Challenge: Better native treatment in Australia
- Thread starter tom
- Start date
As I've said in previous posts, Tom, the best way to improve the treatment of Australian Aborigines is for the British govt and settlers from 1770 to recognise the native title rights of the indigenous ppls, in a similar manner as occurred with native American tribes and Maori groups in NZ, instead of OTL following the unjust principle of 'terra nullius'. Perhaps a similar arrangement as NZ's Treaty of Waitangi of 1840 could've been facilitated with major Aboriginal groups after heavy frontier fighting -involving indigenous guerilla warfare and anti-livestock tactics- and substantial losses on both sides ? I don't think you could get the native Australians to have been treated BETTER as such than the native Americans, but at least perhaps closer to equal as possible ? Also, from later in Aust hist, the Aust govt not adopting a racial superiority mentality which led to the creation of Aboriginal 'welfare' boards in each state to control all aspects of Aboriginal ppl's lives by confining them to mission stations, and not allowing a 'Stolen Generations' policy which traumatised so many indig ppl both children and their families ?
I think the only way for the British settlers to take Aborigines seriously as people is for them to be able to put up a fight (not necessarily too much of one - this could easily tip into the genocidal side of war, but more of one). If the abroriginal peoples had had more organisation, more moveable wealth, and a slightly higher level of technology that might well have worked (as it did for the Maori), leading, as Melvin points out, to recognition of their title to the land which they then can sell, rent, or cede to the British.
Maybe if we up the level of outside contact? THere were sporadic interactions with Malay fishermen and some southern Chinese along the northern coast. WI the Aborigines had brought something valuable to trade, starting say around 1500 (what is there in the area? I'm instinctively thinking gold or opals, but Australia is pretty big and I'm not sure the northern groups or Torres Straits Islanders even knew where to find them. Maybe a kind of plant the Chinese like to eat is a more realistic alternative)? Then the northern tribes would get valuable trade goods (metal implements, textiles, glass vessels, pottery, maybe guns) and could in their turn trade south, slowly permeating Australia with 'modern technology'. I don't think the Aborigines would develop into a technologically advanced society, but they would get exposed tomore diseases, thus develop immunities earlier, get more used to the sight of guns and metal, come to develop longer-ranged structures of exchange and dominance with a more hard-nosed 'I want that' approach to life, and might even get a few domesticated animals out of the deal (I dunno. goats? pigs? sheep? I doubt the Malays would be in a position to sell them horses, nor would their customers want them). Once the central tribes notice that their northern couasins will give them valuable glass, metal, and cloth for boring old bits of stone they'll also join the network, and once they find out what the Malay pay for gold and opals they may invent the concept of trade war all of their own
Once the British enter this territory, they will face more warlike, more technologically advanced, less scared-of-strangers populations who will give them a run for their money. Of course the Brits still win, but there'd very likely be some sort of treatys and the aborigines would generously get to keep all the bits of Australia nobody else wanted (until they find gold, copper, coal, cobalt, or what have you there). It would at leasttranslate into a legal position to take in court.
MInd you, this POD will most likely butterfly away the Brits, making either the Portuguese or the Dutch the first European invaders. You don't go buying fine opals and gold from Malay traders for years without wanting to find out where they come from. Maybe it is better to limit the trade to something only the Chinese would eat
Maybe if we up the level of outside contact? THere were sporadic interactions with Malay fishermen and some southern Chinese along the northern coast. WI the Aborigines had brought something valuable to trade, starting say around 1500 (what is there in the area? I'm instinctively thinking gold or opals, but Australia is pretty big and I'm not sure the northern groups or Torres Straits Islanders even knew where to find them. Maybe a kind of plant the Chinese like to eat is a more realistic alternative)? Then the northern tribes would get valuable trade goods (metal implements, textiles, glass vessels, pottery, maybe guns) and could in their turn trade south, slowly permeating Australia with 'modern technology'. I don't think the Aborigines would develop into a technologically advanced society, but they would get exposed tomore diseases, thus develop immunities earlier, get more used to the sight of guns and metal, come to develop longer-ranged structures of exchange and dominance with a more hard-nosed 'I want that' approach to life, and might even get a few domesticated animals out of the deal (I dunno. goats? pigs? sheep? I doubt the Malays would be in a position to sell them horses, nor would their customers want them). Once the central tribes notice that their northern couasins will give them valuable glass, metal, and cloth for boring old bits of stone they'll also join the network, and once they find out what the Malay pay for gold and opals they may invent the concept of trade war all of their own
Once the British enter this territory, they will face more warlike, more technologically advanced, less scared-of-strangers populations who will give them a run for their money. Of course the Brits still win, but there'd very likely be some sort of treatys and the aborigines would generously get to keep all the bits of Australia nobody else wanted (until they find gold, copper, coal, cobalt, or what have you there). It would at leasttranslate into a legal position to take in court.
MInd you, this POD will most likely butterfly away the Brits, making either the Portuguese or the Dutch the first European invaders. You don't go buying fine opals and gold from Malay traders for years without wanting to find out where they come from. Maybe it is better to limit the trade to something only the Chinese would eat
Carlton, I agree with you that some significant changes in Aborigibal society would probably have been needed for them to be dealt with differently by English settlers, and prior contact with civilized southeast asian peoples would certainly have helped.
Although probably implicit in your discussion, you didn't mention socio-political organization. Technologically more advanced Aborigines might also have developed higher levels of sociopolitical organization such as chiefdoms or "big man" leadership systems. Europeans always tended to respond a little more respectfully to native peoples who had political systems they could understand and deal with. They still conquered and abused them wherever they could, but these natives were usually considered political entities who had some rights to the land they currently possessed. My general understanding (Melvin might address this) is that Aborigines lacked any such level of political organization and were never dealt with as human nations or states.
Another speculation I might have (and Melvin, you're free to bitch slap me if I'm wrong) is that the nature of early Australian penal settlers (criminals and outcasts) might have predisposed them to have a particularly brutal outlook on the people already there - and that British colonial administrators would have had little interest in getting involved, one way or the other. But as I said I could be completely off base with this speculation.
Although probably implicit in your discussion, you didn't mention socio-political organization. Technologically more advanced Aborigines might also have developed higher levels of sociopolitical organization such as chiefdoms or "big man" leadership systems. Europeans always tended to respond a little more respectfully to native peoples who had political systems they could understand and deal with. They still conquered and abused them wherever they could, but these natives were usually considered political entities who had some rights to the land they currently possessed. My general understanding (Melvin might address this) is that Aborigines lacked any such level of political organization and were never dealt with as human nations or states.
Another speculation I might have (and Melvin, you're free to bitch slap me if I'm wrong) is that the nature of early Australian penal settlers (criminals and outcasts) might have predisposed them to have a particularly brutal outlook on the people already there - and that British colonial administrators would have had little interest in getting involved, one way or the other. But as I said I could be completely off base with this speculation.
Some very prominent possible changes to facilitate a greater English recognition of Aboriginal land rights and political status would centre on a greater degree of identifiability of local native chiefs, since recognisable tribal leaders didn't really exist among Aboriginal tribes unlike in many north American nations, and if the settlers were able to see evidence that the Aborigines actually used the land productively in Lockean terms, such as the intricate and systematic fishing weirs found in parts of Victoria IIRC and the mass production of stone tools in northwestern NSW, together with an understanding of the 'walkabout' as being a necessary nomadic movement by the Aborigines in order to locate and utilise seasonal food sources in the most optimal manner, and not the shiftless wandering exercise which was used to stereotype Aborigines. These factors would possibly have enabled the British to deal with indigenous Australians in a more respectful manner, esp in terms of negotiating with local chiefs over access to, use of and purchase of land.
Also, London's colonial control by the 1830s and 1840s would've had to be more extensive and enforceable in terms of policy towards recognising Aboriginal rights as British subjects, including re land ownership- OTL the Colonial Office did issue statements to the effect of recognising Aboriginal ownership of the land and their rights as British subjects, including where settlers who wantonly killed Aborigines were to be hanged for murder, but for the most part these Imperial edicts were largely ignored by white settlers and colonial govts as pastoralists and freed convicts, backed up by locally-based police and soldiers, conducted genocidal campaigns against Aboriginal groups standing in the way of settlement and the expansion of the pastoral and other industries. If the British govt had somehow been able to better enforce its colonial policies re indig ppls (altho I'm not really sure how), then their land rights and sovereignty could perhaps have been better safeguarded.
Also, London's colonial control by the 1830s and 1840s would've had to be more extensive and enforceable in terms of policy towards recognising Aboriginal rights as British subjects, including re land ownership- OTL the Colonial Office did issue statements to the effect of recognising Aboriginal ownership of the land and their rights as British subjects, including where settlers who wantonly killed Aborigines were to be hanged for murder, but for the most part these Imperial edicts were largely ignored by white settlers and colonial govts as pastoralists and freed convicts, backed up by locally-based police and soldiers, conducted genocidal campaigns against Aboriginal groups standing in the way of settlement and the expansion of the pastoral and other industries. If the British govt had somehow been able to better enforce its colonial policies re indig ppls (altho I'm not really sure how), then their land rights and sovereignty could perhaps have been better safeguarded.