TALKING CAPTAIN JAMES COOK: Coloniser, humanist, scientist or explorer

Cook's Tiki BM

First off, from early reading days I have had a soft spot for Captain Cook. Born James Cook on 27 October 1728 in North Yorkshire,  the son of a farm labourer. A working class lad who by being clever made the most of the education available to him. To achieve this required luck as well exceptional talent. His good fortune was to be apprenticed to a Quaker ship owner, Captain John Walker.  However, by his own merit and working his way up the ranks, James Cook defied incredible odds to become a Captain in the British Royal Navy. Of course it was bollocks he discovered Australia or New Zealand. Neither had been lost and both were inhabited when the sails of his ships appeared on the horizon. But to see him in the light of an imperialist, a 'coloniser' or lackey of the British Empire is to misconstrue the man he was. Bigger brains than mine can explain his genius for exploration, engagement with different cultures, with beliefs and values vastly different than those he had experienced as an Englishman. What is evident in the records was how on his first two journeys, he did this with a degree of respect unknown to explorers of this era.

I can recommend Professor Anne Salmond's "The Trial of the Cannibal Dog" Penguin Books 2003. Over 440 pages of dense but riveting history. It begins with "Captain James Cook's three voyages to the south seas are amongst the most astonishing expeditions in history..." not because he was laying a flag trail for an empire where the sun would never set, but because "Cook forged strong, enlightened relationships with the peoples of the Pacific".  It was a reciprocal relationship as Cook did not look down on the people he encountered, but rather sought to see their world through their eyes and learn from this.  and often at odds with his crew or the more lofty toffs (such as Joseph Banks) who he was accompanied by. 
He was also a man of the new enlightenment. As much scientist as seafarer he was commissioned (in a partnership between the Admiralty and the Royal Society) to follow the Transit of Venus. And to achieve this he was in 1768, provided with a former coal scuttle-ok modified Whitby barque or collier cat "The Endeavour". Oh and the Admiralty brass threw in a "top secret" assignment as well; find the "Great Unknown Southern Continent". 
From the commissioning and provisioning of the ship, it was apparent that Cook was no more than at best, an oik not meant to get in the way of empire building, certainly not the preferred leader of the expedition. The Admiralty was without doubt imperialist with an eye to asset stripping what ever lands they 'discovered'. As well as broadcasting Britain's naval dominance of the global seas. The Braid and powdered wigs of the Royal Navy were not overly concerned about the welfare of Cook's ship, crew or Cook himself. Although placed in charge of the expedition it was as a Lieutenant-although a Commander in charge of his ship and voyage, but not a Captain. As well as the snobbery of class, it was the rigid hierarchy of the Royal Navy, where promotions for someone of Cook's background/class moved very slowly- despite his already considerable merit in mapping large tracts of Canadian waters under conditions of war. The there was the Admiralty's tighter than a duck's butt to expenditure on the lower classes such as what the Royal Navy would have to fork out to his widow should he die on the voyage into the Southern Oceans (a strong possibility). However, in light of admiralty ambitions Cook was a poor choice as he was shaped by Quaker morality, his journals show a fundamentally decent man (and doting husband) who could be defined as a free thinker.
So these posters encountered in Newtown Sydney in January 2016 are disappointing and poorly considered. The worse of these is the one combining the images of James Cook with Adolf Hitler calling for "Death to colonialism, fascism and patriarchy Women of colour stand together". The slogan and image is just daft. Comparing a humanist (Cook) to a fascist (Hitler) is just wrong.
Unlike New Zealand and Australia direct European colonisation by settlement did not occur in the South Pacific. Imposed colonial rule and its legacy of courts, education and systems of Parliament (often at odds with traditional means of social systems) did. There is no question these were influential and certainly imposed without consideration of the existing complex systems of belief, values and social status. However, the most influential and in my view, damaging influence was Christianity and the variety of churches that have maintained a stranglehold across the South Pacific. The legacy of the missionaries has been far more devastating for autonomy, culture and in imposing another layer of patriarchy. This has been through the waves of mass conversion and the leaching of money and resources which go on until today. Families continue to provide family land, money to build churches and support their pastors, even if they go into debt to do so. In this context James Cook's name and face is recognisable and will do but the like of Samuel Marsden's is not.

Cook's death, in February 1779, as portrayed here with the slogan "The Death of Captain Cook was awesome! Kill your colonisers" is equally troubling without context. In Professor Salmond's book, the context is provided under the chapter "Killing Kuki." Awesome it was not. Cook by this time was a Captain on the "Resolution". In the Islands of Hawai'i he committed (as rangitira or chief) a breach of tapu (kapu) or sacred protocol by attempting to imprison the chief Kalani'opu'u after unjustly allowing the mistreatment of a high chief (lashed to the mast and flogged). As Professor Salmon wrote page 416 " Despite recent controversies, there is no good morality play, colonial or post-colonial, to be made of Cook's killing. Over a decade in Polynesia, he was caught in intractable contradictions. As the trial of the cannibal dog at Totara-Nui showed, when he acted with calm restraint, he invited humiliation - his sailors and the islanders alike considered him to be weak and irresolute. When he acted in anger and sought mana by force, he invited retaliation." This is what happened in Hawai'i. Not only was he killed but parts of him were ritually distributed to other chiefs, an honour bestowed on someone regarded as chiefly and an ancestor. Only part of his thigh was returned to his ship by the priests. Professor Salmond notes that in trying to act out the mana (strength) of a Polynesian chief (Cook had titles bestowed on him from his three voyages) and be in command of his sailors as was expected of a Captain of the Royal Navy, on this third voyage Cook was unable to manage the balance required to do this. In this he paid a heavy price but it is likely one he knew would eventually be exacted.

Although it is easy to use Cook as a figurehead for the evils which would be unleashed on Polynesia following these first encounters. It is well to remember it was a later combination of greed and ignorance which set in chain the events of colonisation. In my view Cook deserves more respect for what he gave and achieved in these voyages. Now Samuel Marsden...