What would Australia and NZ look like today if the British had started colonization in the 17th Century like they did...

What would Australia and NZ look like today if the British had started colonization in the 17th Century like they did in North America?

Attached: australia-nz.png (1600x1119, 467K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans#Genome-wide_studies
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

warm Canada

Aren't you warm Canada, already?

No abos

yeah
but we'd probably have 40 million people and be more mutt so even closer

Wouldn't Brits just enslave them?

probably not its like in North America there weren't enough to do that
we already tried to breed them out of existence and shit another hundred years of that they'd probably hardly exist anymore
now that you say that there would definitely be some imported slave population

Yeah, I've read that many people from Melanesia were abducted to work in sugar plantations in Queensland during the 19th Century so I imagine the Brits would have probably done the same and in a more prolific matter if they were in Australia earlier, maybe even bring in some Africans or Polynesians.

just have more people and probably more irish

yeah that was after they banned slavery so they sent them back. It would probably be similar to what happend in South Africa then with tons of Southern and South Eastern Asian slaves with Polynesians and anything else that would be there permanently like Cape Coloured. Probably fill the same roll of black people in the US.
Shit we'd probably end u with similar demographics to america without Latinos. 1% abos, 10-15% poor mutt class and the rest mostly white.
fuck this thread is way more interesting than i thought it'd be a little America

I wonder what those people would look like, since they would probably all mixed with each other, except maybe Muslims if they brought them, too.

Do you think there would be more regionalist sentiments? Like in America with the South? Maybe even different countries.

there probably would be and actual towns and villages instead of the population quadrupling or something in the 20th century in all the big cities like now
still its pretty homogeneous probably like Canadian anglos with a few meme one like cascadia

Probably not a lot. We'd probably have a larger population, maybe an extra 10-15 million than today, which in turn might have changed some of the layouts and infrastructure of the cities to be a bit more dense and make more towns, but otherwise it'd be about the same.

Yeah, I imagine the southeast of the country would still be the most populated and industrialized part, though, Queensland and the NT would be like the American South. Idk about Western Australia, though. I wonder how long it would've taken to connect them to the rest of the country.

Maybe you would have some other big cities besides just the state capitals.

I always wonder what it's like for NZ and Aus. that they don't really have any pre-industrial history or distinct culture in that regard whereas the saving grace of the US is that we have a pretty varied and interesting social history in that way, even if it isn't that relevant nowadays it's still something to explore and get nostalgic about

people get prickly about these things, but I'm genuinely not insulting you in anyway just making an observation

South East Queensland is pretty much as industrialised and urban as the South East I'd say it'd probably extend up to connect with the north east coats which accually has quite a few decent sized cities.
A lot of Northern land is able that'd probably become a thing nobody can be fucked living there now but when self sufficient towns are where people live it'd probably become populated
its like the America has no history meme except completely true

the existing cities like the Gold Coast, the gong,
Newcastle, Geelong etc might have been bigger, but it's highly unlikely that anyone would bother setting up new cities when they're inevitably going to be in shit locations
WA would still be deserted as it was too hard to get to

>people get prickly about these things, but I'm genuinely not insulting you in anyway just making an observation

I agree though, the time between colonization and now can be described as
>Kill abos
>Eureka Stockade
>Ned Kelly
>Federation
>Worlds wars and ANZACS
And even then, besides the ANZACS, there really isnt anything that's interesting or culturally impactful like a revolution or a civil war. It kinda sucks, maybe with another 100 years of history, something might have actually happened in Australia, but being so far away and isolated for anyone, especially so long before aircraft,I really dont think much would have happened.

Tbh I like it

don't know if I could take that, but I guess as a result Aussies and Kiwis can identify more with British history and just take interest in that instead, and most normies only care about WWII and stuff anyway

I meant like in the American South he economy was supported by agriculture and slavery and I'd imagine Northern Australia in this alternate timeline would be similar so when slavery becomes outlawed it might end up kinda like a backwater. Although, t b h I don't know to which extend you can cultivate sugar cane or cotton in Queensland so maybe you're right and the area around Brisbane would be like the rest of the Southeast.
Are there absolutely no places left where a city might have sprung up?

>Eureka Stockade
>Ned Kelly
What are these two desu?

I'd imagine more that 17th and 18th century settlement would've resulted more in the East Asian trade and you'd have to clarify what exactly they wanted. Mostly silver and gold, maybe a few spices but those could be procured from Indonesia, and what would Indonesians want in trade?
The American South especially was really hooked into the West Indies trade with the Carolinas being settled as an expansion of it so I don't really know if the same factors would come into play

eureka was when a bunch of miners tried to rebel against the government and got put down
it's wasn't that big of a deal

ned kelly was an absolute madman. he was basically a robin hood kind of guy that stole from the rich and used to go around robbing places in a fucking suit of armour he made himself

It could be argued, our lack of vast civil unrest and internal wars probably is for the better. Those kind of things tend to make some huge holes in a country at a social level and send them back economically.
Lot of the countries I've been to where they had or have a war inside their borders are quite different to us in a lot of ways, basically they're miserable cunts for the most part and get kind of locked into an alienating mindset afterwards.

Heck the worst we really have to deal with is Victorians

we don't really identify with any history at all. most people don't care about the past and don't even know what happened in Australia 40 years ago, let alone England

we're very different from Americans in that regard

You mean Queenslanders xx

Do you have any figure equivalent to George Washington?

nah
most people don't even know who our first prime minister was, there's nothing to talk about there

>tfw no Kiwis showed up to participate in my thread

Attached: 1516756125706.jpg (490x324, 30K)

Kiwis are Australian mate

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-03-24 at 12.34.47 pm.png (1516x576, 140K)

I've been monitoring it.
I've got nothing to add I'm afraid, I don't actually believe much would have changed here, maybe a little more population and maybe the Land Wars would have kicked off earlier but for the most part it might have stayed the same.

Yeah, it's kinda boring, I guess the ANZAC stuff is okay, not because "muh world wars" but because the ANZACS gave us a sense of national identity on the world stage, separating us from the Brits.

>Are there absolutely no places left where a city might have sprung up?
Unfortunately, probably not. Australia is only geographically blessed in terms of mineral and ore resources, it's lacks permanent rivers large enough for consumption and inland trade and our only real river system capable of sustaining a population inland is the Murray-Darling system which already in use as the country food bowl.

>>Eureka Stockade
>>Ned Kelly
>What are these two desu?
Basically what said. Ned Kelly was bigger in terms of Australian history, but the Eureka stockade and the flag is still used by bogans Australia wide as a "Fuck authority" kind of symbol.

Yeah, thats the counter point to it I was thinking about too. We missed a lot of history, but in doing so we missed a lot of opportunities for the country to turn to absolute shit

It would be the same except for far less abos, far more Protestants than Catholics, and a completely different culture and dialect which would've developed from 1600s English dialects rather than 1800 century ones.

Ned Kelly was the most based man in Australian history.

The first ever movie was actually made about him in Australia.

Can you please explain what about Australia and NZ participating in the war made you developed your own national identities? I've never quite gotten that.

>1800 century

Do you think you would still be your own country (with both the North and South Islands united), still Maories around, Auckland still the biggest city...?

Maoris would've been genocided.

>Anglos build colonial cities
>initial good relationship but then Anglo population grows faster and takes more space
>Maoris launch raids and get BTFO
>entire island subjugated eventually with towns created in the center of the island
>surviving Maoris assimilate and intermix with Anglos

If it wasn't for them being ruined by the american black power shit Maori would have been absorbed into the general population by now

>If it wasn't for them being ruined by the american black power shit
wut

basically before 1901 Australia was made up of 6 (or 7 if you include NZ) independently governed colonies, all of whom had their own governments, legal systems etc. In 1901 the mainland colonies plus Tasmania elected to join combine and form a single country, but at the time the colonies (now states) still were largely autonomous and the Federal Parliament had very restricted power over the country. Not everyone got on with each other either, the Victorians and New South Welshman despised each other, the Queenslanders hated the New South Welshmen and the Western Australians hated everyone and didn't really want to be part of the Commonwealth in the first place.
Everyone essentially viewed themselves as being from their colony first, British second and Australian third.

WW1 was the first major war Australia ever was involved in and the soldiers, who were all mixed together, started viewing other Australians in a better light, while the war began to make the Australians back home also begin to view themselves as part of Australia.
Gallipoli was also important here as the popular conception was that Australian troops were getting absolutely fucking slaughtered trying to scale cliff faces under Turk machine gun fire because the British fucked up. Australians started to feel distaste towards Britain and began to wonder if they gave the slightest fuck about Australia. As a result, people saw themselves as Australian first, part of their state second and British third.

Then WW2 came around where the British shat the bed at Singapore, tried to blame it on Australia and then completely withdrew from the region in the face of the Japanese advance, leaving us and NZ as the last standing Allied nations in Asia and apparently on the verge of an invasion, with the Japanese bombing Darwin and marching through Australian territory in New Guinea. That almost completely wiped the British identity out here.

t. know nothing about NZ history

>still Maories around
That one I don't know.
I think they mostly died from old world diseases and inter-tribal warfare than anything.
Once the gun came along they took full advantage of it and tried to settle old scores or just plain conquer as much as they could.

The Land Wars had Maori tribes fight on both sides, for the British and against the British but with the increase population maybe more diseases, more intermixing and warfare, they might just breed out and died.
So if it were today any Maori were around I'd bet they'd be pale as a ghost and just muh heritageing.

American media and people/groups like Malcolm X and the Black Panthers.

Before they were brainwashed by that they were a model minority

They still seem like one of the best indigenous groups around from an outsider's perspective

Thanks for explaining
Huh, I just noticed that there are no big cities or towns in the center of North Island

How do Maoris today see the people who fought for the British in the Land Wars? What about those that signed the Treaty of Waitangi?
Haven't they always been somewhat disadvantaged compared to White New Zealanders?

Why did Australia gave up Papua?

why keep it? it was just a financial black hole and we weren't getting anything out of it

You would now be exploiting all those juicy mines, though

We are, just without the negatives of actually owning it. Neocolonialism lad.

remember how we jewed the East Timorese out of that oil

Attached: anglo.jpg (501x504, 59K)

Canadian culture is more polite and pussified than ours. That isn't a brag or anything, our culture's starting to go the same way. God help us.

Left wing government when?

we're going way further right economically

Henry Parkes is the closest we got.

Fuck if anyone actually knows his name though

unironically who?

basically the guy that pushed for federation. Went around to all the states and convinced them all to federate.

What do you guys learn for history class?

Cuckservatives are the biggest pussies around.

They have no values whatsoever and will cave on any social issue as long as they can continue wage slaving for the latest iphone

Year 8-10, I remember doing a bit of WW2, feudal England and the Industrial Revolution, WW1 and colonial Australia
Modern History in Year 12 was 1920s America, Germany between the wars, the Russian revolution and Soviet Russia and 1960s-1990s Australia

Hmmm. Interesting. All pretty modern, except for feudal England. Why 1920's America, though?

More Anglo ancestry and less Irish criminal blood

probably something to do with the great depression.

lots of cultural shifts to talk about there plus the Great Depression
it's a fairly iconic decade in world history

I did history from yr7-9 and it was basically a hodge podge of all kinds of shit from Ancient europe, old timey england and very little pre-fed Australia. As much as I really like history, it was disappointing and ended up burying my misery in sciences instead.

In a way, its kind of cool to have history as sort of a hobby interest now, rather than getting burnt out at the academic stage of my life

Australians are all bark and no bite because of their lazy criminal genes they have a notoriously lazy work ethic, if they had less criminal blood in them and were properly settled by the British earlier they might not be so uncivilized and lazy.

>we already tried to breed them out of existence
sort of curious, is there a significant amount of mixed-race aboriginals? In the US, it's pretty rare for blacks or native americans to not have white ancestors. According to Ancestry.com, the average black American is 65 percent sub-Saharan African, 29 percent European and 2 percent Native American.

Attached: 2012-sundance-rashida-jones-and-parents.jpg (750x500, 45K)

>According to Ancestry.com, the average black American is 65 percent sub-Saharan African, 29 percent European and 2 percent Native American.
Reminder that this is an anomaly and most AA's are on the 70's range.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans#Genome-wide_studies

to say we tried to breed them out of existence is blatantly wrong. It's a lie propagated by a scene in The Rabbit Proof Fence

answering your question, virtually all abos in populated areas are 50% abo at the absolute full blooded abos.
the only full blooded abo I've seen in my life is pic related, a footy player who they pulled from an abo only island in the north

Attached: Anthony+McDonald+Tipungwuti+AFL+Rd+1+Gold+QsNbCNTTN8yl.jpg (600x400, 74K)

>is there a significant amount of mixed-race aboriginals
You only have to be like 1/16 Abo to be considered one.

Last I remember hearing anything about it, roughly about 75-80% have sneaky whitey in them

Where did you get this number?

He is Black af

t. only knows about australian from american media

If your yank outpost played real sports you'd know australians are notorious for giving full effort even when on the backfoot

Nah you can fool the others but I'm wise to you. Australians and kiwis are lazy, they come here to go treeplanting and work our ski resorts. You always quit or you're fired. Never done a hard days work in your lives you just like to party and travel.

Attached: 1459051768795.png (420x420, 7K)

I need to come to Newzealand and show your women what a REAL anglo man looks like

You're wrong. New Zealanders are lazy, Australians aren't

lazy island mexicans I tell ya

Attached: 1505355372104.png (950x968, 191K)

Yeah pretty much. At least we aren't yanks like your sort tho

>that look on a canadians face when you ask
>which part of the US are you from?

Attached: that guy again.gif (320x320, 2.71M)

>throw another prawn on the barbie mate

Attached: brainlet.png (645x729, 69K)

More anglo than you Seamus

Attached: 1463976577884.jpg (620x531, 35K)

>driving home on the righthand side of the road in my ford pick up truck to watch the canadian football league with a six pack of Budweiser eh

Attached: 1510865764246.jpg (403x334, 78K)

>I'm an anglo from Aus/NZ! what? Anglos can't have a wog or croatian last name and only eat med food like shwarma and Gyros? working is hard my feet hurt

Attached: 1460962559657.png (650x650, 19K)

Everyone studies that , we all do here in France anyway.
Roaring Twenties followed by a Krash no one expected or could even explain which had massive consequences around the western world (especially Anglo but also German, French)

>He calls himself an Anglo
>His country has not actively oppressed a French speaking population

I'm embarrassed for Australians and kiwis

Attached: confused cat.png (481x461, 362K)

>his own language is cucked by French
Anglos, senores y senoritas

We had french people here but they were forced to learn english because this is an anglo nation

God only knows how things are done in mutt nations

>His country dosen't keep a Frog quarantine area where they have to fly union jacks in their courts of law and government buildings while having pictures of the monarch

Pitiful

Attached: 1458456412243.jpg (508x524, 27K)

Sorry champ can't relate everyone here speaks english just like in other anglo countries like Australia and the UK

How is Canada NOT the most anglo nation? We have Irish diaspora in the east who are starving and we oppress Francophonies daily. Can't say the same about poo peeland and Ausgaylia

Attached: smug gabe.jpg (260x273, 17K)

Oh and we still have the most Anglicans and kill natives who's women keep going missing.

y*nk behaviour

Soon

Attached: Canadian empire 2.png (1357x837, 121K)

When our population grows to the same size as the UK are we going to be as powerful as them?

They'll basically have copy pasted themselves

We achieved nationhood well before you become a unified state you retarded irredentist

Throwing a tanty online wont change that real document matey

We jumped in early and settled WA purely so the French couldn't follow through on their plan to do the same.

>relying on the colonies act for nationhood
>literally territory of the Colony of New South Wales

OH NONONONO