Backbencher

This first lecture identifies the people who have become known as "native" to Australia and New Zealand - native being a loaded term because history before the European settlers is largely unknown. The aborigine are thought to have migrated from SE Asia - however no concrete record of this is known, whereas the Maori celebrated their migration to New Zealand by knowing their genealogical history so well that they could pinpoint exactly which ancestor arrived on which canoe and when they made the journey. Most of the known history starts when Europeans arrived with their "since no one has claimed this land - its ours" mindset and the initial preconceptions of the aborigine and Maori people were based upon European interpretation. The aborigine people were seen as "savage and hostile" in part due to their nomadic lifestyle with very little organized hierarchy and their resistance to European influences, whereas the Maori people were seen as more civilized - having established villages with a system of hierarchy and organized (or at least understandable) sharing of resources. What's more interesting is the fact that the Maori welcomed European influence - they weren't going to change completely, but more or less integrate the new ideas into what the already have.

While European impressions of the people might have represented how they felt at the time - I don't think they objectively illustrate the aborigine and Maori people. The aborigine used fire to help rejuvenate their fields following harvesting and were very effective managers of the land. The Maori were very good at being able to establish a system of commerce (not what we'd see today, but in their own right) for which they could share resources between other villages. These are only examples of why the European impressions could have been wrong - could there be more?