29th April 1770, 250 years ago today Captain James Cook sailed into Kamay (Botany Bay). Did the great lie about Aboriginal people begin with the European account of the events of that day? Cook described being threatened by the indigenous people on the shore. Sydney Parkinson recorded in his journal that the local men made threatening gestures with spears and yelled the words "warra, warra, wai", Parkinson presumed that meant "go away". according to Ray Ingrey, a Dharawal man, the words mean "you're all dead" and was a warning to other Aboriginals near by that ghosts on a low-lying cloud had appeared.

Cook claimed that due to the threatening behaviour of the inhabitants he was forced to fire shots over their heads. The local Aboriginal account claims that at least one local man named Cooman was shot. The "Gweagal Shield" recovered by the Europeans and now in the British Museum with a bullet hole in it adds weight to the Aboriginal account. Did Cook and others lie, or were they mistaken, about that first encounter, just as much of the European history over the past 250 years concerning Aboriginal people has been misleading.

Hi Paul,

So Cook knew - and recorded - that there were plenty of Aboriginal people living around Botany Bay ? Indeed, up along the entire coast ? He wrote that he was never out of sight of smoke from camp-fires. So no terra nullius then ?

Right, wrong, up or down, the occupation of Australia by imperialists was inevitable. Inevitable, but not, of course, immaculate perfection. If not the British, then the French, Spanish, Dutch, Americans, Russians, Japanese. These days, the chinese and Indonesians would be fighting over the place. Would of those powers have left Australia alone, really ? [I'm just listening to bloody Elgar's 'Land of Hope and Glory' on the wireless].

So let's acknowledge history and move on. Recompense where it's due and recognition of realities where they are due.

Joe

What a load of BS! I'm currently reading Blainey's 'Captain Cook's Epic Voyage'. The Endeavour has just arrived from New Zealand, and the locals want nothing to do with Cook and company. They won't accept gifts or even look at the newcomers. They show no aggression whatsoever. Cook walks alone, unarmed, towards them, and they walk away. He remarks that he has seen nothing like it: it's as if they think that if they ignore the ship and it's crew, they will just disappear. There are a few problems when it is clear that that is not going to happen, a couple of shots are fired; one native is hit (with small shot)' and comes back as an onlooker shortly after retiring. The Endeavour's crew had been gathering wood and water peacefully, in full view of the natives who were interested long before tensions arose. No "bullets" were fired, merely the equivalent to ratshot at a distance.

What Paul describes (imagines really) is like something out of a tawdry ABC period drama, specially concocted to fit the "invasion" fiction.

There's nothing to be done about the Pauls of this world, full of delight at any chance to spew hate and denigrate one of the most accomplished seamen and explorers ever. What really should disgust Australians is Mr. Believes-in-nothing Morrison's silence and lack of recognition of THE most important event in Australia's history. All our politicians should get a real bollocking for their cowardice.

It is accepted that some of descendents of those first people on the beach see things differently from the descendents of the British explorers and settlers. But, settlement was inevitable, and if it wasn't the Brits who did it, it would have been the French, or much worse.

Grow up. After 250 years this sort of self-hatred and denial of your own rights and achievements is pathetic. If there is anything to be ashamed of it is our gutless politicians

Humans could withdraw and leave areas of the earth to other species. The Aborigines got to Australia possibly seventy thousand years ago. Australia should be evacuated. The Maoris got to what is now New Zealand several hundred years before the English. That should be evacuated. Humans crossed to the Americas about eighteen thousand years ago. The Americas should be evacuated. The process should be continued until all humans are back in Africa. Humans could withdraw from other parts of Africa until we were concentrated in the Rift Valley where the human race originated. Of course the numbers of humans would have to be reduced, but the result would be a much better world.

ttbn, nothing against Geoffrey Blainey, a fine writer worthy of many awards, but what he quotes are the accounts of Europeans. Cook had a vested interest in seeing events of that day portray himself, and his expedition, in the best of light. Can't buy that burglar defence of "what if" for robbing someones house often trotted out to justify the British annexation of Australia. The burglar before the judge claims, if I didn't rob the house, it would have been a Frenchman, or Dutchman, or worse still a Spaniard, and you know what they are like! The fact is it was the British and not the others who invaded Australia, and it is they and their decedents, us, that must be held to account.

Personally I'm all for Reconciliation, and moving forward, but lets not forget the true history, and correct some of the European inaccuracies and omissions of past events. After all the only account of what transpired, and mainly recorded, has been that from the European viewpoint, little or nothing of the Aboriginal oral history of the last 250 years is ever recounted in mainstream telling of Australian life since Cook.

David,

You propose that all humans, no matter where they may be now, should retract back to the Rift Valley in east Africa.

As blokes used to say up on the Mission, to someone with a brilliant idea, " Well, go on then. "

Off you go, David :) Do you reckon you could round everybody up, all seven billion of us, by, say, next September, and pack us all back in the Rift Valley ? The locals might, for some obscure reason, perceive that as 'invasion'. But you and I know that it wouldn't be: it would be 'coming home'.

Hmmmm ...... how to completely reverse the past. That's a problem ......

I wonder if any of Trumpf's Marvel comics feature a Superman Past-Reverser that you could borrow ? e.g., if only we could prove the Chinese deliberately started this virus and told nobody, it would all reverse, and disappear: no sixty thousand Yanks dead, no million infected (and counting). The thinking patterns of small children are endlessly entertaining.

Joe

Dear Joe,

Zionism means a return of Jews to the land where their ancestors lived. I was just extending that idea to the whole human race.

Paul,

"Cook had a vested interest in seeing events of that day portray himself, and his expedition, in the best of light."

Indeed he did, being a perceptive person he thought to himself,
"Must make this look good because 250 years from now someone will analyze my words and might possibly draw the wrong conclusion and I won't mention that it is better to be upwind of the locals at all times if possible".

"The "Gweagal Shield" recovered by the Europeans and now in the British Museum with a bullet hole in it adds weight to the Aboriginal account."

The shield in the British Museum has nothing to do with the events in Botany Bay. Its made of redwood which was unknown to the Sydney natives. Cook specifically says the one he took was made of bark - just like the stuff the technologically backward natives had been using for 'think-of-a-number-and-double-it' years.

Aren't we sick of all this yet. It happened. It was neither moral nor immoral. If it wasn't Cook it would have been someone else. If the British didn't come, it would have been someone else. The aboriginals were lucky it was Cook and the British. People as backward as the aboriginals were always going to be overrun by more advanced civilisations, just as the earlier Australian natives had been overrun by newer arrivals in the dim past.

I had to laugh at a report on the ABC today. They are apparently going to find out how the natives felt about Cook's arrival by asking their descendants to give an opinion. Apparently people born 20 years ago know exactly what people born 270 years ago thought. Truly, the age of enlightenment is over...at least for some.

I have Celtic blood in me. I can't wait for these moronic 'historians' to ask me to tell them how my ancestors felt about Caesar's invasion of Britain.

FFS.

"Zionism means a return of Jews to the land where their ancestors lived. I was just extending that idea to the whole human race".

How on earth can Zionism be extended to the 'whole human race'?

Paul,

Well now, of course Blainey uses European accounts: from the diaries of people who were actually there, including Cook himself, Banks, etc. The natives at the time were not taking notes, and anything passed down from them would be fireside tales - unrecorded, and therefore 'iffy' at best.

Wasn't Captain Cook stabbed by Hawaiian Islanders and
part of his body cooked to enable the bones to be
removed?

An ignominious death.

Just goes to show you have to be careful when dealing
with natives I guess. The natives mistook Cook and
his sailors for gods when they landed in the Hawaiian
islands. When one of Cook's sailors died of a stroke
the natives realised the Europeans weren't immortals.
From then on relationships became strained.

Paul,

So what was the 'Great Lie' ? What did Cook lie about ? Of course he (and the Aboriginal people who he encountered) would have misunderstood each other - everybody did for perhaps 250 years afterwards - but 'lie' ?

Do you mean the term 'terra nullius' ? The first use of it in relation to Aboriginal people here was in 1939, by Phillip Jessup, an American professor writing to Ernest Scott (see: http://www.surplusvalue.org.au/Misc%20Articles%20and%20Poems/terra%20nullius%20copy.pdf on page 4.

Neither Cook nor Philip used the term - and, in fact, it has never meant that there was nobody here in Australia; everybody from Janszoon to Hartog and Tasman to Dampier to Nuyts etc. knew that there were people here and said so, often with irritation.

The term sometimes meant country without a definite system of land law or ownership, so no means of buying and selling; and/or a piece of land (the exemplar was Svalbard) with people but no real system of law or administration; and/or land like Antarctica with no people or law whatever.

So there were plenty of 'Great Misunderstandings' on both sides. Also 'Great Assertions'. So what do you mean by 'Great Lie' ?

Joe

Foxy,

When the Leahy brothers were venturing into the highlands of New Guinea in the thirties, they let people think they were some sort of gods. But women watched them and secretly followed them into the bush and noticed pretty quick that they attended to nature's necessities like anybody else. And so, it was soon discovered that they weren't gods.

Sic transit gloria.

Joe

I would of thought every girl not given to an uncle, every person with electricity, a roof over their head and running water would be thankful today. No instead identity politics where history is revised to fit a very erroneous narrative.

Dear loudmouth2,

Oh come on mate. This was from a correspondent of one of your state's rags in 1885.

“In familiar parlance Germany has "made a splash" as a colonial power *in posse*, which is about all that Prince von Bismarck hoped to effect by taking the initiative in a sort of international contract intended to regulate the future methods by which civilized nations should annex countries "belonging to nobody," except to their inhabitants—*terra nullius* is the agreeable term by which they are described in the Conference protocols.”

Hi SR,

Sorry, I was referring to the use of the term 'terra nullius' specifically in relation to Australia. I apologise for the confusion.

Yes, Bismarck and the other imperialists at the 1884-1885 Berlin Conference used the pretext that countries were without government, to invade territory all over the world - New Guinea, Samoa, East Africa, modern-day Namibia, bits of China, etc.

But what is interesting even about that is that the British - I hate to write this, it doesn't put them in a completely bad light - at the same time as they were invading on the pretext that countries didn't have effective governments, did, in many cases, especially West Africa, recognise the forms and extent of land ownership that already existed. [See C. K. Meek, on the Land Matters page of my web-site: www.firstsources.info].

Certainly, in southern, central and eastern Africa, they over-rode existing systems of land ownership in many areas, and imposed various land-oriented taxes, poll taxes, etc. In Kenya of course, that eventually led to the people's struggle for independence, i.e. the Mau Mau Uprising.

I'm no land lawyer but there seems to be confusion between

* 'terra nullius', land which people use but no-one owns or over which there doesn't seem to be any form of recognised land ownership, no means of buying and selling of land; and

* 'res nullius', which can mean different things - country over which there is no government or political authority; and

* 'lex nullius', country in which there does not seem to be any system of recognised law, in particular law in relation to land and land ownership.

Out of that, one question does emerge: did/do Aboriginal groups have forms of land ownership which could be recognised as such by anybody else ? Or did they have elaborate and ancient systems of land use which did not necessitate actual ownership ? i.e. they were hunters and gatherers (who need too roam and forage over large areas of land) rather than farmers (who need specific areas of land and mutually agreed systems of land-holding).

Cheers,

Joe

What Great Lie indeed. The only lie is the ongoing misrepresentation of our colonial past by the hateful, hate-filled branch of the Left - not all of the Left.

Hi Joe (Loudmouth),

Regarding Captain Cook and his crew - more apt to
say -

"Semper Nauta". (Always a sailor).

As for the Leahy Brothers and PNG?

The remarkable Leahy family - interesting story.

Dan Leahy stayed in the area to raise a family and
run a successful plantation. He married into tribal
society and had 10 children several of whom hold
important positions in PNG life.

History is fascinating.

Foxy,

On the apotheosis of Cook in the Sandwich Islands: they were happy to see him come, they were happier to see him go, and they were extremely unhappy to see him return.

That was a mistake he didn't live to regret.

Mr O,

I don't know that much about Cook, except that he
was born into a lowly disadvantaged household,
through his ambition, dedication, and intelligence
Cook rose to the top of his chosen profession in the
Royal Navy.

He meticulously charted the
fretworked coasts of Newfoundland, the Society Islands,
New Zealand and Eastern Australia. Apparently his
navigational and hydrographical abilities were
outstanding. He sailed among icebergs in frigid Antarctic
and Arctic oceans and was highly respected by his men.

I have to do much more research on the man. He's looked upon
as being a hero to so many. Yet controversy seems to
also go with the man. I guess that's true of many famous
men

Good Evening Paul,

Talking about Captain Cook I've just come
across the following link that may be of
interest to you:

http://www.theconversation.com/how-captain-cook-became-a-contested-national-symbol-96344

Joe

My understanding is Aboriginals were territorial, therefore they considered the land inside their territories as owned by the group.

If this group ownership is extrapolated out over the continent, then they owned it by nature of possessing it.

Comment!

Dan

Have a read of this offering from "The Conversation" on Captain Cook.:
http://theconversation.com/captain-cook-wanted-to-introduce-british-justice-to-indigenous-people-instead-he-became-increasingly-cruel-and-violent-127025?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20April%2029%202020%20-%201606915400&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20April%2029%202020%20-%201606915400+CID_c24312ca51c69f129c170ff420219597&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Captain%20Cook%20wanted%20to%20introduce%20British%20justice%20to%20Indigenous%20people%20Instead%20he%20became%20increasingly%20cruel%20and%20violent

Gawd!! The URL is almost as long as the article.

Yes Paul, The great lie began today, and you started it.

Hi Joe,

I consider the Great Lie, to be the way in which Europeans have for the past 250 years, starting with Cook, revised history as far as Aboriginal people are concerned. Often creating a false narrative of events, practices, intentions etc. History should be a true account of what transpired, the whys and the wheres should be truthful. They say the victors write the history, and that is certainly true when it comes to Australia, and the European account of their encounters with the first Australians.
A part of recognition, is to relate the true history, and not some false, sanitised European account only of what took place. Simply recognising that the oral history of Aboriginal people might add to the narrative is important.

Hi Foxy,

I read the 'Conversation' article. There is no doubt James Cook was one of histories great contributors through exploration and other works he added immensely to the Europeans understanding of the world at that time. I've read several books about Cook, and he was more than a simple naval lieutenant/commander/captain, he was a very complex individual. I've stood on the beach in Hawaii where Cook was killed, and listened to an Hawaiian account of the events. For example the eating of Cook's flesh, seen through the European eyes as an act of cannibalistic barbarism, and that's how Cooks death was portrayed in European history for a couple of hundred years. The truth is somewhat more involved, the Hawaiian custom of that time, seen the eating of the remains of a great chief as a way of transferring his mana (power) to others.

Unfortunately our Libraries in Brisbane are closed due to cornavirus, hopefully will reopen soon.

Hi Paul,

The Hawaiian islanders who killed Captain Cook did
not eat him. They were not cannibals.

They believed that the power of a man was in his
bones, so they cooked part of Cook's body to enable
the bones to be more easily removed. It was the
cooking of his body which gave rise to the rumour of
cannibalism.

http://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2019/02/14/how-foolish-rumour-hawaiians-ate-cook-began

This "Lie" enabled many of the quarter or less cast 'Indigenous' to heap Bull$hit after BS & extract billions of hard working taxpayer Dollars out of incompetent bureaucrats over the years.
These part-Aborigines are, going by their ancestry, also part of the 'Problem' !
I'd love to see a survey on how many of these 'Indigenous' would go back to the traditional way of existence if given a huge area of good land. I have no doubt that many of the older, real Aborigines would take up the offer but the urban feigned indignation brigade ones ? Hmmh !

I have dived on the site of the ENDEAVOUR grounding & found 3 blocks of Pig Iron ballast.
We kept them quite a few years & looked after them but I was told since the Authorities confiscated them & put them in a locker, the crumbled away to nothing !

I wish these Fifth Column, self-hating Australians would pack up and take themselves elsewhere. That's what they would do if they were sincere about their moaning and groaning about Australia's past.

Bugger off, you miserable creatures. Renounce your citizenship.

Captain Cook was cooked but not eaten whose playgrounds were where the battle of Waterloo were won.

Dan,

This was partly my point, that there is confusion over so many concepts in land law: the crucial differences between occupation, possession, ownership, holding and use-rights, between customary useage and proprietorship, between land-use and ownership and sovereignty, etc.

In all the land law text-books, right or wrong, the history and evolution of ownership seems to start AFTER the transformation from group and individual land-use rights to private rights to use and to sell and buy, i.e. to alienate land, usually once it has been put under agricultural cultivation, fenced, jealously guarded and protected from trespassers.

So I'm trying to firm up whether or not very long-term land-use eventually constituted ownership - presumably, first on a group-owner basis (very common all over the world) and then privatising ownership, usually in the person of headman, chief, custodian, etc.

Joe

Paul,

So ...... how would you go about identifying the oral historical accounts of Aboriginal people around Botany Bay when Cook arrived ? Not some garbled, and just possibly inaccurate,accounts of some smug 20- or 30-year-old Elder with his thumb up his arse.

I think some time ago you demanded that I find written accounts from Aboriginal people which might dispute the 'allegations' in letters of the Protector here in SA. I failed quite miserably in finding any such letters, being a complete bastard.

But no doubt you could find letters from Aboriginal people around Botany Bay at the time of Cook's arrival which give a different story from the sanitised version which we have been afflicted with ?

Without such letters, or some other form of records from the actual time, all we have are the sanitised stories, which, I suppose, will have to do, since - as you claim - written records are so crucial.

As an aside, I remember talking to an elderly Cook Islander in Auckland around 1970 who told me of a legend that Maori sailors had crossed the Tasman (presumably in the last 800 years since Kupe) - he spoke of the long line of blue mountains fifty-odd kilometres back from the coast. I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Joe

Hi Joe (Loudmouth),

There is so much researchers can find in accessing
state and national archives. So much information
available - all you have to do is ask a librarian.

For example, Professor John Maynard is a Worimi man
from the Port Stephens region of NSW. He is the
Director of the Purai Global Indigenous and Diaspora
Research Studies Centre and one of the world's
respected voices on Indigenous history. He has written
widely on issues ranging from military involvement to
political activism and sport and published titles with
the National Library of Australia. Including -
"Living with the Locals: Early European Experience of
Indigenous Life."

His essay - "Cook and the Pacific"is worth a read.

Then there are Cook's own diaries.

The following links are interesting:

http://www.nla.gov.au/digital-classroom/senior/Cook/Indigenous-Response/Maynard

http://www.theconversatio0n.com/a-failure-to-say-hello-how-captain-cook-blundered-his-first-impression-with-indigenous-people-126673

Sorry for my typo. Here's the second link again:

http://www.theconversation.com/a-failure-to-say-hello-how-captain-cook-blundered-his-first-impression-with-indigenous-people-126673

Want to hear another lie about Captain Cook?

One Rodney Kelly claims that his great, great grandmother , a native "queen" no less, passed down a story about Cook leaving casks of dynamite, rigged to blow up after he had left.

A couple of problems with that yarn: Nobel didn't invent dynamite until 1867, and if 'her majesty' meant gunpowder, there was no way that a timed explosion could effected in Cook's time. It would take a very, very long fuse to get Cook and Co out of harm's way before an explosion, which would make no sense at all just to get rid of a few, if any, locals, who were unlucky enough to be wandering past when it went off. But hey: sense goes out the door each time Cook-haters open their big mouths

Hi Foxsy,

Cook didn't say 'hello' ?

Is that it ?

What, he didn't gesture, wave, sing out, cooee, yodel, throw both arms over his head, turn around and wriggle his arse ? God, what a vile creature.

Right or wrong, good or bad, invasion/settlement/occupation/ colonisation was inevitable. When I first got really interested in Indigenous issues, around 1963, I recall having a row with my mum, saying that everybody should pack up and go back to Britain. Of course, to a normally-intelligent person, one would have realised in about 43 seconds, where to exactly ? Ireland ? Scotland ? Cornwall ? even England ? It took me about a year.

Yes, it's possible, after all, the Romans went back to Rome. But maybe it's a bit late now. So we're all stuck with our history. It's happened. It can't un-happen. So we can acknowledge it, castigate it and invent ever-new atrocities, or celebrate it. But nothing we do can un-do it.

And really, I don't think that many Aboriginal people would want to go back to sitting around a little fire, bare-arsed, on a cold morning like today, wondering where they might find food. I recall one of my students, very cultural, complaining about how her AC wasn't working properly. Fair enough too.

Of course, I could be wrong, but when I see some Indigenous academic, with his 0.4 work-load, not just cultivating his illustrious career but also spending any time at all in the bush, say a year, I'll change my tune.

Joe

Ttbn,

I'm waiting for someone, perhaps a 30-year-old Elder, to refine that story a bit and point out that it was a very low-level atomic weapon, to be triggered by remote control from a secret centre in the English Midlands, once Cook had phoned through the co-ordinates. And after he had spread a virus like smallpox around, up and down the coast. All whites are bastards, after all.

Joe

Hi Joe (Loudmouth),

I can see that there's no talking to you
intelligently on this topic.

You really do have issues concerning our
Indigenous people. Which I find very hard
to understand - why.

That is going way too far Foxy. You will have many suggesting Pot Kettle Black.

Dear Hasbeen,

Posting records speak for themselves.

Paul 1405

What "local Aboriginal account", and how do you know of it?

Too many scams, Foxy :)

Probably what tipped me over the edge of unbelief was the Hindmarsh Island Scam, in which my wife had relations on both sides, but mainly on that of the dissident women: her sister was one of its leaders. Within that, what REALLY got me upset was the attacks by one woman on another - obviously geared for a non-Indigenous audience - in which she slagged her as a woman of the streets. Her own auntie, actually, her mother's sister. Blackfellas here knew that, whitefellas didn't of course.

And why secret women's business ? Because they had it up north, and after all, all Aboriginal culture was the same everywhere. This, from Blackfellas. Plus, total misunderstanding of central Australian 'secret women's business'. Plus the lies about the bridge and nonsense about effects on births, etc. It was obviously a case of 'make it up as you go' which plagues Aboriginal 'discussion'.

And once the scales fall from one's eyes, so much becomes clearer, and not in a nice way. So, yes, I'll keep searching for the truth, and respond accordingly, but not to rubbish and lies.

Of course, my favourite is the 'young fellas can't eat certain fish except during a blue moon' yarn from northern NSW. So 30- and 31-day months then ? And the Indians losing their turbans yarn from up that way, as an description of conflict back in the days (around 150 million years ago) of inter-group conflict, some time before the origination of the Sikh religion 400 years ago. But still a comical yarn.

Stolen Generation ? Why nobody takes their case files to court then ? Everybody has them who was ever taken into care, Black and white, or who came the attention of the welfare authorities: my wife had her file, quite interesting. No law firm has taken up a class action on behalf of SG claimants.

Indigenous people are human beings, and are entitled to support for their equal human rights. But not for any lies.

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Please accept my apology.

I sincerely did not mean any hurt or insult.

I was merely wondering why such a strong
stance - against historical evidence pertaining
to our indigenous people.

Thank you for explaining.

I'm not sure that I fully understand why you won't
accept what people like Prof.John Maynard and other
reputable researchers find. However, that is your business.
I shall leave it there.

When I was child in the United State Columbus Day, October 12, was a big holiday. There used to be bands, celebrations, speeches by politicians, etc. Columbus discovered America. I don’t remember any voices of dissent when I was a child.

https://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/us/columbus-day is a website telling about Columbus Day, and the controversies surrounding it.

“Columbus Day celebrations are controversial because the settlement of Europeans in the Americas led to the deaths of a very large proportion of the native people. It has been argued that this was a direct result of Columbus' actions. It is clear that the arrival of the European settlers led to the demise of a large proportion of the history and culture of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. It has also been argued that Columbus should not be honored for discovering North America, as he only went as far as some islands in the Caribbean and never got as far as mainland America.”

On the website it does not tell about the controversies among different ethnic groups of whites regarding the discovery. Columbus didn’t discover the Americas. The people already here had discovered it first. He wasn’t even the first European to visit the Americas. The Romans and the Vikings also made voyages to what are now the Americas.

https://www.history.com/news/did-an-irish-monk-discover-america tells about St. Brendan, an Irish monk, who may have come to the Americas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Musmanno tells about the Italian-American judge who denied that the Vikings got to the Americas first.

https://novoscriptorium.com/2018/04/18/egyptian-greek-phoenician-and-hebrew-origins-of-cherokee/ claims that DNA testing of the Cherokee Indians shows that possibly the Cherokees had Egyptian, Greek, Phoenician and Hebrew ancestors before Columbus.

The controversies surrounding Columbus Day have resulted in Columbus Day and Columbus being soft pedalled.

The same may happen to Captain Cook.

a top female Victorian Health official equates Cook's landing with the arrival of the Coronavirus. Really shows the ignorance and ugliness of the privileged class who crap on everyone who gave them such an easy life. Sickening really.

This reminds of an incident about 35 years ago at a BBQ in North Qld. We were a mixed mob of several ethnicities & we all worked for the same outfit.
One bloke asked another 'who was the first bloke to walk across the Nullarbor ?' Without hesitation, a mixed race Indigenous replied "An Aboriginal". I said that I thought it was John Eyre & he named the Nullarbor. To which the other replied that the Aboriginals had always called it Nullarbor. When I asked him why the Aboriginal would have walked a thousand miles across the continent & that Nullarbour was Latin for no trees he got all agro told me no to talk about things I knew nothing about !!

Hi Individual,

That first person to walk across the Nullarbor was probably a farmer and he was checking his paddock before he planted his kangaroo grass.

Make it up as you go :)

Joe

If recognising a great Navigator goes up some peoples' nose, they can alway celebrate the advent of inventing history on the run !

Hi Paul,

I don't think that you, me or anyone here is trying
to put Captain James Cook in a bad light.

We're merely discussing history and what we know.

Many of us believe what we were taught in school.
And still do. Some of us rarely question.

And as we know - the moment the historian begins to
look critically at motivation, circumstances, context,
or any other such considerations, the product becomes
unacceptable for one or another group of readers.

I think it was Winston Churchill who was supposedly to
have said - "History is always written by the victors."

When two cultures clash the loser is obliterated and
the winner writes the history books which glorify their
own cause and disparage the conquered foe.

As Napoleon once said - "What is history but a fable
agreed upon?"

However, learning history about our First peoples and
their cultures allows students to develop respect for
diversity and understanding of cultural difference.

It provides all student with a rich and well rounded knowledge
of Australian history.

I find it strange how some will readily accept the white
history of this country - with or without evidence, but
demand evidence only from the blacks. Surely there's always
two sides to hear and learn from?

FOXY,

"...from the blacks."

Tut! Tut! That will never do, you cannot exclude the brown, slightly tanned and white Indigenous First People from the discussion.

Lunacy continues in Victoria. Deputy Chief Health Officer Annaliese van Diemen tweeted: "Sudden arrival of an invader from another land, decimating populations, creating terror".

"Forces the population to make enormous sacrifices & completely change how they live in order to survive.

“COVID-19 or Cook 1770?”

And that's one of their public servants. Pig ignorant and too stupid to know that Cook had nothing to do with settlement, and was dead long before it happened.

Been a big couple of weeks of celebration for the Forums 'Usual Suspects', the Fuhrers birthday 20th, Queenie's birthday 21st, Turkey Invasion Day 25th, and Cookie poping in 29th. Hope you guys have not over indulged in cake and candles.

Hi Joe, you do seem to have a set against Aboriginal people, sure they are vulnerable, they make an easy target, and have been for the past 250 years. Its easy to throw glib remarks around about them, it must get nodding applause from the forums red necked Nazi brigade. Well Joe, the wife had a catch up with a La Perouse elder some years back, you will be disappointed to find he was a man in his sixties, not a young 20/30 year old as you portray them to be. They had a very informative exchange of beliefs that exists within both cultures. The wife was particularly interested to hear the oral account of Polynesian contact with Aboriginals, going back several hundred years.

Thanks Foxy, yes the Hawaiians did believe a persons "mana" resided in their bones. I recall in Hawaii being told how on the death of a chief, a clan would go to some extraordinary lengths to hide the body, as other chiefs would try to steal the corpse, and thus obtain that persons "mana". Burials were in such odd places as old lava tubes or in a cave on the side of a cliff. In the Cook episode the Hawaiians did return some bones to Cook's crew, and they buried them at sea.
Hawaii has a fascinating history, Bishop Museum in Honolulu is 7 floors of everything Polynesian. The Polynesian Cultural Centre, although very touristy was well worth the experience. Peal Harbour I found oh well, been there and that's about it. An interesting figure from Hawaiian history is Kamehameha I, he is credited with the honour of unifying the Hawaiian Islands under his kingship. Not a fellow to be crossed, the consequences could be rather tragic.

Paul and Foxy,

You two are as thick as couple of bricks. Joe's wife was an Aboriginal woman, and he knows more about Aboriginals than you two know about yourselves. Joe is known and respected in SA. You two know nothing; you just make fools of yourselves.

ttbn,
C'mon, they've read all the books, they "know" the truth !
I have an account of the first contact with Europeans & Islanders that was printed in 1795.
I have read several later ones & they differ greatly & the tables were turned 180 Degrees !
Another account was written by a Surgeon where the White Magistrate was a literal Devil who enjoyed shooting four Aborigines, yet the report by one of the Marines clearly states how he & three fellow Marines shot these four Aborigines whom they distinctly recognised as attackers on the camp.
Some Missionaries deliberately convoluted stories simply to score favours with indigenous tribal elders.

ttbn,

LOUDmouth tells you what he thinks he knows, not what he knows. So I suggest you take what he says with a grain of salt.

If you wackeroos knew Joe's real identity and achievements, you would shrivel up with embarrassment.

the privileged white feminist in Victoria making idiotic statements about Cook and Coronavirus shows exactly why you can't believe or trust the 'experts'. And to thing Comrad Andrews is taking her advice. Seriously! No doubt she ticked all the woke boxes to get to where she has.

Ttbn,

I wouldn't go that far .....

Joe

Dear loudmouth2,

The only scam perpetrated with Hindmarsh Island was that the state government was forced to use taxpayer's money to bail out a developer for a bridge whose sole purpose was to allow marina owners to drive their Range Rovers over to their yachts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindmarsh_Island_bridge_controversy

Joe,

You are too modest. You would not, of course, want to reveal too much about yourself here, with the raving Three Ratbags lurking around. On the matter of Hindmarsh Island, they wouldn't know where it is, let alone the full story, and the very brave women who sorted the problem and made that idiot Tickner see sense.

ttbn,

With all due respect Sir. I have known Joe Lane for
as long as I've been on this forum. I am fully
aware of his background as a researcher and of his
reputation. He's also fully aware of my qualifications
credentials, credential, and experience. We've known
each other for over a decade.

You again - make assumptions about other people that you know
nothing about and attribute to them things that are neither
fair nor true - simply because their views do not agree
with yours. That is and has been your mode of operation
on this forum.

Questioning Joe's stance on some aspects of this country's
history is not meant to be taken in any derogatory way
against Joe. It's part and parcel of reasoned discussion.
And presenting views from reputable historical
sources as evidence is part of reasoned arguments in
discussions. Joe knows that it's up to him to dispute the
facts given in the sources being provided.
He does not need your help.

You have been sarcastic of others who have come to the defense
of people - yet you are guilty of consistently doing the
same thing that you accuse others of doing - with your
labeling and smear tactics.

Give it a rest.

Either join in the discussion and provide your own
evidence to dispute what's being presented - or
putting it politely - put a sock in it!

LOUDmouth,

Come on! Out with it. What are your credentials?

If you are the sort of person who tells people what he knows rather than what he thinks then you're the sort of person I want to enter into discourse with.

I've been telling everybody you would make a great Arts grad if only you were able to qualify for entry into the program.

But you telling me you had a dozen degrees in subjects A, B, C, D and E and then telling me three months later that you had a dozen degrees in U, V, W, X and Y has left me pondering whether you in fact have any credentials at all.

Come on LOUDmouth, we're all amateur psych's on The Forum (except individual who happens to be a patient) so out with it, what's the deal, are you the real McCoy?

SR,

Ah yes, privilege: before the Bridge was built, access to Hindmarsh Island was by ferry only. On weekends, there was a two- or three hour wait for non-residents to get on the ferry. On the day the Bridge opened, it was revealed that residents of the Island, mostly environmentalists, had permits to drive straight to the head of the queue and get straight onto the ferry. Ah, privilege.

Now, anybody can drive straight over, no waiting for anybody, no special privileges for anybody. Lovely. Quite a beautiful, graceful bridge too. I always make a point of driving over it whenever I go down that way. Why ? Because I can.

Joe

Dear loudmouth2,

Come on mate is was an utter travesty even leaving aside any cultural issues.

And what do you do when you do drive over it? It may as well be a gated community with a very expensive driveway which other people paid for.

It was useful for one thing. My right-wing German father-in-law was always antagonistic to Aboriginal issues but after visiting Hindmarsh Island he said he can't imagine too many local indigenous people would be living in a waterside house with and expensive yacht moored on their private jetty.

At least he had some sense of social justice which seems to elude you whenever this issue is raised.

SR,

Actually, there is a large chunk of land on the Island under the control of Ngarrindjeri people - about a mile onto the Island, on the left, maybe twenty hectares: it used to belong (I think) to the Uni of SA but they gave it over or leased it out to this particular group.

The site has visitor-accommodation, but seemed to be deserted every time I've ever been there. The usual.

A lot of people live on the Island, many not particularly wealthy - river shacks and retirement cottages. Even around the Marina, a lot of the properties are cheek-by-jowl, with many properties going for between $ 400,000 and $ 700,000; vacant land is offered for between $ 140 and $ 200 per square metre. Not particularly affluent.

Is that it ? No other whinge ?

Joe

Joe

Foxy,

So you have 'known' Joe for about the same time you've been threatening to IGNORE me. That's not believable either. Don't you know what ignore means? And how does Joe's knowing that you stacked bookshelves for a living show that you 'know' him! Your delusions are really a serious problem if you think you can know anyone who is just a name on a computer screen.

I make "assumptions" about people, do I? I beg your pardon, but you often say that people can be judged by their posts. That doesn't apply to your posts also? Just everyone else's? I suppose it's not surprising that you muddle up all the nonsense you come up with and forget what you said the last time you let fly at someone.

Joe doesn't have a "stance" on this subject; he has lived it. He doesn't get second hand tripe from the ABC and blow it out his backside like certain people do. He is the one with the facts, not you. It's unnecessary for him to be disputing your cockeyed ideology.

Yes. I admit to being sometimes sarcastic. I was sarcastic about your reason for not being able to face OLO for a while, and you thanked me for my concern! It's pretty hard not to be sarcastic occasionally with someone who keeps saying that she will ignore me but continues to come back for more. I won't be putting "a sock in it", and I doubt that your artificially inflated ego will allow you to ignore me. Like your mate, SteeleRedux, who claims to also ignore me, you couldn't vent your spleen against me because that would prove that you were lying

ttbn,

1) Joe has told us about his wife, his life,
his children, and other personal
details over his years on the forum. The information came
from him. I also researched his work - thus expanding
my knowledge.

2) I am a qualified librarian, researcher, consultant,
and also an author.

3) I ignore you most of the time - but am obliged
to respond to false assumptions and misinformation.

4) I do not lie.

5) I back up my discussions with relevant links.
Many of the views expressed are those of experts on
the topics being discussed - and are not necessarily
my own personal views. I don't agree with all the
information I cite. I merely present alternate
viewpoints for discussion.

6) Labeling, smearing, and attacking people is your forte
and method of operation on this forum.

I do tend to ignore you most of the time. We all do.
Note that Steele does not respond to you at all. Neither
do so many. In actual fact most of the time we don't even
bother reading your posts. They unfortunately do not
provide anything of any substance.

You see the world in very rigid and stereotypical terms.
You display a distinctive set of traits, including
conformity, intolerance, and insecurity, that seem
typical of many prejudiced people.

Those who have these personality patterns tend to be bullies
as well. They tend to have anti-intellectual and anti
scientific attitudes , they are disturbed by any ambiguity
in sexual or religious matters and as already stated
they see the world in very rigid and sterotypical terms.

I suspect that -

you're primarily a product of an environment which was
cold, aloof, disciplinarian, and bigoted. Sadly there's
no cure for that now.

BTW - when I thanked you - it was done tongue-in-cheek.
Obviously too subtle for you.

BTW: I was not familiar with the term - "harridan."

I looked it up and it's not quite apt. I'm not that
old.

But I did look up the male equivalent. The terms -

"Douche-bag, reprobate, and of course - the old chestnut -
R Sol - appeared.

So you don't know him any better than others.
It all boils down to book stacking. You are no author.
You have no such obligation.
You could be lying by saying you don't. We don't know.
Your "relevant links" are just someone else's opinions.
Sounds like you are describing yourself.

"We". You are authorised to speak for everyone? Steele does not respond for the reason I gave: it would prove that he is lying when he says he doesn't read my posts. You don't take much in at all.

You even pretend to be capable of analysing me. Been into the pop psychology paperbacks again.

You had to look up harradin! You were most definitely not a librarian. Everything about you is make believe, you poor fool.

ttbn,

As I told you earlier - unless you have something
of substance to contribute - put a sock in it.

Or better still - in language you'll understand -

Blow it out of your arse!

ttbn,

BTW: "Harridan" is an archaic term that is not used
by many today.

Neither is "strumpet," "harpy,"
"shrew," or in the case of males - "reprobate."

Finished yet? If you are going to get it off your chest in little bursts you will reach your posting limit soon. You might like to hold something back to chat with all of those other posters who you are sure think like you.

Hi ttbn "Joe's wife was an Aboriginal woman" and your wife is a genius, doesn't mean your not a blithering idiot. Marriage doen't make you anything except accepting of another person.

Hi Indy, not into that book learn' now r's we! Come on you learned it all and didn't have to go to school for even one day!

Hi runner, you don't have to be a white, feminist, or in Victoria to make idiotic statements, you do it all the time, and I don't think you are a feminist or in Victoria, maybe you are white, is it a white mans thing....making idiotic statements.

Hi Joe, "You are too modest" you've won a heart in ttbn. Me thinks that was a marriage proposal.

Hi Foxy, I suggest its time to apply the 'Armadillo Principle' with dear old ttbn.

Hello Paul,

Thanks for your advice.

You're right.

Post when you're angry, and you will write
the best post you'll ever regret.

Take care.
Stay safe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDaClB5Z4J8 (kia ora/hello)
Foxy,

"Post when you're angry" the secret is, not to get angry in the first place. The wife and I miss our meditation on a Wednesday night, coronavirus and all that

The wife and I miss our meditation on a Wednesday night, coronavirus and all that
Paul1405,
Ah, that's where the problem stems from. Stop meditating & start looking at things in real time !

All men's miseries derive from not being able to sit in a quiet room alone.
Blaise Pascal

Doesn't meditating make you go blind?

Hello Paul,

I admire you and your wife taking up meditation.
I tried it briefly but I was too hyper.
Perhaps I'll give it another try when this
lock-down is over. I believe that meditation
provides a way of learning how to let go.

Buddha was asked.
"What have you gained from meditation?"

"He replied, "Nothing! However.
Buddha said, let me tell you what I lost:
Anger, Anxiety, Depression, Insecurity, Fear of
Old Age and Death."

Now back to the topic:

There's an interesting link concerning Captain Cook
and New Zealand. Especially the chapter -
"Better the British."

http://www.noted.co.nz/currently-history/captain-james-cook-hero-or-villain-still-debated-legacy

Again my apologies for leaving out part of the link.
I'll try again:

http://www.noted.co.nz/currently/currently-history/captain-james-cook-hero-or-villain-still-debated-legacy

Dear David F.,

Thank You for the Blaise Pascal quote.

One of my favourites is:

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing
in nature, but he is a thinking reed."
(Blaise Pascal)

Doesn't meditating make you go blind?
ttbn.
going by recent evidence it appears to make people oblivious by fogging the windows to the everyday World !

For some meditation is very costly, it doesn't take money, or any particular skill, but it does take time, something many of us are very poor on.

Its no good being blinded by anger to what is important in life.

I see two, Indy and ttbn have such an infliction..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=326LyfbKPF8

Dear Paul,

Thank You for reminding us of what Buddha said
2,500 years ago:

"If I do not get insulted, then the anger falls back on you."

In other words - the best reaction to insults is a
non-reaction.

The link is great.

Did you get a chance to read the link about
Captain Cook and New Zealand?

"If I do not get insulted, then the anger falls back on you."

Foxy,
You'd better look into doing something about your memory !

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9153#303312

G'day Foxy,

Yes, thanks for that, an interesting read, Maori people today are somewhat divided on Cook, on one side (my wife's view) he's seen as an enlighten, even benevolent man wishing no harm, but a victim of his times, as European and Indigenous cultures clashed. Then there is the extreme view as referenced in the article, which for most is a minority opinion, and not what history records. One inescapable fact is on his three voyages of discovery at least one hundred native people lost their lives, some say many more. Cooks personality changed with each voyage, Cook on his third voyage was not the man on the first two voyages, his personality changed considerably. Some say if it had been the Cook of the 'Endeavour' in Hawaii in 1779, he would have sailed away with his life.

Dear Paul,

Everything has its story, and everyone has obstacles
to overcome. They are our greatest teachers.
Each of us goes through transitions and transformations.
The important things is that we acknowledge them and
learn from them.

Dear Indy,

"In faith (life) there is enough light for those
who want to believe and enough shadows to blind
those who don't".

Blaise Pascal.

Dear Paul,

You may enjoy the following:

Australia was an uncut jewel
With an interior vast and cruel
When first brought under our Mothers rule:
Rough diamond in the Pacific pool
With fair Venus as his guiding star
A Gulliver reached it from afar

James Captain Cook, with furrowed frown
Unearthed that jewel for the British crown
The "Endeavour" Cook's ship of renown
Brought him to "New Holland" ground
Thus Cook made a good report
And ships for settlement were sought ...

There's more at:

http://www.poetrysoup.com/poem/to_owe_the_mockingbird_1189062

if it had been the Cook of the 'Endeavour' in Hawaii in 1779, he would have sailed away with his life.
Paul1405,
All Hindsight stuff, had the Hawaiians been more enlightened they'd not have thought of him as a God either !
Indeed, the same goes for all cultures who were contacted, visited & let themselves get exploited by the more switched on ! Nowadays, the scene is reversed & look how the "underdog" merchants exploit the good will of those who admit the ignorant wrongs of their forebears !
The underdogs however, aren't ignorant, they are in full opportunism mode !

"had the Hawaiians been more enlightened they'd not have thought of him as a God either"

Ignorance there Indy, with another European distortion, Cook was thought of as a Chief with great mana (power), so I am reliably informed. There is a difference between a god, and a chief with great mana.

There is a difference between a god, and a chief with great mana.
Paul1405,
Now that's clutching at straws ! Surely, even you could muster better than this ?