Only if you are an Australian Aboriginal of course. I thought the answer would have been obvious even to someone pretending to have an Arts degree (nudge nudge wink wink know who I mean).

Is Mise,

You asked me just how and when Cook brought guns,
dispossession, displacement, social upheaval
and disease to the country?

Cook as history books tell us did so in 1770
when he claimed the eastern part of the
Australian continent as a British territory beginning
the process of colonisation in which the above
mentioned things followed for our Indigenous people.

"Also Captain Cook and Co may not have had
passports or visas - they did manage to bring with
them guns, dispossession, displacement,
social upheaval, and disease.

But hey - why let facts get in the way of a good yarn!
(smile)."

Well, as much as you've been propagandised into believing those are facts, they aren't. Cook didn't use guns against the aboriginals, although there were a few ineffectual attempts to get some bush meat. No dispossession, displacement, disease. Perhaps some social upheaval as stone aged primitives were informed that there was a world outside their few hundred square kilometres.

Anyhow, my post was more tongue-in-check, just making fun of the (tenuous) hypocrisy of those who treat unwanted arrivals differently depending on where they're from and where they're going.

I half hoped someone would respond in kind, but alas. But someone still might do so.

Dear mhaze,

Although its true that there were many comparisons between Cook and latter-day boat-people, there was one major, glaring difference which I'm surprised you didn't notice....Cook NEVER asked for asylum.

You see you've gotta ask. You can't just turn up expecting them to know what you want. Of course, had he asked he'd have got asylum easily since he would more than ample grounds - although to be fair, we now know that one only needs to make up stories of distress in order to be considered a valid asylum seeker these days.

But Cook could have spun a heart-rending story of why he needs asylum in this new/old land. He could have talked about how his homeland didn't have democracy and therefore suppressed the people. He could talk of the fact that his homeland was at war and he was therefore a war refugee. He could talk about how his country had forced him to travel the world with that insufferable Joe Banks - a clear case of cruel and unusual punishment. He could seek asylum based on race since he was British and everyone hates (or will hate) the British.
So ask for asylum and...bang, he's got it.

On the other hand he was the captain of the ship. Perhaps he was a people smuggler. So lock him up, throw away the key. Vilify him for all time.

But if that's the case, why didn't his men ask for asylum? Surely they'd have a better life in this new land. Food aplenty (we are assured - grin), and as many wives as you could steal and enslave. True, most of the women had been hit with the ugly stick, and , given the misogyny of the culture, lots of other sticks as well, but beggars can't be choosers. Blainey points out that aboriginals in S-E Australia probably had a high living standard in 1770 than many Britons, so the men would have benefited from the move although they'd have to pretend, then as now, that economics had nothing to do with it...no never, perish the thought.

/cont

/cont

Now there is one problem with all this...the ask part. There was a language barrier, and asking might be an issue. And in those primitive days, you couldn't just ask a government supplied lawyer or human rights advocate to lie (er...I mean, talk) on your behalf.

So surely you understand mhaze that your silly assertions comparing Cook to all those rooly, trooly asylum seekers of today is just plain wrong.

But imagine if he did get asylum. These days we are all required to pretend (err...I mean totally acknowledge) that refugees add great benefit socially and economically to our nation. If Cook was accepted as a refuge, people today would have to acknowledge that the British provided something useful to the nation - heads would explode all over the place.

_____________________________________________________________

This'll be my last post here for a while. Under the knife Monday and travelling tomorrow. No one's offering any guarantees I won't be coming out of the hospital feet first.

Cook visited the Hawaiian Islands and was welcomed with open arms and they all went down to the shore to fare him off. They were happy to see him go. A little while out to sea he broke a mast and decided to return to his new friends in order to make repairs. Apparently they weren't too happy to see him back, thinking he had gone for good. THEY KILLED HIM. Anyone want to put a reason forward as to why the mood changed?