Do they really descend from criminals?

Do they really descend from criminals?

Attached: australia.gif (540x270, 3K)

The first batches yes. I wonder how many aussies are descendent of the First Fleet.

White criminals, our own people.

Still managed to build one of the best countries on earth. Whites are truly superior.

No its just banter

>Still managed to build one of the best countries on earth
The chinks did that, white australians are a bunch of bogans

Don't worry Brazil you'll get there one day in half a century maybe.

Probably about 10-15% are related to them, yes, though they're also related to other migrants, obviously. Those convicts were largely poorfag one-time petty thieves. Non-convicts far outnumbered convicts, even while they were still being transported. Transportation lasted from 1788 to 1866, total of around 162k convicts.

>Mary was born in 1777 in London. She spent her days sweeping the streets as a way of begging for money for her poor family. In 1788, at the age of 11, Mary with another young girl stole clothes. This included one cotton frock (fancy hat), one linen tippet (a scarf) and one linen cap. The girls then sold both the frock and cap.

>In the same year, another child reported Mary to an Officer of the Law who then found the tippet in her room. Mary was arrested and placed in prison where she was found guilty and sentenced to death. Luckily for Mary, her sentence had been changed to transportation to Australia for an 11-month voyage across the ocean, arriving June 1790 on the Second Fleet. Soon after, Mary was sent to Norfolk Island where she later had two children.

>Once returning to Sydney, Mary married Jonathon Brooker in 1809. They lived near Hawkesbury River and it was here that Mary raised her family of 21 children. Mary received her Certificate of Freedom September 1st 1812.

>At the time of her death, Mary had over 300 descendants. Today, she is considered one of the founding mothers of the early settlers to Australia. Her descendants number in the tens of thousands, including Kevin Rudd, the former Prime Minister of Australia.

Chinks barely existed in this country until a decade or two ago. They just buy our mined materials and spy on us.

Attached: Mary Wade.jpg (224x310, 24K)

>1866
1868* sorry

also Georgia state was prisoners colony

>Be pom peasant
>No way out of poverty, resort to steal a loaf of bread for your family
>Elitists kick you out of the country because of your poorfaggotry
Tall poppy syndrome has kept us from sniffing the farts of the aristocracy, so why are we still a Federation and didn't vote to be a republic? Even the UK doesn't want to get cucked by the EU so why should we still get cucked by the UK?
Explain for a young fella thanks.

>the half nigger white supremacist

>Chinks barely existed in this country until a decade or two ago
We had a fair few number of Chinese migrate during the gold rush era. The government even freaked out about it and drew up apartheid tier laws to try and prevent them from integrating into the greater society, at least in NSW.

I have one convict ancestor and everyone within at least four generations of me was born here
not many convicts were actually sent, most of the immigration happened during the gold rushes and whatever other reason people had to migrate

My ancestor stole some bread in England and then moved to NZ after serving her time in Australia. It was all petty crimes not murderers and rapists (they were hanged).

Was it at least a loaf of sourdough or something?

It must be a significant portion of the Australian population. 38,600 loyalists came to Canada and are the ancestors of an estimated 6 million Canadians (20% of all modern Anglo Canadians).
Australia got 162,000 prisoners and the population of the country today is like 26 million. A very large percentage must have convict ancestry

Essentially, there are no benefits or downsides whatsoever to becoming a republic and no benefits or downsides to remaining a constitutional monarchy, so why bother?

The Queen does offer one minor plus in that it is not actually possible for Australians to elect a dictator whilst she remains our sovereign, since HM the Queen technically retains the right to form and dissolve our government at will and therefore no one she doesn't approve of can claim to have formed a legitimate government.

That's not a minor plus. No law can be passed without the will of the people in our countries. We never have to worry about the effects of a rogue or highly partisan parliament because we have a non-partisan head of state. It's a huge plus

Damn, that broad is the female equivalent of a chad if there ever was one.

there are no benefits to being a republic, the GG is appointed by parliament not the Queen
there are huge downsides to becoming a republic, the biggest being that we are basically giving politicians free reign to reform our entire government structure into whatever suits them best
we have one of the very highest rated democratic models right now, its beyond retarded to rip that down just because 'urgh the queen isn't asian'

not many. Most are descended from MED BVLLS who came in the post-ww2 era. If you go to Melbourne or Sydney most surnames are Italian/Greek/Lebanese/Turkish etc. Or more recently, Vietnamese and Chinese.

You would have probably been considered Asian under our previous race laws during the red peril etc.

We essentially are a republic. Our senate is more closely resembling Washington than the House of Lords, and our Governor-General is practically a ceremonial President.

I don't really care about the whole republic/monarchy debate, if I had a gun to my head, I'd probably pick monarchy because I dislike change and its too much of a hassle to switch everything over. Plus I kinda like Prince Charles, he's redpilled on the JQ, unlike his two retard sons.

Literally all countries settled that were primarily white are some of the best cunts on earth.

>Canada, America, Aussie, NZ, South Africa was doing good for awhile for fucking sub-saharan Africa

Then you get... south America where the natives weren't completely eradicated

That's a pretty legitimate point, but I've always assumed that the government would still have to go through the constitution to turn us into America and I'm not sure they can do that even with supreme executive power, because it requires a super majority in a public referendum.

>South Africa

South Africa has always been a shithole.

Used to be "alright" all things considered. Then that black supremacist who literally bombed white people >Nelson Mandela rose to power and SA went IMMEDIATELY back to the shitter.

White people literally have to set traps outside their homes and rig up electric fences to keep the niggers out.

But for the 90% non-white percentage of the population, things have dramatically improved. Why should only a minority of the population live well at the expense of the majority?

>Dramatically improved

You sure about that buddy? Sure socially. But what about economically or the country's infrastructure and government? Do you truly believe that a country run by Africans would function better than a bunch of Dutch?

FACTS don't care about your feelings

Of course the country has better infrastructure than 30 years ago. And even if it was better 30 years ago, which it wasn't, what's the point if it was restricted from 90% of the population who were forced to live in slums?

Half american australian
My dad's ancestors were slaves
My mother's convicts
One of them earnt his freedom buy exterminating aboriginals in the black war

>what's the point if it was restricted from 90% of the population who were forced to live in slums?
That's bullshit, la.

Ok ok your right I concede. The evidence clearly speaks for itself. Holland and the dutch are equal to Africans.

I'm not arguing about the Netherlands, I'm saying the living standards for the overwhelming majority of South Africans has improved since the end of apartheid.

The amerilard can't read