No he didn’t solely go to raid the Spanish (retaliation), he did many things (most bad) and he attempted to circumnavigate the globe, he was amongst things an explorer.
Barry
- Everyone agrees with you that Cook was on a voyage of discovery *snip*
Um. I’ll stick to this post and um…think about a couple of things. Paragraph numbers follow suite.
1/ Cook was on a voyage of discovery. Discovery meant discovery. As we would understand it. Discovery as we would understand it does not include in any connotation unless you are using artistic licence-which you may-either colonisation (perhaps some English spelling wouldn’t go amiss?) and/or invasion do not form part of it. Therefore (and I’m keeping it short for you) there was at least a duality of purpose. This tends to happen a lot, if not always. Now did James Cook think it was wonderful to discover all these new species and peoples? As someone who saw himself as a scientist, I imagine he liked it a tad more than Dave’s Pig Porn. Did his views reflect those that existed at the time and that were those that exist at all times in the eyes of the observer? How could they not? An ineluctable truth that cannot be denied save perhaps for a few, anachronistic. See? That’s poetry thar.
2/ So now we make a connection. Goody! Do we now get radio 4 again, or just static? We do so from a filter of a view of a bias that is held (mostly, among the hoi polloi that is the human animal) and a view created by an insufficiency of language and its limited comprehension often in part due (because there’s multiple variables at work) to an improper use of time or a use of time based on a limited capacity to (insert multiple variables). There both was and wasn’t that connection at the time. And there were others too…how deep is your puddle? But the connection actually isn’t a connection it’s a recognition of there being a number of factors as can be identified (but could have been then as they were consciously-made) and the drawing of an inference which is only recognition that various things were done and they would have been done at some point. In short, people are people and it just so happens that as things went in this parallel to other planes of existence existence that they went the way they did. That said, of course, not all voyages of discovery met with the colonisation of the world by England or we might actually have won the world cup more than once. I blame the beagles, myself. Those charming dogs from LIverpool who impregnated all them darn free wimmin.
3/ They weren’t synonomous. Central America. They were the same. It happened. It would have happened. It did and does happen. It will happen. It doesn’t have to be as it was (MTV?) but it happens. Basically a load of people went and killed a load of people cause that’s what they did and it was better than being killed themselves and someone told them God told them to do it. Psychiatry hadn’t been invented so there wasn’t anyone to tell people that this was called schizophrenia and was caused because their mother bathed them in the nude. The fact that they were sharing bath water was neither here nor there. Hence capitalism to keep everyone clean.
4/ Cook was sponsored. Why was he sponsored? Exactly. Was the atom bomb ‘innocent’? How about Newton who couldn’t make cider but could piss people off because he wasn’t very nice to them? What about Mr Milliband or anyone who takes the coin of anyone who … (duality of purpose - pass go often and buy some nice houses)? Sounds to me like it’s all being over-simplified.
5/ It may not be. Consider the source. Academia is becoming full of 3rd rate idiots with an agenda (multiplicity of purposes) and it would, by necessity as it’s a university if it follows the proper tradition of considering all sides probably end up a bit wet but should look to get to the nub of the matter. Which isn’t a simple/simplistic ‘this is’ view. So apart from adding something that was there to what is otherwise said but which is then seized upon by the inept to show their ability to skew everything to become only the slant that they can bear all it does is add little that should/could be obtained from other sources otherwise provided people can read/enquire/have a clue what history is about and not be little vessels of ‘all I can do is quote what works for my own purpose’ i.e. their own agenda.
Wholly pointless matter in full.
4 Likes
What?
They’ll argue, rattle away and abuse (note the abuse I have got on this thread alone), they’ll prod and poke (note I haven’t felt the need to reply until someone else did as its seems I’m gloating) in packs with poor wit and polticized opinion as opposed to facts which quite frankly shows the level we are dealing with here.
We can talk about Empire all day and how good and bad it was but facts don’t lie, the deep guilt (real or not) of the British Empire felt by elements of the white English is an absolutely English phenomena, but if people are going to feel this guilt then they have to compare our former Empire to others.
The luxury of a conscience most in the World don’t have I suppose as they simply can’t afford one.
Superb post by the way Burp.
1 Like
I wasn’t quite sure exactly what ppl were arguing about, or who was on what side, but it’s reassuring to hear that Barry has won.
3 Likes
Disputing a historical fact makes its quite easy to win that argument Bearsy. Similar to the denial of the Nanking massacre or the Armenian genocide, they are facts, just because the Japanese or Turks are ashamed and embarrassed and fail to fully admit it doesn’t take it away.
congrats & tks for not gloating.
Just to recap for frm records,was the Dispute:
BARRY SAYS: Cook Bro was valiant explorer on heroic Voyage Of Discovery
EVERYONE ELSE ON ENTIRE FORUM SAYS: Cook Bro was tyranical pirate, invader & murderous Scumbag
NO-ONE SAYS: Prob a bit of both
And is everyone happy that Barry is proven Champion? Just so I can get it added to official records pls.
4 Likes
After the abuse on this thread alone Bearsy one should be afforded a little smugness, I’ll let it slide though, why gloat? No need old chap, if I can help anyone else concerning historical facts like the 1966 invasion in Kent by Norman and the like let me know.
5 Likes
I would be interest to hear about the 1966 invasion and the affect it had on the World Cup srs
4 Likes
6 Likes
Just reading through the pages there, some people should really be embarrassed ffs, c this and c that ha ha oh dear.
Pap warning me for being correct, I currently feel like Mandela coming out of thrush Island.
Embarrassed? hahahahhaha stop being such c c c 
Opportunist, that is what this thread is and what you were, read you like a book Mr Abandon.
Play the post not the poster, Pap likes that statement and it rings true here.
I have checked & the first abuse post i could find on this thread was Barry calling Gay Abandon a Blathering Fool, it happened on pg 1 srs
5 Likes
After his snide innuendo of me being racist for posting such an explosive thread ha ha, I suggest you read it.
Got quite a few likes from the opportunists as well.
Originally posted by @Barry-Sanchez
After his snide innuendo of me being racist for posting such an explosive thread ha ha, I suggest you read it.
I’m not sure you’re fully grasping the concept of playing the ball and not the man.
4 Likes
Barry is just annoyed cos he brought a Blathering Fool to a Cunt fight.
5 Likes