The Right To Be Left Alone

For some years, I’ve agonised over a dilemma. In yet another a fit of insanity, I began sketching out a novel, set in the 1750s in a Swiss skiing chalet (‘presentism’) during the worst blizzard in a century. But amongst the enthusiastic skiers are the Prince of Wales (the future George III), his naval assistant, Arthur Philip and Philip’s friend Wilberforce; Benjamin Franklin; Voltaire; Kant; the philosophes Condorcet and Beccaria; Edmund Burke; and a ‘Monsieur Antoine’, who provokes long discourses on ‘the noble savage’ and his natural rights. Inevitably, passionate discussion turns to the Great South Land, and whether its noble inhabitants should be left alone, on an inviolate continent, untouched by the outside world.

Its north, west and south-west coasts are well-known from the writings of the Dutch explorers Tasman, Hartog, Janszen, Nuyts, as well as Portuguese and Spanish ships’ captains and Dampier, along with many others. It’s agreed that ‘Australia’ should be kept inviolate, from all exploration, settlement and/or invasion, by any imperialist powers. The foraging peoples there are to be kept isolated from the rest of the world forever, if possible. Of course, alternatively, some participants like Burke observe that, in an Enlightened world, it may be beneficial for ‘Australia’’s inhabitants to be brought into the family of nations and the embrace of modern technology. This objection is dismissed as patronising.

The discussants explore how this can be achieved, for centuries if need be. Philip advises the future king that it would require a huge, permanent naval force to patrol the entire ‘Australian’ coast-line, out of sight of land if possible. Franklin observes that such a fleet would require another huge fleet to keep it provisioned. Agreement would have to be sought with all potential imperialist powers, ideally with their participation in a joint naval patrolling force, thus boosting their economies (but draining their treasuries). Would this be possible, they (and I) wondered ?

My novel and my naivety taper off there. I didn’t build in Russian, Japanese or Chinese expansionism in future centuries. Should I abandon this project ?

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

No. Don't give up the project.

I for one would like to see how it all ends.

Perhaps the imaginative saga could lead to a better future
for the Continent. And a better understanding of its native
inhabitants. Out of fantasy, good things can happen - as
many discoveries have proven in the past. The thing is to
persevere. Only through perseverance does one achieve
something worthwhile.

Don't frustrate yourself,Joe. If you were going to write you would have done it long ago. I've been there, done that. Reading authors who were serious about writing - who didn't have to ask other people if they should write - is the best way to go. Nobody meant to write hesitates to do it.

Dear Foxy,

You can be a rather 'sweet child of peace' and I do adore you for it but I suspect Loudmouth was making a political statement rather than flagging a novel. Although perhaps you knew that.

I will admit “Condorcet and Beccaria” pulled me up. No idea of who they are but when I hit a less busy period I will try and check them out.

I do imagine what might have been if a Treaty of Waitangi style exercise was entertain here in Australia. 500 tribes in NZ signed off on it. If we had had leadership committed to the same here in Australia it is sobering to think how the country might have looked now.

I am doing my little part in helping rescue a Victorian indigenous culture from the history books. It is living and breathing because of a small band of dedicated individuals.

My sentiment at the moment is that people like Loudmouth can go jump. Perhaps tomorrow I will wake up on the other side of the bed.

"It’s agreed that ‘Australia’ should be kept inviolate, from all exploration, settlement and/or invasion, by any imperialist powers. The foraging peoples there are to be kept isolated from the rest of the world forever, if possible."
That's a huge non sequiter - rejecting colonisation is one thing, but why would anyone reject trade as well?

Too late, by the time prescribed the native inhabitants have been introduced to Islam, and are freely trading and wife swapping with the Indonesians.

Maybe if left that way, things may have turned out more successfully for them than suffering the forced incursions of Christian missionaries, intent on supporting the land grabbing Poms.