Position:Home>History> What were some negative impacts of the europeans' colonisation of Australia?

Rabbits!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

Disease that the British brought with them!. The Aboriginal people had no resistence!.
The gradual destruction of Indigenous culture and family and traditional languages!. How many aboriginal languages are still spoken!?
Taking land away from the Indigenous owners!.
The humilation and subjugation of the Abiriginal people over generations!.
Explotation of Aboriginal workers who were paid very little compared to their white counterparts!. Have you heard of young Aborigional girls working as maids and most of their wages being 'kept' by the local authorities!?
The stolen generations!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

Hamster_!.!.!. clearly over exaggerates the situation!. You might as well criticize every other colonization of land and make false claims about its government!.

- Statements such as "settlers also brought alcohol, opium and tobacco, and substance abuse has remained a chronic problem for indigenous communities ever since" are absolutely ludicrous!. So what!?
It's not like they forced to drink or smoke!.

- "A wave of massacres and resistance also followed the frontier of European settlement" This is officially disputed by historians!. Have you read any books on this subject!? If you did, you would have surely not posted it as "fact" when it is argued this never took place!.

- "in summary !.!.!. their nomadic way of life was permanently destroyed, their people driven to the verge of extinction, their culture erased, the unwritten history lost"

There are several things here that are rubbish!. 'Nomadic' refers to a group of people moving constantly with animals as the main source of food!. Indigenous Australians were not Nomadic, while they weren't very advanced, they did have simple camps and stayed in small tribes!.

"Driven to the verge of extinction" is a term that is unsupported, there is no clear indication of Indigenous Australian deaths!.

"The second consequence of British settlement was appropriation of land and water resources" Isn't this what has happened in every other cases of conquest in world history!? How can you use that as an argument!? What a joke!.

"Poisoning of food and water has been recorded on several different occasions!. The number of violent deaths at the hands of white people is still the subject of debate, with a figure of around 10,000 - 20,000 deaths being advanced by historians" - This is the funniest statement of all!. So your suggesting English settlers interrupted the Indigenous peoples meals by!.!.what!.!.poisoning it!? Please explain!? What did they do, send spy's to infiltrate camps and 'sabotage' food supplies!. Even when Indigenous Australians integrated into Australian society and lived in cities - how is it possible this happened!?

Farming implements to chase them from the land!? This is where it gets all to ridiciculous!. What would you have liked the English to do!? Join the Indigenous tribes and build a society peacefully together based on the Indigenous belief of the "dreamtime", whilst using primitive tools and limited resources!. It's common sense to import farming equipment and all technological advances to gain the most wealth from the nation and begin constructions faster, making for a more efficient country!. Without guns there was no protection from the Dutch (who were not that far away in the East Indies)!.

He even calls Indigenous Australians Aboriginals when in fact, Aboriginal means (since the beginning)!. Indigenous Australians have lived on this great southern land for approximately 50,000 years - they did not originate here!. Some scientists think every human has derived life in Africa!. That would make only Africans "Aboriginals"!.

Hamster's idiotic babble goes nowhere!. Democracy didn't even exist in 1788 the slave trade was still going for goodness sake!. Everything you say can be countered by facts!. The truth is Hamster's attempt to answer the question is totally innacurate and really I am quite amused by his narrow minded ignorant view of history!. It is very interesting to point out Hamster is contradicting himself with his last sentence!.

Drab and Rose are no better, probably gaining their similar information from a disputed wikipedia article!. Shames me that there are people with such stupidity on here!.

So, Hamster, why don't you tell us your nationality and we can pick on FACTUAL problems with the past, not made up ones!. The only village idiot I see here is you!.

I'm not playing a childish little game with you, why don't you list the benefits, your so knowledgeable, right!? Medical care!? Oh please, this is pathetic material!. Name one benefit of American colonization!? Name a benefit of Norman occupation of Anglo Saxon Britain!. Name a benefit of the Crusades!? I was merely picking on your untrue opinions and bringing the truth to light!. I see you had nothing to say in reply to my factual arguments, perhaps your a fool for posting such garbage on here!? In reality your to much of an embarrassment to answer to, so I'm afraid you'll have to list your own benefits!. Silly accent!? Doesn't that just show the immaturity of you!. Excellent!. But thank you for the compliment regarding my wise and noble ways, at least that is one accurate thing you have proposed on this page :)

I told you to do your own research with your benefits you moron!. Once again it comes down to your ignorance or maybe illiterate ways!.
Children like you should be ashamed of their lack of intelligence!. Instead of knowing what you talk about you just copy and paste it off wikipedia, which i've seen in countless other questions!. Why don't you stfu and mind your business about Australian history!? It's obvious you knew nothing from the start and still don't!.

Oh by the way I found another incorrect statement, lol!. You say that Indigenous Australians were forced off the rich lands and given worthless land in return, when actually Indigenous Australians had no knowledge of even very primitve farming methods like shifting cultivation, so no land was defined as "rich" or "worthless" by them at the time of European settling!.

Oh and another innacuracy!. The common misrepresentation that Australians are the descendants of convicts is widely considered false!. Here why - the whole point of colonization is that people migrate to the new lands!. So, the majority of Australian today are actually connected to the townsfolk of England who settled here!.

Before I go to sleep, I will write a conclusion to sum this all up!.

In conclusion as you can all see, the copy and paste bandit Hamster has no more to say except mindlessly and aimlessly suggesting that I provide him with a benefit of colonialism and re-stating his false opinions!. These pointless comments that are continuously used by him, draws a close to this series of arguments!. It is crystal clear that Hamster's way of defining the negatives of colonizing Australia are positively, and beyond a shadow of a doubt false!. The idiocy and failure of him to accept factual evidence/ support his claims is also very clear!. Hamsters lack of knowledge in this subject should also present itself well to everyone as all his claims have been appropriately identified and re-corrected by myself!. I only hope Hamster finds the maturity and guidance he needs to carry on in the future!.

Sincerely, Josh!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

hello

British colonisation of Australia began in Sydney in 1788!.

The most immediate consequence of British settlement - within weeks of the first colonists' arrival - was a wave of Old World epidemic diseases!. Smallpox alone killed more than 50% of the Aboriginal population!. It is probable that anywhere between 50-90% of all the Aborigines in the vicinity of Sydney died from the smallpox epidemic within the first three years of the British settlement!.

The second consequence of British settlement was appropriation of land and water resources!.

Settlers also brought alcohol, opium and tobacco, and substance abuse has remained a chronic problem for indigenous communities ever since

A wave of massacres and resistance also followed the frontier of European settlement

Poisoning of food and water has been recorded on several different occasions!. The number of violent deaths at the hands of white people is still the subject of debate, with a figure of around 10,000 - 20,000 deaths being advanced by historians

By the early 20th century the Indigenous population had declined to an estimated 150,000 from 190,000 although the traditional estimate is as low as 30 000

in summary !.!.!. their nomadic way of life was permanently destroyed, their people driven to the verge of extinction, their culture erased, the unwritten history lost



wow "roostermanforever" your sheer knowledge on the topic overwhelms me !.!.!.!. im sure somewhere there is a village looking for you !.!.!.!. you stupid village idiot

let me guess !.!.!. the indigenous population (who incidentally had lived quite happily for 1000's of years) welcomed the whiteman !.!.!. we brought them guns (to shoot them), farming implements (to chase them from the land - after all - aborigines couldnt own land - and were forced of the richest land - and given worthless land in return) , democracy (but they couldnt vote before 1967) , alcohol (thats destroyed the very fabric of their society) , small pox ( a new disease to obliterate 50 % of them), stolen generation (well over 100 000 children forcibly removed from their families - renamed - forbidden to speak their mother language) !.!.!.!.!. etc !.!.!. etc

you white aussies must really be proud of what you did !.!.!. im sure adolf hitler would support your narrow minded ignorant view of history

okay, "B!.G Knocc Out " !.!.!. please list one benefit that they derived ,,,, just one will do !.!.!. i know it will take you a while to make one up !.!.!. but i will eagerly await it

WOW IM STILL WAITING !.!.!.!. B!.G!. DONT YOU HAVE A SINGLE BENEFIT !.!.!.!. IM AMAZED !.!.!.!. THATS EXACTLY THE POINT !.!.!. COLONIALISM HAD NO BENEFIT FOR THE ABORIGINES !.!.!. NOT ONE

and the argument will go around in a never ending circle unless "B!.G" supplies a single benefit !.!.!. but i doubt he has the mentality to achieve it

okay !.!.!.!. you chased them off farmland , chased them from river frontage !.!.!. chased them to deserts !.!.!. where there is little resources/food !.!.!.!. yes B!.G !.!.!. i totally see how you might think that was a favour for them !.!.!. although anyone else with a brain will laught at your silly/childish backward way of thinking

im just curious how they let your little mind wander around all alone !?Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

to hamster,drab and rose,you are talking absolute rubbish,especially the so called stolen generation,if those children had not been taken they would have been dead within a few weeks,(fact)there was no mass murder ,or trying to rid australia of them,as far a language goes there is up to 300 different dialects,and as far as trying to starve them out WELL thats a joke as they all lived off of the land ,admittedly there were a lot of atrocities caused by the whites but but its not anywhere to the extremes that has been said on here,PS if it was the spanish ,french ,dutch or germans that colonized australia there would be none left,Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

Well It could have been a very long list but since you have limited it to Indigenous Australians(it still could be)

OK some of the obvious ones :
Loss of Land and Habitat
Loss of distinctive and Individual Cultures
Diseases they had no natural resistance built up to!.
Murder(Genocide)
Rape(Attempts to breed their race out of them)
Conversion to Religions which had no meaning to them
Destruction of Habitat for Hunting and Food Sources!.
Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

It destroyed them culturally!. Took away all their land, food, and resources!.

Condemned them to a life of secondary citizenship!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

what were the positive impacts!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---