before the arrival of the Dutch.

Among the nations would be:

Kariyarra - a nation on the coast of what is now Western Australia with a capital near modern-day Port Hedland, and stretching west to the edge of the Little Sandy Desert. Population of about 260,000. Major centre of agriculture, fishing, salt mining and iron. Because of their iron ore, they will have conquered nearly as far south as modern day Geraldton, an area which they contest with the:

Wajuk - a nation with a capital on the modern-day Swan River. Mainly a fishing and farming people, in earlier history they had quartz whereas their enemies had flint, meaning superior weapons. However, they are not warlike except on their northern border. Mostly coastal, they have moved within a few kilometres of what is modern day Kalgoorlie, but are frightened of the desert peoples. They have therefore stretched around the coast as far as the modern day town of Nullabor. They number about 170,000. It was in Nullabor that they first made contact with the:

Bangarla - who dominate what is today the Spencer Gulf and have a capital near the modern port of Whyalla. Numbering only about 100,000, they likewise had iron, but are one of the more peaceful peoples. They also occupy the Flinders Ranges between the two lakes. They have a major trading settlement on the site of Port Augusta. On their eastern border are the:

Wiradjuri - who are a highly productive people of 420,000. They rule everything west of the Great Dividing Range as far north as Maroochydore and a little bit to the west of the Darling River. Their capital is around modern day Bathurst. The coast, however, is dominated by the:

Dharawal - who dominate the coast from near Warnambool in the south to the Gold Coast region in the north. With a population of 290,000 and a capital that is at the same place as modern-day Sydney, they have been able to hold the Wiradjuri at bay for centuries. They have an alliance with the:

Yuggera - another coastal kingdom which rules from the Gold Coast to the borders of modern day Townsville. They dare not proceed further north into the rainforests, but they have crossed the Great Dividing Range in places, mainly to prevent further northern expansion by the Wiradjuri. They number about 290,000.

Djirbalngan - are the rainforest people (think coastal - Townsville to Cairns). At about 60,000, they will be the smallest of the nations, but are also fierce warriors with powerful medicines. Oh, I nearly forgot the:

Paredarerme - who rule what is today Tasmania and are about 80,000 strong.

There are nine other nations, but you get the general idea. What do you think?
 
David, I read the timeline and enjoyed it very much.


Thanks you. I'm glad you did :)


The idea I have for a future timeline is that the Aboriginal people, through contact with the Chinese, begin to develop agriculture and mining, as well as an understanding of masonary and archery. Maybe the Chinese trade them some horses. And you end up getting a number of developing civilisations in Australia before the arrival of the Dutch.

Among the nations would be:

Kariyarra - a nation on the coast of what is now Western Australia with a capital near modern-day Port Hedland, and stretching west to the edge of the Little Sandy Desert. Population of about 260,000. Major centre of agriculture, fishing, salt mining and iron. Because of their iron ore, they will have conquered nearly as far south as modern day Geraldton, an area which they contest with the:

Wajuk - a nation with a capital on the modern-day Swan River. Mainly a fishing and farming people, in earlier history they had quartz whereas their enemies had flint, meaning superior weapons. However, they are not warlike except on their northern border. Mostly coastal, they have moved within a few kilometres of what is modern day Kalgoorlie, but are frightened of the desert peoples. They have therefore stretched around the coast as far as the modern day town of Nullabor. They number about 170,000. It was in Nullabor that they first made contact with the:

Bangarla - who dominate what is today the Spencer Gulf and have a capital near the modern port of Whyalla. Numbering only about 100,000, they likewise had iron, but are one of the more peaceful peoples. They also occupy the Flinders Ranges between the two lakes. They have a major trading settlement on the site of Port Augusta. On their eastern border are the:

Wiradjuri - who are a highly productive people of 420,000. They rule everything west of the Great Dividing Range as far north as Maroochydore and a little bit to the west of the Darling River. Their capital is around modern day Bathurst. The coast, however, is dominated by the:

Dharawal - who dominate the coast from near Warnambool in the south to the Gold Coast region in the north. With a population of 290,000 and a capital that is at the same place as modern-day Sydney, they have been able to hold the Wiradjuri at bay for centuries. They have an alliance with the:

Yuggera - another coastal kingdom which rules from the Gold Coast to the borders of modern day Townsville. They dare not proceed further north into the rainforests, but they have crossed the Great Dividing Range in places, mainly to prevent further northern expansion by the Wiradjuri. They number about 290,000.

Djirbalngan - are the rainforest people (think coastal - Townsville to Cairns). At about 60,000, they will be the smallest of the nations, but are also fierce warriors with powerful medicines. Oh, I nearly forgot the:

Paredarerme - who rule what is today Tasmania and are about 80,000 strong.

There are nine other nations, but you get the general idea. What do you think?



Believe it or not I wrote a somewhat tongue-in-cheek AH about 5 years ago based around a United Kingdom of Australia along similar lines, although the nations which settled down were located in the South-East & South-West of the continent. Having said that, there's no reason why other nations couldn't have done the same in Queensland & elsewhere.

I do question, though, more so on geographical/environmental location grounds than anything else, that in a couple of your choices the environment may not be able to support such settlements not to mention the population levels that you've suggested. In other words the Kariyarra & the Bangarla aren't in favourable locations to grow to the size &/or importance. But I can't see why the others here couldn't.

Now I don't know what your plans are, for your TL, but in mine I went for the "United" theme to serve the latter storyline. That was a deliberate move on my behalf, but if you keep the various nations separate, I already see the potential for a series of wars to take place on a European scale - especially between the Dharawal & the Wiradjuri considering their geographical location etc (which I've noticed you've already hinted at ;) )

Anyways it'll be very interesting to see what you'll come up with, as you've already got my attention with this TL idea of yours.
 
OK, thread necromancy is a terrible thing, but I've decided that, for now, I won't start a new thread, since this Wiradjuri thing has me honestly curious. The other option I was going to go with was with the Tasmanian Aboriginal tribes, who actually killed 170 Europeans during the Black War, but Henry Reynolds says in Fate of a Free People that there were only 5-7000 Tasmanian Aboriginals, which probably isn't enough for a sustained independence in the face of extensive European immigration.

Anyway, I've decided to build on the ending of DMA's excellent Makarrata TL, but with a more positive result.

After the signing of the historic Parramatta Treaty (Makarrata) of 1827, after a sustained four-year campaign by the Wiradjuri people, public opinion was immediately divided. Some, including John Macarthur, a notable wool magnate who had recently been appointed to the Legislative Council, condemned the measure, and sought Brisbane's removal. Officials in London were more than happy to oblige, having previously come close to dismissing Brisbane during a dispute with the colonial secretary, Frederick Goulburn, which was only delayed due to the pressures of the war. The break in hostilities allowed for Brisbane's dismissal, to be replaced by Sir Ralph Darling.

(Darling was notoriously hostile to the interests of landowners, most notoriously William Charles Wentworth; he would thus have upheld the Makarrata to the letter. This means that his six-year-reign can be a time of relative peace for the Wiradjuri, allowing for our POD from our POD, so to speak)


Amongst the Wiradjuri, internal conflicts arose over relations with Britain. At the time, the Wiradjuri were largely partitioned into three 'clans', with no central governing authority; Wiradjuri society was largely egalitarian, with adult males having generally equal status in government. As a result, no one person could 'speak' for the Wiradjuri, due to the large distances involved between separate groups. This led to the creation of small 'militia bands' of disaffected Aboriginal youths, unwilling to accept British sovereignty, who led attacks on friendly European farmers on Wiradjuri territory. The various 'clans' were unable to police or to stop these attacks, which further excerbated divides within Wiradjuri society.

In 1829, these disputes were at a fever pitch, as several leaders of more distant clans in the northeast refused to accept Windradyne's authority. New 'war bands' began attacks on both the European settlers and Windradyne's followers in the Bathurst district. Darling, and other colonial leaders, placed pressure on Windradyne to halt the attacks, or risk renewed war. A tribal gathering (often anachronistically referred to as a 'Corroboree', although this term refers mostly to gatherings in northwestern Australia) was held to determine the dispute near modern-day Bathurst, of leaders from clans throughout Wiradjuri territory. At this gathering, observed by white officials, Windradyne was affirmed as leader of the Wiradjuri people, and British citizenship was generally accepted. Suttor, by this time a respected intermediary between the Europeans and Aborigines, helped draft a 'constitution', in which the Wiradjuri, while subject to the crown, were allowed a degree of self-government under self-appointed leaders.

(OK, just another word; the main difference this has with DMA's TL is that because of continuing attacks, the Europeans force the Wiradjuri to accept a recognised leader, who can later set up something approximating a government. With the rudiments of central authority, the Wiradjuri can resist encroaching white settlement through the legal system more effectively. Also, this delays Windradyne's death, which allows the Wiradjuri to put up a more concerted resistance)


Darling retired in 1831. Despite the efforts of the growing pastoralist lobby in New South Wales, who through the Legislative Council were gaining increasing influence, the Colonial Office appointed Richard Bourke to the governorship, who continued to respect the Makarrata. John Macarthur, the leader of the pastoralist lobby, died in 1834; this dealt a major blow to the anti-treaty faction in the Legislative Council. However, in 1836, reforms to the Legislative Council allowed for the election of 36 out of the 54 members; since the franchise was restricted to wealthy landowners, a large number of graziers opposed to the treaty gained election.

Meanwhile, in the Wiradjuri Nation, Windradyne continued to be a respected leader. In 1832, in response to a dispute over the handling of the war (in which he was injured, but not killed), he called the first Wiradjuri Assembly, an elected legislature based along the lines of the Legislative Council, in order to fend off claims of growing autocratic rule. At its first meeting, the Assembly sponsored a bill to form a militia to guard Wiradjuri lands against growing encroachment by landowners. The sale of land to the north allowed for the purchase of European muskets from the New South Wales government, ostensibly for 'hunting'. The stage was set for a renewed war.

The first skirmishes came, as these things generally do, through a dispute over a woman. Many Wiradjuri had taken to living on the border of the 'white' territories in the Blue Mountains, and prostitution had become a major trade to cater for lonely pioneers. In 1837, John Macintyre, a trapper in the Blue Mountains, refused to pay after receiving 'services', as they were euphemistically referred to in the press at the time, from an Aboriginal woman. He was later found dead, in mysterious circumstances. Despite Macintyre's rather dubious history and nature, the anti-treaty faction in the Legislative Council used this to prompt a military expedition into Wiradjuri territory. Although this was in theory to 'apprehend the most notorious murderers' and was justified as a police action, it was largely interpreted at the time, by both sides, as a seizure of Wiradjuri lands. Major Ralph Nunn was placed in command of the expedition. Despite vehemous protests from the Wiradjuri government and Suttor, who by this point was serving as an unofficial 'ambassador', the expedition proceeded over the Blue Mountains into Wiradjuri land.

Ten years had made much difference to both sides. In the case of the Wiradjuri, a semi-professional militia, trained in weaponry, had been set up, with extensive knowledge of the terrain. Major Nunn's expedition, on the other hand, was poorly equipped, had no way of protecting its supply train and faced substantial opposition within the government, where it was viewed as being a violation of treaty terms. Guerrilla attacks by Wiradjuri sapped the expedition's strength. Near modern-day Wagga Wagga, an ambush, lead by Wiradjuri himself, led to dozens of deaths on both sides. Finally, cut off from his supplies and facing mounting casualties, Nunn was forced to retreat. Back home, many landowners advocated the immediate subjudgation of the Wiradjuri.

Into the growing conflict stepped the Colonial Office in London. The expedition was found to have breached the rights of the Wiradjuri, as British citizens, to their own land and to due process as given in the Treaty. The disaster of the expedition forced Bourke to retire, and George Gipps, who was greatly sympathetic to the Wiradjuri, was appointed in his place. The Second Parramatta Conference was held in 1838 between Windradyne and Gipps, reaffirming the treaty 'for all time', and assuring Wiradjuri autonomy would be respected. Windradyne died of natural causes in 1842, but he had assured the future of his nation.

However, in 1851, the Wiradjuri gained their greatest opportunity and greatest threat yet. An Aboriginal prospector discovered a golden mineral, previously thought worthless, near Bathurst. The Gold Rush was on...


OK, some of that is a bit far-fetched. I suppose I could have just written 'and then the treaty is respected, and they eventually become a state', but I decided that a more autonomous route is more likely to lead to a Wiradjuri nation, as well as being much more fun. Of course, if they become an original state (which I could still write in), I could just have them secede during the Depression like Western Australia tried to do, but where's the fun in that?
 
Last edited:
Actually BlackMage I like it. It's better than my rather pessimistic view of the period from the 1830s onwards. ;)

I've just got a couple of notes to make:

1) If the Wiradjuri are after firearms they probably wouldn't need to trade land for them, in any so-called offically manner. Instead I'm sure there'd be plenty of gun runners willing to sell them Napoleonic surplus unoffically, of course, for whatever they could then trade in Sydney. Some of these gun runners may even be government officials if not army personnel.

2) Wagga-Wagga is a very long distance from the Blue Mountains. If there's trouble in the Bathurst region, the Colonial expedition wouldn't be anywhere near the Riverina - let alone Wagga.

These, though, are just minor things. Importantly, your doing very well indeed. Keep up the good writing! :)
 
You would need a really early POD.
The problem is the Australians had modern Europeans just suddenly thrown on them in their small,barren continent 200 years ago. The native Americans had a rather large,lush continent and had 500 years of the Europeans steadily advancing to help modernise them.
 
That's why the suggestion that the Chinese help them to advance.

And with agriculture, there could be more than a few thousand Tasmanians.
 
You would need a really early POD.
The problem is the Australians had modern Europeans just suddenly thrown on them in their small,barren continent 200 years ago. The native Americans had a rather large,lush continent and had 500 years of the Europeans steadily advancing to help modernise them.


Considering the Australian continent is actually larger than the land mass of the USA (minus Alaska & Hawaii etc), whilst Australia being most desert is actually an illusion so to speak, there's no reason why similar patterns wouldn't occur than in the USA in many respects. Afterall, the Aboriginals had been here for 40 000 years & knew the country extremely well. The British, meanwhile, were completely ignorant as to the land & country.

Furthermore, the Aboriginals could live in the harsher regions, which the Europeans avoided. Basically, & indeed this is still the case today, it was only when the more favourable areas along the eastern coastline were filling up, did the Europeans then turn west. But even then, as still today, only a few thousand British moved over the mountains separating the coastline with the vast inland plains. In comparison, however, the Wiradjuri who lived in this region, had far greater numbers than the British even had in the ENTIRE colony(s) in the 1820s!

I guess the clincher, for BlackMage, is how fast could the Aboriginals adapt to British/European encroachment. Well they're Homo sapiens like everyone else, they're highly innovative like everyone else, & they're as intelligent as everyone else, so there's no reason why they couldn't make various reforms etc in the face of British contact. The key, again common to all humans, is whether they have the political will to rapidly change. So IMHO it'll depend upon the internal politics of the tribe, to see whether they can adapt to the changing circumstances.
 
That's why the suggestion that the Chinese help them to advance.


This may help the tribes up north, & indeed traded items even found their way to the south of Chinese & Asian origin, but it won't help the tribes around Sydney at all. These tribes are going to have to do it themselves.


And with agriculture, there could be more than a few thousand Tasmanians.


It's not really about agriculture as its got to do with isolation & climate. It COLD down there! :D

And, as always, there's the question over actual population levels. I note BlackMage quoted 5-7000 Tasmanian Aboriginals from Reynolds, but the figure I've often seen is 15 000, although I'll stress that no-one really knows the real figure. But whatever the real figure, what is known, even today, is that Tasmania just hasn't got the land & resources to house a large population. In a subsistance economy, at the very best we're talking 50 000. Today, with a modern infrustructure & economy etc, we'd be talking no more than 500 000.
 

Keenir

Banned
I wish everyone well in their endevours to make a viable post-European state in Australia.
(did the natives have a word that encompassed all the various tribes of Australia, but excluded people who lived elsewhere?)


One thing that occurs to me is this: if this native state is on the coast, then it could be supplied by Dutch or any power who wants to restrict British power in the region.....but if the native state is on the interior of Australia, then it is as (over the long term) as doomed as the Eureka Stockade was -- all the British have to do is to keep it isolated, and keep applying pressure.

(the Black Hills in the Dakotas, were at least close to the Canadian border)
 
Top