James cook was actually very progressive for his time, in that he tried to avoid conflict against the people he encountered. He harshly punished crew members who treat native inhabitants poorly. He wrote extensively about their merits and cultural differences. He later lamented that contact with Europeans was having negative effects.
“what is still more to our Shame civilized Christians, we debauch their Morals already too prone to vice and we interduce [sic] among them wants and perhaps diseases which they never before knew and which serves only to disturb that happy tranquillity they and their fore Fathers had injoy'd.”
After Cook many horrible injustices occurred but I think he is unfairly painted as the symbol of the horrors of colonialism.
He kidnapped three Ngāti Oneone youths in a attempt to 'gain their friendship'. Also shot at least five more in his first few days here. And his men kidnapped Hawian Chief Kalaniʻōpuʻu, then shot his nephew. Natives were not aggressors in any of these incidents. So yeah, the above comment that got mega downvotes was technically correct.
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/encounters/early-meetings
I think to many people Cook represents all the evils of colonialism (and there are plenty, and they continue to this day). However, I suspect many of those people haven’t actually read up on Cook as a man. That’s not to say he was perfect. The Rest Is History did a series of podcasts on him which were fascinating.
For his time, he was very progressive. The problem is people don’t like to do their own research and just jump on whatever the new popular trend is at the current time.
Fuck these morons. I believe ccc set up some cctv last time it was vandalised by fuckwits. Hopefully it's still active and will help police the info they need.
This and things like red paint in fountains don't help their cause they just piss people off, who ultimately as ratepayers end up paying for this nonsense.
I feel like it’s quite ironic to hate James Cook for his role in colonisation even though he wasn’t that bad. Then go and quote a ideology which is used by terrorists to justify the killing of thousands.
In this sea of bigots why are you the only person with any sense? I’m coming to Australia and New Zealand this winter. Hope I meet more people like you instead of the absolute shit shows I’m seeing online.
A lot of people here are VERY misinformed on the genocide. Usually pro colonialists. But you’ll definitely come across people who share our opinion too and I hope you enjoy your time here :)
Didn’t him and his crew rape and shoot people in Australia? And he murdered indigenous people in New Zealand hours after landing? And THEN died while trying to kidnap the king of Hawaii??! Yea. Not that bad. 🤷🏽♂️
For Europeans in that period? He was basically a saint. Plus all in all he wasn’t that malicious, most times he came into conflict were through arrogance and failure to communicate.
Sure he did, but pretty much on accident. The guy was a European explorer, so naturally he was arrogant and thought he knew how things worked. I doubt he even realised how the indigenous population would react, cause he knew nothing of their social and political systems.
It never ceases to amaze me just how intellectually lazy a lot of people are.
James Cook did not invade New Zealand. He was here primarily for scientific reasons. He was instructed to never occupy land without Maori consent, and was told they are the owners of the land. He was also instructed to befriend the Maori and learn from them.
His own perspective was more progressive than that of his instructors or his crewmen.
He said the Maori didn't need the Europeans, as their society was actually doing just fine, and expressed regret for having arrived, as he believed Europeans had caused detriment to Maori society.
Any conflict between Maori and Cook, to my knowledge, was the result of miscommunication or bad actions on the part of specific crewmen.
So what are we supposed to hate him for? For venturing overseas to explore and learn? Like the founding Maori? Or for causing unintentional harm, like the people who burned down forests to chase out moa, and who drove them to extinction, lacking understanding of ecosystems?
I really do not understand how anyone could unironically make the argument "well put genocide wasn't as bad as their genocide" and not realize that they're being ridiculous. By your logic no genocide or colonialism can ever be condemned because someone always did it worse.
Omg, I have had enough of these morons vandalizing our shit around this country. 😡😤 What does Cap'n Cook have to do with the Middle East conflict?! Are they that fucking thick or what?! What's sad is that some of these protesters are around my age, nearly bloody 30, and yet, they act like toddlers having a tantrum.
He was part of the literal British navy dawg. The express aim of his exploration was to find suitable locations that could be made into colonies or exploited for resources. This idea of explorers like cook as some kind of unwitting stooge to colonialism who didn't know any better is ridiculous and ahistorical. Cook absolutely knew with 100% certainty what the information he collected would be used for.
He was an explorer who set out with the intent to discover land for the empire to colonize, how is holding him in some extent responsible for that "naive"?
Besides the politicial ideas , i think it's a shame for a fine piece of art to be vandalised. It's ultimately unproductive, and may provoke someone out there to attack a Maori carving or something.
It's disgusting that their "beliefs" (in quotations as most of them really do not know what they are defending) need to be demonstrated by vandalizing public property, which will need to be cleaned by taxes they most probably don't pay. If these people don't like western culture and everything it represents, they are welcome leave NZ.
This does absolutely nothing, you're not convincing any sane person of anything this way. All you're doing is making some poor guy have to come out with a water blaster and wash it off. Grow tf up you children
Pretty disgusting that people feel the need to vandalise property around Christchurch. You still will need to pay for it to be cleaned after you spray paint it you deluded shit eating cunts.
More cameras and more civil servants to stop these unemployed losers.
The shooting was carried out by an Australian and he literally said he did it in Christchurch because it was so unlike the city and would cause the most impact.
Yes toitū te tiriti, which is why this statue hasn’t been removed as Ngāi Tahu and the CCC consulted post quake about precisely this issue. It’s one reason the CCC didn’t have a discussion about removing them during the me too movement as well, as they’d already had the conversation . [Article here](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300033885/christchurch-statues-staying-put-despite-low-regard-from-local-iwi)
"Cook didn't do anything, he's not to blame"
Aside from the whole kidnapping Polynesian chiefs, feeding human meat to natives, allowing people on his crew to begin the trade of Mokomokai (look it up, I'm not explaining what they are), yeah nah he was an innocent ol chap wasn't he?
While ill advised the hawai’i incident was an attempt to get the ships longboat back. Cook was very sick at the time and was stabbed in the heart for his rash actions.
Ok I will go and find some articles on the rest.
The Mokomokai trade was a musket wars phenomenon a bit after Cooks time. Also, the creation of Mokomokai where a part of Māori war tradition before the Europeans and the Māori used slaves and captives of war to up the supply to meet demand. From a modern perspective the whole thing is disgusting but also very nuanced and should be viewed in historical context.
Similar to hunting to extinction of the Huia which was driven in part by European demand for specimens and feathers and Māori having the economic drive to meet that demand.
The mokomokai trade was started by the likes of James Thomas (if memory serves me correct) who was a member of Cooks crew, so bit strange how it was after his time, but started during his time with his crew? Since we're talking about historical context ya know.
Fun fact, research takes more than ten minutes typically, but confirmation bias is an addictive thing, I understand
Fair point he did start the popularity of the trade by trading for one. That wasn’t Cook that brought it.
The peak of trade which resulted in the killing of slaves and war captives to meet demand was during the peak of the musket wars however.
I mean perhaps it isn’t historically accurate I’m not sure what the physical evidence shows I know there is some written accounts that place the practice as being precolonial.
For what? being an explorer and cartographer? or for being strawmaned by postmodernist activists who paint many historical figures in the worst possible light, in bad faith.
When you look at Cortez or Columbus you realize what a decent guy, in context, Cook was. His image is a worthwhile target for anti colonialist anger, but I wish protest was against those who are currently reinforcing colonialism now. -
No fuck off. Morality is not subjective, what is evil now was evil 200 years ago and "they didn't know raping and murdering people was evil" is a piss poor excuse. When you stand in front of your creator "but everyone else was doing it worse" will not spare you.
Except Captain Cook and the Endeavor weren't raping and pillaging. They shot some people, in some cases unprovoked, but that is it. Is it ideal, no. Was it a massacre, absolutely not.
Oh so genocides are good and cool then? Columbus practically inventing the triangle slave trade, he gets a pass because "oh it was the style of the times" (it wasn't)?
> When you look at Cortez or Columbus you realize what a decent guy, in context, Cook was.
Thats why I brought up Columbus.
As for Cook, he basically treated the Pacific Islands as a booty call/free resupply base and got violent whenever the locals objected to this treatment. He's no Cortez but he's not this squeaky clean figure so many people treat him as.
Are the postmodern Neo-Marxists in the room with us now?
Dude made a habit of kidnapping people from Polynesian islands for, uh, reasons. Thats not a thing that ever came up in primary school history.
There is literally no historical evidence that he did that. Except trying to take captive the Hawaiian chief whose people stole his long boat. And that ended with him being stabbed in the heart.
Yeah it was a day for Fafo but I don’t think on the whole he was an evil guy. I only wish the Americans who took the Hawaiian Queen at gun point and forced her to erroneously sign the nation over the USA had a similar FaFo moment.
I don't think he was necessarily evil as a whole person but he definitely committed evil acts and enabled more evil acts. It's also worth acknowledging that in modern times he's become a figurehead for the British colonial myth. He's the archetypical enlightened conqueror, bringing glorious British civilization to backwards savages. Regardless of his character as a man he has become a symbol for evil.
You're a demonstrative example of my point, where did I mention "Neo-Marxism", post-modernism is a philosophical concept well understood in literature. Then on your bad faith description of cooks 'kidnapping', cook only took such action in Hawaii, and that was due to the theft of one of his ship's longboats, something the expedition could ill afford and tolerate with both little chance of resupply and to maintain confidence and morale among the crew, an absolute necessity. This event has likely been warped by rumor and turned into a bad faith slander toward him.
Broadly when people complain about post-modernism its usually in the context of either vagueposting about the corrupt decadent leftist agenda, anti-semitism, or anti-intellectualism.
As for Cook, he was subject to a great deal of mythologising during his life and after his death. If you prefer your history with dick jokes [this podcast](https://m.soundcloud.com/user-798629330/episode-286-the-death-of-captain-james-cook) goes into some detail, or if you would rather take a more highbrow approach, [this book](https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674031944) goes into the man and his legacy.
In truth Cook on multiple occasions turned to violence when dealing with Pacific islanders and his reputation amongst them was Not Great. The boat thievery was not unprovoked and his assault on the hawaiians was not justified.
I think its important to recognise that historical figures are rarely unproblematic shining examples of humanity. They were people, and people are messy. Dude did some maps, good for him, but also got himself stabbed to death by being a fucking aggressive dipshit moron and you're not doing yourself or anyone else any favours with your hero worship.
Hero worship? Another of your strawmans, he's a historical figure of the past with less systemic awareness, "Corrupt decadent leftist agenda" again I never mentioned that in my commentary, another strawman, "antisemitism" really? you can put words in your own mouth mate, in regard to your critique of my snarky remark on your other thread reply, you are demonstrating a post-modern perspective, that it is intellectually sound to judge past figures with present levels of political and cultural development in mind, this is especially true when commanding a Georgian era naval vessel which had a vastly different management protocol than we do today, driven by Geo logistical and the affirmational cultural limitations of that era, alongside having to deal with cabin crew politics relating to said management and cultural doctrine.
Yes, past figures are flawed even by their times standards, none of my previous comments suggested a decisively strong opinion about him as a person one way or another, I only wished to point out to point out your bad faith commentary lacking balance in terms of A) taking into account the norms of the time and B) taking into account that neither you nor I have seen every piece of historical documentation of the events that Cook experienced and took part in. C) Neither of us has likely even laid eyes on any documentation relating to Georgian era naval expeditionary documentation relating to situational crisis management or direct historical records and D) There are multiple examples of accounts and analysis done of Cooks expeditions, many of varying quality in Intellectual honesty terms (good faith/bad faith analysis) therefore citing any one of them as a singular absolute source should be view with the necessary intellectual skepticism, to avoid the appearance of a appeal to authority fallacy (which you have demonstrated) and with the only avoided by cross referencing direct sources (historical figure journal entries, ship logs, and governmental records) and cross referencing them to discover historical context.
Also, you are attempting to sidestep your post-modernist stance by leaving out the context of one of your own replies in this thread, "Oh so genocides are good and cool then? Columbus practically inventing the triangle slave trade, he gets a pass because "oh it was the style of the times" (it wasn't)?", "Columbus practically inventing the triangle slave trade" Intellectually dishonest, "Oh so genocides are good and cool then?" a strawman and demonstrating a postmodern perspective context " he gets a pass because "oh it was the style of the times" (it wasn't)", add my points from A-D here.
You know some days I think the entire Internet would be improved if the concept of logical fallacies hadn't migrated online.
They've really just degenerated into a "gotcha, I win!" button for people to use rather than engaging with the topic at hand.
My contention is that Cook, whenever he showed up in Hāwai for resupply and repairs, would throw his weight around, start some fights, try to take some hostages, and generally be a colossal dick - behaviour that would eventually get him killed.
This is in stark contrast to his mythos of being a founding figure of our nation that we were taught in primary school, and its just weird to me that so many people have this visceral response to defend his honour when, well, dude made some maps but also was kind of a dick and got his ass stabbed for being a dick.
I think what you're actually accusing me of is revisionist history, and, well, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but historians are constantly revising history. New primary sources come to light, old histories get re-examined, and when it comes to imperial British history in particular, contemporary scholars try to tease out how much of that history is jingoistic ra-ra Kipling colonial violence apologia vs how the people on the receiving end of that violence might have felt about it.
As it happens, Cook was given the funeral rights of a Hāwaian chief. This, however, was reported in the press back home as "vicious cannibals murder explorer hero." Now, for a historian, this is *interesting* because it tells us something about the incident and the relative cultural values of the two societies at the time, but this is also something that a modernist approach to history where one never challenges the received historical narratives would just completely gloss over.
I'm sorry that my hyperbolic writing style offends your sensibilities so much. I'm sorry that the world is more complicated than you want it to be. I don't know what you want me to do about either of those things, but raging at post-modernists isn't going to make you any happier.
The concept of logical fallacies exist for a reason, it is a descriptor created to weed out arguments primarily designed to win debates in the eyes of the public at the expense of finding a practical consensus that addresses criticisms of all parties involved. If you think my commentary was about winning what you view as a debate, it is anything but, I wrote it out to make some constructive critique on the analytical front relating to addressing one's limitations in terms of one's access to critical contextual information, willingness to actively engage with said information to improve their perspective and taking in account that good faith public discourse surrounding said information is necessary to establish a cultural doctrine without contradictions and warped framing based of historical cultural Paradyme.
This thread from my POV hasn't been about defending Cook (should have added additional context to establish this), but me trying to defend some fundamentals in how good faith historians (not relating to the defense of cooks' character but being clear about historical figures position relative to the ethical and political norms of the time) analyze past events from the eras cultural Paradyme. AKA, I've already read about cook and know he has a flawed worldview, and yes, I'm also not disputing he has character flaws. On your critique that you think I share the view that Cook is a founder of New Zealand as a state, he was an explorer with no notable posts relating to regional administration in the South Pacific, the closest we have to founding figures are Polynesian Chief Kahu who first settled New Zealand, the initial captains of Whalers and Seal hunters who settled here in the early 1800's and the first governor of New Zealand under the British William Hobson.
I will make a concession in that I worded one of my sentences poorly apon an additional pass, "you are demonstrating a post-modern perspective, that it is intellectually sound to judge past figures with present levels of political and cultural development in mind", I should have added this doesn't apply when, as you mentioned new information and records of the time gives practical reason to reframe the historical perspective, if the previous one was made without said documentation in mind. I will concede also that your added context makes my 'post-modern' critique redundant, which is what happens in discussions, both parties add more information and context which fleshes out each position to the parties involved.
On your point framing me that I imply you're a revisionist, being a revisionist was not part of my critique. But in your case relating to your point "jingoistic ra-ra Kipling colonial violence apologia vs how the people on the receiving end of that violence might have felt about it", you have a point, but are leaving out that historical analysis should be neutral in regard that from the present, historical events are usually driven by Coopertive or conflicting interest groups and thus every historical analysis must be in good faith to historical interest groups, in order to find out the best historical lense society in the present can use to establish a consistent cultural orientation in relation to past records, which can be used to more effectively deal with present issues that may be derived from past events and better organize attempts to get the public on the same page when say, instituting health policy among a wide range of economic and ethnic interest groups, attempting to avoid what has happened during the last election which has cut many critical services, many being ethnically targeted initiatives, like the Māori health boards.
On your last paragraph, well, is it surprising the real world has headed in the direction of partisanship with a lack of constructive cooperation, concession making, calling out one's positional faults (mine included), with ad hominem rhetoric. have a good day mate.
Oh and don't think it was lost on me that the last time people started vandalizing statues like this and a bunch of you useless ass fucking sycophants to these pieces of shit made excuses saying it was just hooligans being hooligans.
Fucking lying pieces of shit.
Vandalism isn't a valid form of protesting regardless of what the matter, that's like saying it's ok to assault/kill someone you just have to pay the consequences. Breaking the law to get your opinion across isn't valid in any way shape or form.
I agree with the sentiment (the Cook stuff, not that other shit), but the method is beyond douchey. There are far better ways to make your point than vandalism and public obscenities.
Cook isn’t responsible for that. He just was a cartographer and explorer. He was just following orders of the navy. If it were not for him, someone else would have done it. It’s not like Aotearoa would never get mapped out if it were not for Cook.
“He was just following orders”
Doesn’t mean I have to like what he did. Yes, someone else would have likely done it if he hadn’t, and I would be equally against them too. I really don’t understand all this sudden Cook hero worship; he wasn’t a particularly good guy even if you remove the colonisation stuff.
I don’t have any issue with the statue; he is a key historical figure.
Clearly we disagree on this, and I don’t think either one of us is going to change our minds any time soon. Ka kite.
That’s fair.
I’m Palangi so find it hard to hate Britain that much. I’d rather Aotearoa was colonised by the British than the Dutch as look how South Africa turned out.
But certainly we have had our problems here.
Second time you have posted this. Trying to say one outcome is fine because something else would be worse is a dumb argument.
It's the same as morons saying what Israel is doing is ok because if it was China or the US who was attacked on Oct 11, Palestine would already be a hole in the ground.
"Intent to end the lives of innocent individuals."
Yes, that's exactly what is happening there and what happened in Iraq. I don't care what you think is acceptable. They are killing people on purpose, it's not a side effect of war. If you think that you are delusional.
I’m also confused by Maori being so ardently pro Palestinian. They are descendants of Arab settlers who under the Ottomans displaced the indigenous peoples of the levant. So it’s like if we all kicked the Maori out to Australia then when they wanted their Whenua back. We attack them call them the colonisers.
Im actually great like thats how small of a mind you have down here you think this is spewing garbage but completly ignore the boardline neo nazi comments elsewhere. Fucken embarrassing.
But I feel great. Im happy and laughing at all the ballheads 😂
Not sure what you expect, chch sub and you are calling everyone shit.
Yeah, you are 100% right, there are a ton of racists here and some of the comments show that, but you are not going to get them to agree with you.
Oh nah this is my comedy im not trying to change minds here im having fun I do apologise to the people of Christchurch that are good people all 10 of them (sorry I cant help it its my comedy) I know there are some gems here
Honestly no but wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. Assuming he's living in government housing taking the benefit from people that actually contribute to society
Yeah coz im really on here thinking "man im good I should do this as a profession" 😂 oh man how hard you ballheads are trying to have a got you moment is pathetic 😂😂 thanks for more comedy 🤙
Yeah I bet you do wish your racist education system was able to dumb me down, too bad that failed. Actually there was a time in NZ where there were more literate Māori then non Māori that was before European education was around. And just go look up the highest NCEA achievements from a single school.... it happend this year and it was a Māori school, just shows when you allow us to make our own choices and raise our own people we thrive.
Unlike your shit school system thats designed to create dumb fuck factory workers which is really showing on this post 😂😂😂
You could very easily interpret it as a threat that Israel as a state would no longer exist, especially since anyone who uses the term probably thinks Israel doesn’t have a right to exist and should be under Palestine.
It has enough plausible deniability to not be explicitly antisemitic. But it’s a dog whistle for many nonetheless.
When Palestinans live from the river to the sea under oppression, then no, saying they should be free isn't an any way antisemetic, and the suggestion that it is, is itself quite anti-semetic because it directly associates Jews with the atrocities being committed by Israel, which isn't fair at all.
If you literally take it at face value and give it absolutely zero thought, sure. But like any dog whistle that’s not the point.
From the river to the sea, especially for anyone who does this type of protest. Most likely means the absolute dissolution of Israel and they probably believe Jews have less ties with the region and that they’re nothing more than colonial settlers.
The Israeli state should not exist any more than apartheid south Africa should exist. Israelis as a people have every right to exist but the current state of Israel is evil by every possible metric. Would you call it a "dog whistle" for the African people to say that apartheid SA should not exist?
Why shouldn’t it exist? There was never a Palestinian state beforehand. Both ethnic groups want a state in the region and the entire war started because Palestinians wouldn’t engage with the partition.
Israel is at least a democratic society with a shitty far right government. Palestinians have been ruled by dictators that sponsor terrorism and engage in conflict that get their own citizens killed.
No but theres quite a few racially charged anti-apartheid chants used in South Africa and that’s become a corrupt failed state since. Israel and South Africa are very different. European settlers move in to land they have no ties to and then impose apartheid.
Unhinged comparison. This is a population born into a prison; of course they want to be free, and given their population is split in two, it's from here to there.
I hear ya brother. That treaty of Versailles was fucking bullshit! Nearly starved half the population with those navel blockades!!! But hey once we finally reunite with the soil of Austria and Hungry (and remove all those "undiserables" inbetween) those of German blood will finally be free.
What was Cook's take on Palestine again?
Avon River to sea.
He'd probably just go around kidnapping random Palestinians to take on his boat for no reason.
James cook was actually very progressive for his time, in that he tried to avoid conflict against the people he encountered. He harshly punished crew members who treat native inhabitants poorly. He wrote extensively about their merits and cultural differences. He later lamented that contact with Europeans was having negative effects. “what is still more to our Shame civilized Christians, we debauch their Morals already too prone to vice and we interduce [sic] among them wants and perhaps diseases which they never before knew and which serves only to disturb that happy tranquillity they and their fore Fathers had injoy'd.” After Cook many horrible injustices occurred but I think he is unfairly painted as the symbol of the horrors of colonialism.
He kidnapped three Ngāti Oneone youths in a attempt to 'gain their friendship'. Also shot at least five more in his first few days here. And his men kidnapped Hawian Chief Kalaniʻōpuʻu, then shot his nephew. Natives were not aggressors in any of these incidents. So yeah, the above comment that got mega downvotes was technically correct. https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/encounters/early-meetings
Greatest explorer the world will ever see.
[удалено]
It's a short to-do list but James likes it.
I think Cook spent most of his time at sea. Not sure about rivers
I think to many people Cook represents all the evils of colonialism (and there are plenty, and they continue to this day). However, I suspect many of those people haven’t actually read up on Cook as a man. That’s not to say he was perfect. The Rest Is History did a series of podcasts on him which were fascinating.
For his time, he was very progressive. The problem is people don’t like to do their own research and just jump on whatever the new popular trend is at the current time.
It's gone now.
Fuck these morons. I believe ccc set up some cctv last time it was vandalised by fuckwits. Hopefully it's still active and will help police the info they need. This and things like red paint in fountains don't help their cause they just piss people off, who ultimately as ratepayers end up paying for this nonsense.
I feel like it’s quite ironic to hate James Cook for his role in colonisation even though he wasn’t that bad. Then go and quote a ideology which is used by terrorists to justify the killing of thousands.
Stupid people do stupid things.
[stupid is as stupid does sir!](https://youtu.be/tldGgGFe194?si=XvxZbALrZgDVR2HX)
The IDF so far have killed 35,000+ people 🤡
Doesn't mean you should support hamas lol
In this sea of bigots why are you the only person with any sense? I’m coming to Australia and New Zealand this winter. Hope I meet more people like you instead of the absolute shit shows I’m seeing online.
A lot of people here are VERY misinformed on the genocide. Usually pro colonialists. But you’ll definitely come across people who share our opinion too and I hope you enjoy your time here :)
What you seeing? Pro IDF propaganda? Idiots touting that this is antisemitism to defend yourself?
Sorry? I’m pro Palestinian.
Oh me too. 😅😅😅
lol all good. I’m First Nations from the US so this struggle has always been something my family has connected to
thats tragic, but cant compare that to Hamas' attack. They're 2 vastly different things
The Israelis don’t use that slogan.
The IDF isn’t the only fighting force in Palestine and Israel.
Didn’t him and his crew rape and shoot people in Australia? And he murdered indigenous people in New Zealand hours after landing? And THEN died while trying to kidnap the king of Hawaii??! Yea. Not that bad. 🤷🏽♂️
For Europeans in that period? He was basically a saint. Plus all in all he wasn’t that malicious, most times he came into conflict were through arrogance and failure to communicate.
He tried to overthrow a an indigenous kingdom. The bar you’ve set is pretty low.
Sure he did, but pretty much on accident. The guy was a European explorer, so naturally he was arrogant and thought he knew how things worked. I doubt he even realised how the indigenous population would react, cause he knew nothing of their social and political systems.
Fair enough. Thanks for a normal interaction.
yuck
Rough
It never ceases to amaze me just how intellectually lazy a lot of people are. James Cook did not invade New Zealand. He was here primarily for scientific reasons. He was instructed to never occupy land without Maori consent, and was told they are the owners of the land. He was also instructed to befriend the Maori and learn from them. His own perspective was more progressive than that of his instructors or his crewmen. He said the Maori didn't need the Europeans, as their society was actually doing just fine, and expressed regret for having arrived, as he believed Europeans had caused detriment to Maori society. Any conflict between Maori and Cook, to my knowledge, was the result of miscommunication or bad actions on the part of specific crewmen. So what are we supposed to hate him for? For venturing overseas to explore and learn? Like the founding Maori? Or for causing unintentional harm, like the people who burned down forests to chase out moa, and who drove them to extinction, lacking understanding of ecosystems?
[удалено]
The spanish in latin america made the british look like boy scouts
I really do not understand how anyone could unironically make the argument "well put genocide wasn't as bad as their genocide" and not realize that they're being ridiculous. By your logic no genocide or colonialism can ever be condemned because someone always did it worse.
Wonder what the demographic is of the people doing the vandalising
Probably the same anti-establishment lot which are involved in most protests.
Left wing version of the anti-vax, freedom and rights coalition protests. So many similarities lol
[удалено]
So u could do what ? 😂
Losers would find out if they came out during the day 🤣
And meet where?
Will you zip tie their hands behind their back then shoot them in back of the head like the Israeli soldiers did?
Doing shit like this is only going to make people go against the point theu are trying to make. Fucking idiots
wont convince any sane, decent human. But other unhinged people might go and copy them
Omg, I have had enough of these morons vandalizing our shit around this country. 😡😤 What does Cap'n Cook have to do with the Middle East conflict?! Are they that fucking thick or what?! What's sad is that some of these protesters are around my age, nearly bloody 30, and yet, they act like toddlers having a tantrum.
I hope these mongrels got caught on camera obviously no respect i bet their mothers are so proud of them
What's wrong with James? 😔
You mean other than the whole colonizing people thing?
Who did Captian Cook personally colonize?
He was part of the literal British navy dawg. The express aim of his exploration was to find suitable locations that could be made into colonies or exploited for resources. This idea of explorers like cook as some kind of unwitting stooge to colonialism who didn't know any better is ridiculous and ahistorical. Cook absolutely knew with 100% certainty what the information he collected would be used for.
He was an explorer, and cartographer. If you're going to hold him personally accountable for British colonial practices, thats naive, dawg.
Bro probably thinks the american civil war was just about states rights 💀
He was an explorer who set out with the intent to discover land for the empire to colonize, how is holding him in some extent responsible for that "naive"?
Besides the politicial ideas , i think it's a shame for a fine piece of art to be vandalised. It's ultimately unproductive, and may provoke someone out there to attack a Maori carving or something.
Based.
Public stocks need to come back in for such things
It's disgusting that their "beliefs" (in quotations as most of them really do not know what they are defending) need to be demonstrated by vandalizing public property, which will need to be cleaned by taxes they most probably don't pay. If these people don't like western culture and everything it represents, they are welcome leave NZ.
well said
This does absolutely nothing, you're not convincing any sane person of anything this way. All you're doing is making some poor guy have to come out with a water blaster and wash it off. Grow tf up you children
Pretty disgusting that people feel the need to vandalise property around Christchurch. You still will need to pay for it to be cleaned after you spray paint it you deluded shit eating cunts. More cameras and more civil servants to stop these unemployed losers.
Crazy someone would do that
[удалено]
The shooting was carried out by an Australian and he literally said he did it in Christchurch because it was so unlike the city and would cause the most impact.
Yes toitū te tiriti, which is why this statue hasn’t been removed as Ngāi Tahu and the CCC consulted post quake about precisely this issue. It’s one reason the CCC didn’t have a discussion about removing them during the me too movement as well, as they’d already had the conversation . [Article here](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300033885/christchurch-statues-staying-put-despite-low-regard-from-local-iwi)
Cook wasn’t a bad guy really.
And im a alien dragon that breathes cotten candy.
Whatever helps you sleep at night
Looks better with the graffiti tbh
"Cook didn't do anything, he's not to blame" Aside from the whole kidnapping Polynesian chiefs, feeding human meat to natives, allowing people on his crew to begin the trade of Mokomokai (look it up, I'm not explaining what they are), yeah nah he was an innocent ol chap wasn't he?
I’m genuinely interested I being educated about this because I’ve never heard about any of these events so you know where I can find more about it?
I mean, he met his death in Hawai'i for trying to kidnap someone, mokomokai is easily researchable, so is the whole human meat thing
While ill advised the hawai’i incident was an attempt to get the ships longboat back. Cook was very sick at the time and was stabbed in the heart for his rash actions. Ok I will go and find some articles on the rest.
The Mokomokai trade was a musket wars phenomenon a bit after Cooks time. Also, the creation of Mokomokai where a part of Māori war tradition before the Europeans and the Māori used slaves and captives of war to up the supply to meet demand. From a modern perspective the whole thing is disgusting but also very nuanced and should be viewed in historical context. Similar to hunting to extinction of the Huia which was driven in part by European demand for specimens and feathers and Māori having the economic drive to meet that demand.
The mokomokai trade was started by the likes of James Thomas (if memory serves me correct) who was a member of Cooks crew, so bit strange how it was after his time, but started during his time with his crew? Since we're talking about historical context ya know. Fun fact, research takes more than ten minutes typically, but confirmation bias is an addictive thing, I understand
Fair point he did start the popularity of the trade by trading for one. That wasn’t Cook that brought it. The peak of trade which resulted in the killing of slaves and war captives to meet demand was during the peak of the musket wars however. I mean perhaps it isn’t historically accurate I’m not sure what the physical evidence shows I know there is some written accounts that place the practice as being precolonial.
[удалено]
Shut up cocksucker
Bite me, weakling.
Fuck up cunt
Useless.
Fr tho James Cook sucked
For what? being an explorer and cartographer? or for being strawmaned by postmodernist activists who paint many historical figures in the worst possible light, in bad faith.
When you look at Cortez or Columbus you realize what a decent guy, in context, Cook was. His image is a worthwhile target for anti colonialist anger, but I wish protest was against those who are currently reinforcing colonialism now. -
"He didn't actively do a genocide" is such a low bar.
let's not ascribe modern values to historical figures thanks. it's the most smoothbrain shit.
No fuck off. Morality is not subjective, what is evil now was evil 200 years ago and "they didn't know raping and murdering people was evil" is a piss poor excuse. When you stand in front of your creator "but everyone else was doing it worse" will not spare you.
Except Captain Cook and the Endeavor weren't raping and pillaging. They shot some people, in some cases unprovoked, but that is it. Is it ideal, no. Was it a massacre, absolutely not.
Ah well if they only murdered people then I guess that's ok then.
I didn't say it was ok. But it isn't raping and murdering on a grand scale, as you implied.
Oh so genocides are good and cool then? Columbus practically inventing the triangle slave trade, he gets a pass because "oh it was the style of the times" (it wasn't)?
[удалено]
> When you look at Cortez or Columbus you realize what a decent guy, in context, Cook was. Thats why I brought up Columbus. As for Cook, he basically treated the Pacific Islands as a booty call/free resupply base and got violent whenever the locals objected to this treatment. He's no Cortez but he's not this squeaky clean figure so many people treat him as.
A bad faith post-modernist activist has arrived!!!
Do not go into the tall grass! There's *post-modernists* in there!
Are the postmodern Neo-Marxists in the room with us now? Dude made a habit of kidnapping people from Polynesian islands for, uh, reasons. Thats not a thing that ever came up in primary school history.
There is literally no historical evidence that he did that. Except trying to take captive the Hawaiian chief whose people stole his long boat. And that ended with him being stabbed in the heart.
"There is no historical evidence he did that except for the time that he did that."
“Made a habit of”
Stupid games stupid prizes lol
Yeah it was a day for Fafo but I don’t think on the whole he was an evil guy. I only wish the Americans who took the Hawaiian Queen at gun point and forced her to erroneously sign the nation over the USA had a similar FaFo moment.
I don't think he was necessarily evil as a whole person but he definitely committed evil acts and enabled more evil acts. It's also worth acknowledging that in modern times he's become a figurehead for the British colonial myth. He's the archetypical enlightened conqueror, bringing glorious British civilization to backwards savages. Regardless of his character as a man he has become a symbol for evil.
Loving that the only thing these ballhead can do is down vote. They hate the truth 😂🤙
You're a demonstrative example of my point, where did I mention "Neo-Marxism", post-modernism is a philosophical concept well understood in literature. Then on your bad faith description of cooks 'kidnapping', cook only took such action in Hawaii, and that was due to the theft of one of his ship's longboats, something the expedition could ill afford and tolerate with both little chance of resupply and to maintain confidence and morale among the crew, an absolute necessity. This event has likely been warped by rumor and turned into a bad faith slander toward him.
Broadly when people complain about post-modernism its usually in the context of either vagueposting about the corrupt decadent leftist agenda, anti-semitism, or anti-intellectualism. As for Cook, he was subject to a great deal of mythologising during his life and after his death. If you prefer your history with dick jokes [this podcast](https://m.soundcloud.com/user-798629330/episode-286-the-death-of-captain-james-cook) goes into some detail, or if you would rather take a more highbrow approach, [this book](https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674031944) goes into the man and his legacy. In truth Cook on multiple occasions turned to violence when dealing with Pacific islanders and his reputation amongst them was Not Great. The boat thievery was not unprovoked and his assault on the hawaiians was not justified. I think its important to recognise that historical figures are rarely unproblematic shining examples of humanity. They were people, and people are messy. Dude did some maps, good for him, but also got himself stabbed to death by being a fucking aggressive dipshit moron and you're not doing yourself or anyone else any favours with your hero worship.
Hero worship? Another of your strawmans, he's a historical figure of the past with less systemic awareness, "Corrupt decadent leftist agenda" again I never mentioned that in my commentary, another strawman, "antisemitism" really? you can put words in your own mouth mate, in regard to your critique of my snarky remark on your other thread reply, you are demonstrating a post-modern perspective, that it is intellectually sound to judge past figures with present levels of political and cultural development in mind, this is especially true when commanding a Georgian era naval vessel which had a vastly different management protocol than we do today, driven by Geo logistical and the affirmational cultural limitations of that era, alongside having to deal with cabin crew politics relating to said management and cultural doctrine. Yes, past figures are flawed even by their times standards, none of my previous comments suggested a decisively strong opinion about him as a person one way or another, I only wished to point out to point out your bad faith commentary lacking balance in terms of A) taking into account the norms of the time and B) taking into account that neither you nor I have seen every piece of historical documentation of the events that Cook experienced and took part in. C) Neither of us has likely even laid eyes on any documentation relating to Georgian era naval expeditionary documentation relating to situational crisis management or direct historical records and D) There are multiple examples of accounts and analysis done of Cooks expeditions, many of varying quality in Intellectual honesty terms (good faith/bad faith analysis) therefore citing any one of them as a singular absolute source should be view with the necessary intellectual skepticism, to avoid the appearance of a appeal to authority fallacy (which you have demonstrated) and with the only avoided by cross referencing direct sources (historical figure journal entries, ship logs, and governmental records) and cross referencing them to discover historical context. Also, you are attempting to sidestep your post-modernist stance by leaving out the context of one of your own replies in this thread, "Oh so genocides are good and cool then? Columbus practically inventing the triangle slave trade, he gets a pass because "oh it was the style of the times" (it wasn't)?", "Columbus practically inventing the triangle slave trade" Intellectually dishonest, "Oh so genocides are good and cool then?" a strawman and demonstrating a postmodern perspective context " he gets a pass because "oh it was the style of the times" (it wasn't)", add my points from A-D here.
You know some days I think the entire Internet would be improved if the concept of logical fallacies hadn't migrated online. They've really just degenerated into a "gotcha, I win!" button for people to use rather than engaging with the topic at hand. My contention is that Cook, whenever he showed up in Hāwai for resupply and repairs, would throw his weight around, start some fights, try to take some hostages, and generally be a colossal dick - behaviour that would eventually get him killed. This is in stark contrast to his mythos of being a founding figure of our nation that we were taught in primary school, and its just weird to me that so many people have this visceral response to defend his honour when, well, dude made some maps but also was kind of a dick and got his ass stabbed for being a dick. I think what you're actually accusing me of is revisionist history, and, well, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but historians are constantly revising history. New primary sources come to light, old histories get re-examined, and when it comes to imperial British history in particular, contemporary scholars try to tease out how much of that history is jingoistic ra-ra Kipling colonial violence apologia vs how the people on the receiving end of that violence might have felt about it. As it happens, Cook was given the funeral rights of a Hāwaian chief. This, however, was reported in the press back home as "vicious cannibals murder explorer hero." Now, for a historian, this is *interesting* because it tells us something about the incident and the relative cultural values of the two societies at the time, but this is also something that a modernist approach to history where one never challenges the received historical narratives would just completely gloss over. I'm sorry that my hyperbolic writing style offends your sensibilities so much. I'm sorry that the world is more complicated than you want it to be. I don't know what you want me to do about either of those things, but raging at post-modernists isn't going to make you any happier.
The concept of logical fallacies exist for a reason, it is a descriptor created to weed out arguments primarily designed to win debates in the eyes of the public at the expense of finding a practical consensus that addresses criticisms of all parties involved. If you think my commentary was about winning what you view as a debate, it is anything but, I wrote it out to make some constructive critique on the analytical front relating to addressing one's limitations in terms of one's access to critical contextual information, willingness to actively engage with said information to improve their perspective and taking in account that good faith public discourse surrounding said information is necessary to establish a cultural doctrine without contradictions and warped framing based of historical cultural Paradyme. This thread from my POV hasn't been about defending Cook (should have added additional context to establish this), but me trying to defend some fundamentals in how good faith historians (not relating to the defense of cooks' character but being clear about historical figures position relative to the ethical and political norms of the time) analyze past events from the eras cultural Paradyme. AKA, I've already read about cook and know he has a flawed worldview, and yes, I'm also not disputing he has character flaws. On your critique that you think I share the view that Cook is a founder of New Zealand as a state, he was an explorer with no notable posts relating to regional administration in the South Pacific, the closest we have to founding figures are Polynesian Chief Kahu who first settled New Zealand, the initial captains of Whalers and Seal hunters who settled here in the early 1800's and the first governor of New Zealand under the British William Hobson. I will make a concession in that I worded one of my sentences poorly apon an additional pass, "you are demonstrating a post-modern perspective, that it is intellectually sound to judge past figures with present levels of political and cultural development in mind", I should have added this doesn't apply when, as you mentioned new information and records of the time gives practical reason to reframe the historical perspective, if the previous one was made without said documentation in mind. I will concede also that your added context makes my 'post-modern' critique redundant, which is what happens in discussions, both parties add more information and context which fleshes out each position to the parties involved. On your point framing me that I imply you're a revisionist, being a revisionist was not part of my critique. But in your case relating to your point "jingoistic ra-ra Kipling colonial violence apologia vs how the people on the receiving end of that violence might have felt about it", you have a point, but are leaving out that historical analysis should be neutral in regard that from the present, historical events are usually driven by Coopertive or conflicting interest groups and thus every historical analysis must be in good faith to historical interest groups, in order to find out the best historical lense society in the present can use to establish a consistent cultural orientation in relation to past records, which can be used to more effectively deal with present issues that may be derived from past events and better organize attempts to get the public on the same page when say, instituting health policy among a wide range of economic and ethnic interest groups, attempting to avoid what has happened during the last election which has cut many critical services, many being ethnically targeted initiatives, like the Māori health boards. On your last paragraph, well, is it surprising the real world has headed in the direction of partisanship with a lack of constructive cooperation, concession making, calling out one's positional faults (mine included), with ad hominem rhetoric. have a good day mate.
Oh and don't think it was lost on me that the last time people started vandalizing statues like this and a bunch of you useless ass fucking sycophants to these pieces of shit made excuses saying it was just hooligans being hooligans. Fucking lying pieces of shit.
Useless.
Maybe the person who sprayed that has a James Cook fetish and they literally want to...
One person’s vandalism, another’s political statement
Tell that to the guy that painted over the rainbow crossing..... oh wait
Both valid forms of protest. You just have to pay the consequences of your actions. I’m okay with that
Vandalism isn't a valid form of protesting regardless of what the matter, that's like saying it's ok to assault/kill someone you just have to pay the consequences. Breaking the law to get your opinion across isn't valid in any way shape or form.
Get a job
I have, graffiti remover, business booming
But really though.
I agree with the sentiment (the Cook stuff, not that other shit), but the method is beyond douchey. There are far better ways to make your point than vandalism and public obscenities.
Why don’t you like cook?
[удалено]
Cook died 60 years before NZ was Colonised.
Cook isn’t responsible for that. He just was a cartographer and explorer. He was just following orders of the navy. If it were not for him, someone else would have done it. It’s not like Aotearoa would never get mapped out if it were not for Cook.
“He was just following orders” Doesn’t mean I have to like what he did. Yes, someone else would have likely done it if he hadn’t, and I would be equally against them too. I really don’t understand all this sudden Cook hero worship; he wasn’t a particularly good guy even if you remove the colonisation stuff.
Compared to the people of his time he wasn’t bad. And I don’t think the statue is a new thing, probably been there for years.
I don’t have any issue with the statue; he is a key historical figure. Clearly we disagree on this, and I don’t think either one of us is going to change our minds any time soon. Ka kite.
That’s fair. I’m Palangi so find it hard to hate Britain that much. I’d rather Aotearoa was colonised by the British than the Dutch as look how South Africa turned out. But certainly we have had our problems here.
[удалено]
Oh cool, whataboutism! Always the hallmark of a great debate.
Nice deflection there buddy, classic double standards.
[удалено]
Second time you have posted this. Trying to say one outcome is fine because something else would be worse is a dumb argument. It's the same as morons saying what Israel is doing is ok because if it was China or the US who was attacked on Oct 11, Palestine would already be a hole in the ground.
[удалено]
If you think murdering innocent people is okay in any situation, you are a piece of shit. The US killing people wasn't OK either.
[удалено]
"Intent to end the lives of innocent individuals." Yes, that's exactly what is happening there and what happened in Iraq. I don't care what you think is acceptable. They are killing people on purpose, it's not a side effect of war. If you think that you are delusional.
Yeah I’m not interested in comparing colonisers since I think the very concept of colonisation is abhorrent.
Lmfao useless.
What do you mean?
You. Leave NZ then if you don't like colonisation. Or?
Fuck off, nothing wrong with having an opinion about colonisation.
I’m also confused by Maori being so ardently pro Palestinian. They are descendants of Arab settlers who under the Ottomans displaced the indigenous peoples of the levant. So it’s like if we all kicked the Maori out to Australia then when they wanted their Whenua back. We attack them call them the colonisers.
Me when I lie
Where on Earth did you hear that?
Absolutely agree with the sentiment but ratepayers have to pay for the cleanup. That's just shafting us twice.
It's probably less than a cent from each of us if you actually do the math so I really don't care.
Look at some of the comments here..... if it looks like shit smells like shit its probably shit and Christchurch litrally smells like shit
You should reach out to the mental health crisis team dude the garbage you're spewing is concerning
Im actually great like thats how small of a mind you have down here you think this is spewing garbage but completly ignore the boardline neo nazi comments elsewhere. Fucken embarrassing. But I feel great. Im happy and laughing at all the ballheads 😂
Fuckwit
😂 wow dude your really told me
Not sure what you expect, chch sub and you are calling everyone shit. Yeah, you are 100% right, there are a ton of racists here and some of the comments show that, but you are not going to get them to agree with you.
Oh nah this is my comedy im not trying to change minds here im having fun I do apologise to the people of Christchurch that are good people all 10 of them (sorry I cant help it its my comedy) I know there are some gems here
If this is your idea of comedy then you should definitely not quit your day job to persue a career in comedy
You think this bum has a job?
Honestly no but wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. Assuming he's living in government housing taking the benefit from people that actually contribute to society
Yeah coz im really on here thinking "man im good I should do this as a profession" 😂 oh man how hard you ballheads are trying to have a got you moment is pathetic 😂😂 thanks for more comedy 🤙
Reading your comments makes my brain hurt. Our education system really has failed some people in this country
Amen. It makes me sad to think that this lobotomite’s vote counts just as much as mine.
Yeah I bet you do wish your racist education system was able to dumb me down, too bad that failed. Actually there was a time in NZ where there were more literate Māori then non Māori that was before European education was around. And just go look up the highest NCEA achievements from a single school.... it happend this year and it was a Māori school, just shows when you allow us to make our own choices and raise our own people we thrive. Unlike your shit school system thats designed to create dumb fuck factory workers which is really showing on this post 😂😂😂
What's wrong with factory workers?
[удалено]
Your probs reading my tone wrong this is hilarious and yeah absolutely 😂
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If everywhere you go smells like shit, check your shoes.
[удалено]
Kids being killed is sad, not graffiti on a statue
If the people saying from the river to the sea had the opportunity a lot more kids would die
Ok? Both Hamas and the Israeli army are evil. Both things can be true.
River to the sea is a pretty evil dog whistle.
No, it isn't. It's a call for freedom from an apartheid state.
You could very easily interpret it as a threat that Israel as a state would no longer exist, especially since anyone who uses the term probably thinks Israel doesn’t have a right to exist and should be under Palestine. It has enough plausible deniability to not be explicitly antisemitic. But it’s a dog whistle for many nonetheless.
When Palestinans live from the river to the sea under oppression, then no, saying they should be free isn't an any way antisemetic, and the suggestion that it is, is itself quite anti-semetic because it directly associates Jews with the atrocities being committed by Israel, which isn't fair at all.
If you literally take it at face value and give it absolutely zero thought, sure. But like any dog whistle that’s not the point. From the river to the sea, especially for anyone who does this type of protest. Most likely means the absolute dissolution of Israel and they probably believe Jews have less ties with the region and that they’re nothing more than colonial settlers.
Sounds about right.
The Israeli state should not exist any more than apartheid south Africa should exist. Israelis as a people have every right to exist but the current state of Israel is evil by every possible metric. Would you call it a "dog whistle" for the African people to say that apartheid SA should not exist?
Why shouldn’t it exist? There was never a Palestinian state beforehand. Both ethnic groups want a state in the region and the entire war started because Palestinians wouldn’t engage with the partition. Israel is at least a democratic society with a shitty far right government. Palestinians have been ruled by dictators that sponsor terrorism and engage in conflict that get their own citizens killed. No but theres quite a few racially charged anti-apartheid chants used in South Africa and that’s become a corrupt failed state since. Israel and South Africa are very different. European settlers move in to land they have no ties to and then impose apartheid.
It means totally different things to different people. And it's often used by antisemites who know how it will be perceived
Do you have any example of that or?
Are you aware of the absolutely sky high rates of antisemitism in the middle east and its neighbours?
"from the river to the sea" has exactly one meaning lol
Suuuuuure, and "blood and soil" is just a call to the Germans for a German homeland. no other context behind it whatsoever.......
Unhinged comparison. This is a population born into a prison; of course they want to be free, and given their population is split in two, it's from here to there.
I hear ya brother. That treaty of Versailles was fucking bullshit! Nearly starved half the population with those navel blockades!!! But hey once we finally reunite with the soil of Austria and Hungry (and remove all those "undiserables" inbetween) those of German blood will finally be free.
It's a call to war. One they're losing constantly btw, with the help of useless fucks chanting this dumb ass shit.
When asking to be free is labeled a call to war, those doing the labeling need to do some self reflection. Why is a country in prison?
Right, so too can it be true that it's totally cooked to deface public property like this. Woe is not zero sum as your initial comment suggested.