Well I'd dare say, if Fiji was an original state, the Indians of Fiji would automatically gain equal rights in politics & law as well. So it may mean internal troubles for Fiji. If so, & it gets bad enough, the Federal govt will send troops in to stop whatever fighting errupts under the Federal powers in Section 52.
WI Fiji were a part of Australia?
- Thread starter Dan1988
- Start date
- Status
Well I'd dare say, if Fiji was an original state, the Indians of Fiji would automatically gain equal rights in politics & law as well. So it may mean internal troubles for Fiji. If so, & it gets bad enough, the Federal govt will send troops in to stop whatever fighting errupts under the Federal powers in Section 52.
This could well be the case, but we'd only be talking a few thousand people from an Australian aspect. Meanwhile there are about another 4.5 million Australians who'd be completely ignorant. So, as I said, I have no idea as to why the Indians were/are favoured over others. Even if we take into account the British Empire factor, that still doesn't explain why other subjects of the Empire aren't likewise favoured...
Thande
Donor
A few thousand people who are in charge...
Much as nowadays the enthusiasm for multiculturalism from a tiny proportion of the educated elite has pushed it relentlessly onwards in the face of opposition from much of the rest of the population in many countries, the same is true in this case of favouring Indians above other nonwhites. It's not a case of two clashing opinions, but of one opinion being imposed on a population which doesn't have any coherent idea about how to treat nonwhites beyond a vague sense of hostility.
Well they did do that with the Aboriginals with the Reserve system. That was bad enough. Mind you, as I said, the White Australia Policy more or less solved this kind of thing anyway. Plus there weren't too many non-white around at the best of times, even during the Gold Rush days, in comparison to white numbers, which makes it kind of impractical. Different story, admittedly, if there were say 1 million Chinese, although I'd dare say all govenments (state & federal) would be reluctant to do it.
Ah, but you've got to remember that Australia was/is very much a democracy. And just because those few thousand in charge want something, it doesn't mean to say that the other 4.5 million Australians are going to go along with it, especially if a large number of ordinary people disagree. For example, sadly, there is a large minority of whites even today, maybe as high as 25%, who want Australia to be white only. So don't be thus surprised that our current Howard government has policies which clearly reflect this, ie immigration polices & it's decade long attitude toward Aboriginals.
As for social change - there's a lot more going on to make this happen other than for the opinions of a few elites. I'm sure there were some elites who thought Australia should be communist. Well that didn't happen. There were also some, in the 1890s, who wanted Australia to be a republic. Well that didn't happen either. Such changes only come about, in a society like Australia, regardless of what some elites may want, when the majority of the population do agree that change is warranted. And that's not forgetting some some changes, especially the revolutionary ones, don't necessarily come from above, but is a grassroots initiative.
Well the Fijian military would have been absorbed into the Australian army at Federation. So unless the local police try one against the Fiji state government, I guess is possible, but that'd be all. Anyway, if this did happen, the Federal government would immedately send the federal armed forces in to deal with the coup.
Oh you're guess is as good as mine. It would, though, be a state based Westminister parliamentary system, rather than a national one. Needless to say, some issues would be out of bounds (eg defence), whilst others they be stuck with (eg education). Yet they'd always be looking over their shoulder to Canberra - epecially if an "interventionalist" federal govt came to power (eg Whitlam &/or the current Howard govts). At least they'd get a lot more national funding to help pay for things.
Impossible to say. Sure the Fijian Labour Party is popular, but it's not like it has constantly gotten the majority of votes. And the local state government could introduce a Jerrymander system, akin to Queensland, so the native Fijians could ensure they remain in power at the expense of the Indians (who mostly vote Labour if memory serves).
Federally it maybe a different story as Federal laws control Federal elections. So Fiji would get the same number of senators as everyone else, but their small overall population would limit the number of House members they get. But at least there wouldn't be any Jerrymander
TheLoneAmigo
Donor
With a pre-existing large non-white population, might Australia be more inclined to hang on to PNG? I doubt it would gain statehood soon, but maybe integral territorial status like the NT rather than existing as colonial property?
Could Australia wind up with a more Canadian (pre- expletive deleted Trudeau) policy?
That is minorities are welcome (roughly speaking), you don't have to melt in, but neither should you only be in your own separate enclave (i.e. multiculturalism[1]). You must add your unique identity to the overall Canadian one, rather than becoming the at-time-of-arrival Canadian, or walled off in your own neighbourhood.
I'm not sure we have a name for it, but I've always far preferred it to multiculturalism or the melting pot. Tapestry, perhaps? The in-between of the two extremes?
Anyway, would an Australia with fairly large citizen groups of minorities (i.e. Fiji) be more welcoming in the main to immigration? The caveat being fairly small numbers overall who are expected to be different but add the difference to Australian culture, and no "White Australia" policy.
That is tolerance, but not modern day multiculturalism? Immigration unrestricted by country, but restricted in total per year?
[1] From Radical Tory: The other was the Trudeau policy of multiculturalism, which disparaged and discounted the Canadian identity in favour of everyone else's identity. Rather than being a tapestry woven from a hundred plus threads, added onto by each new generation, multiculturalism turned it into separate threads each of which was to grow on its own.
I dont think the people in the state of Fiji would be any more welcoming to immigrants of different ethnicity than the mainland. If Fiji was a state I think it would want to include indians in the White Australia policy. When Fiji is a state then Fijians are citizens and can move around the country freely, but the mainland is hardly flooded with Tasmanians. Fiji would become integrated with Australia quite quickly since their economy would be structuraly tied to Australia's. Its rich kids would go to Australian Universities, Fijians would ave their own AIF Regts in WW1 and ambitious pollies would go to Melbourne/Canberra. _____________ How would Fiji's joining Australian federation effect NZs deliberations on the topic?
PNG is a tough one as Papua was a Trust Territory left over from WWI. The New Guinea part was kind of Australian territory, although it was always somewhat controversial as to its status as Australian territory wherein Queensland had occupied the place, prior to Federation, & contrary to the demands of the UK.
Some statistics for perspective, I have figures for population in 1903, but 1901. I also may not be reading them right, there a tad confusing on this website: http://www.populstat.info/ Sorry!
Australia 1903: 3,7773,000
Fiji: 117,900
So Fiji would have been about 60,000 people less than Tasmania (171,700), but way bigger than the Northern Territory (4,800). The Indo-Fijian population would lack some of its more influential members those who arrived by themselves with being indentured most of which only arrived after 1901. I hope this has been helpful.
Australia 1903: 3,7773,000
Fiji: 117,900
So Fiji would have been about 60,000 people less than Tasmania (171,700), but way bigger than the Northern Territory (4,800). The Indo-Fijian population would lack some of its more influential members those who arrived by themselves with being indentured most of which only arrived after 1901. I hope this has been helpful.
Interesting population figure for Australia, as it seems a little too low to me. As a matter of interest, is that figure Australian citizens only or all Australian residents? There will be a difference, because a lot of "Australians" 100 year ago were actually immigrants from Britain & Ireland who weren't citizens, yet they could vote in Australian elections.
I'd doubt it. Don't forget we're already dealing with vast distances in regards to communcations; eg, Sydney to Perth is close to 5 000kms: Adelaide to Darwin to over 3 000 kms: Melbourne to Brisbane is something like 2 500kms. Etc...
If anything, I would have thought having Fiji in the Commonwealth, would mean a stronger navy. Whether a few capital ships in WWII, especially two aircraft carriers, make any changes to WWII would be interesting.
- Status