Why Oppress a Negligible Population (Stolen Generations)?

Upvote:2

Native Australians were not a small minority

While Native Australians were a small total, it was still pretty big for Australia. Plus it doesn't particularly matter how many members of that group are actually around. For example the German population in 1933 was about 66 million, and only about half a million Jews. In Australia there were just under 800,000 Native Australians in 1900, while the total Australian population was about 3.74 million. Granted that "800,000" number is a modern count, and in 1900 they may well have under-counted the native population. But it goes to show that there were plenty of "natives" to make oppressing them "worthwhile". 1900 was also a time where eugenics was in vogue, as was the idea of racial duty. So it makes sense that, regardless of population, the Australians would feel they had a "duty" to a "lesser race." Plus on the face of it it's easier to oppress a minority the smaller it is. Push back on too big a group and you get a ethno-based civil war instead of an oppressed minority!

Also, the reason the US South has large/majority African-American populations is that at the time slavery paid. But also slavery of Africans was made VASTLY EASIER because Africans were resistant to European diseases, and had no way to get home should they run away. Those last two are big reasons why both Native Americans and Native Australians were not enslaved in large numbers. They died in droves to European diseases and they could always run "back home" to locations whites would have a hard time following. So the Aussies have little or no financial reason to preserve the Native Australian population.

More post

Search Posts

Related post