Why no Australian Aboriginal Reservations?

[birdboy2000]

Regarding the difference in how Australian Aboriginals vs. Indigineous Americans were treated, one should not forget that the initial settlement of the continents was nearly two centuries apart. England in 1607 was not the global power Britain would be by the time the first fleet departed, and in that time they had built up an ideology of colonialism.

The settlers in the Thirteen Colonies understood local leaders as kings, albeit non-Christians to be converted - by the time Australia was settled, Britain was an empire and had begun to develop an ideology of superiority (i.e. scientific racism and its precursors) which would worsen throughout the 19th century - the very time period British Australia was expanding throughout the continent and subsuming aboriginal peoples. And Australia wasn't entirely alone in its policy of terra nullius - it was a trend throughout the western world at the time, and the governor-general of the (newly added) Canadian province of British Columbia made a similar declaration in 1871, which also stuck.

There was also the matter of state organization, however. Although settlers in America would often ascribe more powers to some native leaders than they actually had, or try to find powerful chiefs when there weren't any, the United States warred with some fairly large, powerful, and organized indigenous confederations over the course of its history - state formation didn't occur to the same degree in Australia, which both justified treating them worse in the racial hierarchies of the time, and reduced their ability to coordinate military resistance and push Britain to the peace table for better treatment.

 

[Das_Colonel]

Its probably because the Aborigines are extremely primitive

The hell is that supposed to mean? Want to quantify that statement?

Oh, I was going to ask if you were Aboriginal which I think would be pretty cool but you're Tasmanian? Not that not's cool because Tasmania is a cool island and all! Also, yeah colonialism sucks.

Yeah I am one, the former. Calling me a Tasmanian would be an insult

 

[Teejay]

That was my understanding of it. Whereas the U.S. and Canadian governments recognized that the native tribes owned land (and could therefore sell it, albeit under varying levels of coercion and duress) the authorities in Australia just never recognized any aboriginal claim to land.

Usually this was the case, however was one exception. For example; John Batman's treaty with the Treaty with the Wurundjeri people of the Port Phillip area of Victoria in 1835.

The reasoning was since the Aboriginal peoples of Australia did not practice agriculture (as the colonists saw it). Therefore, it was deemed that the land belonged (Terra Nullius) to nobody. In places like North America and New Zealand, it was deemed that the land did belong to the aboriginal peoples since they were considered to practice some form of agriculture. Hence numerous treaties (which were often broken) were signed between the colonists and aboriginal peoples.

 

[Teejay]

Regarding the difference in how Australian Aboriginals vs. Indigenous Americans were treated, one should not forget that the initial settlement of the continents was nearly two centuries apart. England in 1607 was not the global power Britain would be by the time the first fleet departed, and in that time they had built up an ideology of colonialism.

The settlers in the Thirteen Colonies understood local leaders as kings, albeit non-Christians to be converted - by the time Australia was settled, Britain was an empire and had begun to develop an ideology of superiority (i.e. scientific racism and its precursors) which would worsen throughout the 19th century - the very time period British Australia was expanding throughout the continent and subsuming aboriginal peoples. And Australia wasn't entirely alone in its policy of terra nullius - it was a trend throughout the western world at the time, and the governor-general of the (newly added) Canadian province of British Columbia made a similar declaration in 1871, which also stuck.

There was also the matter of state organization, however. Although settlers in America would often ascribe more powers to some native leaders than they actually had, or try to find powerful chiefs when there weren't any, the United States warred with some fairly large, powerful, and organized indigenous confederations over the course of its history - state formation didn't occur to the same degree in Australia, which both justified treating them worse in the racial hierarchies of the time, and reduced their ability to coordinate military resistance and push Britain to the peace table for better treatment.

In New Zealand which was colonised a few decades after Australia. The colonists saw local Maori leaders on the North Island as "kings". This attitude lead to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. Also the state organisation in Aotearoa was fairly similar to that of Eastern North American when the British and French first colonised it.

The various Aboriginal peoples of Australia had not reached that stage of social development for the European colonists to consider them as nations with "kings", that they could make treaties with. For example; the native Americans of North America and the Moari were at an agricultural pre-state* level of social organisation. On the other hand the Aboriginal peoples of Australia were at a Mesolithic pre-agricultural level of social organisation.

Although the Native Americans of the Ohio and Mississppi valleys, along with the South were in the 16th century at a social organisation level similar to that of Bronze Age Egypt or Mesopotamia.

 

[Shahrasayr]

In New Zealand which was colonised a few decades after Australia. The colonists saw local Maori leaders on the North Island as "kings". This attitude lead to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. Also the state organisation in Aotearoa was fairly similar to that of Eastern North American when the British and French first colonised it.

The various Aboriginal peoples of Australia had not reached that stage of social development for the European colonists to consider them as nations with "kings", that they could make treaties with. For example; the native Americans of North America and the Moari were at an agricultural pre-state* level of social organisation. On the other hand the Aboriginal peoples of Australia were at a Mesolithic pre-agricultural level of social organisation.

Although the Native Americans of the Ohio and Mississppi valleys, along with the South were in the 16th century at a social organisation level similar to that of Bronze Age Egypt or Mesopotamia.

I have heard and read that the only way that the British actually managed to colonize Aetorea was by attacking a chief, that had defied them on multiple occasions, on a Sunday. The Maoris were praying and were slaughtered by the British. Is this true?

 

[BELFAST]

There are reservations in Australia.

Northeast Arnhem Land
Declared an Aboriginal Reserve in 1931, it remains one of the largest Aboriginal Reserves in Australia and is perhaps best known for its isolation, the art of its people, and the strong continuing traditions of its Indigenous inhabitants. Northeast Arnhem Land is home to the indigenous Yolngu people, one of the largest Indigenous groups in Australia, and one who have succeeded in maintaining a vigorous traditional indigenous culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnhem_Land

 

[Salamander]

I have heard and read that the only way that the British actually managed to colonize Aetorea was by attacking a chief, that had defied them on multiple occasions, on a Sunday. The Maoris were praying and were slaughtered by the British. Is this true?

No. It sounds like the invasion of the Waikato and the subsequent retreat of the Kingitanga movement into the King Country, the military campaigns of both Te Kooti and Titokowaru and the forced dismantling of the non-violent Parihaka settlement have been been mashed together with the capture of a very elderly Te Rauparaha some twenty years earlier.

 

[Johannes Parisiensis]

Were the Aboriginal people really counted along the wildlife? I sometimes heard this affirmation but had not yet found evidence of this.

Is it true that Whites conducted "hunting safaris" against the Tasmanians? As if they were buffalo on the plains or gorillas in the mist?

This question refered to the rumor I heard about which the census of the Aboriginal people was done along the one of the wildlife; unfortunately, Tasmanians were hunted and killed by colonists, their meat turned into dog food and their scrotums into tobacco pouchs, among others.

Also, much of the interior of Australia was considered wasteland and whites just plain didn't want it.

But would this fact not be an argument on "herding" some Aboriginals in the "outback", give them lands and keep on the useful part of the country the needed number to work on plantations/ranches/whatever - see the Indian Removal -, at last until precious minerals are found underground?

 

[usertron2020]

I agree, there was never a wave of middle class idealists to Australia. Where the penal colonies were in America you saw the same sort of opression of the natives. Mostly because those who were there were uneducated and less motivated to come to America for religious or moral reasons. Georgia was a penal colony for a while and they committed a horrible crime by shipping the Cherokee, who at that point were almost european in lifestyle, to Oklahoma. The president who signed that law was Andrew Jackson, who was also a uneducated frontiersman. The Scotch-Irish were paid to come to America to fight Indians because of their warlike reputation.

I would argue that the brutality of Slavery made it easier for Whites to do to the Red Man what they did. Whites could justify to themselves what they did on the basis that at least they weren't enslaved as the n------ were.

And it wasn't like the White public had televisions to bring the horrors of the Trail of Tears into everyone's living rooms.

Usually this was the case, however was one exception. For example; John Batman's treaty with the Treaty with the Wurundjeri people of the Port Phillip area of Victoria in 1835.

The reasoning was since the Aboriginal peoples of Australia did not practice agriculture (as the colonists saw it). Therefore, it was deemed that the land belonged (Terra Nullius) to nobody. In places like North America and New Zealand, it was deemed that the land did belong to the aboriginal peoples since they were considered to practice some form of agriculture. Hence numerous treaties (which were often broken) were signed between the colonists and aboriginal peoples.

The Plains Indians didn't practice agriculture either IIRC. One reason why the White Man found it so easy to starve them.

There are reservations in Australia.

Northeast Arnhem Land
Declared an Aboriginal Reserve in 1931, it remains one of the largest Aboriginal Reserves in Australia and is perhaps best known for its isolation, the art of its people, and the strong continuing traditions of its Indigenous inhabitants. Northeast Arnhem Land is home to the indigenous Yolngu people, one of the largest Indigenous groups in Australia, and one who have succeeded in maintaining a vigorous traditional indigenous culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnhem_Land

Some good news at least

This question refered to the rumor I heard about which the number of Aboriginal people was classified along the wildlife; unfortunately, Tasmanians were hunted and killed by colonists, their meat turned into dog food and their scrotums into tobacco pouchs, among others.

Thanks for providing me the means to skip lunch.

 

[jetpack]

Forget about the horrors of the Martians, the single most horrifying line in the "War of the Worlds", to me, was when the narrator sort of excuses the Martians for treating humanoids as livestock, 'considering the Tasmanians, and they at least looked like us' (massive paraphrase, it's been a long time, and emphasis added).

Socialist HG Wells('s narrator, still) considered Tasmanian aborigines to be animals that LOOKED human. ~1900!!!!!

So, ya, I think that was a pretty wideheld opinion if someone in England still holds it.

I see how you're getting this, but I think you misinterpreted it.

The exact quote is

And before we judge of them too harshly we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought, not only upon animals, such as the vanished bison and the dodo, but upon its inferior races. The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants, in the space of fifty years. Are we such apostles of mercy as to complain if the Martians warred in the same spirit?

The first tricky phrase is "its inferior races". You're probably interpreting this as "the races that are inferior to our own species", but it can also be read as "the inferior races of own species". I think the second is the most likely reading, since he said he's not talking about just animals.

And I think the saying "human likeness" is an idiomatic/poetic/archaic phrase meaning humanity. The only other place I've seen it is scripture passages that say things like "Jesus came in human likeness". All the big branches of Christianity interpret this as meaning that Jesus is human .

And I think thematically, Wells wasn't trying to say that what Martians do is okay because we do the same thing and that's fine. It's more like saying that if you think the Martians are bad, then you necessarily believe that what humans do is bad.

 

[GeographyDude]

Wow. I don't want this to be a contest where we try to figure out which colonists treated native persons the worse, as if that let's everyone else off the hook.

I'm an American. And in a wide range of ways we did not do right by the Native Americans who were already living here.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

In Canada and the United States, swathes of lands were "reservated" for the use of the Natives, lands they were able to administrate more or less autonomously; in the neighbouring French New Caledonia, the Kanaks are organised in chefferies and grandes-chefferies ruling terres coutumières and under their native civil law.

I would like to know why such reservations - swathes of land held by an Aboriginal tribe - have never been established in Australia. Was it because of the terra nullius doctrine held until 1992 and summarised twenty years earlier?

It would be more accurate to state that it was because of the very primitive state of the Aborigines. Being pre-agricultural, they had no visible ties to any particular area of land.

Also, of course, as soon as Europeans arrived in any significant numbers, disease ran wild through the Aboriginal population, leaving large areas pretty much vacant. The survivors usually retreated into the deep bush.

These circumstances led to the terra nullius doctrine, which seemed to be the appropriate way to establish land titles during the settlement of SE Australia. They also meant that there seemed no reason to reserve land for Aboriginal habitation.

One might also note that large areas of the Outback were not inhabited, even by Aborigines.

Large parts of Australia remain devoid of settlement to this day. The great cattle and sheep "stations" which hold thousands of acres of Outback land don't use it continually or completely.

These factors meant there was always lots of land for the use of "wild" Aboriginals. So there seemed no need for "reservations". That began to change in the 1900s, and some large areas are now reserved for Aboriginals.

 

[GeographyDude]

That is an interesting theory that English colonists felt most comfortable negotiating with native peoples with a chief,

as in, we're hierarchical, and you people should be hierarchical, too.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

That is an interesting theory that English colonists felt most comfortable negotiating with native peoples with a chief,

as in, we're hierarchical, and you people should be hierarchical, too.

Cortez offered Montezuma the status of vassal to Charles V of Spain.

It's not a matter of hierarchy, so much as having a recognized political authority. The Europeans want someone to speak for all the natives.

 

[Tripwire]

Usually this was the case, however was one exception. For example; John Batman's treaty with the Treaty with the Wurundjeri people of the Port Phillip area of Victoria in 1835.

The reasoning was since the Aboriginal peoples of Australia did not practice agriculture (as the colonists saw it). Therefore, it was deemed that the land belonged (Terra Nullius) to nobody. In places like North America and New Zealand, it was deemed that the land did belong to the aboriginal peoples since they were considered to practice some form of agriculture. Hence numerous treaties (which were often broken) were signed between the colonists and aboriginal peoples.

No, this was pretty much the reasoning American politicians used for depriving the natives of their land here too. "One white man can feed as many people on a square acre as an Indian can on a square mile" was a popular slogan in the early 19th century. As the whites saw it, any land not being currently tilled was being wasted and rightfully should belong to them, nevermind that the Indians relied on large hunting grounds for their sustenance. Also, if settlers set up intensive farms nearby, it would disrupt the wildlife, forcing Indian tribes to sell land in exchange for money to survive as their remaining land became worthless for practicing their traditional ways of living.

That is an interesting theory that English colonists felt most comfortable negotiating with native peoples with a chief,

as in, we're hierarchical, and you people should be hierarchical, too.

This was also used as a favored way of exploiting native tribes: Many tribes (Iroquois and Powhatan Confederacies aside) were not permanantly under a single leadership, but rather lived under multiple chiefs, often each in charge of a particular village with no one being officially in charge of the others, and the amount of control they had over their warriors was also not equivalent to a European king. European settlers would convince one chief or tribal representative (often with copious personal gifts, alcohol, and promises) to sell land, and then treat that sale as completely valid and binding, using military force to drive any disagreeing tribal factions off the "sold" land if necessary. Massive tracts of the Eastern United States were gained in this way, along with the other favored tactic of buying land occupied by one tribe from another tribe claiming ownership of it based on nominal overlordship over the other tribe or disputed territorial claims.