It Can Happen to Anyone...

Let me tell you a story...

"They were introduced by a mutual acquaintance, the pair of them. They hit it off for a while, found a friendship through the mutual acquaintance and a familiar love of music, books, and feelings about different issues. They shared company, going out together for a social occasion here and there, having a drink and a meal occasionally, with the mutual friend, and sometimes just together.

Due to the connections between them, one of the acquaintances introduced them to a social group that was of of particular interest, took "the new friend" along to some of their events, showed them around, introduced them to some new people. This was all good and fine, except the person's friends had an ill-feeling about "the new friend," so they preferred to stay away. The friends made their concerns known, but they were ignored, lost in the bliss of a new friendship, something that had not happened in a while, the other reacted not realising their friends were trying to protect them.

The meetings between the pair became more intimate. They shared one another's bodies and enjoyed the time that they did, the one thought it was nice, nothing serious, just a bit of fun. They continued to go out for mutual outings going to the social groups. But more time was beginning to be spent alone, behind closed doors, together in intimate circumstances; "the new friend's" choice, they didn't want to share anymore; the individual ignored this possessiveness, lost in the human connection. "The new friend" used their intimate connection as a weapon, knowing that the intimacy between them was something they both craved. 

The one would go to their friend's place alone when "the new friend" was away. Their friend's began noticing changes in the person. There were changes in the way they held themselves, they were somehow smaller; the way they reacted to normal situations, flinching at a touch; defensive to normal questions; there was something going on. The friends asked about "the new friend" and were told everything was "fine," it was still casual, there was nothing to worry about... 

They returned home to find "the new friend" waiting for them on their front doorstep, asking where they had been. At their friends, an innocent reply, and the truth. "The new friend" had been waiting there for ages; "the new friend" never had said anything about coming over previously. Still there was implied guilt. They both go inside. 

"The new friend" talks about plans for the weekend, the other one already had plans; there are accusations of neglect, and disregard, with no consideration that they had not made plans together. "The new friend" forgives them, and says they will just come along; new plans will have to be made. They decide that it is time for dinner, "the new friend" says they will cook as they have brought something over. "The new friend" cooks, something which they like, but the person does not; they eat it to avoid an argument. 

The person has a meeting in the morning, so mentions they need to go to bed, "the new friend" begins to get undressed to join them. They go to bed, in the middle of the night, the person is woken up by "the new friend" molesting them so they can be intimate; the person reminds "the new friend" about the meeting, with little response. The person wakes late the next morning, can't shower alone, ends up late for the meeting, unlike ever before.

They come home and find that "the new friend" is not on the front doorstep. There is a note on the door, explaining how selfish the person has been, "the new friend" will not be back for a while; there is a sense of relief. The person slides back into their old routine for a while. "The new friend" does not make an appearance, does not contact them for a period; they think, "Maybe they are gone." with relief.

Two weeks go by, everything has gotten back to normal. "The new friend" has not been seen at the social group, it would seem that they have made some statements and not impressed some people with their actions. Finally, things are returning to normal... 

Then "the new friend" appears again...

"The new friend" is there at another social group, a sister group of the same. They have made friends with other members of the group. They wave from the other side of the room. The individual gets up and leaves, trying to find a way to escape. They move outside, "the new friend" follows with their new friends in tow, people who the individual knows. The person is cornered, questions are asked, impossible questions to answer without seeming like a selfish individual, or so it would seem. Finally there is an escape back to a group of friends.

No safety in your social group...

"The new friend" is on the street, "happening" to be at the same location at the same time. Of course they would know the places the person would go, they went together to those places when they went out. "The new friend" seems to appear at places more consistently than they should. The person goes to talk to the mutual friend about "the new friend," they will see what they can do; it makes things worse. 

No safety out in public...

"The new friend" is knocking on the door, they want to talk about what happened previously and come to some agreement about what they did wrong. They want to make sure that their friendship was something that they can remember, and make sure that it was not a regret. The person knows what will happen if they let "the new friend" back in their life; it will start all over again.

No safety at home...

The door remains closed. The person thinks and thinks hard about the situation. What is there to do? What can a person do in this situation? "The new friend" is at the front door waiting for them, so there is no way to avoid them that way. They will only turn whatever you say back on you. They will only use whatever you say to worm their way back into your life. The brain freezes from anxiety. How can a person not be safe in their own home from another person?... 

The back door. The stereo is set, and will play until the CDs run out, which will be hours. A light is always left on in the lounge. Pick up keys, put down keys, change clothes, put on shoes, pick up keys, and other personal effects. Go to the back door, open it quietly. Close it quietly. Over the fence through the neighbour's yard. Heart is pounding in their ears... Walk swiftly to a friend's house to seek help."

The sad thing today is that stalking happens. Sometime people get it into their heads that others are more interested in them than they actually are. The problem is that sometimes that other person is too nice to tell them to go away, or maybe they have mental issues of their own which prevents them from doing so. Sometimes the person can take a hint and will leave the person alone, the problem happens when they can't and don't. Stalking results when one person ends up following the other around, trying to encourage them to be interested in them by invading their life. 

Now, read this story again, with the protagonist as a male... because this is my story...

Men get stalked too. Regardless of the situation, the injury or the activity. It occurs to all. Colouring or gendering such things does not help. Statistics will show one picture or another, it all depends on who wants to show what, hence there are no statistics to show, women stalking men, or men stalking women, or even men stalking men, or women stalking women. There will be evidence for all of them present. Statistics can be twisted this way and that to suit whoever finds them. Stalking happens to all types of people, regardless of their gender. 

Think before you make statements. There is always another story that you have not heard, a battle that another has fought, or is fighting. For once it would be nice if we could treat everyone with the same kindness and respect that we all expect.

Cheers,

Henry.

Health or Life

 Greetings,

Yet another medication has fallen under the hammer of the government, removed from the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme. In this case it is Deptran its generic form being Doxepin. It is nominally an antidepressant. In my case it is used to assist with the cluster headaches which happen as a result of the issues with my neck. So the result is that I will be going along to the doctor with my wife to find a replacement, some other drug that will have the same effects, that won't upset the balance with all my other medications...

Why is this article here and not on my fibromyalgia blog? The reason is that I am going to get a little philosophical and likely a little political with my post. 

Our government changed from a Liberal (conservative) government to a Labor (less-conservative) government last election. Some haled it as a change for the better, things would be better for lower-income earners and pensioners, like me. Yeah, better, I think there has been a $40 increase in my pension... wow. So thrilled... not. Prescriptions have increased again. Prices and inflation are still going up and as previously stated things are just being made more difficult for people on lower incomes.

If a person were of a conspiratorial mind one could almost think that it was a project of eugenics. You simply make life so expensive that the poor cannot afford to live and they die off. The problem is that then the rich people would have no one to do all their menial labour, and they will feel the bite, if they ever "fall." Then again, I have already spoken about "the rich" and perspectives on who is rich and who isn't.

I have multiple conditions which is the reason that I am on a disability pension. I am on a low income due to the disability pension. To afford all of the things that would assist me to become as healthy as I could be would result in me not having a life... and likely result in me losing the house that I have bought. So, in effect I have the choice of being "healthy" or having a life. In an expression that one of my friends likes or liked to use, "I'm here for a good time, not a long time." I prefer quality of life over quantity of life. The result is that I will have a life rather than health, or at least just enough health to survive and do what I like to do. I will make the best of my situation.

"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!"
- Hunter S. Thompson

I like the quote from Thompson above. I tend to go through "boom and bust" situations. I go as hard as I can and then happily pay for the consequences of my actions later on. This may not be the healthiest way to approach things, but I sure get my enjoyment out of things. I probably should put money away and save to go to the physiotherapist and other allied health, but I would rather spend it on having a life, living life to my best capacity. I will find ways and means with what I have, this is what I have so this is what I will work with. In the choice between health or life, give me life.

Cheers,

Henry.

Rich and Poor: It's a Matter of Perspective

 Greetings,

There is a divide in our societies between "the rich" and "the poor" and this divide is only getting wider. The access to services from either side of this divide is also only getting more and more divided as well as those who end up in government are those from "the rich" rather than the poor as the system is bent in their direction. This will be an examination of the concept of "the rich" and "the poor" and how it is most often a matter of perspective.

When most people think of "the rich" they think of people like the now notorious Elon Musk, possibly Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch and other such wealth individuals who influence life in society, or at least attempt to in various ways. These people can more easily be classified as the "ultra-rich". They could stop working and simply wait for their income to roll on in with little effort on their part, still making multi-million dollars from their assets. This is a perspective of those who are reasonably well-off.

Consider politicians. According to public government records, a retiring Australian politician is paid a minimum of $185,000 per annum, with an additional percentage of their annual pay indexed by their years of service, paid for life. This payment is made by legislation, i.e., can be increased by a vote of the same politicians. Their basic salary is $211,250, again adjusted by different service, and adjusted by different methods, and voted by the same politicians who are getting paid the salary. This does not include the various perks they claim, including travel, food and accommodation.

If we then compare this to the average salary in Australia, which is $1,250 per week, or $65,000 per annum (calculated at 52 weeks), it shows a stark contrast between the "average Australian" that these politicians are supposed to represent and the amount they earn. Is it any surprise that politicians in Australia are out of touch with the people they are supposed to represent? 

If we then make a further comparison between the most "vulnerable" in Australian society there is an even starker contrast between the politicians and the people they are supposed to represent. The Age Pension, maximum basic rate, $936.80 per fortnight, or $24,356.80 per annum. The Disability Support Pension, i.e., those who have been declared unable to work, is the same at its maximum rate, in both cases if you are partnered, the rate drops for both of you, resulting in about the same amount. For a single person looking for work, i.e., unemployed, the basic rate is $668.40 per fortnight, or $17,378.4 per annum. With these numbers is it any wonder that politicians have no clue about the situation of people looking for work, or maybe the reason they have little motivation to do so? Most of the people on these payments are too busy worrying about how they are going to survive.

Now, all of these numbers can be found on government websites, as you will find if you click on any of the links. I have not pulled them from social media, or other forms of media, they are not hype or anything, they are the cold, hard facts. 

If we examine the numbers that are presented, a person on the maximum rate, consider that the maximum rate for either the Age or Disability Support pension is getting less than half the average salary of the average Australian. In one case the individual has already worked their entire life, in the other case they have been deemed unable to hold a standard occupation, unable to hold full-time employment. 

Moving entirely away from figures and comparisons between them...

A person may be sitting on a pension of some kind, and be quite happy. Having completed a their work for their career, they may have paid their house off, planned their retirement and be sitting happy with their pension. They could be entirely unconcerned about such things as the gap between how much they are getting as compared to someone else.

In contrast...

A person working at a job may be sitting at some relatively comfortable salary above the average and still not be happy. They could be concerned about how to get their next promotion; once they do that then they can afford the house that they think that they are entitled to; move out of the apartment which is draining a part of their income. They are concerned about all of these things yet could be earning well above the pensioner described above.

Happiness, in my opinion, has nothing to do with how much money you earn. The young working person may be more fiscally-wealthy but I would say that the pensioner has a richer life.

We make comparisons between ourselves on the basis of our fiscal worth, which in many cases are arbitrary, and based on elements of fortune and social statuses. Are there not values which we hold more dear more important? Can we not value each other more on the basis of our worth to society, what we give or gave to society?

The comparison between "rich" and "poor" is a matter of perspective. A person who is of a much lower socio-economic position may find a person who is of a middle-level of socio-economic standing quite wealthy in comparison to themselves, even though the person who is at this middle-level may not consider themselves to be wealthy, especially in comparison to those who are above them. When questions about who is "rich" and who is "poor" eventuate, it is a matter of comparison, a simple matter of perspective. 

Our society is run by those who are at the top, who we call "the rich" I would say that these individuals are more qualified as the "ultra-rich" in reality, well beyond the "average" individual's capacity, if there is such a thing as an "average" individual. If we examine our politicians and where they stand, while they are not quite in this "ultra-rich" position, they surely aspire to join them, and thus approve measures which assist those in such positions, along with themselves to improve their fiscal position. These are the individuals who we need to take a hard, long, look at and decide whether or not they, or the systems which they promote, are truly in the interest of the people they purport to serve.

Cheers,

Henry

"Privilege": Its Meaning and Application

 Greetings,

The subject of "privilege" is one that I am loathe to talk about because everyone has a certain amount of privilege depending on how you look at the terms and the definition which is applied to it. However in the context of the socio-cultural and socio-political context which has been placed upon the term, the definition is more specific, indeed it will have a definition which appears something like below:

"If you talk about privilege, you are talking about the power and advantage that only a small group of people have, usually because of their wealth or their high social class."

This definition is one which was taken from the Collins English Dictionary. This is one of those words which people have added special meaning, indeed it is not actually the word "privilege" they are talking about they are talking about "social privilege". It is likely that for convenience the first word "social" was dropped because it was understood in context, and then the new one was picked up and used so the definition of privilege was changed to have this new definition.

A privilege is simply something that another person or group does not possess, and this can vary over many different things. It was previously stated that everyone is privileged and this is true. Here are some simple statements: 

Everyone is privileged to have been born and survived that event, there are those who do not. So, People are privileged to be alive. 

People are privileged if they do not have a disability. 

People are privileged if they do not have some sort of illness, chronic or acute. 

People are privileged to have regular meals each day, or even to eat once a day. 

People are privileged to have clothes to wear, more so if those clothes are clean. 

There are those who have homes and those who do not, those who do are privileged. The more privileged people own the homes that they live in.

Social Privilege is something else which goes on top of these privileges. These privileges focus on the  social differences between individuals and also highlight some of the differences between individuals which may differ in the privileges which have already been highlighted. The purpose of this concept is to show which group of people stands above or below, and more often than not below, another group of people. Most often this is so the people who are above can be denigrated for their lack of empathy for those below, however often there are circumstances that are unknown and this is used as a simple tool for some social advantage, for the purposes of virtue signalling more than showing some actual social injustice being present. Simply put, everyone has their story, and it is not completely known to everyone.

The concept is supposed to highlight social injustice for the purposes of correcting the injustice, bringing things so there is more equality. Instead the concept is now used as a convenient stick to beat any person who has a disagreement, or who has a different point of view. Most often it is used as a convenient stick when a social issue seems to have been being ignored, even if the individual has no opinion or is unaffected by it, and most often by individuals who do not reflect upon their "privilege".

Cheers,

Henry.

P.S. You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation monthly to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

"Public" Holidays and Ideas

Greetings,

Five days until the fifth of November. In years past it was a day celebrated, recognised, now forgotten. Used to celebrate "Bonfire Night" as a child in Canberra, I did not know the significance. I thought it was a local thing and did not think much of it when it did not happen in Queensland. This day has been moved along with firework bans and so forth, faded from our calendar. Maybe, this day, should be celebrated, now more than ever.

Our public holidays are mandated by our Parliaments, both State and Federal, they decide how many days we should have off and when; more importantly they decide the reason for the holidays, and what reasons are important enough to mark on our calendars as important. Through this method they exert social control; they decide what is important to us and what is not.

Halloween was not particularly popular in Australia previously, there were some families and groups that celebrated it. Now, it has become a $430 million dollar industry, which is likely the reason that it is now encouraged, or at least not discouraged. There are those who are saying: its not "traditionally" Australian; its all pagan and not Christian so it shouldn't be celebrated; or that it is an American tradition, so its their culture having an impact on ours. There are those who will complain, but it will still occur.

Guy Fawkes Night, or Bonfire Night, as it is often called, that one has been buried, or at least it was mostly buried until "V for Vendetta" reminded people of the date, reminded them of the importance of that date and started making people think about it. Here is a day which used to be celebrated, especially by members of the Commonwealth, for its significance, now it has gone, disappeared from the official calendars. In our current age, it is probably thought of as too rebellious, or has the potential to cause issues with children; even some will believe that we should not be celebrating the life of a terrorist.

Guy Fawkes was technically a traitor and a terrorist, or at least he would have been the second if he had succeeded. The act of blowing up the houses of parliament would have been an act of terror, especially with the members present. It would have caused not only destruction but also death, for a political purpose, certainly a terrorist act by any definition a person would like to call it. So what is Guy Fawkes Night celebrating?

Does it celebrate the life or the death of Guy Fawkes? Or maybe it celebrates something different? The night with bonfires and fireworks commemorates the failure of the Gunpowder Plot i.e., the failure to kill the king. In this way the official reason for Guy Fawkes Night is a pro-establishment, pro-monarchy celebration, as it was the prevention of the killing of King James I and the Parliament. One would think that on this basis it would be a good celebration to have on the calendar, however since the 2005 film "V for Vendetta" the idea has been changed.

The question is has this idea changed for the better or not? Now, thanks to the film, the idea has changed to focus on the idea that Guy Fawkes had, and the fact that his idea lived on longer than he did. Ideas live longer than the people that have them; we are still using the ideas of people who have been dead for hundreds, sometimes thousands, of years. The question is what was the idea that Guy Fawkes was promoting, that should be remembered? It is the idea that Guy Fawkes stood for, that he died for, the idea that ideas persist; of course, most take these ideas to be anti-establishmentarian in nature.

What will you do when November the 5th rolls around? Let me leave you with the famous folk verse...

Remember, remember!
The fifth of November,
The Gunpowder treason and plot;
I know of no reason
Why the Gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot!
Guy Fawkes and his companions
Did the scheme contrive,
To blow the King and Parliament
All up alive.
Threescore barrels, laid below,
To prove old England's overthrow.
But, by God's providence, him they catch,
With a dark lantern, lighting a match!
A stick and a stake
For King James's sake!
If you won't give me one,
I'll take two,
The better for me,
And the worse for you.
A rope, a rope, to hang the Pope,
A penn'orth of cheese to choke him,
A pint of beer to wash it down,
And a jolly good fire to burn him.
Holloa, boys! holloa, boys! make the bells ring!
Holloa, boys! holloa boys! God save the King!
Hip, hip, hooor-r-r-ray!

Cheers,

Henry. 

P.S. You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation monthly to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

Jekyll and Hyde: Two sides of Personality

 Greetings,

Everyone has those days were they are the sweetest person in the world, where they look like they would give their last coin to feed their fellow man, their shirt to clothe them, and their life to defend them. They also have those days where they keep all the coins for themselves, clothe themselves like an emperor, and only think of what they need to secure for themselves. These see the two different sides of personality, they are simple, and they exist in everyone; no one is excluded. In some people it may not be about possessions, it may be reputation, or family association or other social factors, sometimes these factors are all bound together, but the two sides are there.

In some people there is a close relationship, not much difference, we can't tell when it is one side or the other. They often live lives where good and evil are not matters of concern, the matters of concern are whether they will survive. In others, they are generous and giving, gentle and caring, almost in the extreme, so too it must be noted that their other side is also to the extreme, even if it is never truly seen. There may occasionally be some glimpses, but only if a person looks very carefully.

In the story by Robert Louis Stevenson, Dr Jekyll is a mild-mannered doctor, kind and considerate, a law-abiding citizen. Dr Jekyll takes a potion which turns him in to the monster, Mr Hyde. Hyde who commits murder and all sorts of other evil deeds. It would seem that the potion that Dr Jekyll formulated released Mr Hyde from within him, a second personality, an extreme other person hidden within him. The story looks at questions of personality, as Mr Hyde talks to Dr Jekyll tempting him to take the potion again and again, releasing Mr Hyde more and more making him stronger. We can look at this from different perspectives.

On the one hand, it depends which part of our personality we feed, that is the part of our personality that becomes the stronger of the two. Dr Jekyll feeds Hyde and he becomes strong, almost so much that he becomes irresistible. Mr Hyde indulges all of his passions, he performs deeds that Dr Jekyll never would, in many ways Mr Hyde is the more free of the two. Dr Jekyll is repressed, and part of his temptation to release Mr Hyde is the free indulging of his sensations, the freedom to do what he likes.

This is like the idea that the individual has two wolves within them one black and one white, one good and the other evil. They fight for control of the individual, the one attempting to devour the other. Each grows as a person grows and lives. The question is asked which one of the wolves becomes the strongest? The answer is: the one that you feed. Here again, we have two parts of the personality, one side and the other the strength of each is dependent on which is fed. Not a morality tale so to speak, but one to think about.

Another perspective is that in each of us there is a mild-mannered Dr Jekyll and a monstrous Mr Hyde present, and the gulf of difference between the two depends on the individual. Think about the most tolerant of people, those who do not rage against who are intolerant, but those who do things quietly not seeking praise. Think about those who do good because it is good, they do not think about the positive for themselves. This is their Jekyll, what would their Hyde be like? 

History tells us that it is "the quiet ones that we need to watch." In every case of extreme homicide it is a person who people have labelled as "the quiet one". The individual who is the most dangerous is the one who is the unknown quality, because they do not go broadcasting it. You don't know their anger because they don't say it, they don't broadcast it to everyone. They will make their anger known when they believe it is necessary, and it will be known one way or another.

There are people in our lives who will be loud and they will broadcast their feelings on matters, left, and centre. They will tell us exactly how they feel about things with out any doubt in our minds whatsoever. There are people who will do in the moment, they will act in petty ways to satisfy themselves, attaining their small victories. These are not the people who have the "Jekyll and Hyde personality", they have a personality which is easy to read. You know when and for what reason they will react.

The Jekyll and Hyde personality is the quiet one, the tolerant one, who allows the small slights with indifference, who is polite and friendly. They will do things and be polite, they will remain quiet and not broadcast their opinions, but make them known. Just consider what could be bubbling away underneath if the other side of them is exactly the opposite. 

Or maybe we should simply be a little friendlier and a little bit more polite to everyone we meet?

Cheers,

Henry.

Let's Talk About "Discovery"

 Greetings,

Yesterday 10 October was "Columbus Day" a day which we do not celebrate in Australia because it does not have anything to do with us. The thing about this day is it brings up all discussions about the European arrival on the shores of the Americas. In old textbooks, it will state that "Columbus discovered the Americas." This has been disproven as there were those who arrived before him such as the so-called "Vikings". The following is not going to be a discussion of American history, it is going to be a discussion of the word "discover" and "discovery".

The word "discover" is defined in the Cambridge English dictionary as "to find information, a place, or an object, especially for the first time:", or in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "to make known or visible :" and "to obtain sight or knowledge of for the first time :" or in Collins English dictionary as "If you discover something that you did not know about before, you become aware of it or learn of it." or "If a person or thing is discovered, someone finds them, either by accident or because they have been looking for them." or "When someone discovers a new place, substance, scientific fact, or scientific technique, they are the first person to find it or become aware of it." Definitions from three different dictionaries, two of which present extended definitions of the word getting into its particulars. All in essence talk about the act of finding.

The problem is that with some individuals and their particular focus on history, their particular bends on history, they like to use definitions which exclude others, they focus on those definitions which focus on discovery as the finding of something for the first time. The focus on this definition then results in explorers not discovering other places, because they were already known, therefore they couldn't have been the first to find them. This is a rather specific interpretation of the concept of discovery, and using such an interpretation, and extending it to its extreme end little could be discovered because it was always already there first.

Scientists could not be credited with the discovery of electricity, it has always existed in the form of lightning, it was always there. No inhabited continent on the planet could be considered discovered, nor any part of them, because people were already there, and the places were already there. The only things that could be counted as discovered would be new things that were made, fire does not count as it is a natural part of the world, only man-made objects. Further, all the discoveries of ancient civilisations are not discoveries, because they were evidently already there.

There is a necessity to take a wider view of the world and not be so particular about words. A discovery is made when an individual finds something, this is very much the case when it is new to them. If Columbus knew about the Americas he wouldn't have accidentally run into it looking for an alternate way to get to India. He may not have been the first European there, but it was a first for him. The same can be said for all the same sorts of voyages, they went out looking for new lands and new places. It was their first time there so it was a discovery for them.

According to the dictionary definition of discovery, the Europeans "discovered" the various locations around the world because it was their first time seeing the places. This is regardless whether or not these places were inhabited or not, and regardless whether or not they had actually been "discovered" by others previously. Australia is a perfect example of this one, the British take pride in claiming its discovery, but there are many individuals who landed on Australia's shores before Captain Cook.

When the definition of a word is limited from its original, and the actions of those previous to us in history are also limited as a result, we lose perspective of our current world. Regardless of whether we support the European explorations and colonisations of the world, there is something to be learned from it, and this needs to be done from an objective point of view. There are at least two sides of the story to be told, and all stories need to be told and heard. Playing with the words, merely muddies the water, and causes issues for clear and concise discourse.

Cheers,

Henry.

P.S. You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation monthly to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.