Aborigines and Maoris

[Bruce Tuncks]

Today I read about how much better NZ was than Australia, and it was mostly correct. BUT when the treaty of Waitangi was compared with our treatment of Aborigines,  the article was dead wrong. It implied that NZ was better because they treated their Maoris with more respect than we treated our Aborigines.

Here's what happened at the treaty of Waitangi...  the whites were going to win because they had the guns. But they knew full well that they were only a shipwreck or 2 away from running out of guns and ammunition and so the Maoris were not in a zero bargaining situation. The whites agreed to a fair treaty.

Years later, they double-crossed the Maoris but more recently they have had court wins based on this treaty.

 

If the English had never found Australia, it was only a matter of time before the Maoris did. They probably would have eaten the Aborigines. And many of the other possible colonizing countries would have wiped them out. I reckon today's Aborigines don't realize how lucky they were.

 

[nomadpete]

That's an interesting "alternative history".

But it does fall into the "might've, could've, should've, but didn't" category. 

 

I think we have another thread for these.

An interesting thought, though.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Only the last sentence is possible alternative history nomad.  At that time in history there were several European countries active in the colony business.  Australia was once called "New Holland " and the Spanish and Portugese were active as well as the Dutch and French. In Adelaide, there is Fort Largs, built to defend South Australia from a Russian invasion.

Here's something about the Boer War in South Africa. The local Negro tribes supported the English, who they thought were much better than the Dutch. Personally, I am no great supporter of the Poms, but who would you prefer to have settled Australia? I reckon the poms were the least worst.

[Yenn]

What was wrong with the French? They still consider some Pacific islands as France with the Indiginous people wanting it that way. The Dutch took over indonesia who didn't fare too badly. The Portugese didn't seem to harm many locals in their colonies. Germany ran New Guinea until losing the war, lost them that place. Back in those times the locals were not treated any worse than the Poms treated the aborigines.

[Old Koreelah]

17 hours ago, Yenn said:

What was wrong with the French? They still consider some Pacific islands as France with the Indiginous people wanting it that way. The Dutch took over indonesia who didn't fare too badly. The Portugese didn't seem to harm many locals in their colonies. Germany ran New Guinea until losing the war, lost them that place. Back in those times the locals were not treated any worse than the Poms treated the aborigines.

Delve deeper into colonial history and you find White fellas- from all parts of Europe- behaving quite badly. We could argue till the cows come home about which European nationality committed the worst atrocities.

It's become politically correct to overlook the often horrendous barbarism of other races when they occupied new lands.

 

[facthunter]

NO white fella's from Europe were good colonialists. They ALL just took the riches by force. The French   in North America seem to have done a little better than the rest in dealing with the Indians, but that wouldn't be hard..  You are coming from a low base.. . .Not much good to be seen anywhere.  Nev

[Yenn]

Where would Australia be now if it hadn't been taken over by a European colonialist?

Maybe Chinese, but I doubt that it would be an advanced nation unless it had been colonised.

Can you see the aborigines learning about the wheel and how to make things to improve their lifestyle. Lets face it the aborigines and the locals from Terra del Fuego were nowhere near as advanced as Europeans in the eleventh century.

[old man emu]

Necessity is the Mother of Invention. Why do you need to invent things if your lifestyle has all the necessities it needs to maintain it.

 

If you don't have heavy loads to move, why do you need a wheel? 

[red750]

Momentary thread drift.

 

Reminds me of a joke by Peter Cook and Dudley Moore.

 

Two men invented the same thing and were arguing over what it should be called. The first man wanted to call it a wheel, the other wanted to call it a blanbanbadastidl. If the guy who invented fire hadn't come along and threatened to set light to them both, they'd still be arguing.

 

Now, back to topic.

[Bruce Tuncks]

The lack of necessity is why the Chinese didn't colonise Australia. Why seek new lands when you are already the boss of the best place possible?

I reckon this explains why the ancient Egyptians never discovered the source of the Nile. I reckon that they secretly knew that their religious stuff was all nonsense, and they preferred the masses  to be ignorant so that they would accept the nonsense dished out by the priests.

Regarding bad colonists... If you ever read the constitution of the colony of South Australia, you will read that the aborigines were " subjects of the Crown and were to be treated as such".

Now they well might have ignored this and killed aborigines, but they were committing murder when they did.

How did they reconcile this with the "terra nullius" idea? I dunno. 

[Bruce Tuncks]

AND the way that the Spanish  treated their indigenous was one of the bits of evidence which convinced Darwin that people were NOT divinely created.

[spacesailor]

" Regarding bad colonist "

The poor POMS had the worst you could get !.

AND LOTS OF THEM.

spacesailor

[old man emu]

3 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

If you ever read the constitution of the colony of South Australia, you will read that the aborigines were " subjects of the Crown and were to be treated as such"

Sorry, not in the Constitution Act of 1856. https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/sa7_doc_1856.pdf

 

The current Constitution Act 1934 has recently been added to by this. Note then kicker at teh end.

 

2—Recognition of Aboriginal peoples

(1) The Parliament on behalf of the people of South Australia acknowledges that—

     (a) the Parliament of the United Kingdom in 1834 passed a Bill called An Act to empower His Majesty to erect South Australia into a British Province or Provinces and to provide for the Colonisation and Government thereof and        that by Letters Patent dated 19 February 1836 His Majesty established the Province of South Australia; and Constitution Act 1934—12.12.2017 Part 1—Preliminary 4 Published under the Legislation Revision and Publication              Act 2002

     (b) the making of the above instruments and subsequent constitutional instruments providing for the governance of South Australia and for the making of laws for peace, order and good government occurred without      proper and effective recognition, consultation or authorisation of Aboriginal peoples of South Australia.

 

(2) Following the Apology given on 28 May 1997, the Parliament, on behalf of the people of South Australia—

     (a) acknowledges and respects Aboriginal peoples as the State's first peoples and nations; and

     (b) recognises Aboriginal peoples as traditional owners and occupants of land and waters in South Australia and that—

       (i) their spiritual, social, cultural and economic practices come from their traditional lands and waters; and

       (ii) they maintain their cultural and heritage beliefs, languages and laws which are of ongoing importance; and

       (iii) they have made and continue to make a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the State; and

      (c) acknowledges that the Aboriginal peoples have endured past injustice and dispossession of their traditional lands and waters.

 

(3) The Parliament does not intend this section to have any legal force or effect.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Space, if you are referring to the convicts, I have 2 answers..1. they never had any convicts in SA. The whole place was for free men.

2. I reckon the convicts were no worse that the judges who convicted them.

And OME, my understanding of the place of aborigines in SA came from a dinner on the Buffalo replica. On the wall were the various proclamations representing the formation of South Australia . I was astounded to read that the aborigines were written of as " subjects of the crown". 

 

[old man emu]

Thinking about it, and recalling what I have read from the pile of sheep sh|t that is my memory, I think that I can find something.

 

Ah! Yes.

Proclamation of Governor Hindmarsh (28 December 1836) extending ‘the same protection to the native population as to the rest of His Majesty’s subjects’: JM Bennett & AC Castles, A Source Book of Australian Legal History, Law Book Co, Sydney, 1979, 258.

 

 

Note that this proclamation does NOT say that the Native Population are British Subjects, but only that they are to be extended the same legal protections as are held by British Subjects.

[Old Koreelah]

5 hours ago, old man emu said:

Necessity is the Mother of Invention. Why do you need to invent things if your lifestyle has all the necessities it needs to maintain it...

Every culture develops in different directions, to meet their immediate needs. It doesn’t surprise me that the harsh Scottish environment produced whisky and a host of inventors. China and then Europe became more technologically advanced than others, but those societies couldn’t match the spiritual or cultural depth of people like our own Aboriginals.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Thanks OME..You are a good researcher.

[spacesailor]

Bruce Tuncks.

NO I was referring to the English invader,s of old !.

Vikings French  Romans,s and even the Scottish had a King on that English throne.

Now it,s German !.

spacesailor

[Bruce Tuncks]

Yes Space, the Battenburgs changed their name to Windsor but they didn't fool us huh.

Did you know the Kaiser had a flat in Buckingham palace before WW1?

But most of Europe was ruled by the one extended family. 

How stupid of them all to go to war and ruin this wonderful arrangement... and how stupid were our ancestors to support this war.

[willedoo]

King George V was a first cousin of both the Kaiser and the Russian Tsar at the time. And the Tsar and the Kaiser were third cousins. I remember watching a show that said they were all close and visited and played together as kids. It was said that it distressed George to have to refuse asylum to the Tsar and his family due to politics. It didn't end well for them.