Magellen

Yes, Cook didn't handle that well, but that was only the last of a many decades-long series of interactions he'd had with native peoples and probably shouldn't be viewed as representative of his general tenure. He was far from an intemperate or bigoted man.

As far as exploration and native interactions, they were inevitable, because the ships required repair & provisioning during their voyages, there were also scientific personnel attached to these voyages of exploration, to explore & collect specimens. Cook generally treated natives with respect/forebearance when conflicts/misunderstandings occurred. When natives made off with vital gear, grabbing a dignitary & holding them hostage for its return was a non-violent means of re-establishing comity. Cook had done it before in Tahiti. These sorts of things happened

As a general proposition, I have a hard time willing myself to have expected the world of that time to stand still so people sitting pretty 500 years later don't give them side eye. The Indian & Islamic world were doing it for > 700 years before the Europeans even got started. Although, seemingly, a good bit more humanely.

The planet was never going to be populated/apportioned without conflict, without the strong appropriating from the weak. The power disparities were too great, the cultural & economic maturity of the greater power, ironically, too primitive, to effect a more humane process than exactly what transpired. Our opinions about it, our moral judgements, are largely irrelevant - it happened, can hardly be imagined to have happened otherwise, coming out of the realities of 16th-20th century Europe.

At this point, having a UN charter, purchased in a consensus bartered in the blood of millions & scuttling of European empires, is a very good thing for most people of the world. It was a long-time coming. Attaining what equilibrium we now have, imperfect as it is, is a significant human achievement.