what explains the fact that today australia is a rich, wealthy, militarily strong first world country, despite the fact that it is esentially a giant wasteland island in the middle of the ocean inhabited by the worst of the worst british convicts?
Usually colonies where the natives are (mostly) wiped out are easily able to replicate the societies that they originated from.
On the other hand, places like India and Africa where the native people are the vast majority and already have their own institutions, cultures, languages, economies, ideologies, etc, aren't going to adopt Western civilization overnight and so they end up struggling to keep up.
Settlers in Australia didn't have to give up their whole culture to adopt a more successful one, they just had to recreate what the knew at home. Even convicts were already familiar with the civilization they came from, so it wasn't really an impossible task.
As for agriculture, I'm pretty sure Australia is well suited for cattle ranching, they were just never introduced before colonisation. Besides, the tiny population density doesn't really require huge tracts of fertile land.
I'm talking out my ass here though, I don't know anything about Australia.
>the worst of the worst british convicts
Not really. Australia was more an experiment in rehabilitation for people who committed the heinous crime of stealing a piece of cloth, or reading a book that was banned, shit like that
>i want to know but i'm not open to the only explanation that fits the data
Australia isn't a waste land you daft cunt.
There is a fucking reason it was originally called New South Wales. Because the part they landed on and settled looked like Wales.
Truly covered with lush wildlife. A paradise on earth
The importation of crops and domesticated animals allowed much greater food production than is possible with native species, this allows a much larger population and more specialised society.
Some parts of Austrlia are rich, others are poor as fuck and in Aboriginal communities, the conditions are like in the third world.
That said, the primary reason is because of The abundance of Minerals. 40% of Australian economy depends on exporting raw materials. Once those run dry, Australia has a competent service sector, but nothing cutting edge.
The main reason Australia does so well is because Australia had extreamly generous land grants that gave everyone as much land as they needed. That has allowed them to prosper in the past and get them to where they are today.
Underpopulation means more minerals and raw material per person.
The first convict colonists were probably as poor as indian peasants as they tried to eek out a living, later immigrants were Europeans who brought their own capital to ensure standards of living competitive with Europe.
I don't think there is a full explanation, but these are probably major factors.
>poor as indian peasants
Not really, they were still convicts which meant they got provided rations and other stuff. The problem was that the colonies in general didn't have shit except agricultural supplies, many of which weren't appropriate for the Australian climate.
>later immigrants were Europeans who brought their own capital to ensure standards of living competitive with Europe.
That's not entirely true. The first major wave of immigration into Australia after the first fleet was made up of primarily poor British citizens who came because of the promise of land. Then the gold rush happened bringing more immigrants from all over the place. Properly skilled immigrants didn't really move to Australia until the latter half of the 19th century and even after that there's been plenty of poor immigrants, particularly after the world wars.
>When he sentenced Kelly to death by hanging, Barry uttered the customary words "May God have mercy on your soul". According to the transcripts, Kelly replied "I will go a little further than that, and say I will see you there when I go".
There's a lot of minerals and shit there for sale. One could argue that it was "proper" colonization since they didn't squeeze out every dime possible from the native population. Compare them to a place like Greenland with, well, just snow and fish afaik.
Just because Australia has a fuckton of desert doesnt mean it doesnt have a fuckton of arable land.
Australia is fucking huge.
Australia has a fuckton of arable land
Australia has a fuckton of natural resources.
Australia gives no fucks.
there has never been a war on Australian soil.(some bombs dropped on Darwin by the nips in WW2 but who cares)
(hint switch the list upside down to find out the most arable land per capita)
S T R A Y A
A Y A R T S
just because the green is on the edge doesnt mean there isnt a fuckton of green you unlearned cretin
Hardly anybody actually really cares about the true story behind him honestly - most people just get a kick out of the popular romanticist legend of him being an Australian Robin Hood. Some people react very badly to legendary status being given to a highway bandit who killed quite a few people and cops and tried to kill a whole trainload of cops, and go the complete opposite direction saying he was basically scum of the earth. I don't really know of anybody actually taking the real history behind him that seriously though.
Bear in mind that on a non-distorted map, Australia is almost the same size as the continental US. So while 80% of Australia might be desert, that other 20% is the size of half of Europe, and that land is pretty fertile with tons of minerals. Furthermore the prisoner population is a meme. While the initial settlers were indeed convicts that did stuff like steal a loaf of bread, 95% of the population is descended of European settlers who immigrated there later.
>just because the green is on the edge doesn't mean there isn't a fuckton of green
>what explains the fact that today australia is a rich, wealthy, militarily strong first world country, despite the fact that it is esentially a giant wasteland island in the middle of the ocean inhabited by the worst of the worst british convicts?
Connel & Irving
>because i don't want "muh white supremacy" as an explanation.
But that's literally the answer.
Every single white settler colony is a success. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, USA of course.
But since you refuse to see the facts, here's something more compatible with your marxist ideology : "the patriarchy"
that wasn't a war.
That was settler conflict with stone-age tribesman.
it didnt make land unusable, destroy towns/cities, kill the intelligentsia.
It had almost no affect on the outcome of Australias success.
>the worst of British convicts
I hate this fucking meme.
No. The worst we're not sent to Australia, they were hanged in Britain. Convicts who came to Austrlia were transported because they were thieves, frauds or forgers and couldn't be stored in prisons anymore.
Well yeah it's not like I lived in the Victorian era.
How about showing me why I'm wrong? As far as I'm aware even livestock theft was a capital offence just roughly a century ago. Harsher penalties make for harsher crims.
Anon I started the circulation of you edit a few weeks ago when I posted it with an oc image I made for /his/ and your picture has been reposted 100 times and mine hasn't ever been. Yeah I'm mad.
The typical gold rush immigrant was a rough and ready worldly young male who had a line of credit to fund their prospecting. A good wholesome firm buttox'd chap raring to build an economy. The kind of man that would make Ayn Rand gush.
Food Bowl, tiny population, retarded levels of mineral wealth, Government structure based on the best of Westminster and Washington, incredibly risk adverse population and Government.
The final one is also a massive double edge sword, Australia is a nanny-state beyond belief and is culturally and economically stagnant as fuck with a huge "tall poppy" syndrome against intellectuals and innovators.
I honestly don't believe tall poppy syndrome is real. We love our local athletes, scientists and celebrities. The only person I can think of who gets universal scorn is the hamplanet Gina Rinehart.
I agree our government is a nanny state, and I don't think this is popular with the masses. While it may certainly be more petty than the American government, it's much less brutal. Especially the cops and prison system.
Intellectuals are heavily shit on in Australia.
This is why the CSIRO has for all intents and purposed been eliminated, thousands of scientists are out of a job and nobody gives a shit, Australia has the highest rate of climate change denial in the world at over half the population, Australians didn't blink when Abbott chased hundreds of billions of dollars of R&D out of the country, Nobody gives a shit the NBN has been destroyed and scientists and the Greens were shit on when they linked the more frequent catastrophic bush fires to climate change.
Australia sadly has a heavy dose of anti-intellectualism and anti-innovation. Australians are quite conservative and don't like change.
This is why you see entrepreneurs and scientists fleeing the country in a huge brain drain, while we celebrate landed wealth like Palmer and Packer.
I feel like the problems you mentioned are more a result of alot of the current generation of Australians being very politically apathetic, and is that really very surprising when, as these >>686047 >>686057 posters put it, the only real choice is between greedy rich fucks, greedy and stupid rich fucks, and the only party that wants to enact sensible policies to progress society, also inextricably embody the absolute worst and most obnoxious of the liberal left/social justice movement.
>the only party that wants to enact sensible policies to progress society
I had a look at their site to check out their policies so that I could ridicule you for saying this but most of it is wishy washy bullshit and very few definitive positions are stated. It's all muh refugees, muh abos and muh nuclear power. Their defense policies are some of the few that are clarified and they are beyond retarded.
Another four years of either the Liberals or Labor keeping us on a course of mediocrity are infinitely more desirable than the Greens destroying this nation.
Past generations weren't much more politically invested, labor were returned less than half the time despite a far more vital union movement.
Don't try pulling this shit when you hand in essays to me.
Up until the 1950s, more than half the economy was wool. "our prosperity rides on the sheep's back".
And now, irrespective of the policies of any government of the last 30 years, MINING BOOM baby
>Intellectuals are heavily shit on by Coalition supporters
Fixed that for you.
Maybe you need to stop living in Queensland.
Their stance against nuclear energy and GMOs is fucking stupid. Economic policy is basically illiterate but that's par for the course with most parties except for Labor - all liberals do is whine about interest rates (which are set by banks anyway) and the surplus (despite our deficit being very small and good for economic growth). I actually like their social policy although the LDP and sex party are better, but I'm sure saying that will trigger the megalomaniac finger-twiddling religious rightfags here.
Queenslander here - I don't think intellectuals suffer here more than in any other state. Just look at anyone trying to argue against NSWs lockout laws.
I'm not familiar with Greens policies much beyond their defence policy - which I did once peruse. They wanted to end exercise Talisman Sabre because it rifled China's feathers, and since it simulates amphibious landings (which are inherently aggressive) it is provocative. Really whacky stuff.
The Greens have State based policies that are synchronised nationally. Most policy has been gutted by a process of "blue green algae" eating away at any presence of the left in the party, trying to turn it into the democrats lite.
In the early 2000s, for example, the NSW greens had a policy of long term total transformation of the social relations of people away from monetary relations. Such gestural objectives are gone.
Is that process the reason why the Greens have seen some increased support, or a consequence of it? Have they just become more politically pragmatic when they gained power in order to hold on to it?
The same rich fucks who created the democrats have found a home in the Greens in every state but WA and NSW.
In WA and NSW, to be honest, an honest agreement amongst ex-Tankies, ex-Trots, anarchists, socialist ex-Laborites and the kind have kept some semblance of Tony Harris' vibe going. (See Harris' article in Labour History).
As you'd know, for the watermelon Greens the object is the end of the US alliance as part of the end of imperialism.
Oh, and as far as their electoral success? Nurses, Doctors, Social Workers, Aged Carers, Child Care Workers, TAFE & School Teachers, Academics, students training to be the same etc. vote for them much more often than other workers. State dependent social "caring" profession white and pink collars who need a university degree and are vital to the reproduction of capital through the reproduction of high quality general labour power. This analysis was conducted by Bob Gould on a booth basis against census data for the last election he was alive for. I see no reason to believe otherwise.