Backbencher

Our first lecture really seemed to point out more differences than similarities between the Australian Aborigine and the New Zealand Maori people... differences that may very well have been largely carved out by the very nature of the landscape underneath their feet. The Aborigine have an egalitarian society that likely must move often to where ever the resources are more plentiful, this necessitates owning very few items... even real estate is a non issue when you can't practically farm it... so they became thinly populated and lived a very sparse existence. I say "lived" because I assume that many have been inducted into more urban settings by now.
Without real estate as an issue ( egalitarian societies tend to share resources when they are available, and move on when they are not) the Aborigine were easily pushed back by the English Crown and promptly forgotten as a part of Australia's history, with the efforts being made to emphasize the history since colonization.

The Maori, on the other hand... arrived much later (the very word aborigine means original!) and descended from Polynesian sailors in the last few hundred years. They settled in a much more forgiving landscape and colonized it, and refused to be readily pushed back and forgotten by the (later) British colonists that arrived in the last bit more than a couple of hundred years. The Maori seem to be much more able to compete for property and are enjoying a much more culturally enviable position than their Australian counter parts. They farmed the landscape, built permanent settlements... Spoke a common language, and over all were in a much better position to "hold off" the European invasion. They understood the concept of property, and have maintained a considerable portion of their own culture. Frankly, I am surprised they didn't kill the British off completely despite the lack of artillery.

What most intrigued me? Probably the fact that the Maori were the people who settled new Zealand at all. Somehow I felt that the Polynesian people were from someplace farther away- I really did not grasp the propinquity of Asia, the Pacific islands, and I had somehow managed
to have imagined this area to be more isolated than it actually is... maybe someplace nearer to Antarctica or something, I guess. When I look at a map now, it makes perfect sense, of course.

The one thing that seems odd is that the Aborigine visually appear to be of Negro stock... somehow it doesn't seem likely that the came to Australia via Asia... not a lot of Negroes there. That part of the generally accepted explanation doesn't quite fit with what I see. The aborigine people seem absolutely nothing like Asian in any way that I can imagine at all. Perhaps somebody else will offer a different explanation at some point???