You are now looking at the NEW site at:

thinkingsovereignty.com

The decolonisethemind.wordpress.com site will remain until I get kicked off. A copy of all posts have been moved to this new site.

The post Announcement: Migration of Blog appeared first on Thinking Sovereignty.

Here is part 2 of a series on Cook’s voyage.

This is some background into navigational techniques, basics of latitude and longitude, old school mariner navigation, what methods was Cook using.

The post Part 2 Youtube video: James Cook The Endeavour Voyage REAL secret mission. Navigation appeared first on Thinking Sovereignty.

The post New Youtube video: James Cook The Endeavour Voyage REAL secret mission appeared first on Thinking Sovereignty.

Now I will start off with the assumption that voting ‘yes’ has already been ruled out as an option, because this would be a different conversion altogether. I am also going to assume that you, are a potential voter and an Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander person, and you are tossing up whether to vote no or to not vote at all. I’m pro-boycott, and in this post I’m going to go through my thought process.

Pure Voting Strategy

First I want to look at it purely by the numbers and by the referendum rules. And yeah, I am talking about a change to the constitution act, which isn’t exactly what was asked for in Uluru Statement, but it seems to be what’s happening this year anyway.

Let’s take a hypothetical scenario. Suppose you were to mobilise and organise 99% of all Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander people to all vote NO in the referendum. What would the impact be? Could we realistically have a discernable impact on the final result?

In this type of referendum that modifies the constitution act, there are two hurdles to be met. One is the majority of 6 States must each vote yes. The other hurdle is an overall national simple majority must be met.

If you look on wikipedia, it has a list of all the referendums in a handy table. It’s handy because you can sort it by different columns. From playing with the table sorting a bit, you can see that some referendums failed the majority of the States test but passed the simple majority test. But there have been no referendums that passed the majority of the States test but failed the simple majority test. This would indicate that it is that the real test in a referendum is the majority of the States test. And therefore, the easiest way to defeat a referendum would be to focus on swinging a state or two towards a ‘no’ vote.

Is it possible for our hypothetical 99% no-voting block of Aboriginal people to swing a State? Let’s look at the demographics… Below is a chart showing the proportion of ‘Indigenous Australians’ [sic] in each State.

We would have a very decent chance at swinging Northern Territory to a ‘no’ vote. But unfortunately, the Northern Territory doesn’t count as one of the 6 States for the referendum. NT votes just get shoved into the nation-wide pool. So there goes that idea.

So we are starting with a very big handicap thanks to being outnumbered. We will need to campaign to others, and try to convince them to vote no. Our chances are not that good.

But maybe there’s some hope… if you go back to the wikipedia table and sort by the national majority (column called voters)tally, you will see there are quite a lot of referendums that were down-to-the-wire, with a simple nationwide result between 47% and 53%. As we are now about 3-4% of the total national tally, we could have theoretically swung these referendums. But if you sort by date, you will see these were mostly a really long time ago, before we could vote at all. You have to go back in-time by 7 referendums before you find the most recent one within a 3% margin.

Even if we were a perfectly coordinated, no-voting block, the chances are not good that we could realistically influence the result. We would need to rely on influencing others to tip the scale, and that’s not self-determination. The game is rigged.

The role of the Media

I think Aboriginal people as a political community have a complicated relationship with the media. I’m going to share some of my (unashamedly biased) impressions.

As we are such a small minority, our voices are easily drowned out. It seems that one moment, the media can throw us a lifebuoy, and the next moment they are in the pool pushing our heads under. There’s a similar dynamic between the media and celebrities. But a celebrity can at least speak authoritatively on their own behalf. We can’t always do that, because the media can always pick and chose who to listen to depending on their agenda. They can shop around for the right soundbite. And the media follow the money. Who’s paying them? Yeah, we know who.

Even in our theoretical scenario of 99% co-ordinated NO-vote… We are at a great disadvantage. Because we don’t pay the media, they are not on our side.

There’s many ways to spin a story. We show up to the polling booth and tick our name off the list. The moment we drop our ballot in the box, our vote is indistinguishable from the 97% non-Aboriginal population. There are ways to spin the end result. It wasn’t Aboriginal people voting no… it was Karen and her friends. The media can shop and pick just the right showcase electorate by demographics for such a story to make sense. They can stand outside a polling booth until they get the right voter with the right sound-bite. There’s literally hundreds of ways that our theoretical 99% coordinated no-vote can be lost inside the ballot box.

The spin has already started. Example this article; 80% of Aboriginal people support the voice. The strategy is already in place. The place that media portrays as having the biggest visible Aboriginal dissent seems to be in the NT itself. Quelle surprise – because that’s exactly where an Aboriginal vote would make a difference. They need an explanation for the big NT no-vote that’s going to happen. The media are priming the reason, and that is because the Aboriginal people in NT are Anangu, traditional old-skool who are unhappy with the misuse of their word Uluru, and they vote differently to the Aboriginal people in the other States who are going to vote predominantly yes… You know, the yes-voting city Aborigines in Victoria, sipping on fancy coffee wearing high-heals. Victoria – high absolute Aboriginal population, but low proportion compared to the general Victorian population… The city-black’s vote is the easiest to make dissapear in the bucket of ballots using the magic of stortytelling. It’s a numbers and yarn-telling game by Crosby-Textor. The absolute majority of Aboriginal people do live in the States, so the claim that 80% of Aboriginal people support the voice can logically hold up. So if you are an Aboriginal person in the higher populated States, your ‘no’ vote is already attributed to ‘Karen who watches Sky news’ before the date is even set, all thanks to media spin.

Active vs. inactive action

I have seen on social media some Aboriginal people advocate for a NO vote over a boycott for the following reason.

A ‘no vote’ is better because it is an active/assertive, not inactive/passive action. Voting NO is actually ‘doing something’, whereas a boycott is ‘doing nothing’. It’s better to ‘do something’ than ‘do nothing’.

While I respect that opinion, I argue against it for the following reasons.

An active approach is not always better than a passive approach. An (unfortunate) example is when a Aboriginal youth is dealing with the police. An active approach against the police is outright dangerous. It really depends on the situation whether a active or passive approach is better. It’s about using the right tool for the job.

Secondly, a boycott can be an active action, it depends how on it’s implemented. An active boycott in this scenario could be also double as an assertion of self-determination and sovereignty if done in a certain way. A group that identifies themselves as sovereign can band together, collectively agree as a clan/tribe/community etc. to boycott, and put out a public statement declaring that. eg. “We the xxxxx people are not participating in this referendum because yyyy plus we are not citizens of the state of QLD anyway, we are peoples under colonial occupation”. This way, you will be heard clearly. It will be difficult for the media to spin if the group of people is large enough. It may also help prevent potential election fraud (eg. if it turns out that members of your group had their names crossed off when they didn’t vote). It might also be a good idea for someone to keep track of names and/or a count of people who are under the public statement. I think it is unlikely that your people will be fined for not voting in this scenario, particularly for this referendum, because the government would need massive balls to fine your group for expressing their identity in this way – and that’s mainly to do with International laws on self-determination of colonised peoples AND also the “Indigenous rights”/UNDRIP (gammin version of self-determination).

Another way to make an active action against the referendum on the side of a boycott is by a petition to c24 as I blogged about here.

A boycott can also be passive and lazy. Just don’t turn up, and don’t say anything. That might be good for your own peace of mind. But it’s probably not going to be very effective, even if you are a high profile person with a platform and put out your own statement.

It doesn’t make sense for us to be voting anyway

It doesn’t really make sense for us Aboriginal people to be voting at all in this Australian referendum.

• At Yulara an offer was made on behalf of all First Nations[sic] people to the Australian people.
• The Australian people will accept of reject the offer. They do so by having a referendum.
• Aboriginal people shouldn’t be voting in the Australian referendum, because then they are playing both sides of the table.

If we vote in the referendum, not only are we playing both sides of the table, but it sends the wrong message about who we are.

Unlike previous referendums or elections, it is especially important for this particular referendum: high levels of Aboriginal participation could be mis-interpreted that we are asserting our identity as Australians with a right to say in the matter. When did we become Australian? If we are Australian at all, we must have always been Australian. The First Australians, under brutal Australian law.

In terms of the right to self-determination for colonial peoples determining their political status, that’s a big mistake in my opinion. We need to differentiate ourselves, and any negotiation with the occupiers needs to be from a basis of “us and them”, at least initially. As John Howard said (paraphrasing) – Australia can’t treaty with itself. If we start off-the-bat saying we are one with colony, there’s no point.

I’m playing contrarian

This one a dumb reason for a boycott, but it is one of my reasons… There are certain “grassroots leaders” who I don’t trust, because I have watched them carefully for several years, and they are consistently nudging Aboriginal people in what my analysis shows is the wrong direction. These individuals now seem to be trying to dissuade a boycott in favour of a NO vote. I see them coming a MILE away… And it feeds into my confirmation bias. Not the best reason, but a reason nonetheless.

Reasons to Vote No instead of boycott

Reading what I’ve written, I think maybe I’m too harsh on vote no. I’m trying to think of a good reason to vote no rather than boycott.

But I’m struggling… There’s only one reason I can think of, and that there’s a small possibility that it may be the difference between the referendum passing or failing. But I don’t buy lotto tickets.

Titleimage from John Hain on Pixabay

The post Referendum: Boycott vs. Voting No appeared first on Thinking Sovereignty.

Let’s break it down.

1. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are politically ‘seperate and distinct’ from “Australia”. This is affirmed in UN General Assembly Resolution 2625, as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are under colonial occupation, and have not yet excercised their right to self-determination in accordance with General Assembly Resolution 1514.
2. Australia is a Federation of Colonies which was enacted by the Imperial parliament in England. It was done in the authority of the English Crown with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in England. In otherwords, Australia is a political construct enacted by the English Crown and with the OK from English land-owners and the Church of England.
3. The Crown of England, and House of Lords of England have no juristiction over the territory known as Australia. Geographical Australia is not part of the English created political construct known as Australia, but it is territory that is under occupation by that political construct. Always was, always will be Aboriginal Land.
4. The Parliament of Australia, as a democratic Parliament, represents the Australian polity. The people of the English Crown jurisdiction who operate under the English occupier law.
5. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, as a collective, never agreed to become part of the Australian polity.
6. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people do not fall under the authority of the Church of England, English landowners or the English Crown.
7. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, as a collective, are not a sub-set of the Australian polity.
8. As such, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people do not have the right to representations to the Australian Parliament.
9. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people vote at the discretion of the States. This is in the Constitution Act, and can also be deduced from what changes happened after the 1967 referendum.
10. The Voice to Parliament is a request from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for the right to make representations to the Australian Parliament.
11. The form and structure of the Voice to Parliament is to be determined by Parliament.
12. The form and structure of any voice to Parliament is already long well established in Australia and in other democracies around the world. It is usually one person, one vote.

Think about it guys…. The Voice to Parliament – in the long run – is not going to be a seperate Aboriginal-only body, with Aboriginal-only seats, to be voted on only by Aboriginal people.

IT IS VOTING RIGHTS!

We will be selling out our right to decolonise under our own terms for the right to vote.

The post What is the ‘Voice to Parliament’? appeared first on Thinking Sovereignty.

It approximates the border between Papua New Guinea and the Indonesian province of West Papua. However, there is a slight interruption at the intersection of the Fly River.

Map showing the border between Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. By Plucas58 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=42846276

141 East also approximates the eastern border of South Australia, where South Australia borders with New South Wales and Victoria. However, south of the triangular border between South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria, the border shifts very slightly west of the 141 E meridian.

Map: OpenStreetMap contributors, CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

The border in both instances appears to have been where it is because of British decisions. In this post, I am going try to find why they chose 141 E.

Brief Historical Background of these borders

1836: The province of South Australia was carved out in 1836. This is the first use of 141 E. This meridian was later used in 1859 as the western border of Queensland when the Colony Queensland was first established. For a more full understanding, see this wikipedia article for the full territorial evolution of the states.

1883: In the case of the Papua New Guinea/Indonesia border, 141E was initially chosen by the police magistrate of Queensland during an attempt to annex the eastern half of Papua. The attempt seems to have initially failed as it did not get the rubber stamp from the British crown. But then shortly after, Germany annexed the northern half of that portion, ie the north east quarter of the island. Then the British immediately stepped in and annexed the south east quarter of the island. This all happened in 1883 and I have blogged about it here. It was obviously co-ordinated between Germany and England, otherwise Germany would have annexed the entire eastern-half and not just the north-eastern quarter.

Why 141 East?

Why 141 East, and not – say – 140 which is a more round number? 141 East seems to have been plucked from thin air.

Well I think it is to do with (like many unexplained colonial executive decisions) the doctrines of discovery.

Let’s look at the island Papua/New Guinea/Irian itself. The name New Guinea was given by a Spanish explorer (and probably “first discoverer”) Inigo Ortiz de Retez. He claimed possession of the land from the mouth of the Mamberamo River. This is a massive river system, the third largest by discharge in Oceana according to wikipedia. Under the Doctrines of Discovery, if a discoverer claims the mouth of the River – he claims the river catchment.

The headwaters of this river is in very thick jungle. So it would have been very difficult for any Europeans to precicely survey the exact eastern-most point of the catchment. But 141 degrees east is actually pretty darn close to the eastern-most meridian in which the Mamberamo River catchment falls.

I don’t have a actual map of the Mamberamo River catchment, so I quickly mocked this Google earth screenshot up. You can look on Google maps or Google earth and follow the river upstream with your mouse and eyeballs. The catchment seems to sneak over the border at one point, but the eastern-most point of the catchment is pretty damn close to 141 East (marked here in yellow as the Indonesia/PNG border).

Doctrines of Discovery

So let’s look at this in terms of the Doctrines of Discovery.

The Spanish claimed and planted the flag at the mouth of the Mamberamo River in 1545. That puts the catchment under Spanish First Discovery, and also makes it a single, contiguous territory (at least until it is challenged).

The Portuguese probably had contact with the island of New Guinea before the Dutch moved in, but it seems this contact was limited to the west and outside of the Mamberamo catchment. The Dutch had treaties with the Sultanate of Tidore, who claimed to have coastal parts of New Guinea (including in the catchment) as something akin to vassal state territory.

As the Spanish had initially claimed up to 141 degrees east (even though they were not aware of the extent of their claim), any subsequent european claim encompassing parts of the river catchment would also extend to 141 east. This would include the Dutch/Tidore treaty, so in other words, the Dutch have claim of the Mamberamo catchment because of their treaties with Tidore.

So before the British (or should I say, Queensland) came along, no one had actually claimed, settled or treatied with natives east of the Mamberamo River catchment. Since the Spanish claimed discovery a very long time ago in 1545, and the Dutch never moved further east, it could be said that territory east of Mamberamo River catchment is ripe for the taking.

All up, this makes 141 east a decent candidate border for the eastern most meridian of the entire Dutch East Indies territory itself. The Dutch didn’t have any establishments east of that line. The most eastern part of their effective administration in the region was Aru Islands, well to the west of 141E.

This is probably why South Australia was established in the way that it was. South Australia was a test. It was like a provocation for the Dutch to react and challenge inpingment on their side of the 141 East meridian. This meridian was also used for the border of the Colony of Queensland for the same reason.

Also note, the western border of the Province of South Australia was initially set at 132 east – not at the Western Australia border. This left an awkward gap on the map. When Bremer stood on Coburg peninsular (near Darwin in the north) and annexed a large chunk of New Holland just after the Anglo-Dutch treaty of 1824, he stood less than 20km east of this 132 East meridian.

Map: The awkward gap west of South Australia (ignore the captions/text, it is unrelated…). By User:Golbez – Own work, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=63611588

The northern border of South Australia was set at 26 degrees south. At this same latitude on the east coast is an area which Matthew Flinders explored in high detail (Hervey’s Bay), and I believe it is because 26 degrees south lies in-between the two following latitudes: 1. The half-way latitude between Cape York and South West Cape in Tasmania (27°09’59S) and 2. the half-way latitude between Cape York and Wilsons Prom (24°54’42). Setting SA’s border at 26 South is a hedge betting strategy for drawing a north-south, British-Dutch border.

So next thing…. what’s up with the anomolies in the borders?

The so-called Survey Error in Australia state borders

First a map to get started… Here is a map showing the 141 E meridian in red, a very roughly drawn Mamberano River catchment in white, and the Murry Darling Basin in purple-ish.

So if the Dutch East Indies eastern boundary is at 141 degrees east, there is a problem here for the British. Because the mouth of the Murray Darling is actually on the Dutch side of the line. So technically, that might mean that the entire Murray Darling catchment is part of the Dutch East Indies.

Now let’s look at the so-called survey error again;

Map: OpenStreetMap contributors, CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

It is at the Murray Darling that the “survey error” that the anomoly begins.

I think this is no survey mistake, but deliberate.

The main reason for this is to bolster the British claim of the pocket of territory that lies to the south and outside of the Murray Darling catchment – ie. roughly half of Victoria – the parts of Victoria south of the top ridgeline of the Victorian alps including Melbourne, plus a small corner of South Australia (including Mt Gambier up to Tintinara).

This is because the British can then argue that the western border of Victoria has nothing to do with 141E, but is simply an well established administrative boundary that runs through the British pocket of territory south of the Murray Darling catchment.

This “survey error” also helps a little in bolstering the claim of the Murray Darling catchment itself – by having part of the border running along the river makes the river an integral part of the border, and proves the British “know” the river and have surveryed it. (Later on the British claim on the Murray Darling catchment is further bolstered with the drawing up of the QLD/NSW border at misplaced “Point Danger”, but that’s another story that I touched on in this linked post)

With this “error” – upon Dutch challenge of the establishment of the Province of South Australia, a new (potential) international border between British colonies and the Dutch East Indies would be much more likely to run along 141 East down to near Broken Hill, where it would turn westward and follow the northern border of the Murray Darling catchment to somewhere near Adelaide. This is much preferable for the British than 1. losing the entire Murray Darling catchment to the Dutch, or 2. having the 141 east line go directly south to the south coast.

Note also

1. That Adelaide – the capital of the Province of South Australia was situated just outside to the west of the Murray Darling catchment, it is seperated from the catchment only by the Adelaide hills. This is kinda convenient also, because in case of challenge, the British could argue that they are already settled and established west of the catchment.

2. Flinders’ encounter with the French explorer Baudin in 1802 actually happened right next to the mouth of the Murray Darling, even though at the time officially Europeans supposedly didn’t know where the river mouth was. Kind of an amazing coincidence that the British and French were BOTH at such an important strategic location at the same time. I’m pretty sure Flinders knew the mouth was there, and that is also why he was scoping out the Flinders Ranges for suitable sites for a coastal settlement west of the Murray Darling catchment. He even made a rare excursion on foot to the top of the ranges, probably in the hope of seeing a massive river on the other side. Maybe the French knew about the mouth as well, I suspect they had British informants (double agents) passing them intel which is why Baudin was also there.

And the little zig-zag in PNG/Indonesia border….

I’m not exacly sure yet where the zig-zag at the Fly River came from or when it came about, but here’s my guess.

Note that the zig-zag is definitely well to the south of the Mamberamo catchment and on the British (south) side and not the German (north) side. So it would have been a British creation. The Germans didn’t care, whereas the British had high stakes due to territorial claims on mainland Australia.

I am guessing that the British re-jigged the border at some stage, and gave up a little bit of high jungle so they can later argue that the border has nothing to do with 141 east. This distances them from the doctrines of discovery and the contention with the Dutch, and makes the border simply of an administrative nature.

• sorry if my spelling/typos is bad here, I’m on German spellcheck so the whole post is red quiggly lines

The post 141st Meridian East appeared first on Thinking Sovereignty.

I just read this article linked above, and I have a lot of thoughts on it. Here’s a start…

“What did sovereignty look like in 1770?“

The section “What did sovereignty look like in 1770?” is very misleading. The article gives the false impression that Cook was instructed to get consent from the natives of New Holland. This is not what happened. The secret instructions have taken out of context in this article. This article is not the only culprit here – this misconception is very common in the mainstream narrative. When one reads Cook’s original secret instructions in it’s entirety and in context, it is clear that the parts regarding consent of the natives… i.e.

“You are also with the Consent of the Natives to take Possession of Convenient Situations in the Country in the Name of the King of Great Britain: Or: if you find the Country uninhabited take Possession for his Majesty by setting up Proper Marks and Inscriptions, as first discoverers and possessors.”

DO NOT apply to New Holland. This section applies only to undiscovered lands found enroute between Tahiti and New Zealand. Immediately after the consent part of the instructions is this…

“But if you shall fail of discovering the Continent beforemention’d, you will with upon falling
in with New Zeland carefully observe the Latitude and Longitude in which that Land is situated and explore as much of the Coast as the Condition of the Bark….

Cook failed to discover the beforementioned Continent lying in between Tahiti and New Zealand. Therefore the part about consent is irrelevant as it applies to the beforementioned continent which does not exist.

What actually happened is this…

As far as British knowledge was at the time of Cook’s voyage, New Holland was already under formal possession claim by the Dutch. This claim was staked in 1642 from the east coast of Tasmania by Abel Tasman. This claim was implicitly recognised by European powers by the fact that no European deliberately went near the place for more than a hundred years. The British had no way of knowing of the existence of the Bass Strait, so as far as British knowledge is concerned, Tasmania is part of New Holland and therefore under Dutch possession as of 1642.

Cook was also instructed to only claim lands previously undiscovered by European powers – New Holland is not undiscovered. Cook’s ‘secret instructions’ – the instructions that we know of – do not tell Cook to claim New Holland.

So why did Cook claim New Holland if it wasn’t in the secret instructions? There’s two logical possibilities. 1. He went cowboy. 2. He had another set of instructions. If he went cowboy, the British would not have subsequently sent him on future voyages, neither would they have set up a colony in “Botany Bay” based on Cook’s discovery.

Cook must have had another set of instructions.

And there’s proof of this which I have previously written about in this blog.

On Sovereignty

The Jack Latimore article in question mentions “Indigenous Sovereignty”.

THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS ABORIGINAL SOVEREIGNTY.

THEY ARE NOT INTERCHANGBLE!!

This is extremely important to distinguish the two concepts of indigenous and Aboriginal.

“Indigenous” is a cultural designation. It means a minority – a part of a whole. Take a region or territory, there may be different communities living in that space. Indigenous refers to the communities that have the oldest cultural continuity with that territory. Generally, which communities are or are not Indigenous is defined by the State in the limited context of international human rights obligations.

“Aboriginal” on the other-hand has it’s three part definition. Blood, self identification, and claimed by a community. There is no cultural component and no racial component. This is a very similar concept to nationality. There’s a reason Australia created this definition – it relates to international laws on decolonisation. “Aboriginal” is the designation used by Australian state to identify the communities who are under Australia’s colonial subjugation and domination. Aboriginal people are colonised peoples. Colonised people have a very unique and special set of political rights. This is well outside of the scope of international human rights afforded to indigenous peoples. It’s rights to their own territorial integrity, rights to determine their political status, including who governs them and how they choose to identify themselves and speak on their behalf.

Indigenous Sovereignty is by definition limited to the confines of the State, as indigenous peoples are part of a larger whole under the dominant State.

Aboriginal Sovereignty transcends the sovereignty of the occupying colonial State.

Strait off the bat, Latimore is not addressing the core issue. And that is the problem with the current debate over the Uluru Statement. The basis is wrong from the very start.

The post Response to Jack Latimore’s article pt1. appeared first on Thinking Sovereignty.

But I had another look at it recently, and made an interesting observation.

Just for some context – this chart is by French cartographer De Vaugondy and the style of the chart is consistent with his other work. Alexander Dalrymple is credited as a source.

What are the sources for this chart? The obvious sources are Bougainville, Carteret, Dampier and Cook.

Below is an English Carteret/Dampier/Cook chart. Obviously post 1770 – because it shows the “Endeavour Streights”. The overall framing of the above chart appears to be taken from here. Carteret was the captain of the second ship in the British c.1766 two-ship Dolphin + Swallow voyage. The first ship (Dolphin) was more famous – led by Samuel Wallis and ‘discovered’ Tahiti. Carteret sailed the Swallow through a passage between New Britain and New Ireland.

And here is Bougainville’s chart of the Golphe de La Louisiade. This section of coastline appears in the bottom-right corner of the Dalrymple/Vaugondy chart.

Here is the main chart again with the Bougainville section circled in yellow;

I have also marked red numbers. This is interesting thing I found about this chart is this: it includes place-names from the Tovar/Torres voyage. The place-names on the chart are 1. Puerto de Monterey 2. C. de la Colta de St Bonaventura 3. L.S. Lorenzo. These place-names resemble places Torres/Tovar names as La Gran Baya de S Lorenco with it’s Port of Monterey, and San Buenaventura. Yes – there is a slight difference in spellings and a Francisation of ‘Bueno..’ to ‘Bona..’ but the resemblance is close enough to be the source. But on the Vaugondy chart the places are in the incorrect position. They are also in the wrong order that Torres/Tovar came across them, and places 1 and 2 are separated while in reality they are at the same location. Below is a chart showing the locations charted by Tovar; this is at the eastern-end of “mainland” PNG.

And it just so happens that Bougainville landed directly in the La Gran Baya de S Lorenco/Port of Monterey. AND he named the same place Golphe de La Louisiade. Here, Bouganville anchored and named the Cul du sac L’Orangerie. These appear on the Vaugondy chart in the ‘correct’ location.

What’s going on here?

How did those particular Spanish names end up on this Dalrymple/Vaugandy chart? British propagandists will try say that the only thing the British knew about Torres’s voyage from the Arias Memorial. The Torres/Tovar voyage is very obscure and unknown at this time c.1770. Even the Spanish seem to have forgotten these places.

There’s two (main/obvious) possibilities…

1. The French know about Tovar/Torres’s voyage – and this is why Bougainville dead-reckoned westwards along latitude 15 degrees south from the Great Cyclades (Vanuatu) until he hit the Great Barrier Reef, and then proceeded north to land and chart Tovar/Torres’s Baya de S Lorenco. But if Bougainville did so deliberately following in Tovar’s steps, why didn’t Bougainville actually follow through with passage through the Torres Strait?
2. The British had detailed knowledge about the Tovar/Torres Voyage. Dalrymple certainly knew of the Torres Strait – he marked it on his 1770 book before Cook sailed through it.

I’m going with option 2, because the more I think about, the more it makes sense. There’s a tonne of other circumstantial evidence to back #2. The British were the ones who went to make claims on New Holland, not the French.

So where is the ‘original’ Dalrymple chart in ENGLISH? It’s not in any of his books… There is only this Vaugondy French version (as far as I know).

This is what I think happened;

• Cook returned on his first voyage to receive the news of Bouganville’s expedition.
• The British looked at Bougainville’s voyage path and noticed immediately that he charted La Gran Baya de S Lorenco, and that he also possibly re-discovered Quiros’s La Austrialia del Espiritu Santo in Vanuatu (Bougainville kind-of did, he just hit the south side of the island instead of the north). This is because the British secretly have Tovar’s charts.
• The British panicked with (justified) paranoia. They concluded that the French must also have detailed intelligence on Tovar/Torres’s voyage
• They got Dalrymple to bait the French. Dalrymple makes a special chart to muddy the waters, and to ‘test’ the French on their geographical knowledge. The chart was trafficked/leaked; to Vaugondy. The French either know nothing of Torres/Tovar, or don’t let on that they know. So Vaugondy just blindly translated it, recompiled and published it.

It is interesting to note that Tovar/Torres’s “4th chart” – Baya de S. Pedro de Arlanca place name does not appear on the Vaugondy chart. This fits with the #2 theory. The British are not revealing anything more than they have to in order to achieve their goal of baiting the French. There are a whole lot other names on there which seem to be pulled out of thin-air. There’s even a Brandenburg Volcano on the south coast of Papua! Someone has a wild imagination.

This all really makes me curious as to the dynamic between the rival colonial powers, the skullduggery, spying, planting information, propaganda that happens behind the scenes. It really sets the political scene for the later loss of La Perouse’s voyage – which I think is very suspicious.

The post The Dalrymple/Vaugondy chart of Papua appeared first on Thinking Sovereignty.

My hypothesis is that Alexander Dalrymple was a key figure in initiating James Cook’s first voyage. Normally, Dalrymple is portrayed as a butt-hurt, jealous person who was bitter over being overlooked in favour of Cook for that big prestigious voyage that “discovered Australia”.

My feeling is that this is inaccurate. Dalrymple was trained by the British East India Company in a kind of spy/diplomat/propagandist role. Alexander Dalrymple’s older sister married a high-ranking East India Company official and this got a teenaged Dalrymple’s foot in the door. Dalrymple initially worked as a clerk based in Madras, India under the Governor of Madras – Lord Pigot.

The Cuddalore Mission

After a few years, Lord Pigot then sent Dalrymple off for about 2 years (April 1759 – Jan 1762) on what seems a very secretive mission. Dalrymple was first trained to sail, and then given his own ship – the Cuddalore. This was funded out of Pigot’s own pocket – so it was done off-the-books of the East India Company. The conventional story is that all Dalrymple achieved in these two years was securing some trade deals with the Sultanate of Sooloo. However the trading deal itself was never honored on the British side. Under the deal, Dalrymple should have delivered a ship full of goods to Jolo (Sooloo). When it came time for the British to deliver – the goods bound for Jolo were for some unexplained reason diverted to Canton. The conventional story shows a pretty pathetic outcome on Dalrymple’s part, and it’s a wonder why Dalrymple was not fired for being completely useless. Question is – what was Dalrymple really doing in those two years, off-the-books?

The British invasion of Manila happened in this time period. And Dalrymple was in Manila in 1761, allegedly taking notes on the fortifications of Manila a year or so before the British attacked. He was accused of this in Spanish correspondence. He was a spy.

Now, looking at the geo-political situation at the time… What were the British motivations for attacking Manila?

Demand for Chinese goods was larger than what the British could take. This was due to the Qing dynasty and their trading policy called the Canton system. Europeans could only trade out of the Pearl River Delta (current day Hong Kong/Macau/Shenzhen area). There was a lot a red-tape and restrictions. The British wanted to find a way around the restriction. See also earlier attempts by James Flint to circumvent Chinese red-tape restrictions – this did not end well. The monopoly in the Pearl Delta was also a breeding ground for corruption which was resented by European traders.

This may have been what Dalrymple’s secret voyage was all about. The idea being – instead of the British going to China and dealing with red-tape and corruption, a British base near China could be set up where Chinese merchants could meet with British ships. Dalrymple was surveying the east indies area trying to find a potential port and a safe and convenient sailing route to said port. This idea eventually came to fruition 60 years later with British Singapore.

While Dalrymple was in Manila in 1761, he met Sultan Alimud-Din I of Sooloo. Alimud was living in Manila in exile. Sultan Alimed came to be in exile because as Sultan back in his land, he converted to Christianity an he protected Jesuit missionaries. This didn’t go down well with his Muslim subjects, and the story goes that he was stabbed by his younger brother who took over. Alimud fled and lived in exile in Spanish Manila.

This situation is something that can definitely be leveraged by the British. Dalrymple brokered a deal with the exiled Sultan. The British will restore Alimud as Sultanate in exchange for cession of a suitable port – Balambangan.

This seems to be exactly what happened. And there is documentation to support this hypothesis including a trail of treaties. The British played the Sultan in power (the younger brother), the cabinet that this younger brother established, and the Sultan in exile against each other.

Before Manila was invaded, some instructions by an anonymous author detailing a plan to invade Manila were given to Lord Egremont in 1761. These instructions included detail on the need to evacuate Sultan Alimud and his entourage from Manila. These instructions were apparently written in William Draper‘s handwriting. Draper and Dalrymple were in contact with each other during Dalrymple’s two-year mystery voyage, as Draper was based in Canton and Dalrymple periodically checked into Canton for supplies. I think the instructions to invade Manila were drafted by Dalrymple, but Draper’s name was put to them to protect Dalrymple’s cover as a spy.

After the Manila invasion, the Sultanate of Sooloo under the freed and restored Sultan Alimud ceded Balambangan to the British. The cession was ‘in return for the benefits I have received from the company‘. This makes it fairly obvious that Balambangan was ceded as a thank-you to the British for restoring the exiled Sultan back to his throne.

What’s all this got to do with Cook?

What this story shows is that Dalrymple was gathering intelligence in Manila, and that he had a line of communication back to England while he was doing this work. Not just a line of communication, but he had enough influence to initiate a full-scale invasion of Manila.

Dalrymple was not someone who was ignored. He had real influence.

Dalrymple was a very smart, strategist. The point of capturing Manila was not to establish a British port at Manila. That would not have worked anyway because the treaty at end of the Seven Years War required the British to restore Manila to the Spanish. The point was not to trade with Sooloo, as that never even happened. The point was to get some locals to cede a British port in a stones throw from China. And it worked.

The Manila Documents – Juan Fernandez – New Zealand

In Manila, Dalrymple found a trove of Spanish documents. I wrote a bit about that in this post.

I think he found the 5 drawings by Prado y Tobar, only 4 of which are known today. The missing drawing was of the passage that Cook passed through just after he rounded Cape York. Cook followed the missing chart to guide him through the passage. Dalrymple published a book while Cook was out on his first voyage. The book has the Torres Strait labelled and marked as a dotted line. It is clear from reading Cook’s and his companions journals that they expected the Torres Strait to be there.

Dalrymple also had the Arias Memorial. The Arias Memorial is generally what is presented as being Dalrymple’s sole source for his knowledge of the Torres Strait, but the British knew more than they let on.

The Arias Memorial refers to Tobar/Torres voyage. But it also refers to Juan Fernandez’s discovery of a terra incognita populated with white people lying at latitude 40 degrees south.

Here’s what I think happened – Dalrymple had this chain of thought. Arias was correct about Tobar and the Torres Strait. Therefore Arias is a credible source. So Arias is probably also right about Juan Fernandez. This is why Cook’s instructions were, after watching the Venus transit to proceed to latitude 40 degrees south. Cook was looking for the land discovered by Fernandez. Dalrymple had influenced the instructions for Cook’s first voyage not just regarding the Torres Strait. The whole voyage may have been Dalrymple’s idea.

After the official voyage accounts were published, Dalrymple gets in a public war of words with Hawkesworth. A very public war. For the benefit of the public. Propaganda. Dalrymple plays the part of a little whiny sooky-bum who everybody ignores as a way to distance Dalrymple’s influence and to distance the strategy and the intelligence Dalrymple acquired in Manila.

But Cook was the best man for the job, and I think Dalrymple would have been smart enough to know that. You need someone very good at cartography, mathematics, and astronomy. Someone without association with the East India Company is also an advantage. Cook is the man. You also need Charles Green because he was on the board of longitude Barbados trial – Green knows what is needed to determine longitude.

The post Alexander Dalrymple’s influence on Cook’s first voyage instructions appeared first on Thinking Sovereignty.

I have done something similar – but from my lounge chair using google satellite. I too, have found Torres to go through between Prince of Wales Island and Cape York. But the timing of the passage is a bit different than Hilder’s – I have Torres approaching further from the east.

Honestly, I don’t think either of our paths (Hilder or mine) perfectly fit the description given by Tovar. I have a problem locating the Island of Dogs, whereas Hilder has a problem (which he admits) with Isla de la Cantarides not having any water or natives to run for non-existent hills, and Hilder’s path also has a problem because there is not a big enough time window for Torres to stay 8 days.

Anyway – there is evidence that on arrival to Manila, Tovar sent FIVE charts of ‘landing places’ back to Spain, and that these five charts were received. However, there has only ever been FOUR charts found. One is Espiritu Santo (Vanuatu), the other three are ports on the south coast of New Guinea. But one chart is missing.

So what is the missing, fifth chart of?

Well, I have Torres anchored in the passage on Isla de la Cantarides for 8 days. The two large islands he is anchoring between are Prince of Wales Island and Cape York. Isla de la Cantarides could be any island in this area that has water, hills and people. It could be Cape York itself. If Torres and Tovar were there for 8 days, they probably did a chart of the area. This may be the missing chart. If we had the chart we would know where he landed.

Isn’t it funny then – that James Cook should go through this same passage? If you read Cook’s journal and also other journals such as Banks’, they seem extraordinarily confident they are passing through the passage between New Guinea and New Holland. However, they are passing through a passage between Prince of Wales Island and Cape York. This is clear from their descriptions. Cook climbs up a hill on Possession Island to get a view of the strait. He must be looking into the strait towards the south west and into the Gulf of Carpentaria – not directly to the west where his view would be obstructed by Prince of Wales Island. This is supposed to be uncharted territory. It does not make sense for Cook to be celebrating that he has safely passed through until he is somewhere on the south coast of New Guinea in an identifiable location.

I think the reason Cook is so confident of being in a through passage is that he has Tovar/Torres’ chart of the strait. Cook actually follows Torres’s path for almost a week afterwards to confirm with sighting of Cape False.

Alexander Dalrymple ended up with a stack of old documents raided in the British occupation of Manila, the five charts would be there if Tovar left copies in Manila. Four of the charts went on to collectors, the one of the passage was used by Cook then conveniently ‘lost’.

Why is the British claim (via Cook) executed from “Possession Island”, and not Cape York on the mainland? (Personally, I don’t think Cook did any possession ceremonies, and the admiralty figured them all out retrospectively when he got back to England, because things got so complicated) Maybe it’s because – the British have the fifth chart. And the fifth chart shows that Torres has already landed on Cape York and stayed 8 days. Maybe it even says Tovar and Torres claimed possession of Isla de la Cantarides/Cape York. That means, Cook would not be the first – which is a good reason to suppress that particular chart.

The post Did Torres land on Cape York? appeared first on Thinking Sovereignty.