Jump to content

Now for something completely different


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, NSWP said:

Thank God then for Capt Cook and the British colinization, sure natives perished which is abohrrent, but imagine if the Spanish Conquistadores had conquered, like South America, indiginous annilhated.

 

We would all be talking espana. Trust me, it is written.

 

Buenos Tardes.

I've mentioned this before, but it's worth repeating.

On one of our cruises to The Islands we were in Noumea and a friend commented that the Aborigines should be very grateful that Captain Cook and the first fleet grabbed Australia just before LaPerouse arrived here. Not to say that the English were benevolent, just the better of the two.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Russell21 said:

I've mentioned this before, but it's worth repeating.

On one of our cruises to The Islands we were in Noumea and a friend commented that the Aborigines should be very grateful that Captain Cook and the first fleet grabbed Australia just before LaPerouse arrived here. Not to say that the English were benevolent, just the better of the two.

Indeed the French were pretty ruthless with their colonisation methods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

I wouldn't thank Captain Cook😄. If you ever read his diaries he basically claims Australia as the worst place on Earth, he didn't think it was worth the British government's time or effort. He loved New Zealand he thought that place was heaven even admired the Maoris whereas Aboriginals he thought were "vermin". I would not consider The Frontier Wars any different to what happened in South America, just as systematic, genocidal and brutal. It is like trying to argue was World War 1 worst than World War 2😳. The one thing we did have that could have changed our course of history was Arthur Phillip who truely wanted peaceful coexistence between his colony and the Aboriginals. Unfortunately Mother England wasn't as forward thinking and our history is what it is😔.

Which pretty much confirms what the Dutch and Portuguese thought of the place over 100 years before

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NSWP said:

Indeed the French were pretty ruthless with their colonisation methods.

... and remained so to recent times. The Kanaks were kept in an apartheid system until the mid 1970s. They have full rights now, but are educationally and economically disadvantaged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Russell21 said:

I've mentioned this before, but it's worth repeating.

On one of our cruises to The Islands we were in Noumea and a friend commented that the Aborigines should be very grateful that Captain Cook and the first fleet grabbed Australia just before LaPerouse arrived here. Not to say that the English were benevolent, just the better of the two.

 

Jean François de Galaup, comte de LaPerouse was the Captain Cook of France at the time. Even if he arrived first it would have made no difference as Arthur Phillip had arrived with all the elements for a permanent settlement. There was no competition the British had won. It would have taken an armed conflict by that stage to take Australia. Just as we are seeing today with the Spratly Island it is not explorers that have a claim it is who builds the most infrastructure😉

 

As for ranking who was worst I can't personally see the difference with what the French and British did in Australia and New Caledonia. They both committed systematic massacres, sexual assaults, drove people off their land, economic exclusion, deprived natives of services, banned language and culture, kidnapped children and segregated native populations. What did the British do that was better than the French😳

Edited by ilikeanswers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ilikeanswers said:

 

Jean François de Galaup, comte de LaPerouse was the Captain Cook of France at the time. Even if he arrived first it would have made no difference as Arthur Phillip had arrived with all the elements for a permanent settlement. There was no competition the British had won. It would have taken an armed conflict by that stage to take Australia. Just as we are seeing today with the Spratly Island it is not explorers that have a claim it is who builds the most infrastructure😉

 

As for ranking who was worst I can't personally see the difference with what the French and British did in Australia and New Caledonia. They both committed systematic massacres, sexual assaults, drove people off their land, economic exclusion, deprived natives of services, banned language and culture, kidnapped children and kept natives in segregation. What did the British do that was better than the French😳

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NSWP said:

Indeed the French were pretty ruthless with their colonisation methods.

 

Well it depends. When I was in French Polynesia the Marquesasans said the French were really good to them. They brought modern medicine, helped build infrastructure, even got them good schooling and allowed them to retain language and culture. Whereas on Tahiti which was ruled by Church of England at the time they found the British to be extremely cruel. They provided little to the locals and expected them to serve the British colonists whim and basically all their culture was wiped out. There really isn't one size fits all rule, the are so many different circumstances, politics and personalities that come into play. Just imagine if we had gone with Arthur Phillip's methods. Maybe we could have been more like the Marquesas than Tahiti🤔

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2021 at 1:59 PM, BRANDEE said:

The land of milk and honey for the rich white man.  There is poverty and racism here.  And when you have a leader who is a racist and liar, himself....It has only gotten worse.  Sad and dark days now and ahead. 

Look on the bright side.

Bruce Springsteen isn’t going to move to Sydney.

‘But he is always welcome here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Chiliburn said:

Look on the bright side.

Bruce Springsteen isn’t going to move to Sydney.

‘But he is always welcome here.

If you can't stand to stay and help to change than go..such jerks.  And I do love Springsteen's music but his statement tarnished his image..another made it big so now I will go. Stick around with the people who "made you" and work for the change.  Guess his new song "Born in the USA, but I left the sinking ship" will not go platinum!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the people in USA would not know the name of our PM, so why the heck does our media and much of our population dwell so much on the Trump/Biden election and inauguration?   

 

The only part of it worth watching - entertainment wise would be Bruce Springsteen and the baton twirling marching girls, if they appear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2021 at 1:39 PM, ilikeanswers said:

 

Well it depends. When I was in French Polynesia the Marquesasans said the French were really good to them. They brought modern medicine, helped build infrastructure, even got them good schooling and allowed them to retain language and culture. Whereas on Tahiti which was ruled by Church of England at the time they found the British to be extremely cruel. They provided little to the locals and expected them to serve the British colonists whim and basically all their culture was wiped out. There really isn't one size fits all rule, the are so many different circumstances, politics and personalities that come into play. Just imagine if we had gone with Arthur Phillip's methods. Maybe we could have been more like the Marquesas than Tahiti🤔

No colonial powers were really kind to the natives, whether they be Spanish, Portugeuse, French, British or whoever. But just remember what the conquistadores did to South and Central America, the Incas and Aztecs, juist about wiped them out. At least the Australian Aborigines survived, albeit a little battered.

Edited by NSWP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NSWP said:

Most of the people in USA would not know the name of our PM, so why the heck does our media and much of our population dwell so much on the Trump/Biden election and inauguration?   

 

The only part of it worth watching - entertainment wise would be Bruce Springsteen and the baton twirling marching girls, if they appear.

 

That's okay Les I doubt many Americans know the name of our PM either, or even the Senators for the adjacent states to their own.

I think there are quite a few worried that the duly elected President may not come out of this week alive.

What should have been a great show is now behind a giant fence and there will be no parade or live concert but there should be some great entertainment for the next couple of days and the few hours after the main event before the real work starts for the new faces in charge.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NSWP said:

Most of the people in USA would not know the name of our PM, so why the heck does our media and much of our population dwell so much on the Trump/Biden election and inauguration?   

 

The only part of it worth watching - entertainment wise would be Bruce Springsteen and the baton twirling marching girls, if they appear.

I don’t know uncle Les ?

Duty calls and you could come out of retirement.

Find that old service revolver and head on over to D.C.

Forget about the president,there’s plenty more where he come from.

You need to protect the BOSS . (Bruce Springsteen)
I can see you in a dark alley,down on one knee and fanning your service revolver.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chiliburn said:

I don’t know uncle Les ?

Duty calls and you could come out of retirement.

Find that old service revolver and head on over to D.C.

Forget about the president,there’s plenty more where he come from.

You need to protect the BOSS . (Bruce Springsteen)
I can see you in a dark alley,down on one knee and fanning your service revolver.

I had to hand my Glock 17 Automatic pistola back to the armoury in 2003 mate. Prior to that I had ye olde Smith & Wesson, Model 10 .38 revolver, preferred that one.  

 

I like the Boss, 'Streets of Philadelphia' is great.  I play it on Youtube nearly every day, as Bruce walks the city streets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NSWP said:

Most of the people in USA would not know the name of our PM, so why the heck does our media and much of our population dwell so much on the Trump/Biden election and inauguration?   

 

The only part of it worth watching - entertainment wise would be Bruce Springsteen and the baton twirling marching girls, if they appear.

Scott Morrison  and people love to watch a tragedy that doesn't involve themselves!

Edited by BRANDEE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • ANNOUNCEMENT: Set Sail Beyond the Ordinary with Oceania Cruises
      • ANNOUNCEMENT: The Widest View in the Whole Wide World
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Cruise Critic News & Features
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...