How The Australian Continent plus New Zealand would be if they were Colonized By Portuguese_

[Latinus]

Well, even not being like the British but having their own mentality, Australia and NZ would be overwhelmly Spanish racially speaking, similar to Uruguay. Keep in mind that Australia and NZ were very sparsely populated by Australian Aboriginals and Maoris respectively. And those lands didn't have crops that required the massive import of African slaves, aside that they are too far away from Africa. Like the British, Spaniards or Portuguese would have colonized mostly the southern temperate parts of Australia. They might have imported some labor from south eastern Asia and Oceania, but I'm sure the resulting mestizaje would have been predominately Iberian, and then millions of Iberians would have immigrated to these southern temperate countries after their independence, as they did to the southern cone. The resulting population would be mostly Spanish (or Portuguese if they were colonized by Portuguese), with some level of SE Asian mixture in the mixed individuals, but also millions of full Iberians or heavily Iberians with very minor SE Asian, Maori (in New Zealand) or whatever.

PS: remember that the thread is about how Australia and NZ would be if they were colonized by Portuguese.

Yes, sorry, I confused myself, "I read Spaniards" in the tittle.
I was reading about the Portuguese in Australia, it seems they were the first Euros to reach that country, some Portuguese words were even absorbed by the Australian Abos. They didn't care about colonizing Australia because, according to the "Tordesilhas Treaty", the region would belong to Spain, so they didn't report it to the Portuguese crown.

Anyway, Australia, like you said, would be one of the most (if not the most) Euro country in the New World, with the bulk of the population being fully or very close to full Euro. They would probably be considered a Western country.

[Trouble]

The people would be a mix of aboriginal and Portuguese.

[alnortedelsur]

Yes, sorry, I confused myself, "I read Spaniards" in the tittle.
I was reading about the Portuguese in Australia, it seems they were the first Euros to reach that country, some Portuguese words were even absorbed by the Australian Abos. They didn't care about colonizing Australia because, according to the "Tordesilhas Treaty", the region would belong to Spain, so they didn't report it to the Portuguese crown.

Anyway, Australia, like you said, would be one of the most (if not the most) Euro country in the New World, with the bulk of the population being fully or very close to full Euro. They would probably be considered a Western country.

Don worry, either if they were colonized by Spaniards or Portuguese, the results would be about the same:

Mostly Spanish or Portuguese descent (depending of which of the two colonized it). It would have some minor mixture with natives and with possible SE Asians (in the possible scenario that they had imported labor from SE Asia). Basically a mix of whites, harnizos and castizos, just like Argentina and Uruguay, but switching the Amerindian with those other non Euro inputs.

And very likely would have an history of political instability, with military dictatorships until recent times, like it happened in the southern cone.

Also, check my previous post again. I edited it and added a paragraph!

[alnortedelsur]

The people would be a mix of aboriginal and Portuguese.

Aboriginals in Australia and Maoris in NZ were very scarce. Very likely these countries would be mostly Portuguese, with some minor Aboriginal/Maori input.

[Latinus]

The people would be a mix of aboriginal and Portuguese.

If they settled with women, and considering that Australia and New Zealand weren't very populated, the racial mixture with Abos wouldn't be significant, the same level as the British colonization. Very mixed Latino countries were usually the ones whose native populations were dense ,like Mexico, + plus the lack of Iberian women during the first stages of colonization.

Australia and New Zealand, well, I wonder if the first would be still be stereotyped as the land of beautiful blonde people, considering the fact that blondes are significantly less common in Portugal/Spain than England/Ireland.

[alnortedelsur]

If they settled with women, and considering that Australia and New Zealand weren't very populated, the racial mixture with Abos wouldn't be significant, the same level as the British colonization. Very mixed Latino countries were usually the ones whose native populations were dense ,like Mexico, + plus the lack of Iberian women during the first stages of colonization.

Australia and New Zealand, well, I wonder if the first would be still be stereotyped as the land of beautiful blonde people, considering the fact that blondes are significantly less common in Portugal/Spain than England/Ireland.

Would be seen more or less like Argentina and Uruguay. Mostly southern European descent countries, not known for being full of blonds, but known for being mostly European, and where blonds would not be the norm, but wouldn't be rare either.

[Latinus]

Would be seen more or less like Argentina and Uruguay. Mostly southern European descent countries.

Yes, but since real Australia is stereotyped as being a land of blonde and good looking people... I wonder if the same would be said if the Tugas had colonized it. Maybe the "Portuguese" down there would be perceived as better looking, with a nice tan, not sure if blonder.

[Zroota]

Interesting question.

It might be similar to Argentina and Uruguay, economy-wise (this applies as well if the Spaniards colonised it). There will be much more pure Iberians in here than in Brazil (and that's if SSA people are not brought in en masses and if the Portuguese don't mix with the local Aboriginals). So perhaps it will be Portugual II in some way. I doubt it will be as prosperous, rich and multicultural as the current Anglo-Celtic Australia. I don't see it being as crime-ridden and as 'poor' as Brazil with favelas and all that -- I do believe Jared Taylor is right that so much diversity can create poverty and violence. Brazil has many folks with SSA and Amerindian ancestry, which explains why some areas are poor and unsafe.

Ethnic make up would be like 70% Portuguese, 10% Italian, 8% Various Europeans, 5% southeast Asian, 4% Indian, 2% Aboriginals, 1% others....(or something)

P.S. I am aware that Brazil has rich areas as well and most people there are not poor or anything. I was just pointing out its troubled fraction.

[Golden Lining]

Australians would be short.

[Duffmannn]

Brasil at the colonisation times had a tiny amerindian population (but considerabily higher than australoids in pre-colonised Australia), with the european migrations and the black slavery imports, nowadays, the amerindian contribution to the total gene pool is barely 7-8% percent.

So, taking into account that Australia would´t need slaves to be developed because it hasn´t tropical (sugar, coffee, cocoa) cultivations, would have been the same regarding european genetics, but the population would be lower because the demographical surplus of Portugal was much lower than GB.