At black armband, pro Aboriginal protests, one can often hear the chant; “Always was, always will be, Aboriginal land!” Meanwhile, others accuse British settlers of stealing Aboriginal land and resources, and Australia Day has been described by the leader of our third largest political party, as representing ‘genocide.’

When a country’s underpinnings are attacked in such a manner, one may wonder if its founding stock (white Australians, particularly those of British descent) have any proper claim to this continent. Naturally, questions arise of if we are morally permitted to treat this land as our own, by defending national borders through immigration control.

When assessing the British Australian claim, there are 3 pertinent criteria to examine;

1. The inevitability of inter group conflict;
2. The presence of a distinct people; and
3. The noted contributions of British Australians.

The inevitability of inter group conflict:

Every civilisation since the beginning of recorded history, is the legacy of internal and external conflict. Initially, individual humans strived for domination in their families, groups, tribes, and then empires, in seeking to expand their power over the earth. To go back and rule every group that conducted some form of conquest is illegitimate, would be discredit every nation or order currently existing, and spiral humans back into a disordered, anarchical state.

As put by Sherry Sufi; “The Vikings arrived in England before the Normans.
“The Berbers arrived in Morocco before the Arabs.
The Ainus arrived in Japan before the Nippons.
The Pelasgians arrived in the Aegean Peninsula before the Greeks.
The Etruscans arrived in Italy before the Romans.
The Incas arrived in Peru before the Spaniards.
The list is endless.
No piece of land or its sovereignty exclusively belongs to its perceived or actual first comers.”

Similarly flawed can be observed in discussion over America and its colonial past, as explained Jared Taylor:

It is important to understand that lofty ideas of sovereignty fully developed in the 19th century, and national borders only became a legally enforceable matter after the UN’s creation in 1945.

Before this, Aboriginals, as Europeans did in their perpetual state of warfare, regularly violated one another’s sovereignty, and current understandings of boundaries between groups were determined accordingly. Thus, Aboriginals cannot hold modern people to standards magnanimously crafted by Europeans, when they never considered such sensibilities themselves.

It is noteworthy that the only groups regularly shamed for colonialism’s ills are Europeans, whereas Africans, Arabs and Asians who conducted expansionism in a far more brutalising manner, seem to escape comparable criticism and questions over sovereignty. Stefan Molyneux best summarised this one sided paradigm, describing it as “picking on the nicest group.”

The modern presence of a distinct people:

By any stretch, British Australians have founded a unique culture. While largely heralding from England, British Australians have taken on a culture distinct from their long dead ancestors, in developing new language, music, a national game, and a pervasive anti authority streak.

We have also taken on a new identity, rooted in an ethnic heritage distinguishable from other Western countries. This idea of a new people was formally recognised through Federation in 1901, then enhanced and mythologized by Australian involvement in World War 1. This ongoing understanding of ourselves and expression of Australian ethnic identity can still be observed today, at the obvious whiteness of Anzac Day memorial services.

In short, British Australians are not devoid of character or identity. We are a people by every metric which maintains genuine interests and a history worth holding onto. And while Britain/ Canada/ New Zealand remain similar nations, we are also discernible, and are not some arbitrary group that can be transplanted elsewhere without ethnic dislocation and displacement.

Therefore the pertinent question, as would occur if Noongars occupied land held by Yamatjis centuries prior, is how can we protect and preserve a worthy people
within the current framework?

For if cultural murder as can occur in colonialism is wrong, any cultural suicide of British Australians should also be avoided, despite the growing demands of Marxist radicals.

The noted contributions of British Australians:

Besides that European settlement was no unparalleled aggression, and a new, marked people has since emerged, we ought consider this land’s civilisational development prior to the First Fleet in 1788, and progress since.

In truth, some aspects of Aboriginal culture were admirable. They were skilled at orienteering, hunting, and effectively grasped the geographical and climatic nature of Australia, later demonstrated when they helped as trackers for white settlers.

But pre 1788 Australia was no idyllic picture. None of the hundreds of Aboriginals tribes had developed the wheel, written language, an industrial capacity, quality medicine, scientific methodology, any real technology, or modern weaponry required to defend themselves. Aboriginal culture also practiced child marriage, and was notoriously violent towards women, with up to 44 % dying of cranial trauma in some parts. Essentially, Aboriginals were a Stone Age people borne out of thousands years of separate biological and cultural evolution, not showing virtually any signs of civilisational development, nor likely to do so soon.

Since 1788, British settlement bought sophisticated communication technologies, modern transport, infrastructure, shelter, reliable water, modern agriculture, civil liberties which extended beyond being speared for stealing, sanitation, healthcare, education, electricity, television and the internet. And for all of materialism’s critiques which this author often shares, the contrast in quality of life between those living before and after Australian colonialism is enormous, and Aboriginals have affirmed this with their subsequent lifestyle preferences.

Admittedly, colonialism also brought difficulties for Aboriginals in initial diseases upon contact, problems with integration, dispossession, and substance abuse.

Yet, no one in their right minds could argue this continent’s development would have been enhanced without British settlement. The biggest benefactors of Australian colonialism’s history are ultimately not British Australians whose modern day relatives live in relative European comfort, but Aboriginals, who reap the fruits of colonialism, even in their most desolate communities.

The legitimate claim of British Australians and consequent implications

Coming full circle, British Australians undeniably have a legitimate claim to our land and country, in a manner not far detached from the rights of ethnic Poles to Poland, or ethnic Chinese to China.

Some may perceive hypocrisy in my endorsement of past movements of British people to Australia, yet open rejection of the mass immigration of other cultures here in the modern era.

However, it is not hypocrisy, nor ignorance that culminates in this perspective. In fact it is my knowledge of history, our rightful place, and the reality of demographics which informs me. Further, we should be levelheaded and open about placing our own people first, as every other healthy, everlasting group does.

Consider: why does Mexico explicitly endorse ethnonationalism at home, but simultaneously abets the Hispanic conquest of the American South West?

And why does Israel espouse ethnonationalism for Jews, but is reluctant to grant Palestinians their own country?

Because these countries are not afraid of putting their own people first.