Lucky for the then quite few inhabitants of Australia that the Brits decided to take it on. After all it is British royalty who gave them "Land Rights".
As we know from the rock paintings in the Kimberlies, the aboriginies, who have been proven to have been occupants for only 10,000 years, were preceded by three separate sophisticated maritime cultures. IE, they arrived here by boat. There was never a land bridge to Asia.
The Dutch had given up on the west coast of "New Holland" after so many disasters and probably used their claim on it as a piece of gambling currency in a game of cards which they let their British royal cousins win as they had had enough of it.
As pweeds says:- Just out of curiosity then, given that for a certainty, at some point australia would have been colonised by some other country, what country do you think the original inhabitants would have done much better under?
The Spanish?The Dutch? The only other contenders.
The Portugese?
The French?
The Russians?
The Japanese?
The Germans?
By the time the Dutch and British got here the ORIGINAL inhabitants were long gone and only the aboriginies were left living stone age.
Western civilisation has lifted them out of their misery and given them reason and hope.
"By the time the Dutch and British got here the ORIGINAL inhabitants were long gone and only the aboriginies were left living stone age.
Western civilisation has lifted them out of their misery and given them reason and hope.
Yeah for us, we're ace
If you two got out of your socialistic brain washed mind set and read some of the real history you would probably feel less guilty about who and what you are and be a lot happier.
Here is some beauty for you that might brighten you up.
. I was with you until this. Apologies to loggy.
OK. To say the least, the locals were more surviving than thriving when the first Europeans came here.
