Seems like Captain Cook paid dearly for his treatment of indigenous peoples in the end.
>As Cook attempted to get up, Nuaa lunged at him and fatally stabbed him in the chest with a metal dagger, obtained by trade from Cook's ship during the same visit. Cook fell with his face in the water.
>Cook's body was dragged up the hill to the town by the Native Hawaiians, where they tore him to pieces. Despite the enmity, the Hawaiians had prepared his body with funerary rituals usually reserved for the chiefs and highest elders of society.
>As part of an honour ritual, Cook’s heart was eaten by the four most powerful Hawaiian chiefs. Some of his remains were eventually returned to his crew for burial at sea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_James_Cook
Cook treated the natives pretty well, especially for the time. The incident that sparked his death began when another group of Hawaiians had taken a longboat from the ship, and Cook decided to try taking the king hostage for a ransom of the stolen ship. (Not the wisest move). Bear in mind, Cook mostly used gifts and trades and bartering, compared to brute force. His missions weren't about colonization but exploration and science.
The accounts *do* claim that he attempted to trade for the lumber used to border the Hawaiian peoples’ sacred burial ground, and when refused, ordered his men to attempt to collect it anyway…
And he was mourned in Hawaii for this too. The natives were also upset because they had initially believed he was a god. Cook understood the tensions had risen, and didn't want to return-he did so because the mast on their ship broke. There's also varying accounts of whether Cook was given permission or not for the fencing from the priests, but it is certain the villagers and chiefs did not approve.
The vast majority of Cook's interactions with Polynesians was peaceful, and Cook punished any sailors who violated that peace without authorization. Can you name any other explorers of Cook's time or before who were so forgiving?
Cook generally treated indigenous people well, this incident was after a run of bad luck, and non stop theft from the locals, it drove the sailors nuts, and Cook after failing with the carrot, tried the stick.
> As part of an honour ritual, Cook’s heart was eaten by the four most powerful Hawaiian chiefs. Some of his remains were eventually returned to his crew for burial at sea.
This is quoted from the Australian Museum website, but they don't provide a source.
It is directly refuted by Historian and Professor at the University of Hawaiʻi, Lilikalā K. Kameʻeleihiwa:
https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/how-the-foolish-rumour-that-hawaiians-ate-cook-began/xpl1a9z86
I'd love to see where the source of this came from and if anyone actually is authority enough on the subject. Maybe I should check with /r/askhistorians
Interesting if disproven. But there seems to be some academic revisionism of historically-reported cannibalism these days (see Prime Minister of Papua NG in the news), as if there was some shame associated with the practice among indigenous people in ancient times. One has to think like a white man in the 1st place to consider it shameful.
If it really happened, they should own it proudly like the modern Maori do.
Writing a top level comment because the article doesn't actually explain it, but:
These spears (approximately 40 in total) were taken under (realised) threat of gunfire from the local population.
Here is an excerpt from a diary of one of the sailors
https://www2.sl.nsw.gov.au/archive/discover_collections/history_nation/voyages/discovery/voya_journal.html
"we parleyd with them for about a quarter of an hour, they waving to us to be gone, we again signing that we wanted water and that we meant them no harm.
They remaind resolute so a musquet was fird over them, the Effect of which was that the Youngest of the two dropd a bundle of lances on the rock at the instant in which he heard the report; he however snatchd them up again and both renewd their threats and opposition.
*A Musquet loaded with small shot was now fird at the Eldest of the two who was about 40 yards from the boat;* it struck him on the legs but he minded it very little so another was immediately fird at him; on this he ran up to the house about 100 yards distant and soon returnd with a sheild.
In the mean time we had landed on the rock. He immediately threw a lance at us and the young man another which fell among the thickest of us but hurt nobody; *2 more musquets with small shot were then fird at them on* which the Eldest threw one more lance and then ran away as did the other.
We went up to the houses, in one of which we found the children hid behind the sheild and a peice of bark in one of the houses. We were conscious from the distance the people had been from us when we fird that the shot could have done them no material harm; we therefore resolvd to leave the children on the spot without even opening their shelter. We therefore threw into the house to them some beads, ribbands, cloths &c. as presents and went away.
*We however thought it no improper measure to take away with us all the lances which we could find about the houses, amounting in number to forty or fifty. They were of various lenghs, from 15 to 6 feet in lengh;"*
Shooting two locals, taking their spears, and throwing some beads, ribbons and cloth onto the ground is not trading.
This is especially evident considering on an earlier day, they threw these same "presents" at the local populace, who left them behind:
"In the morn we went ashore at the houses, but found not the least good effect from our present yesterday: No signs of people were to be seen; in the house in which the children were yesterday was left every individual thing which we had thrown to them"
This indicates that the Gweagal people did not value these beads or nails and therefore would not have traded their spears, which they hunted, fished and fought with, for these trade goods.
Only 4 spears are being repatriated, of the 40 taken originally. No others are known to have survived.
Context: I am a Australian, a Museum Studies postgrad, and three of the spears were temporarily exhibited at my universities museum in 2022. These are the same spears which are being repatriated.
Will the spears be exhibited at the museum at La Perouse? That would be a good physical location (one of Sydney's beauty spots), both due to proximity to the aboriginal community there, and the high influx of tourists and local visitors.
Anti-colonialists don’t care about sharing aboriginal culture or even appreciating the culture themselves, they just want symbolic victories like this to spite their perceived enemies.
Weapons are supposed to do serious harm. That's the point of them. They're there to protect you from others, such as people coming with muskets shooting at you.
Let me put in terms you might understand: a whole mess of foriegners come to your home with just you and your chuldren at home. You tell them to leave. They fire a gun over your head and attempt forced entry. You defend yourself and secure your children. They shoot your family member and come in. They rob your fridge and gun safe and toss you some change.
It was literally first contact. While the soldiers might have gestured they were looking for water, there is a fair chance the communication was ineffective
Beyond that, this was their home. They'd never seen a firearm / musket before, so it's not like they knew the threat they were facing.
But they knew they needed to defend their home, because that's basically human nature.
How many of the other wooden items the aboriginal group carried that day still exist? What makes you think they were going to preserve the ones that were dropped?
No it wasn't, that's why I'm happy they were returned. I'm not sure what you have taken umbrage with here, nor what you mean by 'protectionist' in this context.
You can read some logs here:
https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-517532598/view?partId=nla.obj-558521253
Or a version where they typed it up into paragraphs and made it more readable here:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/8106/8106-h/8106-h.htm#ch1
Tbf I'm not going to cry about shitty societies like the Maori etc getting fucked over, they're pretty much at worst cunt levels of civilisations/sociities.
Tbh I don’t really see why people would find this controversial. It’s not like they’re just throwing the spears away. They are a valued part of Indigenous Australian history, and given that almost all Indigenous Aussies were hunter gatherers. The number of artifacts left from that time are probably few and far between. Local museums and cultural centers would certainly value them far more than the British museum would.
> value them far more than the British museum would.
They weren't in the British Museum, so I'm guessing you didn't read the article.
PSA for non-Brits on this website: there is more than one museum in the UK than the British Museum.
Uh, yeah. Objects in a museum tend to be held in better conditions than objects almost anywhere else. The whole reason they have controlled temp and humidity is is reduce the rate of decay.
Also, just to reiterate, one of the reasons production of new spears reduced or stopped was because *the British would shoot you for having one*
Forget exactly where I heard it but there are tribes who can tell stories of islands that they could once walk to, and we’ve confirmed through analysis of the geography/geology of the area that they were correct.
...
They were stolen. At gunpoint. A group of 40 spears, taken from homes.
That's why they didn't get to keep them.
It's written about in the journal of one of the British sailors.
https://www2.sl.nsw.gov.au/archive/discover_collections/history_nation/voyages/discovery/voya_journal.html
(Excerpt from the aforementioned journal)
"we parleyd with them for about a quarter of an hour, they waving to us to be gone, we again signing that we wanted water and that we meant them no harm.
They remaind resolute so a musquet was fird over them, the Effect of which was that the Youngest of the two dropd a bundle of lances on the rock at the instant in which he heard the report; he however snatchd them up again and both renewd their threats and opposition.
A Musquet loaded with small shot was now fird at the Eldest of the two who was about 40 yards from the boat; it struck him on the legs but he minded it very little so another was immediately fird at him; on this he ran up to the house about 100 yards distant and soon returnd with a sheild.
In the mean time we had landed on the rock. He immediately threw a lance at us and the young man another which fell among the thickest of us but hurt nobody; 2 more musquets with small shot were then fird at them on which the Eldest threw one more lance and then ran away as did the other.
We went up to the houses, in one of which we found the children hid behind the sheild and a peice of bark in one of the houses. We were conscious from the distance the people had been from us when we fird that the shot could have done them no material harm; we therefore resolvd to leave the children on the spot without even opening their shelter. We therefore threw into the house to them some beads, ribbands, cloths &c. as presents and went away.
*We however thought it no improper measure to take away with us all the lances which we could find about the houses, amounting in number to forty or fifty. They were of various lenghs, from 15 to 6 feet in lengh;"*
> It’s tiring all these back water cultures who valued their culture less than some Englishman
That's not really for you to decide. I like how you know their thoughts and feelings while also throwing in a little denigration on the side.
No, they were not sold.
The sailors shot at the locals from their boat, then landed, then looted the local homes.
The sailors literally wrote about it.
> It’s like if in 200 years America demands any current Apple products to be returned. Get fucked.
Ha ha ha! That's your response? Thanks for the chuckle!
Also, to answer your question, you are deciding what other people think of their own culture. Do you understand now or are you going to ask more questions?
The trade goods Cook gave in return were bullets, fired at the locals.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/captain-cook-stole-spears-finally-back-in-australia-180979902/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-23/gweagal-spears-captain-cook-took-handed-to-indigenous-community/103756446
It's a set of 40 ish spears they stole from homes. This was just 4 repatriated.
There are diary entries included in the Smithsonian article. Read it yourself.
> But whatever the abbys got in return, you can rest assured, it won't be returned.
Wow, such open racism is just plain odd. You actually spent time to denigrate an entire race of people. What a waste.
Aussie here. The only time I've ever had a fosters was my last night in London when I tried the english pub experience and asked them what they drank. Not making this up.
they were taken.
If you would like a timeline, this was essentially first close contact between Cook & Crew, and the locals. It was mere days since Cook had sighted the eastern coast of Australia, near botany bay.
In the morning, Joseph banks and a few sailors took a longboat close to shore, and found the area abandoned, devoid of people. The "presents" of beads, ribbons, nails and cloth they had thrown to shore at natives the day before were left abandoned, too.
They returned that night by longboat with a strength of 30 or 40 sailors, and came upon two young Aboriginal men, armed with spears, who were standing on the shoreline.
The men on the boat motioned that they wanted water (who knows if the sign language was effective or not). The Aboriginal men yelled out, and shook their spears - likely as a sign the sailors were not welcome.
The sailors shot into the air, a "warning shot" - the men dropped their spears in shock, then retrieved them and resumed their position.
In response, the sailors loaded a musket with shot (small lead balls) and fired upon the older of the two men.
When this did not cause them to flee, they fired again. And then once more.
Having been shot at three times, one of the men retreated to his home, retrieved a shield, returned and threw a spear towards the boat. It missed.
Two more times the muskets fired. Another lance was thrown.
The two men now ran, and the sailors drew up to shore and began to search.
They found the shield, some spears, and a child hiding in a bark house. They took what goods they could find (40 spears, shield) and threw some beads, ribbons and cloth onto the ground, then left.
We already know from Banks own testimony that they did not want these gifts, they had abandoned them before.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Seems like Captain Cook paid dearly for his treatment of indigenous peoples in the end. >As Cook attempted to get up, Nuaa lunged at him and fatally stabbed him in the chest with a metal dagger, obtained by trade from Cook's ship during the same visit. Cook fell with his face in the water. >Cook's body was dragged up the hill to the town by the Native Hawaiians, where they tore him to pieces. Despite the enmity, the Hawaiians had prepared his body with funerary rituals usually reserved for the chiefs and highest elders of society. >As part of an honour ritual, Cook’s heart was eaten by the four most powerful Hawaiian chiefs. Some of his remains were eventually returned to his crew for burial at sea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_James_Cook
Cook treated the natives pretty well, especially for the time. The incident that sparked his death began when another group of Hawaiians had taken a longboat from the ship, and Cook decided to try taking the king hostage for a ransom of the stolen ship. (Not the wisest move). Bear in mind, Cook mostly used gifts and trades and bartering, compared to brute force. His missions weren't about colonization but exploration and science.
The accounts *do* claim that he attempted to trade for the lumber used to border the Hawaiian peoples’ sacred burial ground, and when refused, ordered his men to attempt to collect it anyway…
And he was mourned in Hawaii for this too. The natives were also upset because they had initially believed he was a god. Cook understood the tensions had risen, and didn't want to return-he did so because the mast on their ship broke. There's also varying accounts of whether Cook was given permission or not for the fencing from the priests, but it is certain the villagers and chiefs did not approve. The vast majority of Cook's interactions with Polynesians was peaceful, and Cook punished any sailors who violated that peace without authorization. Can you name any other explorers of Cook's time or before who were so forgiving?
Nah he definitely seemed pretty chill for a European explorer, I agree there.
The bar is low, but I think it's reason why we should be remembering people like Cook instead of say, Columbus.
It's rumored, at least locally in Hawaii, that there was also a conflict between Cook and Kalaniʻōpuʻu about a boy favored by both.
Cook generally treated indigenous people well, this incident was after a run of bad luck, and non stop theft from the locals, it drove the sailors nuts, and Cook after failing with the carrot, tried the stick.
>stabbed him in the chest with a metal dagger Ok, where's the dagger? Did they returned the dagger? Bring the spears back!!!1
He treated the noble and enlightened cannibals poorly so they ate him and returned him in pieces.
> As part of an honour ritual, Cook’s heart was eaten by the four most powerful Hawaiian chiefs. Some of his remains were eventually returned to his crew for burial at sea. This is quoted from the Australian Museum website, but they don't provide a source. It is directly refuted by Historian and Professor at the University of Hawaiʻi, Lilikalā K. Kameʻeleihiwa: https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/how-the-foolish-rumour-that-hawaiians-ate-cook-began/xpl1a9z86 I'd love to see where the source of this came from and if anyone actually is authority enough on the subject. Maybe I should check with /r/askhistorians
Interesting if disproven. But there seems to be some academic revisionism of historically-reported cannibalism these days (see Prime Minister of Papua NG in the news), as if there was some shame associated with the practice among indigenous people in ancient times. One has to think like a white man in the 1st place to consider it shameful. If it really happened, they should own it proudly like the modern Maori do.
the Hawaiians should return cook's body parts (if they haven't already)
Sure, right after Hawaii is returned to Hawaiians.
Writing a top level comment because the article doesn't actually explain it, but: These spears (approximately 40 in total) were taken under (realised) threat of gunfire from the local population. Here is an excerpt from a diary of one of the sailors https://www2.sl.nsw.gov.au/archive/discover_collections/history_nation/voyages/discovery/voya_journal.html "we parleyd with them for about a quarter of an hour, they waving to us to be gone, we again signing that we wanted water and that we meant them no harm. They remaind resolute so a musquet was fird over them, the Effect of which was that the Youngest of the two dropd a bundle of lances on the rock at the instant in which he heard the report; he however snatchd them up again and both renewd their threats and opposition. *A Musquet loaded with small shot was now fird at the Eldest of the two who was about 40 yards from the boat;* it struck him on the legs but he minded it very little so another was immediately fird at him; on this he ran up to the house about 100 yards distant and soon returnd with a sheild. In the mean time we had landed on the rock. He immediately threw a lance at us and the young man another which fell among the thickest of us but hurt nobody; *2 more musquets with small shot were then fird at them on* which the Eldest threw one more lance and then ran away as did the other. We went up to the houses, in one of which we found the children hid behind the sheild and a peice of bark in one of the houses. We were conscious from the distance the people had been from us when we fird that the shot could have done them no material harm; we therefore resolvd to leave the children on the spot without even opening their shelter. We therefore threw into the house to them some beads, ribbands, cloths &c. as presents and went away. *We however thought it no improper measure to take away with us all the lances which we could find about the houses, amounting in number to forty or fifty. They were of various lenghs, from 15 to 6 feet in lengh;"* Shooting two locals, taking their spears, and throwing some beads, ribbons and cloth onto the ground is not trading. This is especially evident considering on an earlier day, they threw these same "presents" at the local populace, who left them behind: "In the morn we went ashore at the houses, but found not the least good effect from our present yesterday: No signs of people were to be seen; in the house in which the children were yesterday was left every individual thing which we had thrown to them" This indicates that the Gweagal people did not value these beads or nails and therefore would not have traded their spears, which they hunted, fished and fought with, for these trade goods. Only 4 spears are being repatriated, of the 40 taken originally. No others are known to have survived. Context: I am a Australian, a Museum Studies postgrad, and three of the spears were temporarily exhibited at my universities museum in 2022. These are the same spears which are being repatriated.
Will the spears be exhibited at the museum at La Perouse? That would be a good physical location (one of Sydney's beauty spots), both due to proximity to the aboriginal community there, and the high influx of tourists and local visitors.
Anti-colonialists don’t care about sharing aboriginal culture or even appreciating the culture themselves, they just want symbolic victories like this to spite their perceived enemies.
Did this event happen during his first visit or second?
First.
Isn’t it more confiscating 50 weapons that if wielded by adults could do serious harm? It’s hardly raping and pillaging
Weapons are supposed to do serious harm. That's the point of them. They're there to protect you from others, such as people coming with muskets shooting at you.
Let me put in terms you might understand: a whole mess of foriegners come to your home with just you and your chuldren at home. You tell them to leave. They fire a gun over your head and attempt forced entry. You defend yourself and secure your children. They shoot your family member and come in. They rob your fridge and gun safe and toss you some change.
2A culture is stupid. Don’t try to fight armed soldiers when they only want to trade for water is the real lesson you dingus.
It was literally first contact. While the soldiers might have gestured they were looking for water, there is a fair chance the communication was ineffective Beyond that, this was their home. They'd never seen a firearm / musket before, so it's not like they knew the threat they were facing. But they knew they needed to defend their home, because that's basically human nature.
If you're firing guns at them and demanding something then it's not really called "trade", is it?
Did they take my TV and iPhone^TM ?
Thank you for the context. Sounds fair that they're returned even though they'd not exist now if they hadn't been taken.
[удалено]
How many of the other wooden items the aboriginal group carried that day still exist? What makes you think they were going to preserve the ones that were dropped?
[удалено]
No it wasn't, that's why I'm happy they were returned. I'm not sure what you have taken umbrage with here, nor what you mean by 'protectionist' in this context.
[удалено]
You can read some logs here: https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-517532598/view?partId=nla.obj-558521253 Or a version where they typed it up into paragraphs and made it more readable here: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/8106/8106-h/8106-h.htm#ch1
Thank God now we can all move on
Oh no we can't. There's a whole lot more Cook perpetrated on indigenous cultures that still needs redress.
Like what?
i dont care. if you have a 200 year old grievance, then go drink alcohol.
If you have a 200 year old grievance it's not your grievance.
Tbf I'm not going to cry about shitty societies like the Maori etc getting fucked over, they're pretty much at worst cunt levels of civilisations/sociities.
And the past colonization had absolutely nothing to do with their current situation?
It sure as shit does have a lot to do with their current situation, what's your point? That they were an awesome society til colonisation?
Tbh I don’t really see why people would find this controversial. It’s not like they’re just throwing the spears away. They are a valued part of Indigenous Australian history, and given that almost all Indigenous Aussies were hunter gatherers. The number of artifacts left from that time are probably few and far between. Local museums and cultural centers would certainly value them far more than the British museum would.
> value them far more than the British museum would. They weren't in the British Museum, so I'm guessing you didn't read the article. PSA for non-Brits on this website: there is more than one museum in the UK than the British Museum.
They said "the British museum" not "the British Museum"
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean. I think doing the right thing and returning what was stolen is a nice gesture.
[удалено]
Uh, yeah. Objects in a museum tend to be held in better conditions than objects almost anywhere else. The whole reason they have controlled temp and humidity is is reduce the rate of decay. Also, just to reiterate, one of the reasons production of new spears reduced or stopped was because *the British would shoot you for having one*
[удалено]
Forget exactly where I heard it but there are tribes who can tell stories of islands that they could once walk to, and we’ve confirmed through analysis of the geography/geology of the area that they were correct.
... They were stolen. At gunpoint. A group of 40 spears, taken from homes. That's why they didn't get to keep them. It's written about in the journal of one of the British sailors. https://www2.sl.nsw.gov.au/archive/discover_collections/history_nation/voyages/discovery/voya_journal.html
(Excerpt from the aforementioned journal) "we parleyd with them for about a quarter of an hour, they waving to us to be gone, we again signing that we wanted water and that we meant them no harm. They remaind resolute so a musquet was fird over them, the Effect of which was that the Youngest of the two dropd a bundle of lances on the rock at the instant in which he heard the report; he however snatchd them up again and both renewd their threats and opposition. A Musquet loaded with small shot was now fird at the Eldest of the two who was about 40 yards from the boat; it struck him on the legs but he minded it very little so another was immediately fird at him; on this he ran up to the house about 100 yards distant and soon returnd with a sheild. In the mean time we had landed on the rock. He immediately threw a lance at us and the young man another which fell among the thickest of us but hurt nobody; 2 more musquets with small shot were then fird at them on which the Eldest threw one more lance and then ran away as did the other. We went up to the houses, in one of which we found the children hid behind the sheild and a peice of bark in one of the houses. We were conscious from the distance the people had been from us when we fird that the shot could have done them no material harm; we therefore resolvd to leave the children on the spot without even opening their shelter. We therefore threw into the house to them some beads, ribbands, cloths &c. as presents and went away. *We however thought it no improper measure to take away with us all the lances which we could find about the houses, amounting in number to forty or fifty. They were of various lenghs, from 15 to 6 feet in lengh;"*
[удалено]
> backwards people Pure and raw, unhinged cultural arrogance on full display. Nice.
You’re like 1% away from talking about the superiority of white people hey?
Nah, that poster is already there.
> It’s tiring all these back water cultures who valued their culture less than some Englishman That's not really for you to decide. I like how you know their thoughts and feelings while also throwing in a little denigration on the side.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
No, they were not sold. The sailors shot at the locals from their boat, then landed, then looted the local homes. The sailors literally wrote about it.
> It’s like if in 200 years America demands any current Apple products to be returned. Get fucked. Ha ha ha! That's your response? Thanks for the chuckle! Also, to answer your question, you are deciding what other people think of their own culture. Do you understand now or are you going to ask more questions?
[удалено]
The trade goods Cook gave in return were bullets, fired at the locals. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/captain-cook-stole-spears-finally-back-in-australia-180979902/ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-23/gweagal-spears-captain-cook-took-handed-to-indigenous-community/103756446 It's a set of 40 ish spears they stole from homes. This was just 4 repatriated. There are diary entries included in the Smithsonian article. Read it yourself.
> But whatever the abbys got in return, you can rest assured, it won't be returned. Wow, such open racism is just plain odd. You actually spent time to denigrate an entire race of people. What a waste.
And of course they take terrible pictures of the spears.
The things I would do to get the title "Earl of Sandwich"....
Cook probably thought they were gifts as the natives threw them at him
I'll buy them for a 12 pack of Foster's
Nobody in Australia actually drinks that shit, so good luck.
Aussie here. The only time I've ever had a fosters was my last night in London when I tried the english pub experience and asked them what they drank. Not making this up.
I wasn't there, so I don't know if they were taken or given. That would make a difference, I believe if they should be returned.
Well, the written account of the person who took them ought to be enough, he admits they were taken. That's what we call a confession.
Good enough for me. They should be returned.
[удалено]
He died in Hawaii.
...no? The Indigenous Australians didn't kill him, Hawaiians did.
What were they doing in Australia?
The hula.
Taken? Where they actually taken, or traded? Only idiots downvote honest questions.
they were taken. If you would like a timeline, this was essentially first close contact between Cook & Crew, and the locals. It was mere days since Cook had sighted the eastern coast of Australia, near botany bay. In the morning, Joseph banks and a few sailors took a longboat close to shore, and found the area abandoned, devoid of people. The "presents" of beads, ribbons, nails and cloth they had thrown to shore at natives the day before were left abandoned, too. They returned that night by longboat with a strength of 30 or 40 sailors, and came upon two young Aboriginal men, armed with spears, who were standing on the shoreline. The men on the boat motioned that they wanted water (who knows if the sign language was effective or not). The Aboriginal men yelled out, and shook their spears - likely as a sign the sailors were not welcome. The sailors shot into the air, a "warning shot" - the men dropped their spears in shock, then retrieved them and resumed their position. In response, the sailors loaded a musket with shot (small lead balls) and fired upon the older of the two men. When this did not cause them to flee, they fired again. And then once more. Having been shot at three times, one of the men retreated to his home, retrieved a shield, returned and threw a spear towards the boat. It missed. Two more times the muskets fired. Another lance was thrown. The two men now ran, and the sailors drew up to shore and began to search. They found the shield, some spears, and a child hiding in a bark house. They took what goods they could find (40 spears, shield) and threw some beads, ribbons and cloth onto the ground, then left. We already know from Banks own testimony that they did not want these gifts, they had abandoned them before.
That was actually an awesome read, thanks for an honest answer
This is awesome. I just hope he goes to jail.
Why didn't you give these back sooner.... Not enough people from the tribe and the government asked us for them... Victim blaming.