Hi Joe, thanks for joining in.

I'll deal with the wacky argument first; "the occupation or invasion or settlement of Australia was inevitable: no other imperialist, or would-be imperialist, power since the eighteenth century would have left Australia alone. That's how it is."

That's like a burglar standing up in court and offering the defence; "Well your Honour, his security was so lax that I just had to burgle the joint. Besides, there are so many burglars out there, if I didn't knock the place over, some other crook would have."...The Judge; "That defence Mr Cook just got you 5 years in jail!"

So the wacky argument won't fly, and is thrown out the window.

The complex argument about "Cook proclaimed the sovereignty of the British Crown over NSW". That is clear in my opening post, I don't understand your reference to Africa etc. In fact Cook went further, he claimed complete tenure of the east coast of Australia in the name of the British Crown. Cook's journal entry is clear, he was claiming all the land etc "freehold" for King George. Cook's not so secret orders specifically forbid him calming territory in the way he did. Cook's orders were detailed in that he was to search for the Great South Land. As the Great South Land did not exist, Cook did the next best thing, he "discovered" the east coast of Australia. However Cook went against orders in the way he claimed NSW for Britain.

cont

cont

From Cook's orders;

"You are likewise to observe the Genius, Temper, Disposition and
Number of the Natives, if there be any and endeavour by all proper means to cultivate a Friendship and Alliance with them, making them presents of such Trifles as they may Value inviting them to Traffick, and Shewing them every kind of Civility and Regard; taking Care however not to suffer yourself to be surprized by them, but to be always upon your guard against any Accidents.
You are also with the Consent of the Natives to take Possession of Convenient Situations in the Country in the Name of the King of Great Britain: Or: if you find the Country uninhabited take
Possession for his Majesty by setting up Proper Marks and Inscriptions, as first discoverers and possessors."

Cook was in a bit of a bind, his self interest told him he needed something to take home with a wow factor, such as a big discovery of land for Britain, and since there was no Great South Land to discover, the east coast of Australia would have to do. Cook had two choices, he could get the consent of the natives, as per orders, or he could declare the land uninhabited and thus claim it for Britain. Crooked Cook, despite the obvious habitation, chose the lie of land uninhabited to make his claim, and get him a big leg up back in England.

Foxy,
I started reading but I'm afraid it's all so one-sided, it smells too much of Guilt Industry selective history !
I simply have only 40 years of living in indigenous communities to base my feelings about all this on.

Something that has baffled historians and others for over 200 years. Cook was an expert mariner, probably the best in the world at the time. He understood the intricacies of 18th century sailing ships and their requirements. However, he gave a completely false report to the Admiralty regarding Botany Bay and its surrounds. As Arthur Phillip, almost to his peril found out 18 years later. I think Crooked Cook gave that false report on purpose in an attempt to boost his standing as a "discover" with those back in England.

He understood the intricacies of 18th century sailing ships and their requirements.
Paul1405,
I suppose that was the 1770 equivalent to a 2019 descendent of the invaders understanding all the intricacies of occupying Aboriginal land and the requirements of keeping on holding out their hand for a Public Service salary ?

"I simply have only 40 years of living in indigenous communities" A big call there Indy. Yet you have a total lack of understanding of aboriginal people and their problems. Amazing!