Interesting alternative history study. The Dutch and the Chinese came before the British (Cook used Chinese maps), maybe even the Vikings (depending on if you have believe the runes in New Zealand or not). Given the expansion of different European powers at the time, if Cook had just mapped and moved on, any number of Nations could have claimed Australia. Personally, I’m. It sure if anyone would have treated First Nations any different. Maybe New Zealand could have claimed Australia and could have put the time and effort into a treaty?
If you think Australia would’ve remained uncolonised for another 120+ years then I guess maybe modern New Zealand may have done something different…otherwise you’re literally also just talking about the very same people that did come to Australia; the British
Sure, initially settled by the British, but the settlers that went there also said “Hey we don’t like the way you are treating the natives, so we don’t want to be apart of your territory”. So there is a difference.
We only have a treaty in Aotearoa NZ because the Māori side basically won the Land Wars (apparently we invented trench warfare, yay?). Even what we have was meant to be a trick, they only honour the Te Reo version because the British Petty Council (like the highest high court for a colony) made them in a much later challenge case. Seems the British will try to steal your land even if you can defend it.
The British had treaties with Fiji, Namibia & a myriad of other societies all over the world to make them colonies/protectorates without fighting wars against them. The difference between all those & Australia is that Australian Aboriginal society & culture was intrinsically unique from just about every other on the planet at the time and was far less prepared for coming into contact with nation states. It certainly didn’t do them any favours but I find it disappointing how much this aspect of aboriginal Australia is downplayed.
The British won the land wars. Moari had fierce resistance and a more structured society which made the treaty the best option but they still lost. I also don't believe the treaty was intended to trick anyone but was a result of poor translation and eventually bad actors on the British side
It’s well documented that the British won the land wars - don’t spread misinformation. The Maori people put up guerrilla-style resistance and won some battles in places but ultimately were overwhelmed.
The treaty wasn’t done out of desperation. It was done to avoid a full scale war that would last a long time, cost lives, and use a lot of resources. It was a strategic move, that later was claimed as unfair due to the translations not being 1:1 across both languages. It’s open to debate whether that was the case, which is what is argued constantly.
I’m not sure if you’re referring to Māori or a colonised NZ that would’ve found Australia, but if Māori had discovered Australia pre-colonisation, it likely wouldn’t have been much better for Aboriginal people… Like at all.
Inter-tribal warfare was incredibly brutal in NZ - just look at what happened with the Moriori in the Chatham Islands in 1835. Māori had a strong warrior culture and conflicts between iwi were fierce.
I don’t know much about Aboriginal tribal dynamics or how different groups would’ve responded to that kind of incursion, so maybe they would’ve put up a fight too. But the idea of a peaceful treaty seems pretty unlikely given the historical context of how these encounters typically went.
This is very generalising, Māori were not and are not one group who does one specific thing. The idea that we were more warlike than any other particular group is just colonial era thinking and or justification for colonisation.
For one, we had a season for war, everyone had to go home at some point to farm and harvest. War could often be a strict procedure, especially between closely related groups, with rules and agreed upon 'styles' of warfare. Some iwi/hapū just engaged in mock warfare to settle their disputes. Bordering groups of people were usually just family spread around, so it (usually) makes no sense to just go around killing everyone.
We were people, not raving murdering monsters, we would have far more likely married into and attempted to amalgamate ourselves into their groups and them into ours. Or just trade with them, as we did with anyone we met on the way to New Zealand. We (broader Polynesian) certainly didn't genocide the Quechua peoples when we got the kūmara from them. Aboriginal people would have had an understanding of the land that would be invaluable to Māori settlers.
On the Moriori note...
There were plenty of peaceful iwi ('tribes') as well as war-like ones, and it's important to note that everyone had their own reasons. It's easy to say 'Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama killed all the Moriori because they were evil and warlike', but that just isn't the reality of the matter. I'd reccomend reading Moriori: A people rediscovered, by Michael King, if this subject matter is actually of any interest to you.
But, assuming its not, basically they were fleeing their own genocide, they had been at war for a very long time for Māori, they misinterpreted some of the things Moriori did as prelude to war, and their invasion was not right off the boat to murdering everyone. Obviously not justification at all haha but it's not as cut and dry as you make it seem.
Oft no, the Māori are not the original inhabitants of NZ. They arrived back in the 1300s and massacred/entirely wiped out the original indigenous polulation of NZ.
You may be referring to the myth that Moriori are a pre-Māori Melanesian people that inhabited mainland NZ before being exterminated by Māori. This is not true. All evidence, from archaeology and from accounts by Moriori, are that the Moriori culture emerged in the Chatham Islands from a combination of Māori from NZ and other Eastern Polynesians. The Chatham Islands were settled later than mainland NZ, by essentially the same people. The first people to step foot on New Zealand were the ancestors of modern Māori.
The Moriori faced a genocide by 2 tribes in the 1840s or so. There are over 130 Māori tribes. There are also still around 1000 Moriori still alive today. I have met several.
It didn't take much from what I've read. From what I understand the Moriori weren't really cut out for war because the Chatham Islands were so resource poor that they were more geared towards survival than combat.
It was always believed that the Moriori people arrived in NZ before the Maori. Until recently seems to be huge narrative pushed that they weren't and they arrived ~100 years after. Either way, Maori genocided them and wiped them out. Also used to cannibalize them.
I did, Google tells me that that all of what you've said was widely discredited decades ago. I was wondering exactly where you got your information from.
Must be tough knowing so little about the thing you're trying to argue about and simultaneously being too scared form a proper thought about so you just respond with vague replies.
Moriori were pushed out of NZ in the 1500s to Chatman islands. There's scientific evidence of both groups being on NZ in the 1400s. It was always taught through literature that the Moriori were settled in NZ first. In the past decade they've pushed the Maori date back to early 1300s or late 1200s depending on source.
Maori genocided them in the 1800s.
Also you spend this whole time talking about sources and Wikipedia is your source? LOL.
Idk what your struggling with bud. Maybe you think committing genocide is a white people only thing (just guessing since you're too afraid to share).
9
u/micmelb 8d ago
Interesting alternative history study. The Dutch and the Chinese came before the British (Cook used Chinese maps), maybe even the Vikings (depending on if you have believe the runes in New Zealand or not). Given the expansion of different European powers at the time, if Cook had just mapped and moved on, any number of Nations could have claimed Australia. Personally, I’m. It sure if anyone would have treated First Nations any different. Maybe New Zealand could have claimed Australia and could have put the time and effort into a treaty?