I read the article and I comprehend the English language. The article puts a specific emphasis on foreigners "discovering" that the rural interior of the country was populated, and foreigners going up into the highlands and contacting the local people. A great many of those foreigners were (and still are) missionaries.

It's a well documented historical fact that a great deal of the "exploration" of the interior of PNG was by Christian missionaries.

▲

embedding-shape 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> A great many of those foreigners were (and still are) missionaries.

Sure, but not in this case, that the article we're supposed to be discussing, is about! Does every article about PNG need to include that Christian missionaries at one point were there, even if the events the article discusses isn't about Christian missionaries? Like some sort of legally enforced disclaimer in the footer or whatever? Why the crusade here, against some random article about something else??

▲

walrus01 3 hours ago | parent [-]

To be clear I don't have a beef with the author of the article, but the missionaries themselves. I just thought it was odd to write an article about foreigners going up into the PNG highlands and not mention missionaries at all.

Not sure whether it's intentional in the context, but interesting Freudian slip type use of the word "crusade", you might want to consider its etymology and origins.

▲

embedding-shape 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Very much intentional, because just like the crusades, you're fighting against some imaginary enemy in a very misplaced location. The article is about different set of foreigners going to the highlands, the first ones, which weren't missionaries, so of course the article doesn't talk about the missionaries...

	▲	account42 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The crusades were not fighting imaginary enemies and much of the territory was relatively recently conquered by the muslims they were fighting.