Abstract
This article presents a comparison between Australia and New Zealand and the extent to which exclusionary and incorporationist dynamics became dominant in the material practices and political discourses that governed the ethno-racial conflicts in each society. It is argued that formative historical processes led to an overall stronger exclusionary trend in Australia, expressed in the formation of two distinct societies, as compared to a stronger incorporationist trend in New Zealand, expressed in the formation of one internally differentiated and highly inegalitarian society. The task of this historical analysis is to explain why this turned out to be the case. It is argued that two analytical factors account for the divergent courses taken by the two societies in question: (1) the differing capacities of the indigenous people to respond to and shape the process of group encounter and conflict; and (2) the strategies adopted by settler and colonial forces in pursuit of their interests. These analytical factors provide a framework for ultimately discussing the historical processes of state formation in both Australian and New Zealand societies.
Highlights
Societies vary considerably in their degree of racial and ethnic antagonism with places such as Brazil and Hawaii often regarded as relatively low in conflict, while the United States and South Africa are considered high in conflict
The central thread of the present comparison between Australia and New Zealand is the extent to which either exclusionary or incorporationist dynamics became dominant in the material practices and political discourses that governed the ethno-racial conflicts in each society
The general point with regard to the study of social history, and which is illustrated by the cases of Australia and New Zealand, is the need for historical perspective that looks at history as an open-ended process that neither leads in any necessary direction nor has predetermined goals and outcomes
Summary
Societies vary considerably in their degree of racial and ethnic antagonism with places such as Brazil and Hawaii often regarded as relatively low in conflict, while the United States and South Africa are considered high in conflict. The argument is made that two factors account for the divergent courses taken by the two societies in question: (1) the differing capacities of the indigenous people to respond to and shape the process of group encounter and conflict; and (2) the strategies adopted by settler and colonial forces in pursuit of their interests. These analytical factors provide a framework for discussing the historical processes of class structure formation and state formation in both Australian and New Zealand societies. Considered are how these forces affected the way Europeans perceived these groups and the subsequent strategies adopted by colonial and settler forces
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
