Line in the sand. Let's lay off (captain) cook

[Pessimistic]

From humble beginnings, became a giant in the maritime and scientific fields

Was also ultra progressive for his times, he's not the enemy

 

[Power Raid]

http://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-captain-james-cook

 

[Pessimistic]

Also reportedly as well as avoiding scurvy, which was a killer, Cooks management methods meant far far fewer Sailors died on his expeditions than was the norm.
Other well known explorers up till then regarded such losses as neccesary

 

[FredLeDeux]

Also reportedly as well as avoiding scurvy, which was a killer, Cooks management methods meant far far fewer Sailors died on his expeditions than was the norm.
Other well known explorers up till then regarded such losses as neccesary

I read Hough's biography, and the extraordinary thing to me was how they ever found their way home again, every 2 or 3 days he seemed to have somebody up on punishment for drunkenness.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Excellent doco/bio here....It's a long un, but a good un.

 

[pugsville]

LooK I would marginally be in favour of correctly the plaque. But in no way would I say that was attack on James Cook.

But would not say that would detract from the magnificent achievements of a great sea navigator. He rightly has a statue in our public spaces and his story is both interesting and historically important story. his voyages of discovery were very significant and had great achievements.

 

[telsor]

http://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-captain-james-cook

So highly was he regarded by the English that on his 2nd and 3rd voyages he carried 'K1' with him.

K1 was the 2nd or 3rd clock (really an oversized watch) that worked at sea and was a vital strategic asset for the Royal Navy as it massively improved nautical navigation by allowing simple and accurate calculation of longitude and if that wasn't a big enough deal, it also cost roughly 30% as much as his ship cost!

 

[telsor]

As for the historical implications of Cooks 'discoveries'....Really, they changed very little. Europeans (the Dutch particularly) already knew Australia existed, and further exploration and colonisation was always going to be just a matter of time.

If anything, having the Brits do it was probably the better option...The Brits tended to have a belief that they were 'required' to improve the lives of the natives (misguided perhaps, but by the standards of the time they strove to walked the walk). Most if not all of the other options were a lot more focussed on the 'loot and pillage' approach and focussed much more on the $$$ they could extract.

 

[Procrastinator35]

As for the historical implications of Cooks 'discoveries'....Really, they changed very little. Europeans (the Dutch particularly) already knew Australia existed, and further exploration and colonization was always going to be just a matter of time.

If anything, having the Brits do it was probably the better option...The Brits tended to have a belief that they were 'required' to improve the lives of the natives (misguided perhaps, but by the standards of the time they strove to walked the walk). Most if not all of the other options were a lot more focused on the 'loot and pillage' approach and focused much more on the $$$ they could extract.

Cook's charting of New Zealand, The South Pacific & the Oz South Eastern coast, was beyond anything the Dutch ever did.

Sure, the Dutch knew about the North of Oz & likely the Portuguese also, given it's proximity to their South East Asian trade routes.....But Cook proved it was all one gigantic Island continent.....Hardly a mean feat.

And as for "changing very little"?....They began mass European colonization because of Cook's voyages FFS.

 

[Pessimistic]

As for the historical implications of Cooks 'discoveries'....Really, they changed very little. Europeans (the Dutch particularly) already knew Australia existed, and further exploration and colonisation was always going to be just a matter of time.

If anything, having the Brits do it was probably the better option...The Brits tended to have a belief that they were 'required' to improve the lives of the natives (misguided perhaps, but by the standards of the time they strove to walked the walk). Most if not all of the other options were a lot more focussed on the 'loot and pillage' approach and focussed much more on the $$$ they could extract.

Whereas the English just 'confiscated' the booty via privateers

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

Captain James cook was no different to the German generals hanged for launching operation Barbarossa.

He was a war criminal who played a pivotal role in a massive genocide.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Captain James cook was no different to the German generals hanged for launching operation Barbarossa.

He was a war criminal who played a pivotal role in a massive genocide.

How do you figure that? I assume you are referring to aboriginals.

If Australia was colonised by anyone other than the British then I doubt their would be an aboriginal alive today.

Cultures with superior technology will almost always win out in a culture clash. That's life.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Cook's charting of New Zealand, The South Pacific & the Oz South Eastern coast, was beyond anything the Dutch ever did.

Sure, the Dutch knew about the North of Oz & likely the Portuguese also, given it's proximity to their South East Asian trade routes.....But Cook proved it was all one gigantic Island continent.....Hardly a mean feat.

And as for "changing very little"?....They began mass European colonization because of Cook's voyages FFS.

The man was a superb navigator and explorer.

 

[Pessimistic]

How do you figure that? I assume you are referring to aboriginals.

If Australia was colonised by anyone other than the British then I doubt their would be an aboriginal alive today.

Cultures with superior technology will almost always win out in a culture clash. That's life.

He's more your Einstein who discovered the possibility of nuclear weapons

 

[Snake_Baker]

He's more your Einstein who discovered the possibility of nuclear weapons

The P.C. stuff surrounding this is pretty infantile.

Do people expect that black powder rifles versus the only culture that did not invent the wheel, was going to turn out any other way?

The natives were conquered by a technologically superior culture. End of history lesson.

 

[Run n Spread]

The P.C. stuff surrounding this is pretty infantile.

Do people expect that black powder rifles versus the only culture that did not invent the wheel, was going to turn out any other way?

The natives were conquered by a technologically superior culture. End of history lesson.

Maybe but it all nearly went **** up in the first few years. Would've been interesting if the first settlers all starved (which they nearly all did) just who would be next in line to have a crack at Australia or would've they taken the Dutch approach and just said * it too hard.

My guess is the Europeans would've come back but picked off gradually and you have a North American situation with horse trading of land rather than the Brits grabbing the lot. Would probably be about 5 countries.

The Natives basically lived off the land as a semi nomadic peoples but with vastly different tribal grouping. Up to 700 different cultures Also worth noting that estimates have Australia's population at about 600-750K but absolutely capping at 1 million over the whole continent at any one time pre settlement. If any advanced warning could be given I doubt there would've been much that could be set up. There have just never been the huge numbers like today or like European countries. Aborigines were small tribes who lived off the land. Small numbers spread over the entirety of the continent.

 

[Run n Spread]

The P.C. stuff surrounding this is pretty infantile.

Do people expect that black powder rifles versus the only culture that did not invent the wheel, was going to turn out any other way?

The natives were conquered by a technologically superior culture. End of history lesson.

It was not one mono culture thou. It was up to 70. Of just 700000 people spread over the entirety of Australia. As you'd know for major genius inventions to exist or a renaissance or Industrial Revolutions you need critical mass where genius can come from a few and ideas build upon ideas. The Aboriginal Cultures simply did not have the numbers to come up with such large scale inventions. Nothing to do with superiority just vastly different. If the Brits had say 40000 people spread over the UK I doubt they'd have the Industrial Revolution.

One thing the Aborigines did get right was keeping the population under control so not to * the land. Sustained them for 60000 odd years just fine.

Doubt Cook had much to do with it thou. He simply set a course mapped most of it and left the settlement to others.

 

[Roylion]

Maybe but it all nearly went **** up in the first few years. Would've been interesting if the first settlers all starved (which they nearly all did) just who would be next in line to have a crack at Australia or would've they taken the Dutch approach and just said **** it too hard.

Possibly the French.

Jean-François de Galaup, Comte de Laperouse led an expedition from 1785-1788 to complete the Pacific doscoveries of Cook (whom Lapérouse greatly admired), correct and complete maps of the area, establish trade contacts, open new maritime routes and enrich French science and scientific collections. Their objectives were geographic, scientific, ethnological, economic (looking for opportunities for whaling or fur trading), and political (the eventual establishment of French bases or colonial cooperation with their Spanish allies in the Phillipines). They were to explore both the north and south Pacific, including the coasts of the Far East and of Australia and send back reports through existing European outposts in the Pacific.

Lapérouse's expedition arrived off Botany Bay on 24 January 1788. There Laperouse encountered the First Fleet led by Arthur Phillip who was there to establish the penal colony of New South Wales. The French were received courteously and spent six weeks at the British colony (their last recorded landfall) and left on the 10th March. They were never seen again, but bith ships of the expediton are belivedto have been wrecked in the Solomon Islands.

There was maybe a second chance that parts of Australia could have become French, when in 1800 Nicolas Baudin received instructions from Napoleon Bonaparte to sail straight to New Holland and circumnavigate the continent, but he delayed for months in the New Hebrides and Timor. The expedition lasted from 1800 - 1803. They charted the whole length of Tasmania's east coast and there were extensive interactions with the Indigenous Tasmanians, with whom they had peaceful relationships. They also charted parts of the southern coasts of Australia

The French also nearly succeeded in colonising part of the south island of New Zealand. French Whaler Jean-François Langlois felt that Akaroa, on the Banks Peninsula, would make an excellent French base, and began forming plans to take the South Island for France. He negotiated with, and obtained signatures from 12 Ngai-Tahu Maori chiefs from Port Cooper, whereby he bought of most of Banks Peninsula, on the east coast of New Zealand.

According to the deed, in French, dated 2nd August 1838, the land was bought from the Maori for a deposit of 150 French francs in goods. The remainder of the total price was to be settled on Langlois' return to take possession of the land. Langlois bought most of Banks Peninsula. Eventually two small towns of around 60 French inhabitants were established. However before the first settlers arrived in August 1840 the British signed the Treaty of Waitangi with Maori Chieftains, at the Bay of Islands in the North Island, on 6th February 1840. The South Island Māori chiefs signed the treaty a little later, on 30th May of the same year. The French settlers arrived in a British colony.

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

Cook got shipwrecked on the barriers reef. He approached the locals asking for help. They said no. So he stole thier food anyway

One of the reasons he was killed. His reputation spread all across the Pacific

It's funny you guys rever this man yet his own records contradict the racist British properganda about this country.

You can actually access his records and his orders. He was sent here to find a landing site and a convoy route for the invasion force.

Some of the s**t above is just plain disgusting.

The invasion was successful as a result of bioligical weapons. The invasion funded by big buisness

Learn your history sheep.

 

[Roylion]

Cook got shipwrecked on the barriers reef. He approached the locals asking for help.

They said no. So he stole thier food anyway

Cook's journal records encounters with the indigenous people (mostly peaceful). In the seven weeks he was in the area of the Barrier Reef / Endeavour River (11th June 1770 - 6th August 1770), he first encountered the local population on 8th July 1770, where Cook attempted to trade beads, mirrors, cloth, nails and trinkets for supplies of fresh food and vegetables, with no luck. By the 15th July with many of his crew showing early signs of scurvy to add to a dwindling supply of food, they chanced upon several 200-300 pound green turtles which they collected for both immediate and future use.

On 19th July the ship received a formal visitation from ten spear-wielding warriors. When their leader’s request for a single turtle was refused, they tried to carry one away to their waiting canoes, only to be manhandled away from the gunwales by a group of sailors and spears confiscated. Infuriated, the warriors set fire to the long dry grass adjoining the ship’s tents, nearly destroying the Endeavour's precious fishing net. Cook ordered the firing of a musket loaded with birdshot, which delivered a minor wound with little blood loss to one of the warriors. Later Cook returned the spears taken.

One of the reasons he was killed.

Cook wasn't killed in Hawaii in 1779 because of his actions on the east coast of Australia in 1770.

His reputation spread all across the Pacific

Not from Australia it didn't. Cook's Third Voyage was the first known European expedition to visit the Hawaiian Islands. William Bligh became the first known European to actually set foot on Hawaiian soil. It was clear that the Hawaiians didn't know anything about Cook before his first visit there in 1778.

You can actually access his records and his orders. He was sent here to find a landing site and a convoy route for the invasion force.

Cook certainly had instructions that in the event that he found the southern continent, he should chart its coasts, obtain information about its people, cultivate their friendship and alliance, and annex any convenient trading posts in the King’s name. His instructions record the quest for scientific discovery, combined with the desire to find exploitable natural resources and to expand Britain’s control of strategic trading posts around the globe.

Learn your history sheep.

You would do well to take some of your own advice.

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

Cook's journal records encounters with the indigenous people (mostly peaceful). In the seven weeks he was in the area of the Barrier Reef / Endeavour River (11th June 1770 - 6th August 1770), he first encountered the local population on 8th July 1770, where Cook attempted to trade beads, mirrors, cloth, nails and trinkets for supplies of fresh food and vegetables, with no luck. By the 15th July with many of his crew showing early signs of scurvy to add to a dwindling supply of food, they chanced upon several 200-300 pound green turtles which they collected for both immediate and future use.

On 19th July the ship received a formal visitation from ten spear-wielding warriors. When their leader’s request for a single turtle was refused, they tried to carry one away to their waiting canoes, only to be manhandled away from the gunwales by a group of sailors and spears confiscated. Infuriated, the warriors set fire to the long dry grass adjoining the ship’s tents, nearly destroying the Endeavour's precious fishing net. Cook ordered the firing of a musket loaded with birdshot, which delivered a minor wound with little blood loss to one of the warriors. Later Cook returned the spears taken.



Cook wasn't killed in Hawaii in 1779 because of his actions on the east coast of Australia in 1770.



Not from Australia it didn't. Cook's Third Voyage was the first known European expedition to visit the Hawaiian Islands. William Bligh became the first known European to actually set foot on Hawaiian soil. It was clear that the Hawaiians didn't know anything about Cook before his first visit there in 1778.


Cook certainly had instructions that in the event that he found the southern continent, he should chart its coasts, obtain information about its people, cultivate their friendship and alliance, and annex any convenient trading posts in the King’s name. His instructions record the quest for scientific discovery, combined with the desire to find exploitable natural resources and to expand Britain’s control of strategic trading posts around the globe.



You would do well to take some of your own advice.

I admire your effort in this long post but you were triggered by the truth.

You quoted it yourself. He tried trading with the indigenous and they said no. So he just stole some of thier animals. They complained and he started shooting.

Then you go on and misrepresent what I said to make yourself look good. You should talk to mauris about cook. As I said his reputation spread all through the Pacific as a result of actions like you quoted above. A thief and a murderer.

It's mind boggling the properganda and racist attitude you're sprouting here.

He thieves and murders because the indigenous won't trade with him. Yet you say he was to make friends with the indigenous.

Head in sand moment

 

[Pessimistic]

I admire your effort in this long post but you were triggered by the truth.

You quoted it yourself. He tried trading with the indigenous and they said no. So he just stole some of thier animals. They complained and he started shooting.

Then you go on and misrepresent what I said to make yourself look good. You should talk to mauris about cook. As I said his reputation spread all through the Pacific as a result of actions like you quoted above. A thief and a murderer.

It's mind boggling the properganda and racist attitude you're sprouting here.

He thieves and murders because the indigenous won't trade with him. Yet you say he was to make friends with the indigenous.

Head in sand moment

So he should let his crew starve? History through the 2010s* SNW lens. In his time he was one of the good guys who used his authority a lot better than most.

Probably because he rose from a modest background

* I asterisk because in our time we send unprecedented numbers remote controlled lethal drones to murder people we 'think' are terrorists. I think Cook and some of his peers would be shocked by the loose morals nowadays

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

So he should let his crew starve? History through the 2010s* SNW lens. In his time he was one of the good guys who used his authority a lot better than most.

Probably because he rose from a modest background

* I asterisk because in our time we send unprecedented numbers remote controlled lethal drones to murder people we 'think' are terrorists. I think Cook and some of his peers would be shocked by the loose morals nowadays

Have you seen the incarceration rates of indegenous Australians.

Many locked up for stealing food many die in lock up for unpaid fines

Your logic is bullshit

Cook was military and he was recon for an invasion. At the same time they sent Phillip to the Portuguese to train in running convoys and convicts, to make friends in south american ports so the invasion fleet could resupply and be safe from the french.
They say the same bullshit about Phillip as you do about cook.
Phllip committed mass atrocities and was asked to leave. Instead of leaving he used bioligical warfare. Also sent out shooting parties killing women and children when the indigenous retaliated to rapes and such by his men.

Cook no different

His arrival marked the beginning of a massive genocide that continues today. Your tone sounds like you think that's something to be celebrated. maybe on stormfront you can get away with an attitude like this.

 

[Roylion]

I admire your effort in this long post but you were triggered by the truth.

You quoted it yourself. He tried trading with the indigenous and they said no. So he just stole some of thier animals. They complained and he started shooting.

Cook's men were starting to suffer the early effects of scurvy and they were also running short of supplies which meant that they would starve. Of course they were going to see what they could forage to avert the effects of disease and hunger.

Then you go on and misrepresent what I said to make yourself look good.

I didn't mispresent anything. You're doing a very good job of that yourself. I'm explaining what actually happened.

You should talk to mauris about cook.

Poverty Bay? Certainly the first meeting with Cook's crew led to the deaths of six local Māori during skirmishes with the crew.

At 4 pm on Monday October 9th 1769, the Endeavour dropped anchor about two kilometres from shore off what became known as Poverty Bay. With fresh water and food in short supply, a landing party made for shore in a pinnace and yawl. While the pinnace lay near the mouth of the river, Cook, accompanied by Joseph Banks, Solander, and Monkhouse crossed to the far bank in the yawl, leaving four sailors in charge of the yawl at the water's edge. Cook wanted to meet several natives he had seen near a few huts two or three hundred yards beyond. But when the local Maoris saw them coming their way, they fled, leaving the landing party to disperse along the river. Cook and his companions began wandering about the deserted settlement.

The four sailors in the yawl had in the meantime re-crossed the river and met four dark-skinned Maoris stepped out of an ambush. The sailors tried to flee, however Samuel Evans, coxswain of the pinnace, fired a musket over the heads of the Maoris to halt their pursuit, and when they did not seem to notice, he reached for his musquetoon (a handgun) and fired over their heads again. When they still did not disperse but kept on brandishing their lances, Evans levelled another musket at the leader who according to Maori tradition was called Te Maro, and shot him. The musket shots brought Cook on the run to hear twhat had happened. Cook placed some beads and nails on the body as a symbol of respect, and withdrew.

The next morning about 8 o'clock Cook ordered out the boats with his thirteen armed marines carrying a Union Jack. The yawl followed by the long boat and pinnace proceeded again to the landing at the river mouth. On the far side of the river about one hundred fifty to two hundred natives were gathering - and there they stayed. "A sign of fear," said Banks. As Cook walked along the river bank with Banks and Solander he called across to them in a few words of Tahitian, which they seemed to understand. At once he took notice. The warriors began waving their lances and clubs, and prepared themselves for a war dance.

Cook walked back to the river bank, this time bringing along the Tahitian Tupaia, for he wanted him to test the language; A conversation between Tupaia, with inquiries from across the river as to why the strangers had come, protests about the killing, and doubts about friendship professed. We have come only for food and water, Tupaia called out in Tahitian. Be on guard for they are not our friends, he warned Cook.

Tupaia eventually prevailed on one of the natives to put away his lance and come over. Cook put down his musket, and displaying his empty hands waded across to meet him. Cook and the Maori saluted each other by touching noses. Two more warriors came across, but they both carried their clubs. Cook emptied his pockets, and sensing the danger withdrew safely.

Eventually about twenty of the Maori warriors, all of them carrying their weapons, came across to mingle with Cook and his four companions on the river bank. Then a Maori warrior Te Rakau, grabbed astronomer's Charles Green's sword. Joseph Banks fired his musket and wounded the stealer in the shoulder. The ship's surgeon William Monkhouse, shot and mortally wounded Te Rakau who had made off with the sword. Te Rakau was left unattended by the other Maoris and died sometime through the next night.

When several other warriors ran for the sword Green and Cook fired both rounds causing wounds, and even Tupaia was carrying a musket which he fired, wounding two more natives in the legs. Cook then called a halt.

Cook was still determined to establish peace, even while he continued his search for water. Departing the river, which was brackish, in order to attempt a landing elsewhere along the shore, he wrote "if possible to surprise some of the natives and to take them on board and by good treatment and presents endeavour to gain their friendship." When a sail canoe followed by a paddle canoe having seven occupants in total approached from the sea, the crew saw their chance. Cook ordered a musket fired wide. The Maoris began hurling stones into the nearby boats. On Cook's order the marines fired, killing two, the others falling overboard, clinging to the gunnel during the melee before drowning. Two of the survivors kept hurling sticks, paddles, and even a bundle of fish, until the sailors, captured both of them. The third survivor jumped free until he, too, was captured.

Cook's captives were smothered with kindness by the sailors. Anklets, bracelets, strings of beads, and bright pieces of cloth at last convinced them that they were not to be killed after all. Soon the youngsters "put on chearfull and lively countenances and askd and answered questions with a great deal of curiosity," said Banks. Their names were Marukautii and Ikrangi, and the oldest, the swimming champion, about age eighteen, was named Te Hourangi. At dinner they relished the wine and salt pork and gulped down enormous quantities of bread, vermin and all.

Cook later wrote about the incident:

"I am aware that most humane men who have not experienced things of this nature will censure my conduct in fireing upon the people in this boat nor do I my self think that the reason I had for seizing upon her will att all justify me, and had I thought that they would have made the least resistance I would not have come near them, but as they did I was not to stand still and suffer either my self or those that were with me to be knocked on the head."

As I said his reputation spread all through the Pacific as a result of actions like you quoted above.

Rubbish. There's no evidence for this at all. The Hawaiians had never heard of Cook before he arrived there in 1778.

It's mind boggling the properganda and racist attitude you're sprouting here.

Racist attitude? How so?

He thieves and murders because the indigenous won't trade with him. Yet you say he was to make friends with the indigenous.

It was in Cook's orders to do so, and there are many instances where he did do so. There was friendly trading at Anaura Bay and Tolaga Bay, although at Hawkes Bay when Maoris attempted to abduct Taiata, the young son of the Tahitian Tupaia, there was an exchange of fire and William Monkhouse severely wounded the actual abductor, rescuing Taiata and restoring him to his father.

There was another incident when third lieutenant John Gore was the officer on duty aboard ship, and several canoes alongside were engaging in trade. A Maori, offering to exchange his woven cloak for a piece of cloth held by Gore, refused to send up his part of the bargain. Gore lost his temper and shot the man dead, whereupon the natives scattered in terror. According to Banks, the reaction of the Maoris was also mild, for they returned to say that the "dead man deservd his punishment."

Among the visitors aboard the Endeavour at Mercury Bay was a young warrior named Te Moreta. Years later he gave an affectionate recollection of Cook

"There was one supreme man in that ship. We knew that he was the lord of the whole by his perfectly gentlemanly and noble demeanor. He was a very good man, and came to us--the children--and patted our cheeks, and gently touched our heads. His language was a hissing sound, and the words he spoke were not understood by us in the least. This is the leader of the ship, which is proved by his kindness to us; and also he is so very fond of children. A noble man he was--a rangitira--cannot be lost in the crowd."

Bagnall, Austin E., and Petersen, G. C., 1948, William Colenso...His Life and Journeys, p 462. White, John, 1887-90, Ancient History of the Maoris, VI (?), p 121-130.

On the 30th November 1769 sailors Matthew Cox, Henry Steven, and Manuel Paroya were given of three dozen lashes each for stealing sweet potatotes from a cultivated potato patch belonging to the Maoris.

Head in sand moment

Ironic. I hope the above has been enlightening for you.

 

[Roylion]

At the same time they sent Phillip to the Portuguese to train in running convoys and convicts, to make friends in south american ports so the invasion fleet could resupply and be safe from the french.

From 1774-1778 Phillip, with the permission of the British Navy, served as a captain in the Portuguese navy. Portugal and Spain were at war from 1776-1777, fighting over borders in South America. Britain was anemeny of Spain and had a long standing friendship with Portugal.

He spent the years 1775-78 in Brazil. During a lull in duties at sea, he made an investigation of the king of Portugal's Brazilian diamond mines. He discovered much about Brazil's "Forbidden District", where 5000 African slaves mined diamonds under the constant gaze of their individual overseers. This experience confirmed Phillip's aversion to slavery.

Phllip committed mass atrocities and was asked to leave. Instead of leaving he used bioligical warfare. Also sent out shooting parties killing women and children when the indigenous retaliated to rapes and such by his men.

Stock standard debate in the "History Wars" of academia over Australian history.

Some historians have suggested that the disease may have been either released by accident or theft of medicine stores or perhaps been deliberately employed as a form of deliberate "germ warfare" against indigenous Australians.

The arrival of smallpox in Australia is of uncertain origin. The lack of immunity among Aboriginal Australians to this introduced disease saw it inflict a devastating toll on the Aboriginal population. Though the First Fleet itself did not arrive with any known carriers of the disease, the observation of an epidemic among the Aboriginal population of Sydney around 16 months after the British arrived has led to speculation that the Fleet itself brought this disease to Australia.

Early speculation on the origins of the disease is recorded in the writing of a First Fleet Captain of Marines, Watkin Tench , who noted an "extraordinary calamity" among the Aborigines of Sydney, beginning in April 1789. Repeated accounts of dead bodies marked with pustules consistent with smallpox began being reported around Sydney Harbour around this time. Tench wrote that the colonists' observations had led them to suppose that smallpox was not known in New South Wales and as no First Fleeters had suffered from the disease, its sudden existence among the Aborigines was "inexplicable". Tench speculated as to whether the disease might be indigenous to the country; or whether it had been brought to the colony by the French expedition of Laperouse a year before; traversed the continent from the West where Europeans had previously landed; brought by expedition of James Cook; or indeed by the first British settlers at Sydney. "Our surgeons brought out varioulous matter in bottles", he wrote, "but to infer that it was produced from this cause were a supposition so wild as to be unworthy of consideration".

Medical scientists such as Sir Edward Stirling and Sir John Cleland published a number of books and articles between 1911 and 1966 suggesting that smallpox arrived in Northern Australia from an Asian source.

A rival theory, that smallpox was introduced to NSW in 1789 by British settlers, was put forward in 1914 by the director of the Australian Quarantine Service, Dr J. H. L. Cumpston.

In 1983, Professor Noel Butlin], an economic historian, suggested: "it is possible and, in 1789, likely, that infection of the Aborigines was a deliberate extermination act". Historians David Day and Henry Reynolds (of course) repeated Butlin’s claims and in 2001 Reynolds wrote: "one possibility is that the epidemic was deliberately or accidentally let loose by someone in the settlement at Sydney Cove. Not surprisingly this is a highly contentious proposition. If true, it would clearly fall within the ambit of the Genocide Convention".

Butlin argued that while Macassan fishermen could possibly 'have landed the virus on the Australian mainland at some stage their ability to do so was limited'. It is furthermore highly unlikely, he argued, that this virus should have been brought down from the Gulf of Carpentaria to coincidence with the first major outbreak "just fifteen months after the landing of the first fleet". Besides the time factor connected to Macassans, 'over seven or eight weeks (or more)', the type of vessels, the limited potential for contact between Aborigines and fishermen, and the fact of clothing as carrier and virus is destroyed or seriously reduced in contact with salt water, makes the Macassan theory highly unlikely, he argued. Indeed, infected 'Macassans would be either dead or fully recovered long before reaching the Gulf of Carpentaria. Whereas transfer somehow, theft accident or the like, from scab originally stored in glass containers carried by just one of the seven medical officers on the first fleet seems the most likely cause.

C. C. Macknight (1986) an authority on the centuries-old interaction between indigenous Australians and the people of Makassar (later part of Indonesia), revived the theory that smallpox was introduced to Australia by Macassan mariners visiting Arnhem Land.

Australian virologist Frank Fenner (1988) – who in 1977–80 led the successful World Health Organization (WHO) campaign to eradicate smallpox and was the principal author of a 1988 WHO report, Smallpox and its Eradication – pointed out that no cases of smallpox were reported amongst convicts, sailors, military personnel, or free settlers, on the First Fleet. The virus was also not reported among British or Aboriginal people at Port Jackson over the following 15 months. It was, therefore, unlikely that a person suffering from smallpox and travelling with the First Fleet had caused the 1789 outbreak.

While there were cases of smallpox in Macassar during 1789, there are no reports of it occurring prior to that period. However, smallpox had long been present in island South East Asia – possibly as early the 4th centuryaccording to Frank Fenner. There were outbreaks of smallpox in Indonesia throughout the 18th century. These included, for example, major epidemics in the Sultanate of Tidore (in the Moluccas) during the 1720s, the Sultanate of Banjar (South Kalimantan), in 1734, 1750–51, 1764–65 and 1778–79; and in southern Sumatra during the 1750s, the 1770s, and in 1786. Macassans had contact with these areas both directly and indirectly (through foreign traders and invaders).

David Day (2001) reiterated Butlin's argument and suggested that members of Sydney's garrison of Royal Marines may have attempted to use smallpox as a biological weapon in 1789.

The following year, however, Dr. John Connor of UNSW Canberra. stated that Day's theory was "unsustainable".

In a 2002 book, Invisible Invaders, historian Judy Campbell – advised by Fenner – reviewed reports of disease amongst Aboriginal people from 1780–1880, including the smallpox epidemics of 1789-90, the 1830s and the 1860s. Campbell argues that the evidence, including that contained in these reports shows that, while many diseases such as tuberculosis were introduced by British colonists, this was not so for smallpox and that the speculations of British responsibility made by other historians were based on tenuous evidence, largely on the mere coincidence that the 1789-90 epidemic was first observed afflicting the Aborigines not long after the establishment of the first British settlement. Campbell argues instead that the north-south route of transmission of the 1860s epidemics (which is generally agreed), also applied in the earlier ones. Campbell noted that the fleets of fast Macassan fishing vessels, propelled by monsoonal winds, reached Australia after being at sea for as little as ten to fifteen days, well within the incubation period of smallpox. The numbers of people travelling in the fleets were large enough to sustain smallpox for extended periods of time without it 'burning out'. The Macassans spent up to six months fishing along the northern Australian coastline and Aboriginal people had "day-to-day contact with the islanders. Aboriginals visited the praus and the camps the visitors set up on shore, they talked and traded…" She also notes that Butlin, writing in 1983, "did not recognize that Aboriginals were "great travellers", who spread infection over long distances…." and that smallpox was spread through their extensive social and trading contacts as well as by Aborigines fleeing from the disease. Campbell also cited British historian Charles Wilson, who cited "medical microbiology" in disagreeing with Butlin about the origins of the 1789 outbreak, and "doubted his estimates of its demographic impact", as well as "First Fleet historian Alan Frost[who] also disagreed with Butlin’s views".

Christopher Warren (2007) claimed that Fenner did not address the issue of variolous material brought in bottles by the First Fleet, for use as an inoculant. Warren argued that, even if the variolous material was degraded, it could still infect susceptible people. Smallpox spread by the inhalation of airborne droplets of virus in situations of personal contact or by contact with blankets, clothing or other objects that an infected person had recently used. This material was carried by First Fleet surgeons for inoculation purposes. Warren also suggested that Frost's view was based on a false premise: that the First Fleet's stocks of virus were sterilised by summer heat.

Craig Mear (2008) and Michael J. Bennett (2009) have disputed Judy Campbell's hypothesis that smallpox was introduced to Australia in 1789 through contact between Aboriginal people and mariners from Makassar.

H. A. Willis (2010), in a survey of much of the literature discussed above, reiterated the argument made by Judy Campbell. In response, Warren (2011) suggested that Willis had not taken into account research on how heat affects the smallpox virus, cited by the World Health Organization. In reply, Willis (2011) reiterated that his position was supported by a closer reading of Frank Fenner's report to the World Health Organization(1988) and invited readers to consult that report online.

Macknight re-entered the debate in 2011, declaring: "The overwhelming probability must be that it [smallpox] was introduced, like the later epidemics, by [Macassan] repangers on the north coast and spread across the continent to arrive in Sydney quite independently of the new settlement there."

John Carmody, a professor of medicine, put forward an alternative theory (2013) suggesting that the 1789 epidemic may have been chickenpox rather than smallpox. Carmody pointed out that chickenpox could have taken a severe toll on a population with little hereditary or acquired immunological resistance. With regard to smallpox, Carmody said: "There is absolutely no evidence to support any of the theories and some of them are fanciful and far-fetched." In response, Christopher Warren rejected suggestions that chickenpox has caused the 1789 epidemic.

Warren (2014) subsequently rejected the theory that the 1789 epidemic had originated from Macassar. He claimed that there was no evidence of a major outbreak of smallpox in Macassar before 1789; there were no indigenous trade routes that would have enabled overland transmission from Arnhem Land to Port Jackson;the Makassan theory was contradicted by Aboriginal oral tradition,and; 1824 was the earliest point at which there was strong evidence that Makassans had been the source of a smallpox outbreak.