Aboriginal Australia

[KevinRuddPM]

I was just thinking, if the British didn't succeed on settling Australia, what would of happened? Probably some other country like Netherlands would come over and do the same. I wonder if the Aboriginals would have developed the technology we have today?

 

[Masada]

Probably some other country like Netherlands would come over and do the same. I

The Netherlands had absolutely utterly no reason to settle Australia; it was to dry, to unforgiving, to alien, and to poor to justify the effort required to do it. Why go for Australia when you had access to the East Indies?

I wonder if the Aboriginals would have developed the technology we have today?

They likely would have been colonized - by I have no idea who. If they were colonized by one of the late comers with little in the way of colonial possessions (who therefore couldn't have exported a population from elsewhere for labor) then they would probably have gotten a better deal considering that exterminating them would have drained a valuable source of labor.

I find it extremely unlikely that they would have developed independently of a colonial government, they simply numbered to few, were not really a single people, and would have ended up with a raw deal almost regardless. That said the possibility of Orang Laut (broadly speaking the "Sea Peoples" of Indonesia, including the Makassan, the Bugi and others might have settled and intermixed with the Aboriginals in the North of Australia). This happened and explains the presence of Tamarin trees and Bamboo in Northern Australia but even after hundreds of years of contact the Makassans didn't really see a reason to settle. Even assuming they settle your really only likely to end up with isolated settlements in the north with little incentive to do anything else... they didn't have the population to do much else.

 

[Plotinus]

The Netherlands had absolutely utterly no reason to settle Australia; it was to dry, to unforgiving, to alien, and to poor to justify the effort required to do it.

Those considerations would apply to the British too, though, wouldn't they?

The problem with the Aborigines was that they had (a) nothing worth trading, and (b) no effective means of defending themselves, which together would have made them incredibly vulnerable to pretty much any potential colonial power. Compare the lot of the Maori, for example, who benefited not only from a marginally more enlightened approach on the part of the colonists (who genuinely wanted to treat the natives in a moral way, at least to begin with) but also from the fact that they had tradeable goods and were militarily formidable.

I doubt that the Aborigines would have developed superior technology had they been left alone, given that they'd been left alone for 40,000 years and hadn't done it. So it could realistically have happened only by colonists teaching them. But this would have been very hard too, because the Aborignes also had a culture that was in some ways simply more alien to the western mind than that of any other foreign group. Attempts to teach western ideas to the Aborigines generally ended in failure, as the almost complete failure of many different groups to convert them to Christianity in the nineteenth century indicated. The closest anyone came to success was a group of Spanish Benedictine monks who built a monastery at New Norcia on the Australian west coast in 1847. Here they taught farming techniques to the Aborigines and tried to educate them about Christianity. Hardly any converted; two promising converts were sent to Italy for ordination, where they died.

However, the Spanish monks did manage to organise the Aborigines into one of the first Australian cricket teams. Whether this was a positive contribution of western civilisation or not may depend on your point of view.

 

[Masada]

Those considerations would apply to the British too, though, wouldn't they?

... those were virtues not vices when you sent convicts there . The Dutch by contrast had no reason at all to want to settle here they had enough trouble keeping the Dutch East Indies ticking over.

The problem with the Aborigines was that they had (a) nothing worth trading, and (b) no effective means of defending themselves, which together would have made them incredibly vulnerable to pretty much any potential colonial power. Compare the lot of the Maori, for example, who benefited not only from a marginally more enlightened approach on the part of the colonists (who genuinely wanted to treat the natives in a moral way, at least to begin with) but also from the fact that they had tradeable goods and were militarily formidable.

Not really true.

 

[Camikaze]

I'd say that the French would have colonised Australia. The only reason that Britain wouldn't have found Australia, is if they didn't become a huge maritime power. This would probably have meant that France would have been.

Or, even considering what actually did occur, IIRC, the French almost beat them to it. La Perouse is the notable example of that, although from what I recall, the French government was planning on larger and greater Australian expeditions.

 

[Masada]

Or, even considering what actually did occur, IIRC, the French almost beat them too it. La Perouse is the notable example of that, although from what I recall, the French government was planning on larger and greater Australian expeditions.

France nearly claimed the South Island... missed out by a few months.

 

[Tee Kay]

Or, even considering what actually did occur, IIRC, the French almost beat them to it. La Perouse is the notable example of that, although from what I recall, the French government was planning on larger and greater Australian expeditions.

Western Australia was founded on the fear of a French colonization scheme IIRC.

 

[GoodGame]

They likely would have been colonized - by I have no idea who. If they were colonized by one of the late comers with little in the way of colonial possessions (who therefore couldn't have exported a population from elsewhere for labor) then they would probably have gotten a better deal considering that exterminating them would have drained a valuable source of labor.

Germany taking Australia would be an interesting What If.

 

[Masada]

Germany taking Australia would be an interesting What If.

That was who I was thinking about . Dachs you have been conscripted for an alt-hist!

 

[KevinRuddPM]

I think Brighton Le-Sands is an example of french colonization as well. It's weird how both La Perouse and Brighton are on the coast

 

[Arwon]

The Netherlands had absolutely utterly no reason to settle Australia; it was to dry, to unforgiving, to alien, and to poor to justify the effort required to do it. Why go for Australia when you had access to the East Indies?

On the mainland that's true, but Tasmania was quite productive and easily settled right from the start. In the first few decades it was actually generating a huge share of the total wealth of the colonies on the continent.

 

[Dachs]

That was who I was thinking about . Dachs you have been conscripted for an alt-hist!

Already got one in the works, not my usual time period but certainly my subject matter, I think. So: sorry?

 

[Masada]

On the mainland that's true, but Tasmania was quite productive and easily settled right from the start. In the first few decades it was actually generating a huge share of the total wealth of the colonies on the continent.

Had the Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie happened to run into Tasmania who would have settled it? The Netherlands was scraping the bucket in order to maintain its position in the Oost-Indische and was always short of men (soul sellers and all that) and in any case Australia was cost more to protect, supply and maintain than it was worth for most of its early history unlike the Oost-Indische which were massive money spinners.

Already got one in the works, not my usual time period but certainly my subject matter, I think. So: sorry?

German colonial empire... come on you know you want to do it

 

[Camikaze]

I think Brighton Le-Sands is an example of french colonization as well. It's weird how both La Perouse and Brighton are on the coast

That's as far as they could get. I think the Brits kind of blocked them in.

 

[Arwon]

Yeah I doubt the Dutch would have settled Tassie. Probably just done a lot of seal trading.

Come to think of it there were no Dutch settler colonies that stood the test of time anywhere.

 

[KevinRuddPM]

I happen to live near Brighton Le-Sands, and La Perouse is not too far away, my grandmother lives near there

 

[amadeus]

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/misc/auslam1.htm

Weird, but interesting.

 

[Serutan]

Yeah I doubt the Dutch would have settled Tassie. Probably just done a lot of seal trading.

Come to think of it there were no Dutch settler colonies that stood the test of time anywhere.

I think one could argue that South Africa might be considered an exception...

 

[Arwon]

Oh yeah, totally forgot about them. Oops.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Didn't portugal had some interest in Queensland or something?