Exactly. The only thing you could possibly blame capitalism for is the guano mining. However, until the creation of synthetic fertilizer, guano was absolutely essential to farming in the 1800’s. Without it, the decline of production could have easily started a famine, especially because our farming techniques at the time absolutely obliterated soil, and conventional fertilizers were so much less effective than guano.
Besides, much of the guano boom was caused by governments mining themselves, not corporations. If anything, the history of Nauru is an indictment of Western (and Imperial Japan) colonialism, not capitalism.
No, it's an indictment of capitalism. The people and government of Nauru destroyed their country for money. Now they have to live with the permanent damage caused by prioritizing temporary revenue above all else. Nauru is a forewarning of what will eventually happen to the whole world.
Just so you know the phosphate mining on Nauru didn't start before 1900 and even though colonial powers mined there in the first half of the 20th century, the most damaging mining for the country happened after it's independence since 1970. Your argument about private companies also doesn't apply very well since Nauru is so small it doesn't have many companies, but the state mining one does act like one in many regards. And the damaging part about their mining is that they overproduced phosphate by a lot mainly for the revenue without considering any consequences.
Not to mention that the phosphate mining is a direct cause of the high obesity rate. Despite Nauru’s already unhealthy diet before the phosphate mining, the mining effectively destroyed the whole country’s landscape and farmland, leading to the import of food from Australia and New Zealand, which have processed food the only food in the country, leading to the spike in obesity.
Wrong. On average, 90% of asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat eventually have their refugee status upheld: https://www.asrc.org.au/pdf/myths-facts-solutions-info_.pdf
The problem with "assylum seekers" and "refugees" is the implication that all such were held on Nauru. It is too general an answer. Australia accepted many more assylum seekers and refugees than were sent to Nauru - those who came through approved channels. Those sent to Nauru and Manus were specifically boat people, especially those brought by people smugglers. "Boat people" would be a more precise response. These were a subset of assylum seekers or refugees.
You could add a question about what the 12 sides of the star represent (the star itself represents the 1 island). The 12 sides represent the 12 original tribes of Nauru.
Besides, much of the guano boom was caused by governments mining themselves, not corporations. If anything, the history of Nauru is an indictment of Western (and Imperial Japan) colonialism, not capitalism.
Pretty strange question.