Uninhabited New Zealand
- Thread starter moro
- Start date
-
- Tags
- new zealand
Transferred to NZ by the Brits as a League of Nations mandate. German until 1914. Independent since 1962.
Again, "taking over" is different from "voluntarily joining".
Heck, Florida and Nova Scotia stayed out of the American Revolutionary War.
What does Florida and Nova Scotia have to do with New Zealand?
And yea, voluntarily joining is different than taking, but they didn't have a problem with that distance. It is your job to prove that Waitangi and Maori representation had nothing to do with the separation, which you have not proven in the least.
No, because distance was the factor in splitting in 1841, before Waitangi. And you have yet to prove that Maori rights were a reason why NZ didnt join Australia in the 1890s/1900s.
(from https://nzhistory.govt.nz/page/nz-says-no-aussie-federation)
New Zealand turns down federation with Australia | NZHistory, New Zealand history online
New Zealand turns down federation with Australia
30 May 1901
Cartoon about New Zealand joining the Australian federation (Alexander Turnbull Library, J-040-008)
A 10-man Royal Commission reported unanimously that New Zealand should not become a state of the new Commonwealth of Australia.
Although New Zealand had participated in Australian colonial conferences since the 1860s, federation only became a serious prospect following the decision to unite Australia’s six colonies in 1899.
Premier Richard Seddon preferred to be the leader of an independent country rather than an Australian state. He set up the Royal Commission in 1900 to buy time and get a sense of public opinion. While most submissions opposed union with Australia, many farmers were in favour, fearing new trade barriers to their produce.
The prevailing view was that New Zealanders were of superior stock to their counterparts across the Tasman. New Zealand’s trade was mostly with the United Kingdom; Australians were economic rivals rather than partners. Although New Zealand and Australia eventually signed a Free Trade Agreement in 1965, and the two economies have become closely integrated, political union is no closer today than it was in 1901.
(Edit: this is the entire article from the NZ government website. Not a mention of Maori.)
Last edited:
twovultures
Donor
While having a giant nature reserve in New Zealand sounds great, I think that unfortunately it would be too tempting of a target to avoid. Europeans would know about this "terra nullis" from at least the 1650's onward, after Abel Tasman's voyage. While the Dutch East India Company might send follow-up expeditions to the island, the lack of trade probably ends any attempt they make to settle it-they weren't really about settler colonies, South Africa notwithstanding.
The next wave of colonization would come in the 18th century. We could see French settlement of the island, with this world's version of Bougainville leading an expedition with Acadian refugees from the New World to New Zealand instead of the Falklands. If France diverts some of the colonists that they sent to die in Guiana IOTL to *Bougainville, the French New Zealand colony could very well take root and survive. Otherwise, the English take it as per OTL.
I will say, while the two main islands will be colonized by humans, its possible that some of the larger 'offshore' islands of the New Zealand archipelago could have European settlement prevented for any number of whacky schemes. Maybe its set up as a preserve for New Zealand fauna, and moa are released on the island and are able to survive; perhaps more distant fauna are released on the island due to some aristocrat's whims, and we end up in a situation where the Tasmanian tiger or some Asian animals have a breeding population established on the island.
At the time, European racism often treated Indigenous people as animals, as has been pointed out already in this thread. However, occasional humanitarian concerns could break through, and we could very well see a population of Aboriginal Australians or Pacific Islanders settled on New Zealand land to 'save' them from both paganism and the threat of a rival European power.
The next wave of colonization would come in the 18th century. We could see French settlement of the island, with this world's version of Bougainville leading an expedition with Acadian refugees from the New World to New Zealand instead of the Falklands. If France diverts some of the colonists that they sent to die in Guiana IOTL to *Bougainville, the French New Zealand colony could very well take root and survive. Otherwise, the English take it as per OTL.
I will say, while the two main islands will be colonized by humans, its possible that some of the larger 'offshore' islands of the New Zealand archipelago could have European settlement prevented for any number of whacky schemes. Maybe its set up as a preserve for New Zealand fauna, and moa are released on the island and are able to survive; perhaps more distant fauna are released on the island due to some aristocrat's whims, and we end up in a situation where the Tasmanian tiger or some Asian animals have a breeding population established on the island.
At the time, European racism often treated Indigenous people as animals, as has been pointed out already in this thread. However, occasional humanitarian concerns could break through, and we could very well see a population of Aboriginal Australians or Pacific Islanders settled on New Zealand land to 'save' them from both paganism and the threat of a rival European power.
Here we show that the Polynesian population of New Zealand would not have exceeded 2,000 individuals before extinction of moa populations in the habitable areas of the eastern South Island. During a brief (<150 years) period and at population densities that never exceeded ~0.01 km−2, Polynesians exterminated viable populations of moa by hunting and removal of habitat. High human population densities are not required in models of megafaunal extinction (source)
there is absolutely no way that the moa survive the 19th century in a natural state if a thousand Maori hunted them to extinction within a century of their arrival to South Island
there is absolutely no way that the moa survive the 19th century in a natural state if a thousand Maori hunted them to extinction within a century of their arrival to South Island
I stand corrected on this point.
Which does mean that the initial treaty acknowledging Maori rights was done when the colony was considered part of New South Wales.
It was then split, as far as I've been able to surmise, because of distance (and because at the time many still saw Australia as a penal colony).
In OTL:
By the early nineteenth century, I think you get some minor - and transient - populations of Europeans, using it as a source of timber, whaling, and sealing. A sort of remote adjunct to the Australian colonies. But there's no great incentive to venturing inland, much less burning off the bush to get farms.
- Tasman turns up in 1642. Doesn't know it's an island. Gets chased off by Maori and never comes back.
- Cook turns up in 1769. Interacts with Maori, and maps out the place. Cook is looking for trees to supply the Royal Navy - not a settler colony. Australia itself only wound up as the Imperial Gulag from 1788 onwards because Britain no longer had the Thirteen Colonies.
By the early nineteenth century, I think you get some minor - and transient - populations of Europeans, using it as a source of timber, whaling, and sealing. A sort of remote adjunct to the Australian colonies. But there's no great incentive to venturing inland, much less burning off the bush to get farms.