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.
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.