Why was Australia, a relatively unknown continent that was barren, colonized exclusively only by the British?
AUSTRALIA IS A COUNTRY, NOT A CONTINENT.
>>18440880Heh, i bet you think the Americas are a single continent as wellYou pan-latinxos have a strange grasp on what a continent is
>>18440887I. AMERICA IS ONE CONTINENT, WHICH COMPRISES FROM GREENLAND TO TIERRA DE FUEGO.II. AUSTRALIA IS A COUNTRY IN THE CONTINENT OF OCEANIA.III. I DO NOT KNOW TO WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING WITH THE REST OF YOUR WORDSALAD.
>18440880>18440889Why are spic mutts so retarded?
>>18440873>>18440887>>18440895>Burgermutt education
>>18440873Any interest in colonising it by other Europeans, namely the Dutch and French, was generally swept aside by the continent not seeming very resourceful, having a low population and then Britain claiming it as their domain. Even the British were considering abandoning it until they found soil suitable for agriculture to sustain what was intended to be a low cost penal colony.
>>18440873Europeans knew about it for a long time, but just the west coast which is super arid and the north coast which are extremely inhospitable mangrove swamps. It wasn't until the 1770s that the east coast was explored, which is the only part that was actually decently good land. People from Oceania did go to Australia but just to the north coast and northeast where they interacted with the natives some but were understandably not interested in moving there. I do think its kind of weird that the Polynesians didn't settle the southeast of australia though.
>>18440873The fertile and temperate East Coast only began being settled in the 1790s, an era when all the navies of Europe were essentially beaten and nullified by the British Royal Navy and the Brits came out of the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars as the undisputed masters of the seas. Basically there was nothing anyone could do to really settle Australia when the highway to get there was controlled by John Bull anyway
