"suggesting that Australia has uniquely hostile flora and fauna isn't wrong" FACT CHECK:
what do you mean by "uniquely hostile"? is it based on amount of harm to humans? because I can tell you now. horses killed more people in 2023 than spiders did. how would you feel if I said that europe introduced the uniquely hostile horse to the australian environment?
look at these stats: https://www.firstaidpro.com.au/blog/leading-causes-of-death-in-australia/#elementor-toc__heading-anchor-1
now look at this: https://www.vice.com/en/article/cows-and-horses-are-australias-number-one-killers/
can you please give me a list of examples of flora and fauna that you would place in this category?
"aboriginal tribes" FUCK OFF!
if you can capitalise Australia you know how to capitalise Aboriginal
"tribes" is not the right word here even remotely. try again next time. "Aboriginal people" would be a great start. being able to name even one country or language group would shock me to death. give it a go though
"marsupials reign supreme" don't make me laugh
CHECK: why are you using language that inherently ascribes a particular morality to animals? what motivates you to frame Australia as uniquely 'ruled by animals'? what else might this imply and where might this framing have come from?
"most venomous and hostile" why are you putting those adjectives together?
Australia's most venomous snake (the inland taipan) has not killed a single person in recorded history because of how rare it is for that snake to come anywhere near humans. again, refer to the stats above
"hostility" is another example of ascribing negative moral values to an animal where it is not at all appropriate
"one of the less hospitable places on earth" colonialism check!
you mean that pre-colonial Australia didn't follow western ideals of housing and agriculture don't you? (<- there very much was agricultural practices in First Nations groups for the record)
you're implying that the land had to be tamed by colonisers, aren't you?
come on. be so for real right now