I still think these protests would make a better point if they actually targeted colonisers. Arthur Philip as I said for Sydney, and John Fawkner or Richard Bourke would make ideal protests for Melbourne. Everyone hates on John Batman, but Batman’s treaty (while wildly unfair) is the only European document of the 19th century to recognise Aboriginal land rights. Its existence challenges the whole concept of Terra Nullius and is why Richard Bourke declared the whole settlement on the Yarra illegal.
This is the stuff we should be discussing and educating people about. Not James Cook - his role in Australian history is exaggerated because people of English heritage 100 years ago credited him with “discovering” Australia. Which of course, we know he did not do.
Cook really just steered the boat for Joey (the rockstar biologist) banks.
It was Banks that went back to Britain raving about “Terra nullius” (while knowing that to be false) and pushing colonisation. No one was interested in what Cook had to say.
Cause he was a colonising cunt who represents colonial cuntfuckery. There’s a reason white supremacists put him on their Nazi flags. He was also a child rapist.
Yeah, I’m not going to use whatever drives white supremacists as my benchmark for well, anything. They do stupid things because they’re stupid. Cook may represent something to them, but that’s pretty-much the point I was making: James Cook’s legacy in Australia is exaggerated.
I’m not even against protesting Cook for the things he represents. He simultaneously writes about a culture that he sees positive traits in, while claiming they’re not even people, merely savages. Dude had serious issues. But he had nothing to do with the first fleet. Hell, he wasn’t even alive when the English arrived in Australia to colonise. If we’re going to reassess Cook’s legacy and even take down some statues, then ok. But lets do it for these reasons. Not for something he didn’t do.
I’m not interested in defending cook at all, but I’ve never heard the “child rapist” thing before. Can you elaborate?
I’m morbidly interested in naval expeditions of that era, and I can tell you the are punctuated by licentious debauchery. I think it would be difficult to find a seaman of that day who was not a child rapist by today’s definition.
By all reports Cook was really a prude, not “engaging” with young women in the manner customary of the day.
As I said not trying to defend cook, it’s just an odd assertion to make IMO.
Why James Cook though? He was just an explorer who mapped the east coast. He didn’t colonise the place.
Wouldn’t Arthur Philip be a more logical target?
He was more than just an explorer, and the cultural impact of him extends an even deeper meaning to Aboriginal people.
https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/an-honest-reckoning-with-captain-cooks-legacy-wont-heal-things-overnight-but-its-a-start/u9563wets
Like the guy literally had secret, sealed instructions to take control of the continent.
https://www.nla.gov.au/digital-classroom/senior-secondary/cook-and-pacific/indigenous-responses-cook-and-his-voyage/secret
He’s also one of the first British people to shoot an Aboriginal person.
https://www.smh.com.au/culture/books/captain-cook-s-landing-in-australia-and-the-shot-that-rang-through-history-20191023-p533i4.html
None of these links refute the fact that James Cook did not colonise the country. That first link is actually a partial transcription of a really great interview I recommend listening to.
I still think these protests would make a better point if they actually targeted colonisers. Arthur Philip as I said for Sydney, and John Fawkner or Richard Bourke would make ideal protests for Melbourne. Everyone hates on John Batman, but Batman’s treaty (while wildly unfair) is the only European document of the 19th century to recognise Aboriginal land rights. Its existence challenges the whole concept of Terra Nullius and is why Richard Bourke declared the whole settlement on the Yarra illegal.
This is the stuff we should be discussing and educating people about. Not James Cook - his role in Australian history is exaggerated because people of English heritage 100 years ago credited him with “discovering” Australia. Which of course, we know he did not do.
Cook really just steered the boat for Joey (the rockstar biologist) banks.
It was Banks that went back to Britain raving about “Terra nullius” (while knowing that to be false) and pushing colonisation. No one was interested in what Cook had to say.
Oops - replied to the wrong comment.
Cause he was a colonising cunt who represents colonial cuntfuckery. There’s a reason white supremacists put him on their Nazi flags. He was also a child rapist.
Yeah, I’m not going to use whatever drives white supremacists as my benchmark for well, anything. They do stupid things because they’re stupid. Cook may represent something to them, but that’s pretty-much the point I was making: James Cook’s legacy in Australia is exaggerated.
I’m not even against protesting Cook for the things he represents. He simultaneously writes about a culture that he sees positive traits in, while claiming they’re not even people, merely savages. Dude had serious issues. But he had nothing to do with the first fleet. Hell, he wasn’t even alive when the English arrived in Australia to colonise. If we’re going to reassess Cook’s legacy and even take down some statues, then ok. But lets do it for these reasons. Not for something he didn’t do.
I’m not interested in defending cook at all, but I’ve never heard the “child rapist” thing before. Can you elaborate?
I’m morbidly interested in naval expeditions of that era, and I can tell you the are punctuated by licentious debauchery. I think it would be difficult to find a seaman of that day who was not a child rapist by today’s definition.
By all reports Cook was really a prude, not “engaging” with young women in the manner customary of the day.
As I said not trying to defend cook, it’s just an odd assertion to make IMO.