Captain Cook’s Landing at Botany Bay
“Racial segregation as a way of life did not come about as a natural result of hatred between the races immediately after the Civil War. There were no laws segregating the races then. And as the noted historian, C. Vann Woodward, in his book, The Strange Career of Jim Crow, clearly points out, the segregation of the races was really a political stratagem employed by the emerging Bourbon interests in the South to keep the southern masses divided and southern labor the cheapest in the land. You see, it was a simple thing to keep the poor white masses working for near-starvation wages in the years that followed the Civil War. Why, if the poor white plantation or mill worker became dissatisfied with his low wages, the plantation or mill owner would merely threaten to fire him and hire former Negro slaves and pay him even less. Thus, the southern wage level was kept almost unbearably low.
Toward the end of the Reconstruction era, something very significant happened. (Listen to him) That is what was known as the Populist Movement. (Speak, sir) The leaders of this movement began awakening the poor white masses (Yes, sir) and the former Negro slaves to the fact that they were being fleeced by the emerging Bourbon interests. Not only that, but they began uniting the Negro and white masses (Yeah) into a voting bloc that threatened to drive the Bourbon interests from the command posts of political power in the South.
To meet this threat, the southern aristocracy began immediately to engineer this development of a segregated society. (Right) I want you to follow me through here because this is very important to see the roots of racism and the denial of the right to vote. Through their control of mass media, they revised the doctrine of white supremacy. They saturated the thinking of the poor white masses with it, (Yes) thus clouding their minds to the real issue involved in the Populist Movement. They then directed the placement on the books of the South of laws that made it a crime for Negroes and whites to come together as equals at any level. (Yes, sir) And that did it. That crippled and eventually destroyed the Populist Movement of the nineteenth century.
If it may be said of the slavery era that the white man took the world and gave the Negro Jesus, then it may be said of the Reconstruction era that the southern aristocracy took the world and gave the poor white man Jim Crow. (Yes, sir) He gave him Jim Crow. (Uh huh) And when his wrinkled stomach cried out for the food that his empty pockets could not provide, (Yes, sir) he ate Jim Crow, a psychological bird that told him that no matter how bad off he was, at least he was a white man, better than the black man. (Right sir) And he ate Jim Crow. (Uh huh) And when his undernourished children cried out for the necessities that his low wages could not provide, he showed them the Jim Crow signs on the buses and in the stores, on the streets and in the public buildings. (Yes, sir) And his children, too, learned to feed upon Jim Crow, (Speak) their last outpost of psychological oblivion. (Yes, sir)” — Martin Luther King Jr
Some of us are celebrating this year being the 250th anniversary of Lieutenant James Cook’s landing at Botany Bay, and his taking possession of ‘New South Wales’ in the name of Great Britain. Just some of us because this commemoration is a sensitive one, highly unpopular among those whose primary sympathy lies with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. In their eyes, Cook’s landing initiated an invasion and nothing more. Ironically, it was his Navy, the Royal Navy, which ended the trans-Atlantic slave trade some time after.
It’s not easy to see a solution to what is a worldwide impasse: European expansion is reviled by many, whether indigenous Australians or First Nations people of Canada and the United States. But isn’t world history mostly built on killing and genocide? We can’t compare past morals and ethics with current ones because that’ll be like comparing a horse-pulled cart with a Toyota Camry.
History shows that human migration, and the greed and brutality that came with it, has played a constant role in human affairs and we can see examples everywhere, from the dispossession of Etruscans in Italy and Celts in southern Britain, to the spread of Islam in North Africa and Spain, to the driving out of the South African Bushmen by the Zulus. Thomas Hobbes was right, that “nasty, brutish and short” well describes the lives of billions who live/d on this planet.
But Cook’s arrival, apart from his and his crew’s extraordinary daring, brought with it, or at least laid the foundations of, Christianity, the rule of law, Western experimental science and technical expertise, and a sense of the worth of women (among many other things that continue to make life more bearable). Detractors will point to ways in which Europeans failed to live up to those ideals, but no other religion had proclaimed anything like the doctrine that in Christ there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, slave nor free (Galatians 3:28). That sets the highest possible standard, and a standard is no less worthy if people fall short of it.
Cook was an outstanding cartographer who was just doing his job, with no idea of what would result from British settlement in Australia (the good and the bad). His charts are still in use in some places because nothing better has been made, and they are the common inheritance of all people, male or female, black or white. It is often difficult to appreciate the audacity of that voyage, too; it was a far greater achievement than the landing on the moon. We’ve always been able to see the moon, but the Southern Ocean must have been as mysterious as outer space.
It seems fashionable to disparage the achievements and contributions of the European, mainly British explorers, specifically Capt Cook and those who lived after him. To put this in perspective, here are a few questions:
Who invented the amazing modern amenities we take for granted starting with the steam engine, followed by telegraph, railways, electricity, aeroplanes and who instituted longitude based on Greenwich Mean Time and accurately mapped Australia and the world? They were mainly British Europeans without whose visits or inventions Australia would never have reached its present status or development. While the Chinese treasure fleets of Zheng He in 1421 visited Australia and circumnavigated the world, the emperor ordered the charts be destroyed hoping to disadvantage the rest of the world, whom he regarded as barbarians.
Who described the sun-centered solar system, invented radio, investigated killer diseases like malaria, typhus, invented vaccines, successfully investigated diabetes, discovered DNA at Cambridge University, invented the contraceptive pill, life-saving surgery, antibiotics, anaesthetics, democracy and social welfare pensions?
Who constructed dams, built hi-rise buildings with elevators and air conditioners? Who invented cars, television, telephones, satellites, GPS, the internet, chemistry and metallurgy?
Who pioneered the production of steel, modern agriculture and irrigation, water supply and sewage treatment plants, refrigeration, pasteurisation of milk, and canning of food?
A study of history will show that these remarkable navigators, engineers, doctors and scientists were mostly of European origin and mostly Christian. These people blessed the world with their knowledge and skills. Our schools and universities should celebrate and honour these people. For those who protest against Capt Cook and those after him, to be consistent they should revert to an unimaginably harsh and primitive way of life in living without any of the improvements the Europeans brought.
Having said all that, being colonised by the Brits was objectively a better fate than being colonised by the Spaniards, Portuguese, Dutch, French, or God forbid, the Belgians. The British Empire is the greatest thing to happen to this world, driving progress across the globe, whilst learning from her mistakes during and after Pax Britannica.
But since the start of Pax Americana and the United Nations, “we taught our children that war was so terrible that international union was the only solution. We would show the way by dismantling ourselves, stripping naked to join our old enemies in the EU. In doing so we would solve the problem of seemingly endless Franco-German wars and so bring peace to the world. There is no precedent for this in history and you can see why, it is worth taking a look at the world.
France and Germany are specks. Our internationalist ambition was the hubris of the victors in 1945, it had no wider reality. The wider world is not ready at all to merge into a faceless, safe, uniformity that rules the planet.
Our best option is to revisit our beliefs. In the UK we believe in the Common Law and Parliamentary Democracy. We believe that our history shows that worthwhile change will happen if we persevere and trust in the good in our fellow citizens.”
The Commonwealth (of Nations) does precisely that. A global, pan-national structure headed by a unifying, apolitical British Crown. What better structure is there to face the global challenges of this century? Let’s make the 21st century Pax Commonwealth!
“The Pax Americana no longer exists. Witness America’s costly misadventures in the Middle East and its foolish policies towards Russia — especially expanding NATO up to its border — which antagonised Moscow and pushed it closer to Beijing. Nor is democracy triumphant: according to Freedom House, last year was the 14th consecutive year of democratic backsliding, with 64 nations experiencing a loss of liberties.”
Meanwhile back in Australia, like elsewhere, there a war on the past, even though the past cannot be changed. Some people will try to revise the past in order to force change onto the present and the future. We see this in the teaching of history, for example the black armband view of history. On the Ben Boyd controversy, Sharon Tapscott, mayor of the Bega Valley Shire, said some mountains in the area had been given dual Indigenous and European names. “We are quite comfortable with dual names,” she said. Of Boyd she added: “He did come here as the first European settler, so I suppose you cannot erase that out of history. We need to acknowledge that this is the truth of what happened. If you don’t acknowledge the truth and the good or the bad of it you are destined to repeat it.”
Were you ever taught the story about Admiral Arthur Phillip coming to Bennelong and his people with gifts and an apology on September 17, 1790? “Governor Phillip had nearly lost his life when he was speared in an act of “payback” at Manly Cove. Phillip instinctively knew this was traditional justice for his having ordered the abductions of Arabanoo, Colebee and Bennelong. He gave that instruction so they could be forced to learn English and act as translators.
With his speared right arm in a sling, Phillip took a boat to the north side of Sydney Harbour, to the spot that is now the Prime Minister’s residence, Kirribilli House. There, Phillip presented gifts –a including a metal hatchet, clothing and sweets — to Bennelong and his second wife, Barangaroo. And Phillip apologised for the abductions.
So the first national apology to “stolen people” was delivered by Arthur Phillip. And it was graciously accepted by Bennelong. Two giant figures put aside their differences and egos, and put their reputations and bodies on the line, in the hope that their respective cultures could coexist peacefully and — as King George III had ordered — “live in amity”.
I’m not sure why many Australians consider January 26, 1788, as modern Australia’s “foundation”. They should regard September 17, 1790, with equal, if not more, fondness.
We’ve found it within us to change the first line of the national anthem to “Australians all” — not merely “Australia’s sons”. If we truly intend to rejoice in a shared experience of nationhood, we will find it in our hearts to change the date on which we celebrate Australia Day.”
As Australians we can’t have a shared understanding and respect of our history if our past is constantly denigrated and if we’re continually told that Australians should be divided according to out different backgrounds and personal identities. We’ve lost, for example, a commitment to the ideal that all Australians are entitled to the same legal and political rights regardless of our race, ethnicity or skin colour.
Recently, a “unique program in WA combining surfing and Indigenous culture is proving so popular local police and pro surfers are jumping on board”. Moving forward, we should be talking more about Native Title reform to allow Indigenous people to make better use of their land, and about ways we can get jobs into their remote communities and end welfare dependency within.
This is a study done in the NT where the Indigenous communities think it’s bad and racist if the government steps in: https://bridges.monash.edu/articles/journal_contribution/I_Think_It_s_Okay_But_It_s_Racist_It_s_Bad_Racism_Aboriginal_Children_and_Young_People_s_Views_about_the_Intervention/10065920. Close The Gap infers that Indigenous people can’t hit a benchmark, so why don’t we do something that’s never been done — get government out of all Indigenous affairs, and see if doing something different like this makes a bigger difference for once?