In what way is it 'selectively doctored'? There's a limit to what can be said in one posting and I surely was *not* deliberately leaving out something important to the point I was making. I object to the insinuation that I was being dishonest in what I said. I have no axe to grind on this issue except with not accepting the truth about the past to the extent that it can be known.
At that time, Cook could not possibly have known what was in the minds of the Aborigines when they attacked him for taking the fish. He could not speak their language and he did not know their culture. He therefore buttumed that that was the reason they attacked him because it was most logical to him, *and that may be the case* - but it may not. As you know, certain species were sacred-taboo to some tribes and anyone else taking them might well have been interfering unwittingly in that tradition. I don't know but I surely know you can't be as certain about that as you think just because that's what Cook thought they were on about.
That is a more open question that you are suggesting - but I can't prove it and nor can you. For both our points of view that may be the most logical explanation - but in any case, it doesn't even touch upon my primary point.
Yes - very true. Which proves....?
To persist in the view that they had the same ideas of law and property rights and a sense of equality about each other's cultural worth makes no sense at all.
Rifty -- Academic and Computing Help
