Ask an Australian

Did the Australians make any armed incursions against the native population? Did small pox or other diseases ravage the native population? I guess the question I'm really trying to ask is if the Australian experience in any way mirrored the American one with respect to the native population?

I do know the Australian government used to take native australian babies and give them to white families to raise, but that's all I know on that.

I believe the Europeans treated Australian Aboriginals the same way they treated other native cultures when they colonised.

You can start here for a brief overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indigenous_Australians#The_impact_of_British_settlement
 
When I lived in Washington state, it was pretty common to get in the shower, turn on the water and have a largish spider run up my leg. :eek:
________

Did the Australians make any armed incursions against the native population? Did small pox or other diseases ravage the native population? I guess the question I'm really trying to ask is if the Australian experience in any way mirrored the American one with respect to the native population?

I do know the Australian government used to take native australian babies and give them to white families to raise, but that's all I know on that.

With the notable exception that things like treaties never really happened (the land was seen as "terra nullius" which is a contrast to New Zealand or North America) you can pretty much assume a similar experience.

There was plenty of violence, probably less by the state itself and more by private groups compared to other parts of the world. The Black War by the Tasmanian (Van Diemens Land) colonial government is about the only government directed large scale action I know of. I don't think there were any comparable official campaigns of terror and massacre on the mainland, just a lot of smaller attacks and such
 
Yeah, it was pretty terrible. :(
 
I thought I'd share this article by Nick Bryant (BBC's Australian correspondent), which is an interesting enough read on how Australia is so commonly misunderstood. Some bits of it (well, most of it):
The year 2013 is not yet three weeks old but already it has provided a barrage of images, broadcast globally, that have buttressed the standard preconceptions about Australia.

New Year's Eve saw the customary pyrotechnics on Sydney Harbour - this is a lifestyle superpower that enjoys a party.

New Year's Day witnessed a ocean-emptying shark warning at Bondi - hedonism comes with risks.

The New Year's test, played between Australia and Sri Lanka under immaculate blue skies at the Sydney Cricket Ground, revealed all at once the competitive, patriotic and playful sides of the national personality.

And the bushfires in Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales have reminded us of the harshness of this sun-dried landscape and the toughness of the people who inhabit it.

Small wonder that "Assumed Australia" is a kingdom of the mind that has come to be rendered in high definition.

My sense, though, is that few countries in the world are so commonly misunderstood.

This is partly because we feel that we know and comprehend Australia already, hence there is little need for further inquiry; and partly because we misunderstood the country in the first place. The quest for understanding rarely gets past stereotypes and clichés, even though few of them withstand close scrutiny.

[...]

Let us hope they last longer than other Asian characters, none of whom survived more than a year. In terms of understanding Australia, then, Ramsay Street should be seen less of a cul-de-sac as a blind alley.

[...]

In demolishing British misconceptions especially, that special relationship [between the UK & Australia] seems a good place to start. Here the common mistake is to interpret rivalry as hostility, when contests such as the Ashes are as much a celebration of our shared cultural and sporting heritage.

[...]

Then again, the role of sport in Australian society is often misunderstood. Banish from your minds the notion, for instance, that when an Australian sports team takes to the field the entire nation watches spellbound wearing green and gold shell-suits.

[...]

Nor is there the kind of win-at-all-costs mentality that Brits often associate with Australians.

Aussie Rules players suspended during the season for disciplinary breaches are ineligible from the sport's top award, the Brownlow Medal. Ricky Ponting's Australian cricket team struggled in the popularity stakes because it was deemed to have taken on-field aggression and sledging too far, most notably during the controversial "Bollyline series" with India in 2008.

Sports grounds also offer a vantage point from which to view the country's surprisingly officious and authoritarian streak. At cricket matches, beach balls that transgress onto the playing area are confiscated and punctured. Fans who start Mexican waves face eviction. Those queuing up for beer have to remove their sunglasses to prove they are not half-cut.

That brings us to another false impression - that Australians are inebriates. For sure, binge drinking is a problem, but the country ranks 44th on the global alcohol consumption ladder, well behind Britain at 17, which again goes against the national stereotype.

And while we are on the subject of booze, or "grog" as it is often called here, let it be stated for the record that Fosters is not the Australian for beer. In beer drinking, as in sport, the country tends to divide along state lines.

But it is also a mistake to view Australia as the "Lycra Country", a land teeming with early morning fitness fanatics. Out of a population of 22.5 million people, 14 million are overweight or obese, and the prevalence of obesity has more than doubled over the past twenty years.

Its claim to be a laid back country, meanwhile, is belied by the bewildering array of rules and regulations, from strict border protections to the bylaws which stipulate that cars should be parked in the same direction as the flow of traffic.

In the face of this authoritarianism, the supposedly anti-authoritarian Australians are unexpectedly meek and acquiescent. Consider compulsory voting. Recently, when the Queensland government mooted the idea of ending this almost century old tradition, there was something of an outcry. Mandatory voting has widespread support.

Covering the bushfires these past couple of weeks, I have been reminded of the grit and resilience of folk who live in countryside, and what might be called the "bush spirit."

But it is worth remembering this Australia is one of most urbanised countries in the world, with 89% of people here living in the cities and towns.

[...]
 
Its claim to be a laid back country, meanwhile, is belied by the bewildering array of rules and regulations, from strict border protections to the bylaws which stipulate that cars should be parked in the same direction as the flow of traffic.

Faced with Australian regulations I sometimes wish for the more laid-back attitude of Thailand, even with all their inefficiencies and corruption.
 
Its claim to be a laid back country, meanwhile, is belied by the bewildering array of rules and regulations, from strict border protections to the bylaws which stipulate that cars should be parked in the same direction as the flow of traffic.

This is just proof of how over-governed we are. In Australia we commonly call this the Nanny State. And the federal Labor have done a fantastic job of making this a much worse Nanny State.
 
I, too, wish the Australian nanny state wasn't so harsh on refugees and immigrants.
 
Also that traffic one is a weird example. How else would you do it?
 
The alternative is to let cars park in whatever direction they wish. So, (let's get this right - Australia drives on the left, OK?) you could park on the right-hand side of a two-way street - facing oncoming traffic.

In a crowded urban environment this probably doesn't make a lot of difference. But at night, in a less built up area, this would mean that on-coming traffic might assume (because the red rear reflectors couldn't be seen) that the road was displaced somewhat to the left of where the driver was expecting. (With other than hilarious consequences.)

Anyway, that, I believe, is the historical thinking for the regulation. I think the same rule applies, or applied, in the UK. But I believe it's rarely enforced.

I don't think many people consider parking at right angles to traffic flow. Except in abnormally wide streets - in designated parking bays.
 
In the traffic nannyism stakes, note that unlike in the UK, it's not actually illegal to overtake on the left here.

I do actually agree that Australians generally aren't as concerned about rights protection, as evidenced by the seeming lack of widespread opposition to such measures as the anti-bikie (or more appropriately, anti-association) laws, for instance. You could claim a nanny state to that extent, as distinct from regulation and stuff.

Also that traffic one is a weird example. How else would you do it?

I'm fairly sure that one's a quirk of having decently wide roads.
 
In the traffic nannyism stakes, note that unlike in the UK, it's not actually illegal to overtake on the left here.

That's because European drivers are light years ahead in terms of being on the ball and showing a bit of courtesy. 99%, literally, of European drivers wouldn't even think of sitting in the fast lane unless overtaking. If you do it, you'll have high beams flashed at you by every car until you realize you're doing it.

Given those conditions, overtaking in the wrong lane seems weird because you just don't encounter drivers in a day dream in the fast lane, a constant problem with moronic Australian drivers. Overtaking in the left lane becomes an unnecessary, possibly dangerous move at speed. It's not unreasonable to be against the road rules where people respect the fast lane, it would be unworkable here.
 
True, though a complete prohibition (as compared to being placed highly on the pedestal of driving etiquette) can make things difficult in some situations (e.g. merging traffic under certain circumstances in which it would be reasonable for those on the left to be going faster, such as sometimes after traffic lights). Or so I surmise through my very limited driving experience.
 
True, though a complete prohibition (as compared to being placed highly on the pedestal of driving etiquette) can make things difficult in some situations (e.g. merging traffic under certain circumstances in which it would be reasonable for those on the left to be going faster, such as sometimes after traffic lights). Or so I surmise through my very limited driving experience.

I'm not certain but I'm reasonably sure that the rule is at least in practice, not a rule under circumstances like that. It's all about drivers knowing that under "normal" conditions, you don't need to concern yourself as much with overtaking on both sides of you.It's a far less stressful way of driving really.
 
I, too, wish the Australian nanny state wasn't so harsh on refugees and immigrants.

Another topic for another time perhaps? Besides, that's not Nanny State, that's border protection. Nanny State would be something like some of the ridiculous work safe rules that have been coming in. Safety is good, but you can take it to ridiculous extremes. Basically, a Nanny State covers you with proverbial cushions rather than you learning from experience.

I'm not certain but I'm reasonably sure that the rule is at least in practice, not a rule under circumstances like that. It's all about drivers knowing that under "normal" conditions, you don't need to concern yourself as much with overtaking on both sides of you.It's a far less stressful way of driving really.

I quite often overtake on the left. For example, in the mornings when I drive up Seaford road it's quite common for the right turning lane onto the freeway to be banked back into the main road, so I'll overtake on the left as I'm going through.

Also, the amount of times I've overtaken people on the left on freeways is uncountable. Also, overtaking on the left works great at traffic lights when it's a one carriage road that extends to two lanes at lights. Usually people don't go into the left, so I'll zip through on the left and take the lead.
 
Another topic for another time perhaps? Besides, that's not Nanny State, that's border protection. Nanny State would be something like some of the ridiculous work safe rules that have been coming in. Safety is good, but you can take it to ridiculous extremes. Basically, a Nanny State covers you with proverbial cushions rather than you learning from experience.

hey you're the one who quoted a thing
 
In the traffic nannyism stakes, note that unlike in the UK, it's not actually illegal to overtake on the left here.
It's not illegal in the UK anymore. Much to my annoyance!

And in fact hasn't been for a long time because it was understood to be legal if done in columns of "slow moving" traffic. But since there was no formal definition of what this meant, road usage creep (a term of my own invention) has meant that legislation has had to accept what people do increasingly in practice.

That's because European drivers are light years ahead in terms of being on the ball and showing a bit of courtesy. 99%, literally, of European drivers wouldn't even think of sitting in the fast lane unless overtaking. If you do it, you'll have high beams flashed at you by every car until you realize you're doing it.

Given those conditions, overtaking in the wrong lane seems weird because you just don't encounter drivers in a day dream in the fast lane, a constant problem with moronic Australian drivers. Overtaking in the left lane becomes an unnecessary, possibly dangerous move at speed. It's not unreasonable to be against the road rules where people respect the fast lane, it would be unworkable here.
If only any of this about European drivers being courteous and not sitting obliviously in the fast lane were true!
 
I quite often overtake on the left. For example, in the mornings when I drive up Seaford road it's quite common for the right turning lane onto the freeway to be banked back into the main road, so I'll overtake on the left as I'm going through.

Also, the amount of times I've overtaken people on the left on freeways is uncountable. Also, overtaking on the left works great at traffic lights when it's a one carriage road that extends to two lanes at lights. Usually people don't go into the left, so I'll zip through on the left and take the lead.

No doubt. I too use the left lane to overtake, maneuver etc. To not do so given Australian driving habits would be painful. Im suggesting that in Europe where it is far less common, it is due to better driving that makes it less necessary and I find it preferable.

If only any of this about European drivers being courteous and not sitting obliviously in the fast lane were true!

Admittedly I've had limited experience, but easily 100 hours behind the wheel in six or seven European countries. Similarly, I know a number of Europeans who have visited and think our drivers suck. So there's enough there to draw a comparison and, at least relatively speaking it is fair to say you guys are better mannered on the road. I can state unhesitatingly that you stay out of the fast line, especially on freeways.
 
Anyway, that, I believe, is the historical thinking for the regulation. I think the same rule applies, or applied, in the UK. But I believe it's rarely enforced.

It doesnt apply in the UK and hasnt for decades if ever. In a busy road it would be very rude but in general forcing people to drive round the next block is madness.

It's not illegal in the UK anymore. Much to my annoyance!

And in fact hasn't been for a long time because it was understood to be legal if done in columns of "slow moving" traffic. But since there was no formal definition of what this meant, road usage creep (a term of my own invention) has meant that legislation has had to accept what people do increasingly in practice.

If only any of this about European drivers being courteous and not sitting obliviously in the fast lane were true!

It is illegial to undertake unless on the motorway or in crawling traffic. Undertaking on the motorway at speed by precedent constitutes dangerous driving unless it's just moving with the flow of traffic or the road is quite empty and there is a drunk sitting in the fast lane at 60 with the middle lane empty. Basically you will still get nicked for undertaking if a cop sees it and can be arsed to pull you over.
 
Back
Top Bottom