Quote:
Originally Posted by maple_leaf_eh
Canadians had less overtly sanguine methods of separating the natives from their lands, but giving no less one-sided results.
|
Yes I imagine your Treaties would have been rather one-sided Terry, although hopefully a little more than the usual "beads and blankets" deal! We only ever had one Treaty in Australia, when John Batman established Melbourne in 1835. Somewhat amusingly it was originally named Batmania! It was certainly cheap by today's prices:
"For 600,000 acres of Melbourne, including most of the land now within the suburban area, John Batman paid 40 pairs of blankets, 42 tomahawks, 130 knives, 62 pairs scissors, 40 looking glasses, 250 handkerchiefs, 18 shirts, 4 flannel jackets, 4 suits of clothes and 150 lb. of flour."
Evidently four of the tribal elders were kitted out in suits! Shortly afterwards however Batman's Treaty was voided by the Governor of NSW, which at that time included what is now the state of Victoria. No further treaties were negotiated in Australia, which was a big mistake for which we've paid a heavy price ever since. Countless billions have been spent in economic support for dispossessed populations, and the problem remains intractable today. If their reserves had been protected under Treaties we wouldn't have these problems, certainly not to the same extent. Contrary to popular belief they were well established in crop farming and grazing, largely with the assistance of Christian Missions. As such they were fully independent and contributing to the economy, and by late 19th century their produce was even winning first prize at International Exhibition. All that ended in the early 20th century when State governments resumed their reserves, much of it going to the 40,000 ex-servicemen after WWI under the Soldier Settlement scheme. Unfortunately most of those ventures failed, largely due to lack of farming experience. Lessons were learned however and the scheme was far more successful after WWII.
It's an interesting chapter in Australian history, because even as military history enthusiasts we tend to forget what happened to servicemen on their return. WWI was particularly brutal and many returned crippled and maimed, not to mention psychological damage. They arrived home to high unemployment followed by the Great Depression, with minimal government support. The Soldier Settlement scheme was intended partly to populate rural Australia, but also to address the problem of homelessness and street loitering. This stands in stark contrast to post WWII Australia, which enjoyed full employment from 1945 to 1975. There were jobs aplenty and we had to embark on a massive immigration program to supply labour. While Europe and Britain struggled under food rationing for years, here in Australia we enjoyed a "golden age" which saw massive population growth, with the post-war generation known as "baby boomers", and the rise of a huge and prosperous middle class which came to define Australia as the Lucky Country. These are the "good old days" we pine for in many ways, when a man could build a brand new house in the inner suburbs of capital cities, in which to support a wife and a tribe of kids on one wage! Not too many WWI diggers enjoyed that kind of prosperity, and of course it's impossible for young people in today's housing and job market. Some of this no doubt feeds into the generational gun crime rate David mentions, although there are many other factors as well.