Australia- A false Natural history

["boy nature" <>]

In the 80's we learnt about Australian aboriginal and colonial history (in yr 6- which was unusual in ACT), and even in Uni I studied Anthropology (ie study of people) as a minor, and yet my impression was the Australian colonisation was generally congenial. Except rarely.
But you should go to the Australian National Library and see Cook's Endeavour Journal (internally- Computer version), perhaps like me you will be shocked!! Him and his crony Banks went ashore many times, and in NZ when the locals did the war dance they shot them and/or the chief, and in Australia with symbolic (but fearful no doubt) 'dart' {-I assume spear} angling at them, they shot them as well. (In 20 minutes of searching I had eg of 16 shootings at least).
Shooting people is not congenial. Not in my book.
I feel totally jipped, yet do understand why.
I asked the AN Library why they dont have this online, even though their Library exhibition is one of the best i've seen. (They have a great map of the E tour, with the tracks and dates, which you can click on, see the 'Actual' E journal pages, the translation, and the 'collections' they made (eg an Acacia in Botany Bay)  excellent. ANL say Money of course. Ive looked at the suggested alternative examples of the Cook Journal online and its presentation, but it is bad.
Without placing judgement over the contents, surely we deserve more, and accurate accounts, even if we dont really want to know them. Cook and Banks were not friendly guys who always gave gifts,,, if anyone disagreed they just shot them!
and btw- the AN Library has fascinating examples of early Bird images which I am sure COGites have an interest and views on!! eg Napiers Kookaburra! ie Which was first and why!
I suggest you go and look, and make up your own mind.
Benj.