Youtube comments of (@heroesandlegends).
-
328
-
217
-
56
-
38
-
38
-
33
-
31
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
I think you make some good points. He certainly had his flaws, which is only human. Psychologically we could say he was task oriented, consciencious, perfectionistic, yet also outcome driven, willing to assume both risk and command. Traits commonly referred to in the DISC system of personality analysis as a Blue/Red (C/D) combination. The episode with Johansen troubled him for many years, and in his book he nevertheless had much praise for him generally (something you don't see in narcissists). In "The South Pole" Ch9 he doesn't even discuss the conflict, only casually stating that circumstances necessitated the formation of 2 teams - with no explanation as to why Johansen would be in the other one, or why he was subordinated to Prestrud (though to be fair, Prestrud was a ranking officer). See the website for uploads of his books. In his journal (published by Huntford) the Sept 20 entry is also cryptic about his exchange with Johansen, but Bjaaland tells the entire exchange in his own journal entry, which is where we get a full account. My take on this is that both privately, as well as publicly, Amundsen was very restrained in discussing the unfortunate rebuke/punishment, unlike Scott for example, who pulled no punches when criticising his men. As in Scott's case though, its easy to view any of these behavioural traits in a qualitative, binary way, and even attach perjorative labels such as "narcissistic", of which there is no doubt that some manifests in all of us at cetain times (particularly high stress ones, when our authority is continually undermined by a subordinate). We could also view Amundsen's behaviour in terms of his failure to fulfill his mother's university dreams- he may have been compensating for that guilt too. His refusal to bring along a doctor on his expeditions also suggests some issues there, which Huntford also alluded to in his own books. As you intuitively suggest, perhaps celebrity also went to his head, for which he certainly paid a heavy price in the due course of time. Like many high achievers, his life was unbalanced, and that seems to be the price that life demands of them. Thanks so much for sharing your perspective- i always enjoy reading thoughtful points of view.
7
-
7
-
7
-
@gerrys6265 I take your point- but would like to point out that the current egotistical victors are rewriting history as it suits them too. True enough if Polynesians, Aboriginals and Maori had mastered the technology to sail to Europe, and had a writing system to document it accurately, we would all be in their orbit, as were the many tribes that they themselves conquered in their own Sphere of ability (which they all recount in their own oral and myth history). Somehow there is a pervasive myth that they were innocent and gentle, when they were in fact much like anyone else, limited only by their technology. So yes, victors write what they want and the truth lies buried somewhere within that- I think I tried to deal fairly with that issue. In so far as the Chinese are concerned- the only reason you know about Zhang Hr is because we Western scholars are fascinated by the achievements of everyone, not just our own. Hr was the exception in an otherwise insular society that spent centuries paranoically warding off hordes of invaders from the interior. Hr's journey, while epic, was nowhere near the scale or challenge of Cook's 3x circumnavigations, and his maps were orders of magnitude poorer than Cook's own.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Yes, the medieval warm period may well have made life more tolerable for the 1-2 degrees celsius average increase - which would have also been the case in Iceland. I talk about that a bit in my Jan Hus video. But to assume it was a myth ignores the source material (sagas), and the reality that any agriculture would have been quite limited to sheltered valleys. My understanding of the research as it currently stands is that the animal husbandry and crops were very limited and not adequate to sustain a colony on their own merits, with barely enough fodder grown, such that they needed to herd goats rather than their preferred livestock of sheep. As for the human population, a complete dependency on marine sustenance was required.
Of course, as usual in my videos, I like to have a bit of fun, and sometimes exaggerate the situation for the sake of humour (i.e. the blade of grass comment), but there can be no doubt that the settlers were upset at having been sold a lemon and then had little choice but to make the best of it, particularly when the situation back in Iceland was somewhat worse (vis a vis the epidemic that eventually made its way to Greenland too). Thanks for watching, and I appreciate your contribution to the story.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Thanks for your support, and the enquiry- the other channel is Triarius Project- a channel that i started a few years ago as a support for divorced dads, on which i first published the Hospitaller video, and the Hercules video (albeit with a personal development twist). The former video was quite popular, and i so enjoyed making it, that i was motivated to create this channel, which gives me a creative outlet, and no end of pleasure to research. It seems to have resonated with a few people too, so i now spend all my spare time here rather than the other channel. I suppose most of what i had to say on that platform has been said, so i dont give it anywhere near the attention i do this one. Its funny how life takes you on a journey of twists and turns to a destination completely different from the one you set out on. But here we are, and I hope you derive some benefit from both of them.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@markaxworthy2508 I certainly don't believe I paint Napoleon as a good guy- I addressed his euthanasia of troops in Palestine, as well as the slavery issue quite comprehensively. He was as you say, brilliant, but also significantly flawed, and completely Macchiavellian for which I tried to offer some ideas, as well as context. The truth is he was not a conquering megalomaniac in the sense of Alexander or Caesar. Almost all of his European campaigns were punitive, and the result of relentless assaults by paranoid monarchies- who were no less violent, treacherous or maniacal than he was- breaking every single treaty they made. His Levant campaign was an audacious attempt at cutting off the British, and again, as you say, there is plenty of material on the failures of that misadventure. Even compared to his own republican leadership that instigated the Great Terror, he was hardly an outlier in brutality, but he is usually depicted as an irrational monster, as compared to virtually everyone else in Europe at the time- which is clearly false, but rarely acknowledged. It's within that context that I wanted to present the video. It's certainly not an apologia ad hominem.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
There is some debate among historians about whether Eric the Red lied about the state of Greenland to attract more settlers. According to the Icelandic sagas, which are the main source of information about Eric the Red, he named the land "Greenland" in order to make it sound more attractive to potential settlers, who might be put off by the harsh Arctic climate. Some historians argue that this suggests that Eric was lying about the state of the land and that it was actually much less hospitable than he portrayed it to be.
However, other historians argue that Eric was not necessarily lying, but rather exaggerating the fertility of certain parts of Greenland, particularly the southwestern coast where he founded his settlement. They point to evidence of farming and animal husbandry in this region, as well as the fact that Norse settlements persisted in Greenland for several centuries, as evidence that the land was not entirely inhospitable.
Ultimately, the truth about whether Eric the Red lied about the state of Greenland is difficult to determine with certainty, as the historical record is limited and subject to interpretation. However, it is clear that he was successful in attracting settlers to the land, and that Norse communities did manage to thrive there for a time, despite the challenges of the Arctic climate.
My use of humorous language exaggerates the truth - I will admit, but is always based on factual source material - such as the sagas themselves.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
All very excellent points, and plausible. There's just one problem. There isn't a shred of evidence to support them. Nobody ever mentioned, wrote or substantiated the notion of Shakespeare's hanging around a pub, where you would expect him to have become quite the local celebrity, like so many others were. More so, a lawyer's watering hole where there was both the literacy and motivation to correspond with one another. Such a genius loitering around and interviewing lawyers for months if not years on end might have prompted a note, journal entry or news article among a fraternity almost pathologically inclined to do so. And this is where the established position is rather disingenuous as far as I'm concerned. Their arguments are always peppered with phrases containing "must have, may have, likely, probably, certainly, undoubtedly, obviously, etc." despite the complete lack of any real material evidence to support those assertions. The "conspiracy theorists" (which in my world of dispassionate science are simply referred to as "alternative hypothesis proponents") have numerous, nay, countless theories of their own, and fair enough, many of them are quite preposterous and lacking in evidence too. But there are a couple which present intriguing arguments, and these need to be treated on their merits, not on their discomfort. My position is as an interested outsider and I presented what I saw as serious flaws and ex cathedra arrogance in the prevailing arguments. There are significant criticisms that are being dismissed using (plausible) conjecture that actually itself ought to be better substantiated.
FWIW, I've included links in the description section to a number of videos both pro and con, and will try to add one for the mcKellen video you suggested. Thanks for contributing to the conversation, I honestly do appreciate it and as you rightly point out, viewers should try to explore further before accepting my conclusions.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators I think it's unsurprising that I don't at all agree with you. Virtually every battle he fought was against higher odds, using an exhausted post revolutionary rabble that he almost single handedly reformed into what you describe as the most formidable army in Europe, with generals that, like himself had largely risen through merit, when many of the ancient regime's commanders had ended up on the guillotine. This whole time he held off an incessant external threat from paranoid monarchies who relied on a substantial fifth column and colonial resources, that eventually brought him down. The Russian campaign was a failed punitive action, true enough, but he was defeated by the weather, not superior enemy action, having soundly thrashed the Russians on each occasion (he actually took Moscow). You are correct about Egypt, but his only real military failure was the siege in Palestine. He crushed all other opposition, even when his army had been decimated by the plague. I agree that the campaign itself was ultimately a failure, but he was encouraged to persist in what was essentially a brilliant and audacious plan to cut the British off from their Indian cash cow, by a Parisian elite hoping to sideline him for their own purposes. It wouldn't surprise me if the loss of the Alexandrine fleet was the result of internal betrayal, and he was in any case far more focussed in terrestrial warfare to create a fortress Europe. His Naval commanders should have done their own jobs better. And so far as the peninsular war was concerned, it was only the Russian distraction and transfer of troops that ultimately turned it into a Vietnam scenario, with the haemorrhage of conscripts unable to be replaced at the rate his enemies could. Considering that he basically conquered the entire continent, pitted against every monarchy in Europe besides Norway, your dismissal of his abilities as a commander is at best superficial. There would scarcely be an academic today who would so generally take your position- even in circles that are hostile to his legacy. But history gives us all an opportunity to consider other points of view, and I thank you for sharing yours.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Thanks for that broad, sweeping generalisation of an entire kingdom of people made up of diverse multicultural Celtic, Frisian, Norman, Germanic, Roman, Danish, Scandinavian, Welsh, Scott's, Irish and other ethnic roots; whose monarchy was German. Cook himself was a Scotsman. Hopefully some of my "non-Englishman" videos might appeal more. I suppose you gave me a thumb down then? Ah well. Thanks for watching, even if it wasted your time.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
Actually, he only actively freed one, and though he expressed the desire that his own were freed after his death, he maintained that they should remain slaves till Martha died, so in fact he was having it both ways. A significant number were also technically part of the Custis estate, and so he hadn't the authority to release them personally. One wonders why if, as POTUS, with the clearly expressed desire to do so, he could have pursued the matter to be resolved while he was still alive, rather than keep them in bondage till after his wife died. Its all very well to claim the moral high ground and release and care for slaves after you're gone, but the real test of character is to release them immediately and deal with the economic challenges you will face in doing so. In the end, the vast majority chose to hang on to them as long as they needed them.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@vidbrekalo2919 my understanding of it is that the Royal Society had a number of scurvy cures they wanted to trial, sauerkraut was just one of them. I mention it in the documentary, he carried tons of it because the RS partially financed the voyage and commissioned him to try them all. His personal belief was that fresh food was the key- and he wasn't wrong, it's just that fermented foods create a stable and concentrated source for stowage on long voyages. He was definitely conducting science, not just promoting the interests of British Expansion (on that score, the majority of my critics here engage in the customary Brit bashing, but few actually know that the British were the last colonial power to get a foothold in the Pacific. The Arabs, Chinese, Dutch, Portuguese and French were all over the place and had secured all of the lucrative resource rich lands. All that was left to the Brits was basically Aust and NZ, which they took almost a century to seriously consider developing, and yet somehow they seem to be almost solely demonised while the other powers barely ever get mentioned.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@markaxworthy2508 thanks very much for your considered and well measured reply. On an academic level I agree with you that much has been written on Napoleon from a number of perspectives, both positive and negative- on some level, considerable credit has been paid to him for progressive agendas (which I do mention throughout the video). Indeed there is a wellspring of quality source material otherwise there would be little to include in this video. But it's been my perception (shared in the introduction) that despite the wealth of material evidence, this hasn't translated down to either the media, or general public (as evidenced by the general tone of news reports I showed during the commemoration, and the flavour of much of the commentary on this video- even by people who seem to be reasonably educated). This dichotomy was the prompt for me to do this film. Why is there such a dichotomy between the academic world and the public one? Who knows? A well ingrained propaganda that has seared itself into the collective psyche of ordinary people? An anti EU agenda? Or just historical anti French post colonial sentiment? Whatever the case, I wanted to put this out into a medium that is not typically academic and so bring it to a wider public.
In so far as your speculation on N's motives, I disagree as I've previously written. My view is that from his late teens he was a zealous Jacobin, and throughout his entire career, went to extraordinary lengths to implement their agenda. Does this precludepower going to his head? Of course not, history is too full of examples, so I do take your contention seriously, and certainly don't discount your argument- to a degree.
In so far as his brutality, and callous treatment of soldiers- no doubt he was a serious student of Macchiavelli, as distasteful as that is for us today. The Jacobin ideology and means are well known, and he should be measured in the context of his times and what he was trying to achieve (against almost complete opposition).
Yes, France was populous, but also fractured by civil war, a fifth column and external political intrigue, not to mention a dearth of quality leadership after the purges, exile and executions of the Terror, so it can be difficult to speculate just how easy it would be to muster and use the army and public service effectively. Certainly his reorganisation was revolutionary.
Anyway, it's great to bounce ideas back and forward- we are poor students of history if we can't entertain other possibilities than the ones we assume to be true. You've given me good reason to think a little deeper, and for that you have my thanks!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Thanks for such a considered comment. Stimulating the exchange of ideas in a respectful way is at the heart of all meaningful communication and I thank you for it. My only real issue is with your assertion of what we "need" or don't need moving forward. Discussing the statutes of Hammurabi; Akhenaten's monotheism; or Shaka's revolutionary military reforms in Zululand hardly carry the kind of emotional charge, collateral association or character inflation/assassination that Cook's reputation has been subject to. Instead of more mature reflection, the narrative now seems to be to erase historical figures that don't conform to our present sensibilities and only discuss them in that context. It shouldn't surprise us that despite all of our post enlightenment progressive development, we are fundamentally no different to the ancient Egyptians, Romans or Greeks who cancelled anyone that was deemed unpalatable. Glorifying people is definitely not where we want to be- Cook, as you rightly point out was as human as the rest of us. But instead of tearing down statues, perhaps adding plaques with the full facts, context and consequences would serve as educational to future generations who run the risk of instead of erasing their own entire history. Cook was an extraordinary man, there's no doubt, but he was, like all of us, all too human. Thanks once again for viewing my work and for taking the time to engage! I hope you find my other videos just as stimulating.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
In Russian, the current name of the country, Россия (Rossiya), comes from the Byzantine Greek name for Rus', Ρωσία (Rosía). A new form of the name Rus', Росия (Rosiya), was borrowed from the Greek term and first attested in 1387. The name Rossiia appeared in Russian sources in the late 15th century, but until the end of the 17th century the country was more often referred to by its inhabitants as Rus', the Russian land (Russkaia zemlia), or the Muscovite state (Moskovskoe gosudarstvo), among other variations.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Christopher Columbus's ethnicity has been a subject of debate among scholars and historians for centuries. While most agree that he was born in the Republic of Genoa in Italy, some alternative theories suggest that he may have been of Portuguese or Spanish descent.
One theory suggests that Columbus was actually Portuguese, not Italian. This theory is based on the fact that Columbus spoke and wrote Portuguese fluently, and that his brother, Bartholomew Columbus, also spoke Portuguese and lived in Portugal for many years. Some historians also point out that Columbus used a Portuguese-style signature on his letters, and that his earliest biographers claimed that he was Portuguese. However, there is no solid evidence to support this theory, and it is generally dismissed by most scholars.
Another theory suggests that Columbus was actually a Spanish Jew who had converted to Christianity. This theory is based on the fact that Columbus had close ties to the Spanish Jewish community, and that he wrote in a style that is similar to that of the Spanish Jews of the time. Some historians also point out that Columbus's voyage was partially funded by a group of Spanish Jews, and that he made several references to Jewish traditions in his writings. However, like the Portuguese theory, there is little evidence to support this theory, and it is also generally dismissed by most scholars.
Despite these alternative theories, the most widely accepted view is that Columbus was of Italian descent. This view is supported by a wealth of historical evidence, including Columbus's own writings, contemporary accounts of his life, and the fact that he was born in Genoa, Italy. Moreover, the Italian government has long celebrated Columbus as a hero and claimed him as one of their own, further cementing his Italian identity in the popular imagination.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The bloke apparently had a massive appetite, and the bucket was the only thing i could fit under his armpit. Tried a kebab, souvlaki, and even a packet of chips but the pic looked odd.
Its come to my attention that apparently some American people view the eating of chicken as offensive. As an Australian, writing about Australian history, with British colonial issues that have nothing at all to do with America, its history of slavery or current cultural perceptions, i had no idea it might be viewed as offensive. In addition, the motif of sunglasses+chain+smoke is one I've used a number of times throughout my videos on characters of various ethnicities (Hercules, Ibn Battuta, Magellan, Saint Erasmus) to indicate their legendary coolness/gangsta untouchability. The very fact that this video is itself about highlighting an indigenous Australian hero, suggests that my motivations are far from racist. In any case, now that i know about this particular American sensitivity, I'll try to be a bit more culturally aware. I hope that clarifies it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'll get to Shackleton, don't worry! The Endurance expedition was later and so had no bearing on this project (goodness knows I already go down too many rabbit holes as it is!). WRT references, i have so little precious time to do these videos, and often find myself jumping from a book to a url, to a documentary, even wiki articles just to tie in the many details i need, so unlike my academic career, referencing would be chaotic and very time consuming. Where a particular book is of significance, i do mention it, or offer links to downloading originals on the H&L website where available, so do check out those resources that i think are of particular interest to viewers. Thanks so much for your generous comments. I appreciate your supporting my work.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There's a lot of value in your observation, though its been my experience that the arrogance has almost entirely been from the entrenched stratfordian scholars/ university academics, rather than critics who have no personal agenda or tenure.
Be that as it may, you list an impressive amount of achievement, and no doubt there is plenty of correspondence, both mutual and secondary, citing your developmental pathways. Your family history, and no doubt your own behaviour towards your children, neighbours and community also likely reflect your attitudes. There is no doubt plenty more evidence, besides what you kindly shared with us.
And there's the real issue. The chart listed in the video clearly examines the paper trail, evidence and correspondence of, and pertaining to someone as prolific and high profile as Shakespeare, compared to all of his contemporaries, and from this position comes the bulk of criticism. We simply accept explations ex-cathedra, even when most of it is purely speculation. Quite the opposite of what would be minimally acceptable from a scholarship of science, or the rigours of evidence required from a legal standpoint.
Now, all the fuss might be just that, and it may also be that no more evidence will ever emerge settling the issue for certain. What i find particularly fascinating is the raw emotion that seems to be tied into any debate or examination of problems, as if it were a sacrilege to question the legitimacy of contra-arguments.
Again, you may well be right, but any arguments should be based on their merits, rather than presumed motives of elitism.
As a scientist, I find the whole saga rather perplexing. We're supposed to keep challenging and asking questions about what we think is true. That's what science is all about. So the high drama surrounding the Shakespeare authorship question is curious to me.
Anyway, thanks for sharing and adding to the conversation
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well i suppose that's one way of looking at it. But with his later farm development, he certainly felt like an entrepreneur himself, benefitting from the many skills he learned over the years. We could also argue that his father, keen to "get rich quick" took the grave risk of gambling everything on the gold rush, and so set the whole family up for disaster. But that's the nature of capitalism- you're free to succeed, and you're free to fail. The government gave out grants of land and cheap loans, to help settlers, but they couldn't control the environment or poor business practice. War is an entirely different matter, and we could spend hours agreeing on much of your views there. In our own way we are all suckers, but if you're wealthy enough to be watching youtube, then you're hardly in the 85% living below the poverty line, and directly benefiting from the investment in technology and consumerism that makes some guys very rich. Thanks for sharing your views, they are worth thinking about, and that's what it's all about.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If Cook's Polynesian advisor Tupaia, had suspicions of the existence of Aotearoa (he did indeed), but nobody could confirm it back home in Tahiti till he got there and back to verify, would the Tahitian king conclude that Tupaia discovered Aotearoa? Probably. It depends on your semantic use of the word "discovery" which, even in my own lifetime has had a significant shift in nuance and definition. Nobody in our civilisation today, would use it in its imperialist definition of the 1770's. It is entirely appropriate to use that word in the context of his own homeland and state of awareness as a modern definition. Nobody today, least of all me, is seriously suggesting that he discovered something that was already well known. When any group stumbles on to Territory that was previously unknown to them, it is technically a discovery. Whether or not it is occupied and claimed for the crown, is another matter entirely- for which, of course any one with even the most rudimentary education would entirely agree with you. So yes, you are correct, and also wrong, depending on context. His half hearted flag planting is well documented, and he was certainly no jingoist. Thanks for giving me some food for thought- the changing of words and their meanings over time can cause much unnecessary anger. Thanks for taking the time to engage and for viewing my work.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dwaynebruny I think what John Edwards was trying to say, was that the British (and the Republic of Ragusa) were the only European states at the time who had a serious political and social movement towards abolition at a time when nobody else in the entire world even thought it was evil (and many still don't today). Yes, there were plenty of British businessmen making it difficult for abolitionists to succeed, and some thought it was insane to be the only nation to push for it, but when the Royal Navy was finally dispatched to police the Atlantic slave trade, the national budget went into a huge and controversial deficit to do so. It was a moral, yet economically very expensive commitment, but I dare say, probably also spurred part of the shift into industrialistion that made slavery entirely obsolete within the next half century in Britain. Serfdom is a subject of particular interest to me- the lands my family come from were subject to severe and inhuman conditions, and stories abound from the 1830's of people being executed for gathering mushrooms, berries or firewood from a lord's forest. As you intimate- there are many forms of slavery, even today, and yet the British formed the backbone of conscience that eventually spread to Republican France. A worthy and most interesting topic! Thanks for being part of the conversation!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Of course we can debate all sorts of fine details. "The Polynesians", were incredible navigators, but we are talking about the accumulated achievements of thousands of people over thousands of years in what is effectively their own backyard. Maybe we could also compare the Vikings- where one war band might have sailed thousands of kilometres from Europe across the violent Atlantic to the arctic and the Americas in just one journey. I don't think its a huge stretch, when comparing one man to another, simply on personal achievement, to give Cook his due. He didn't just circumnavigate the world 3x through the most treacherous and violent oceans on earth, he also did it with almost no loss of life until they got hit by Malaria in Batavia. The charts he revolutionised were still in use two hundred years after his death and have saved countless lives from shipwreck. In the South Pacific, he certainly owed a lot to his guide and crew member Tupaia, and he was lavish in his praise of him, but after reaching New Zealand, not to mention Australia or Indonesia, even Tupaia was in unfamiliar territory.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Tupaia, as great a navigator as he was, didn't even know about the existence of New Zealand, let alone Australia, the Indonesian archipelago, Indian Ocean, Antarctic ice wall, Canada, Bering Straits and Arctic America- all of which Cook not only navigated without anyone's help, but charted in such extraordinary detail that the maps are still used as backups for ships in case of GPS failure today. Its ironic to claim "mythologising" for verifiable accounts of a genius, while venerating the myths and folk tales of non-Europeans at the same time. Tupaia could also thank Cook, for taking him and his slave boy on board, as he was a persona non grata and due to be executed by his Tahitian neighbours (like they did to the rest of his entire clan, wiping out an entire Island). Lets not put the cart before the horse.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Fair enough points. Pics of Stalin statues were of not sufficiently decent quality or angle for my liking, the Lenin head had a greater visual impact- but the narration had already been recorded, so as a one man band, it would have taken weeks to redo. I do this in the wee hours entirely on my own. Artistic license, that I didn't feel made a difference to the message. I don't dispute anything you say about Lee, except to say we can allow ourselves the maturity to reappraise what statues represent to us as time goes on without destroying an artistic bronze work. Nobody would tear down an old statue of Caesar in modern France, despite his genocide and enslavement of countless Gauls. But we can certainly argue whether the statues are better placed in a museum. Certainly such conversations can be had without eyerolling or shrieking, by people of good will. In any case, it's a shame you didn't watch on, because my primary goal was to highlight that Cook's hijacking by "Empire" was something he would have been most uncomfortable with, and the resultant, understandable indigenous backlash today overlooks not only his very incredible personal journey, but also misrepresents him for something he was not. I don't think you'll find it was quite what you anticipated and I do hope you keep watching. My focus was on Cook the man, not Cook the political effigy. The wide spectrum of comments on this video show just how wide a chasm still exists in any kind of conciliatory process and the real Cook has been largely ignored in favour of spin, something that I tried not to replicate myself. The beginning was meant only to set the context.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In their own backyard, maybe. But definitely not the Indian ocean, North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Antartctic, Arctic, or for that matter even the Pacific Australian coast or North American Pacific Coast. His Tahitian guide Tupaia (a brilliant navigator) only had a vague idea of New Zealand, and absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of Australia, New Guinea, Indonesia or South East East Asia generally. Cook literally mapped a third of the entire coastal landmass of the globe, did not lose a single man to scurvy, and filled in more blank spaces than any other navigator before or since. His maps were still being used in the 1970's, and saved hundreds of thousands of sailors lives. We just can't say that about any other group or individual explorer, though of course he stood on the shoulders of many great giants before him.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@petertrebilco9430 fair enough- history is inevitably a clash or a concurrence of a set of personal interpretations of events that can be viewed from many perspectives. My position stemmed from the fact that he circumnavigated the globe 3x, much of it at incredibly treacherous lattitudes, all the while charting and documenting (to the smallest reefs) with his revolutionary cartographic system, huge tracts of land that Europeans were yet to see. All the while performing scientific experiments, and having an astonishingly low casualty rate due to his again, revolutionary views on hygiene, nutrition and alcoholism. To top it off he was highly cognizant of the vulnerability of indigenous people and tried his best to avoid conflict whenever possible. He was himself, a peasant outsider who through sheer hard work and dedication forced the RN to take him seriously at a time when only gentlemen were allowed into either the Royal Society, or the Officer class. It's these qualities in such diverse areas that make him an incredible human being and certainly among the great Seamen of history. Others have dismissed my claim as though it negated the brilliance of men like deGama, Zhang Hr, or Magellan, who of course were brilliant in their own way, but my view is that the sheer breadth of Cook's achievements, when factoring in so many of the details i mentioned above make him rather unique. Oddly, others have suggested that I was banging the Empire drum, when, let's face it the sun has long set on the British empire, but more significantly there is nothing in my video that all that smacks of Britanno-nostalgia- especially since I'm not even ethnically from there. Hence my rather eye-rolling response. I did mean it though, when I said I would be happy to discuss a view based on factual material. I'm always a student as far as such things are concerned and happy to entertain a serious and considered rebuttal. I hope that gives you some context, and thanks for responding in such a magnanimous manner!
1
-
Please take the time to watch the video. On several occasions I explicitly state that Cook did NOT discover Australia, and I also state that the English were pretty much the LAST nation to enter the Pacific. I give credit to the Portuguese, Dutch and Spanish for being in the region MUCH earlier. Note that I didn't refer to Cook as the greatest Explorer, though we could argue that point too. So why do I think Cook was the greatest Navigator and Cartographer? Because his revolutionary system of Cartography was still in use over 200 years after his death and was an incredible leap in accuracy never seen before. His charts saved countless lives- including those of England's enemies. He circumnavigated the globe 3x (once beneath the 60th parallel, and frequently beneath the 70th - something so dangerous that even today few captains dare to do it). He charted (accurately) almost a third of the entire world (including the arctic circle). He never lost a ship in thirty years of sailing, and never lost even one man to scurvy - something that was so astonishing that it changed Naval protocol around the entire globe for ever. From a personal point of view- unlike the Spanish and Dutch, he was part of a scientific mission - NOT a conquistador or soldier of fortune looking for gold or glory. He avoided conflict with indigenous people as much as possible and he cared about the welfare, health and hygeine of his crew. Yes, he claimed the East coast of New Holland (Australia) for Britain (after navigating the entire length of the dangerous Great Barrier Reef), but he never expected Britain would bother to occupy the land, so useless did he think it was. No doubt he relied on Spanish and Portuguese maps (esp. the Dieppe collection) but you no doubt already know that Portugal and Britain were long standing allies and friends, and they shared intelligence frequently. Portugal benefitted from the British Chronometer and Cook's maps as much as Britain benefitted from earlier Portuguese Pacific charts. Britain was hoping to curb French and Spanish influence in the Pacific - something that Portugal was only too happy to assist with. But ultimately this is a question of honouring a man whose legacy has been completely twisted and demonised by people who know nothing about his life or who he was. Last time I checked, nobody was tearing down statues of Magellan, Henry, De Gama, and many other incredible Iberian sailors despite their often violent and conquistadorial agendas. Of all the Navigators in history who deserve honour for their work, as well as their humanity, Cook is the last who should have his statues destroyed. This was the main reason for the video- as the introduction suggests. I hope that gives you some further background to my choice of title.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wherever Polo went, his uncles had already been. He discovered nothing and sailed (navigated) nowhere. De Gama and Columbus bravely discovered unknown regions, but lost most of their crews to scurvy and incompetence. The quality of their map making was awful and grossly inaccurate, and neither of them even came close to circumnavigating the globe (at least Magellan made it half-way). Unlike Cook who did it multiple times, never lost a single man to scurvy, and his charts were so accurate they are still used to this day, hundreds of years later, in places where gps is unreliable. It is of course always a challenge to compare heroes from different timepoints in history, but nobody can dispute the incredible foresight of cook in mapmaking, hygeine, safety and testing of longitude chronometry.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are a number of technical reasons why I believe the title to be accurate, though I acknowledge throughout the video his dependence on his predecessor's achievements. Mind you, even the brilliant Iberians you mention were themselves the recipients of charts smuggled in from the Arabs and they were typically piloted by Muslim crew members who were familiar with East African and Indian waters. Certainly, Cook was a captain of not just outstanding achievements, but also of a character completely different to the glory, treasure and slave seekers that proceeded him. Unfortunately, his statues, rather than the others, are the ones being targeted, so I felt compelled to set the record straight. I am planning to do a video on Elcano, so stay tuned!
1
-
Indeed - Cook had the highest admiration for Tupaia, his Tahitian guide in the Pacific. But we need to bear in mind - "the Polynesians" brilliant as they were, accumulated this knowledge over a thousand years, from the experiences of probably thousands of individuals. We have no evidence - oral or otherwise, of one particular "super navigator" who gave this knowledge to them. So while I agree with you, surely we can give some credit to one man, who managed to do so much on his own, not just in the Pacific, but also the Southern Ocean, North America, the Arctic and Antarctic, with very little received knowledge, so far from home, with limited supplies and assistance. I hope you see my point - its not to denigrate indigenous achievements, but to celebrate a brilliant lone individual.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I see your point and agree to a small extent. However i believe you are romanticising Polynesian culture by presuming they had no sense of ownership. They were well known to raid, kill and enslave (i.e. own) their neighbours, forcibly acquire their resources, as well as seek out conquests of their own. They acted upon personal, even petty jealousies and ambition (i.e. the will to power) with no restraint of violence, and required their own system of law and jurisprudence to prevent anarchy and keep order, just like any other society. Had they lived the idyllic utopian lifestyle that is often suggested in western fairy tales about them, neither they, nor any other such palaeolithic society would have required laws, chieftains, penalties and punishments and their mythologies would be full of deities and spirits that reflect that (which they patently don't). Countless descriptions abound of natives squabbling and even murdering one another over the white man's "cargo", whenever trade occurred with them. We can quibble about details and degrees and much has been written about their "free-love" lifestyle (which by the way also sexualised children), but my point is that in principle they were not that much different to anyone else - especially when living in larger settled communities.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What I found interesting, was that despite being a complete maniac to his own men, he was at first very sensible and pragmatic in his dealings with indigenous people (i.e. down the Atlantic Coast of South America). But when they got out into the Pacific, where they almost died of malnutrition, their arrival in the Philippine archipelago seemed to kindle a missionary fervour he never displayed before (certainly noticed by Pigafetta in his chronicle). Maybe it was due to a sense of new purpose from his salvation from certain death, maybe some kind of nutritional delirium, or maybe a miscalculated notion of dependency on alliances with converted chieftains, I don't know, but its clear he seemed to suddenly think he was invincible. The taste of success is an intoxicating brew that leads to an arrogance that often ends in tears, and in his case also the deaths of almost his entire crew. What they had to endure to satisfy his obsession was criminal (as the courts in Spain eventually concluded). As for Lapu Lapu, it was just another day in the office, and the local big boys got on with the usual business of wars and treaties just like everywhere else in the world. It would be interesting to know how it all ended for him too.
For me this channel is not so much about glorifying entrenched heroes, but trying to get into their heads. Sometimes this means gaining a new perspective and giving proper credit to those who are undeservedly misrepresented or "cancelled" (such as Cook, Prince Philip or Napoleon), other times its to bring awareness to underdogs we never hear about (such as Pemulwuy, Jan Hus, Bartolome de las Casas, the Irish, or indeed, a fish like the Cod as in my latest video). We all have our own biases, to be sure, but as I continue making these videos, one thing that seems more obvious to me is that people everywhere are much more alike than we like to admit, and given the opportunity, will manipulate the situation to expand at the expense of their own neighbours (such as Rajah Humabon). I suspect Humabon had a lot of explaining to do once the Spanish had left. Thanks for taking the time to engage - I hope my responses have changed your opinion of my channel, and I hope you take the time to enjoy my other videos in that spirit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've thought about your question for some days, and I'm assuming it wasn't purely rhetorical. Some nations (with respect to Western Liberal democracies) like the United States seem to be based on the assumption that governments should be inherently distrusted, while others - for example Finland, enjoy extremely high statistical levels of conformity, social cohesion and trust in government. Most are somewhere in between. We know the risks inherent in excessive trust, and the United States have demonstrated clearly the benefits of almost complete liberty. And yet countries like Finland have the highest literacy, "happiness" and social cohesion ratings in the world. No doubt there are cultural and demographic factors that are relevant here, but it is still worth considering why many countries in the Anglosphere, which was the cradle of liberal democracy and arguably of enlightenment thinking has become so polarised, distrustful and socially entitled (read selfish). Have we become a Frankenstein, or is it just a cycle of history (the Roman Saeculum), in which we swing toward, then away from conformity?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ruisilva2623 of course Portugal has given the world some incredible explorers. Also footballers 😉. My point was that this one single man made so many achievements, across several disciplines: navigation, revolutionary precision charting never done before, hygiene, nutrition, astronomical calculations and mapping of Venus; testing of chronometers, circumnavigated the globe 3x, at consistently low lattitudes that nobody, not even the Portuguese had done, along with both Arctic and Antarctic exploration and sheer number of discovered islands. No single Portuguese explorer, however brilliant they each were, even comes close to this by themselves. We can appreciate Portugal's gifts to the world without negating the incredible work of this man- who the whole time tried his best not to harm a single native person. But thankyou for your list- I promise I will do a Portuguese hero for sure!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tupaia didn't even know about New Zealand, let alone Hawaii, Easter Island, the Australian or Alaskan coastlines and south American continent; New Guinea, or indeed any of the Indonesian islands where he died of fever- they also all being well in the Pacific. Let's not even mention the Indian and Atlantic Oceans, which Cook, on his own, traversed three times, mapping for posterity, literally almost a third of the worlds coasts. Tupaia was a brilliant navigator in his own backyard (large is it was), and deserves plenty of credit, but wasnt even in the same league as Cook
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Its come to my attention that apparently some American people view the eating of chicken as offensive. As an Australian, writing about Australian history, with British colonial issues that have nothing at all to do with America, its history of slavery or current cultural perceptions, i had no idea it might be viewed as offensive. In addition, the motif of sunglasses+chain+smoke is one I've used a number of times throughout my videos on characters of various ethnicities (Hercules, Ibn Battuta, Magellan, Saint Erasmus) to indicate their legendary coolness/gangsta untouchability. The very fact that this video is itself about highlighting an indigenous Australian hero, suggests that my motivations are far from racist. In any case, now that i know about this particular American sensitivity, I'll try to be a bit more culturally aware. I hope that clarifies it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's a fair enough comment, but Islander history didn't start with either Cook, or the French, Dutch, Portuguese, Sanish, Arabs and Chinese that preceded him (in some cases by centuries). Certainly the British seem to get the brunt of criticism, yet their influence in the Pacific was relatively minor compared to these other powers. WRT to Australia, India and Africa, perhaps, but they were generally quite minor players and late comers in the Pacific region. Of course, the ample evidence of intertribal warfare, massacre and conquest that long existed even before European colonisation is another matter again, and can't be overlooked either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Singular v plural. If we compare apples to apples (i.e. "Europeans" v "Polynesians" perhaps 1000 years ago, there would be something in that argument with respect to the number of oceans both peoples had explored (Europeans-N Atlantic v Polynesians-central Pacific). But by Cook's time there was no comparison. Europeans had navigated all 5 of the worlds oceans to a high lattitude both N and S, while Polynesians had not sailed beyond the Pacific- but even here they lacked a comprehensive knowledge of the entire region. For example, Cook had a Tahitian holy man, Tupaia, on board the Endeavour, who acted as a local guide, yet knew nothing of New Zealand, Australia, New Guinea or the Indonesian Archipelago. Nor did he know about Hawaii, Easter Island, the Asian/Russian coasts, north American coast or several others. He certainly had no knowledge of the Pacific below 40 degrees south, or for that matter, 40 degrees north, such that Polynesian knowledge is not thought to have extended to the polar or temperate regions. They did make it as far east as the Chilean coast, but their knowledge of this coast was patchy at best, even after hundreds of years. Where they excelled was in hop-scotching between islands, which is how their collective database steadily grew. To our knowledge, no single Polynesian individual has ever been reported to have covered this entire territory on their own, let alone beyond. This is why Cook, who circumnavigated the entire globe (several times), through blue water, without losing a single man to scurvy, despite being at sea for months at a time without sight of land is such an extraordinary figure of history. The maps he drew far excelled the primitive and inaccurate charts of the Portuguese and Spanish, being used by mariners even up to the 1970s. The lives saved by his incredible work are innumerable. Up until his time, it was typical for crew losses on oceanic voyages to be in the order of 60-70 percent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cook was neither directed to go to Australia, nor wanted to: the only reason he sailed up the east coast was because the ship was too vulnerable to make the southern ocean return to Cape Town after several years at sea, and he hoped they could limp their way north to Batavia where they could get repairs done. There was no plan whatsoever to either claim or colonise the continent during Cook's lifetime, nor did he think it was worth bothering. The mysterious "southern land" that was alluded to in the Admiralty was a hypothetical land supposedly to the south of Tahiti which turned out not to exist. Cook undertook two voyages there just to disprove it. Everyone of course knew about "New Holland", but the British government of his time had no interest in it all. There is no suggestion whatsoever that Cook was malicious toward any indigenous people at any time. His firing of buckshot to ward off locals at Botany Bay was a desperate attempt to replenish water supplies that were critically low. Anyone would have done the same, or worse just to go ashore. He otherwise went to great pains to avoid conflict- as directed by the instructions of the Royal Society who sponsored the voyage, and which document still exists (i quote it in the video). I can assure you that neither the Spanish nor the French had any such directives in their sailing the Pacific. The tragic history of dispossession suffered by indigenous people at the hands of colonists in Australia two generations after Cook's death are a stain of association that he does not deserve to wear. Neither you nor I would want our legacy to be manipulated by future generations, and we have ample evidence in his ships logs, personal accounts, as well as that of his contemporaries of his sympathies, humanity and care to avoid unnecessary conflict, wherever he came into contact with others. He was no jingoist, and even the most brief study of relevant documents show him to be none of the things he is now vilified unfairly for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I can assure you there was no propagandist agenda, and I make no assertions about governments, international politics and the causes of the present conflict. I only posed questions on the nature of patriotism, from the perspective of the individual citizen, who, like Americans during their own war of independence (similarly subject to the motivations of land and slave owning businessmen) had to make choices, based on what they perceived was the greater good (or at least what would be best for their own children). Whatever we think about the global powerbrokers, Paine's legacy gives us all pause to reflect on what we ourselves would do should bombs start raining from the sky. The conflict in Ukraine is therefore not only interesting from a global politics perspective (for which there are no shortage of opinions), but also on the moral and personal choices that individuals who find themselves swept up in it have to make. I hope that clarifies it. And yes, i agree its astonishing that so few people know about his extraordinary contribution to Western History. Hence my modest, amateur attempt to honour him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Its come to my attention that apparently some American people view the eating of chicken as offensive. As an Australian, writing about Australian history, with British colonial issues that have nothing at all to do with America, its history of slavery or current cultural perceptions, i had no idea it might be viewed as offensive. In addition, the motif of sunglasses+chain+smoke is one I've used a number of times throughout my videos on characters of various ethnicities (Hercules, Ibn Battuta, Magellan, Saint Erasmus) to indicate their legendary coolness/gangsta untouchability. The very fact that this video is itself about highlighting an indigenous Australian hero, suggests that my motivations are far from racist. In any case, now that i know about this particular American sensitivity, I'll try to be a bit more culturally aware. I hope that clarifies it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Probably the foremost proponent of these views is Brian Dunning of the skeptoid podcast. He makes some good observations and his criticisms of Tesla's cult mythology is fair enough. But like many skeptics, sweeping generalisations and ad-hominem attacks also unfairly tend to distort the truth. For example, Tesla's pigeon obsession in later life may have been weird, but geniuses are often weird, and this in no way negates their genius. Newton was a complete nutcase who was also more interested in the occult than physics (something i highlight in the video).
No doubt there was a lot of skulduggery in the cuththroat world of American patent business, and Tesla was up to his neck in it too. The patent law courts certainly had their hands full keeping up with suits and counter suits. Its easy to dismiss one individual for winning the race to register, against others who failed and i accept that Tesla probably got as good as he gave (i.e. his gripe with Marconi). As you point out, he was essentially a small fish in the war between Morgan and Westinghouse (or that matter, Morgan v everyone).
Many questions still remain unanswered, and some may well simply be as you describe, the product high level marketing followed by conspiracy fantasy.
At the end of the day, i write about heroes and legends, so some might rack this documentary up in the hero category, while others in the legends category. I reckon I'll sit somewhere in the middle on this one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I relied on the Sagas as a source of material, here are a few passages that suggest that Eric may have been less than forthcoming about the conditions in Greenland. For example:
In the Saga of Erik the Red, when Eric is trying to convince people to join him in settling Greenland, he emphasizes the land's good qualities and downplays its challenges. He tells one potential settler, "I think that the land is very beautiful, and I propose to settle there" (Chapter 1). Later, when the settlers are struggling to survive in the harsh environment, Eric tries to boost morale by reminding them that "summer and winter are two different things" and that the land will be more hospitable in warmer weather (Chapter 4).
In the Saga of the Greenlanders, there is a reference to "Eric's land" being "the best of all those that had been discovered up to that time" (Chapter 2). This could be seen as an exaggeration meant to attract settlers.
Of course, as mentioned previously, I was having a bit of fun with the material to emphasise Eric's entrepreneurial salesmanship - so I take and acknowledge your criticism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually he could- and even mapped the entire coastline of New Zealand which Tupaia had no idea even existed. Lets not even mention the north Pacific, which Tupaia also didn't know, or the Antarctic ice wall, or Bering sea, or Alaskan coast, or Newfoundland, or eastern coast of Australia and numerous uninhabited Atlantic and Indian ocean islands he discovered- all unknown to Tupaia et al. Even Batavia in modern Indonesia, part of an ancient spice route hub was unknown to him (he died of Malaria and was much mourned by Cook and companions there). Yes, the polynesian holyman was an incredible source of information in his own back yard, but lets not pretend they were even in the same league. Cook was a giant of his time. Tupaia was a brilliant navigator too and respected guide, but once they left his sphere of knowledge it became clear he was just another crew member.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@juliojavierguillenlopezdec8710 like so many things- this issue has been politicised in a number of ways, for quite some time, but even when I was in school in the 1970's we knew that Hartog, Jansoon, and even Makassar Arabs had already been here first. So nobody today argues that Cook "discovered" Australia. School children are generally aware that other Europeans were here first. Of course, Cook knew there was land here (Nova Hollandia), but nobody had mapped the East Coast (see map in my video). There was a time that Australian Catholics- motivated by European Catholics, promoted the possibility of Queiro in order to oppose the protestant political power structure and erode protestant British prestige. For many years, Australia was governed by such Imperialist regimes, which only began to change in the 1970's. Since that time, there have been a number of scholars seriously examining this issue, without prejudice, and the nation has purchased a number of priceless maps which are in our national collection. Much of the claim by Queiros supporters rests on interpretation of the Dieppe maps- which are thought to be based on earlier, now lost maps by Portuguese navigator Cristovao de Mendonca from 1521. But these maps apparently have a number of inconsistencies, and the voyages themselves have been difficult to trace accurately. A brief account can be found here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_Portuguese_discovery_of_Australia
So my only comment is that these theories are not being suppressed (at least any more) nor is there a political motivation to cover up evidence. We are a multicultural nation and fresh evidence for older mapping would be exciting, not depressing. There is a bust if Queiro in Canberra too- and I think it was erected by the Portuguese community? Certainly the Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch (and Arab, and Chinese) explorers were incredible sailors and deserve our admiration. My video was not to diminish their achievements, but only to highlight Cook's. I believe Cook deserves our respect and admiration, and when I make new videos on the other navigators, I will certainly highlight their incredible achievements too- maybe even explore this controversy! Thanks for taking the time to comment- I very much enjoyed discussing this subject. I hope you stay subscribed, maybe you'll enjoy my future videos!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rastusbaker actually he was not of that social order. Quute the opposite. He was the son of a destitute, impoverished, landless Scottish peasant, that spent a number of years under the mentorship of Quakers- whose reputation for pacifism, equality and concern for the welfare of native people is well known.
He didn't just row up to a beach and plant a flag, that's the kiddies version we all learned in primary school. The real story is there for you to read in his and his other companions journals (or summarised in my video). You are justifying your own preconceived view of Cook and his movements through Australian waters in the same way you assume that I am. You might have watched the whole thing by now and discussed what I actually did, rather than keep up your conjecture based on your own preconceptions of what is true and what is not. I have read his journals, among much other material, but you feel free to keep pointing out that you know better than he, what he did and where. It is a challenge for any leader to secure water and food during a long and traumatic voyage, and he did his best to minimise conflict with anyone. He actually wasn't looking for Australia- he had already proved the area the British were interested in had no land mass. The Australian coast was chosen purely to get him to Batavia and avoid risking the endeavour in the Southern Ocean. So his planting the flag- at the far northern tip of the coast, after weeks of travel was a half hearted act, that he never expected the British to capitalise on. He and banks thought it wasn't worth bothering about
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When the Athenians attacked the politically neutral Melians during the Peloponnesian war, they slaughtered every man on the island and sold every woman and child into slavery, sending their own colonists to claim the island. Prior to their invasion they gave Melos an ultimatum. Pay tribute or be crushed. The Melians appealed to their sense of justice and morality, but, unmoved, the Athenians told them that "right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". Today nobody speaks of cancelling the ancient Greeks, despite the horrors that were commonly committed without a second thought throughout the ancient world, by people of means regardless of their culture or technological capacity. Lets hope we are someday as understanding of Cook's generation as we are of the ancient Greeks, Persians, Babylonians, etc. whose long term legacy has stood the test of time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1