MovieChat Forums > Quigley Down Under (1990) Discussion > The Aborigines.

The Aborigines.

posted 8 years ago by kuma_lacu
8 replies | jump to latest

As I was watching this I was well aware of the parallels with the Indians of North and South America and the destruction of their heritage by white European settlers. However, Australia is HUGE and there are large parts of the country that aren't inhabited today, right? These people were primitive hunter/gatherers that wouldn't have been any competition for colonization for the whites in that region. So why all the hatred? Why do they want to eliminate them all? Is it an example of "manifest destiny" as seen in U.S. history or just racist arrogance that one is superior over the other? Also why did he need to hire a sharp shooter to start with? These guys were defending themselves with spears for gods sake... You're telling me that his men couldn't eliminate them from a distance with their own rifles and pistols? A standard Henry or Winchester could kill from about 300 to 400 feet! That's like a 3 to 1 advantage over the Aborigines. I just don't see why they would need a mercenary sharp shooter from America to come all the way to Australia for that reason.

R E S I S T A N C E IS F U T I L E !

[–] ranb40 8 years ago

Yes, it was the racism. It is everywhere and no one race has a monopoly on it at all.

Even a hunter/gatherer would want to live in a place where food can be hunted and gathered. This means that groups would very likely be competing for land.

Marston explained that the Aborigines were able to stay out of rifle range so he needed a good sharpshooter.

[–] kuma_lacu 8 years ago

"Marston explained that the Aborigines were able to stay out of rifle range so he needed a good sharpshooter." And yet, how many times did we see his band of merry man riding down on them and murdering dozens of them with ease? At the end they were out of range but for most of the movie they didn't seem to be more than 100 feet away at any given time. My original comment stands... Why did he need to hire a merc for this task?

R E S I S T A N C E IS F U T I L E !

[–] au561 8 years ago

The Aborigines of the time viewed all animals as fair game to be hunted. So the Cattle and Sheep of the Station (Ranch) owners were at risk to be killed. Cheaper to kill the "Aboes" than lose your Sheep.

[–] WhoisThePrisoner1 8 years ago

He explained very clearly that they have been unable to domesticate the uncivilized/"backward" aborigine, that they slaughtered his parents, and continue to kill his sheep and cattle. The government allows "pacification by force". He isn't attempting to "eliminate them all", just the ones that refuse to stay away from the property he claims.

Try watching the movie.

[–] kuma_lacu 8 years ago

Property stolen from those very people? Just because Britain came along and "found" Australia doesn't mean it belongs to them. The Aborigines lived there thousands of years before the brits found it... Just like the native Americans ruled this area too. Those people had the right to defend themselves against a hostile force and so did the Indians in the U.S. Sadly neither really won, but sometimes principle is worth dying for man. True freedom isn't guaranteed and no one gives a damn about a moldy piece of 200 year old paper. Freedom is an idea that is won at the tip of a blade and the sound of gun fire. Its a sad truth but that force/survival of the fittest pops up and changes all the rules. Doesnt it? If you came into my neighborhood and tried to take everything for yourself and abuse me and my family for your own selfish gain Im going to kill you to end that threat. You would do no less. Case closed.

R E S I S T A N C E IS F U T I L E !

[–] WhoisThePrisoner1 8 years ago

You originally asked why, in the movie, there was "hatred" and conflict since there was so much land for the aborigine.

The answer was explained clearly in the movie by the villain character. I simply paraphrased that information.

You obviously either didn't watch the movie, or didn't pay attention.

[–] kuma_lacu 8 years ago

And I was outlining why he was the movies "bad guy" whilst using historical data. Pay attention, man!

R E S I S T A N C E IS F U T I L E !

[–] dannieboy20906 8 years ago

Maybe, but I tend to agree with WhoIsthePrisoner. You seem to me to be fishing for an argument.

I agree with your position regarding aboriginal rights. But, we did not live 130 years ago (more or less). I, for one, will not say how I might have thought had I grown up in that era. The entire nineteenth century was a period of colonization of industrially backward nations by those with an industrial advantage. This had been happening since Greco - Roman days. The technologically inferior culture has limited options. They adapt and assimilate or resist. Resistance has seldom, if ever succeeded. Assimilation is seldom ideal for the technologically inferior culture, but it works more often. At least the people are able to live, reproduce, and sometimes they are able to maintain key parts of their culture, such as language and religion.

With regard to the movie, we modern thinkers are able to identify with Quigley and 'hate' Marston. That makes it so much more rewarding to us emotionally when he dies. But, it probably isn't intellectually honest. What fun would that be?

The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.