What issues regarding the voyages of Captain Cook and the Polynesian reactions to them have struck you in the last two weeks? DIscuss how these issues relate or don't relate to the theme of history and knowledge.
Much of what we have discussed in the last two weeks regarding Captain Cook and his voyages have struck me as interesting and surprising. First of all, discussing the attitudes and experiences of Cook during his three voyages in a ten year span to Polynesia informed me that Cook had a great knowledge of and seeming respect for the Polynesian people and their cultures and traditions. He did not want his men to get off the boat during their travels to Hawaiian Islands because he did not agree with them having sexual relations with the native women. He knew that this caused the spread of venereal diseases and he also believed that it loosened the discipline of his crew. This showed me that Cook cared about his expeditions for reasons of discovery and knowledge rather than the conquest of peoples. In learning about Cook in class, we also discussed how, despite good intentions, miscommunication and misunderstanding often led to disputes between peoples. When items were stolen from the ship of the British, cultural miscommunication led to a brutal dispute between the Hawaiians and the British. Possibly, the Hawaiians felt that through the sexual relations that occurred between the British crew members and the native women on the Island, the Hawaiian family members of those women were entitled to the possessions of those men, according to their cultural practices. The British did not fully understand these attitudes and thus took the appropriation of the items as blatant theft. Through this case study, we learned about how cultural miscommunication can lead to rivalry between groups of people. Thus, it is important to understand the culture and history of a group as it is impossible to assume that their way of thinking would be similar to the thinking of those in another part of the world. What we know today about cultures around the world and events that have occurred in the past must thus be considered through an inclusionary lens. We must learn to understand how people and groups saw the world as a result of their place in it and culture to better understand historical events.
I definitely agree that Captain Cook cared about his soldiers. He was strict with them but only for their own benefit. He wanted them to eat healthy and take care of themselves. He didn't want them to spread or obtain STD's with native women, so he discouraged sexual relations. Not all of Cook's soldiers agreed with this, because they much wanted to have relations with the women regardless of what Cook said. Cook was a very smart man and knew a great deal about his expeditions. I agree he did have respect for Polynesians and their culture. He knew a lot of about their culture and has a great deal of knowledge in general. I agree that it's very important to take the time and have the respect to learn about different cultures and traditions of other peoples. Not everyone has the same belief system and to think other wise is ignorant. If Cook was ignorant to Polynesian culture, I'm sure they would not have welcomed him as easily as they did.
Justina Bonfiglio November 29, 2012 Blog 4 Honors 490
An issue that has stuck me the most is the Cannibalism of the Maori people. I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels this way. Captain Cook believed he had good mana, which he felt entitled to act the way that he did towards soldiers, the Maori people, etc. Mana is the belief that people can obtain supernatural powers as a result of their actions and there are different levels of mana. You can start with little to no mana and work your way up as a result of your actions. Cook unfortunately overstepped his mana in both British and Polynesian terms. Polynesians beliefs are very different from everyone else’s, especially Cook’s and his soldiers. For example, Polynesians believed once you have sex with someone, you are forever tied to them and their family. You have obligations to them. There is no longer private property, it becomes family property. When a British soldier has sex with a Polynesian woman, his property now belongs to her and her family. Ending a sexual relationship does not signify the end of the relationship between the two people, it will continue regardless. Captain Cook was a very misunderstood man. He tried to preserve as many lives as he could. He wanted the best for himself and his crew. He wanted to keep everyone safe and healthy. He made his soldiers eat fresh fruit and take good care of them. Cook wasn’t a vengeful person and tried to avoid violence when necessary. Cooke is important to white New Zealanders because he was the first white man to explore there. He was responsible for the first contact between white people and Maori people. He was cautious about not using violent forces to handle the Native peoples. Maori people were cannibals and Cook wanted to make sure the Maori people were amicable toward the white soldiers. When the Maori people killed and possibly ate some of Cook’s soldiers, Cook didn’t go to avenge his mates. This causes his British soldiers to get angry and turn on him. This causes Cook to lose control of his command. A Maori dog was given as a gift to the Queen of England. On the way home back to England, a bunch of Cook’s soldiers hanged the dog and cooked and ate it. It wasn’t typical for Englanders to eat dogs. Dogs are seen as humans and extensions of the family. This shows the state of mind Cook’s soldiers were in. Cook had lost his soldiers to Native violence. This horrific act was done to send a message to senior officials. The readiness of Cook’s soldiers to eat a dog is a reflection of how their time in New Zealand affected them. It was a very Polynesian thing to do. This definitely strikes me greatly. It’s remarkable how a person or a group of people could lose sense of their minds. They can lose the people they once were and act out and do things that they would never originally do. The Polynesians had a great impact on them during their time in New Zealand. It’s scary how a group of people can influence another group of people. Also, mob mentality plays a role here too. The soldiers acted together, not as one. The more people in the mob, the more followers are involved. Then once they are in the mob, they can do almost anything, even something as horrific as eating a dog.
What struck me about the interactions between Captain James Cook and the natives he interacted with during his voyages of discovery, as described in the Anne Salmond’s The Trial of the Cannibal Dog, was Cook’s incomprehension to the fact that these island natives practice human cannibalism as part of their religious and ancestral culture, especially the Maori of New Zealand. Instead, he had described the island natives as rather ugly and simplistic personages structured in an egalitarian society that exhibited mutual coexistence and were completely in harmony with nature where cannibalism did not fit into Cook’s native paradigm. He did acknowledge the existence of ritual killings and human sacrifice as part of the Polynesian religious dogma. When confronted with act of barbarity and cannibalism performed by the local natives on some of the Adventure’s crew at Queen Charlotte Sound, New Zealand, Cook initially refused to immediately accept it. The Adventure was Cook’s sister ship during his second voyage which was separated from his ship, the Resolution, during a storm and had directly departed to England after the cannibalism incident. Even during his third voyage, Cook kept an open mind about the killings until he knew what had provoked the local Maori and was still determined to do nothing to them in revenge. He saw himself as an enlightened leader who enforced a code of conduct on his crew that demanded that they treat the natives with respect and cooperation. This resulted in friendly relationships that developed between Captain Cook and his crew and the local Polynesian natives during his first two voyages and until his third voyage. When Cook finally accepted the facts of the killings at Queen Charlotte Sound, he immediately changed his stance with the Polynesians and started to treat them with unprecedented severity. This action eventually led to Cook’s demise. The Trial of the Cannibal Dog investigates the clash of the European and Polynesian cultures during Captain Cook’s second voyage. It was abhorrent to the European’s mind that cannibalism be an acceptable behavior that was rarely practiced in Europe except in times of extreme famine, war, or petulance. Even the usual eating of dog meat consumed on with regularity onboard Cook’s ships was an unacceptable European menu item and simply not done. Captain Cook, because of his European-centric mind, could not comprehend that cannibalism to be used as a method of retribution to appease the native Polynesian gods. He ignored the fact that it was a cultural practice of the Maori and other similar Polynesian cultures to kill and ritually eat members of other groups. Not to do so was an insult to their ancestors and gods. The Maori did not actually use raiding parties to obtain captives as a source of meat to supplement their diet as the native Carobs did in the Caribbean. Instead the Maori was culturally bound to retaliate for an insult or filial revenge and eat their victims, or otherwise their gods would withdraw their presence, causing disease and devastation. Ignorance of Polynesian practices and cultures did not result in the diminishing my appreciation of Captain Cook’s humanitarian efforts and I now understand that other civilizations had similar grotesque culture practices, such as the Mayans and Aztecs. I simply acquiesce to their existence but do not condone their actions. Maybe this is my take-away from Captain Cook’s interactions with the Polynesians.
One interesting point Professor Fung made was that when some sailors were eaten by Maoris, Captain Cook did not deal with the situation in the best way possible. Although by that point in his voyages, Cook seemed to have things down, his response to said situation was questionable. I feel that this relates to the theme of history and knowledge, even if this is not one of the examples that first comes to mind for others. I feel that this relates to history and knowledge because although Cook may have been a veteran voyager by this point, he was overconfident of his knowledge of the Maori culture and perhaps he was even overconfident in his knowledge of his own culture and leadership skills.
Knowledge of the history of a culture is important to how one communicates with said culture. Although it is said that Cook did fairly well learning the cultures that he dealt with and that there was usually a mutual respect between Cook and his crew and the other cultures they encountered, other British sailors did not gain the same respect from cultures in the Pacific as Cook had. Their (the British soldiers who were eaten) lack of understanding versus Cook’s understanding (based off of knowledge, history, and knowledge of the history) of the Maori culture may be what resulted in their being eaten when Cook visited the same people and was regarded as a respectful individual. Because the other British soldiers did not learn the history the Maori people or gain any knowledge about their culture, they were not respected as Cook was.
The incident that happened with the British soldiers who were eaten show that gaining knowledge and history about a culture before having the first encounter can help two different groups get along and communicate better. Cook understood many of the cultures he encountered; he did not simply jump from island to island and go up to the native people, but took time to get their respect by learning about the people. By gaining history and knowledge, Cook was able to effectively communicate with various cultures whereas other British soldiers were unsuccessful…and eaten.
Captain Cook was an enlightened man for his time. He took his responsibilities seriously and new the interactions with the Polynesians should have as little impact on them as possible. The reality is there was no way his contact with them could not have a negative impact. Cook’s background and qualifications were much different from most Naval Officers of England at that time. He was brought up in a Quaker family and those influences can be evidenced easily in his interactions and handling of circumstances with the natives. Obvious too, are the difference in how Cook’s crew would handle those same instances. This led to what appears to be a loss of respect the crew had for Cook and which also contributed to his death in Hawaii. But Cook cannot be blamed solely for the differing perspectives with him and his crew. The crew was made up of sailors and Marines. Not an educated and enlightened bunch in 1760(ish)! How could he have shared the enlightened perspectives and ideals that he was advised to explore with? Loyalty from the crew would be much easier to attain with increased rations of grog and Polynesian girls! The fact that such an effort was made to interact with the natives in an enlightened manner does set a precedent when compared to expeditions to the America’s. Though it wasn’t truly fulfilled, at least there is a notable difference/attempt. The reality of years at sea and miles upon miles away from civilization as they understood it, the crew could not meet the expectations set forth. It does not justify their actions but merely tries to explain them. The punishments crewmembers received compared to the lack discipline displayed towards the natives for theft, cannibalism and so forth, only distanced Cook further from his crew. As enlightened as Cook was, it was naive to believe it could be parlayed throughout the ship and shared with the natives as well.
Much of what we have discussed in the last two weeks regarding Captain Cook and his voyages have struck me as interesting and surprising. First of all, discussing the attitudes and experiences of Cook during his three voyages in a ten year span to Polynesia informed me that Cook had a great knowledge of and seeming respect for the Polynesian people and their cultures and traditions. He did not want his men to get off the boat during their travels to Hawaiian Islands because he did not agree with them having sexual relations with the native women. He knew that this caused the spread of venereal diseases and he also believed that it loosened the discipline of his crew. This showed me that Cook cared about his expeditions for reasons of discovery and knowledge rather than the conquest of peoples.
ReplyDeleteIn learning about Cook in class, we also discussed how, despite good intentions, miscommunication and misunderstanding often led to disputes between peoples. When items were stolen from the ship of the British, cultural miscommunication led to a brutal dispute between the Hawaiians and the British. Possibly, the Hawaiians felt that through the sexual relations that occurred between the British crew members and the native women on the Island, the Hawaiian family members of those women were entitled to the possessions of those men, according to their cultural practices. The British did not fully understand these attitudes and thus took the appropriation of the items as blatant theft. Through this case study, we learned about how cultural miscommunication can lead to rivalry between groups of people. Thus, it is important to understand the culture and history of a group as it is impossible to assume that their way of thinking would be similar to the thinking of those in another part of the world. What we know today about cultures around the world and events that have occurred in the past must thus be considered through an inclusionary lens. We must learn to understand how people and groups saw the world as a result of their place in it and culture to better understand historical events.
Justina Bonfiglio
DeleteI definitely agree that Captain Cook cared about his soldiers. He was strict with them but only for their own benefit. He wanted them to eat healthy and take care of themselves. He didn't want them to spread or obtain STD's with native women, so he discouraged sexual relations. Not all of Cook's soldiers agreed with this, because they much wanted to have relations with the women regardless of what Cook said.
Cook was a very smart man and knew a great deal about his expeditions. I agree he did have respect for Polynesians and their culture. He knew a lot of about their culture and has a great deal of knowledge in general. I agree that it's very important to take the time and have the respect to learn about different cultures and traditions of other peoples. Not everyone has the same belief system and to think other wise is ignorant. If Cook was ignorant to Polynesian culture, I'm sure they would not have welcomed him as easily as they did.
Justina Bonfiglio
ReplyDeleteNovember 29, 2012
Blog 4
Honors 490
An issue that has stuck me the most is the Cannibalism of the Maori people. I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels this way. Captain Cook believed he had good mana, which he felt entitled to act the way that he did towards soldiers, the Maori people, etc. Mana is the belief that people can obtain supernatural powers as a result of their actions and there are different levels of mana. You can start with little to no mana and work your way up as a result of your actions. Cook unfortunately overstepped his mana in both British and Polynesian terms. Polynesians beliefs are very different from everyone else’s, especially Cook’s and his soldiers. For example, Polynesians believed once you have sex with someone, you are forever tied to them and their family. You have obligations to them. There is no longer private property, it becomes family property. When a British soldier has sex with a Polynesian woman, his property now belongs to her and her family. Ending a sexual relationship does not signify the end of the relationship between the two people, it will continue regardless.
Captain Cook was a very misunderstood man. He tried to preserve as many lives as he could. He wanted the best for himself and his crew. He wanted to keep everyone safe and healthy. He made his soldiers eat fresh fruit and take good care of them. Cook wasn’t a vengeful person and tried to avoid violence when necessary. Cooke is important to white New Zealanders because he was the first white man to explore there. He was responsible for the first contact between white people and Maori people. He was cautious about not using violent forces to handle the Native peoples. Maori people were cannibals and Cook wanted to make sure the Maori people were amicable toward the white soldiers. When the Maori people killed and possibly ate some of Cook’s soldiers, Cook didn’t go to avenge his mates. This causes his British soldiers to get angry and turn on him. This causes Cook to lose control of his command.
A Maori dog was given as a gift to the Queen of England. On the way home back to England, a bunch of Cook’s soldiers hanged the dog and cooked and ate it. It wasn’t typical for Englanders to eat dogs. Dogs are seen as humans and extensions of the family. This shows the state of mind Cook’s soldiers were in. Cook had lost his soldiers to Native violence. This horrific act was done to send a message to senior officials. The readiness of Cook’s soldiers to eat a dog is a reflection of how their time in New Zealand affected them. It was a very Polynesian thing to do. This definitely strikes me greatly. It’s remarkable how a person or a group of people could lose sense of their minds. They can lose the people they once were and act out and do things that they would never originally do. The Polynesians had a great impact on them during their time in New Zealand. It’s scary how a group of people can influence another group of people. Also, mob mentality plays a role here too. The soldiers acted together, not as one. The more people in the mob, the more followers are involved. Then once they are in the mob, they can do almost anything, even something as horrific as eating a dog.
What struck me about the interactions between Captain James Cook and the natives he interacted with during his voyages of discovery, as described in the Anne Salmond’s The Trial of the Cannibal Dog, was Cook’s incomprehension to the fact that these island natives practice human cannibalism as part of their religious and ancestral culture, especially the Maori of New Zealand. Instead, he had described the island natives as rather ugly and simplistic personages structured in an egalitarian society that exhibited mutual coexistence and were completely in harmony with nature where cannibalism did not fit into Cook’s native paradigm. He did acknowledge the existence of ritual killings and human sacrifice as part of the Polynesian religious dogma. When confronted with act of barbarity and cannibalism performed by the local natives on some of the Adventure’s crew at Queen Charlotte Sound, New Zealand, Cook initially refused to immediately accept it. The Adventure was Cook’s sister ship during his second voyage which was separated from his ship, the Resolution, during a storm and had directly departed to England after the cannibalism incident. Even during his third voyage, Cook kept an open mind about the killings until he knew what had provoked the local Maori and was still determined to do nothing to them in revenge. He saw himself as an enlightened leader who enforced a code of conduct on his crew that demanded that they treat the natives with respect and cooperation. This resulted in friendly relationships that developed between Captain Cook and his crew and the local Polynesian natives during his first two voyages and until his third voyage. When Cook finally accepted the facts of the killings at Queen Charlotte Sound, he immediately changed his stance with the Polynesians and started to treat them with unprecedented severity. This action eventually led to Cook’s demise.
ReplyDeleteThe Trial of the Cannibal Dog investigates the clash of the European and Polynesian cultures during Captain Cook’s second voyage. It was abhorrent to the European’s mind that cannibalism be an acceptable behavior that was rarely practiced in Europe except in times of extreme famine, war, or petulance. Even the usual eating of dog meat consumed on with regularity onboard Cook’s ships was an unacceptable European menu item and simply not done. Captain Cook, because of his European-centric mind, could not comprehend that cannibalism to be used as a method of retribution to appease the native Polynesian gods. He ignored the fact that it was a cultural practice of the Maori and other similar Polynesian cultures to kill and ritually eat members of other groups. Not to do so was an insult to their ancestors and gods. The Maori did not actually use raiding parties to obtain captives as a source of meat to supplement their diet as the native Carobs did in the Caribbean. Instead the Maori was culturally bound to retaliate for an insult or filial revenge and eat their victims, or otherwise their gods would withdraw their presence, causing disease and devastation. Ignorance of Polynesian practices and cultures did not result in the diminishing my appreciation of Captain Cook’s humanitarian efforts and I now understand that other civilizations had similar grotesque culture practices, such as the Mayans and Aztecs. I simply acquiesce to their existence but do not condone their actions. Maybe this is my take-away from Captain Cook’s interactions with the Polynesians.
Shannon O’Neill
ReplyDeleteOne interesting point Professor Fung made was that when some sailors were eaten by Maoris, Captain Cook did not deal with the situation in the best way possible. Although by that point in his voyages, Cook seemed to have things down, his response to said situation was questionable. I feel that this relates to the theme of history and knowledge, even if this is not one of the examples that first comes to mind for others. I feel that this relates to history and knowledge because although Cook may have been a veteran voyager by this point, he was overconfident of his knowledge of the Maori culture and perhaps he was even overconfident in his knowledge of his own culture and leadership skills.
Knowledge of the history of a culture is important to how one communicates with said culture. Although it is said that Cook did fairly well learning the cultures that he dealt with and that there was usually a mutual respect between Cook and his crew and the other cultures they encountered, other British sailors did not gain the same respect from cultures in the Pacific as Cook had. Their (the British soldiers who were eaten) lack of understanding versus Cook’s understanding (based off of knowledge, history, and knowledge of the history) of the Maori culture may be what resulted in their being eaten when Cook visited the same people and was regarded as a respectful individual. Because the other British soldiers did not learn the history the Maori people or gain any knowledge about their culture, they were not respected as Cook was.
The incident that happened with the British soldiers who were eaten show that gaining knowledge and history about a culture before having the first encounter can help two different groups get along and communicate better. Cook understood many of the cultures he encountered; he did not simply jump from island to island and go up to the native people, but took time to get their respect by learning about the people. By gaining history and knowledge, Cook was able to effectively communicate with various cultures whereas other British soldiers were unsuccessful…and eaten.
Captain Cook was an enlightened man for his time. He took his responsibilities seriously and new the interactions with the Polynesians should have as little impact on them as possible. The reality is there was no way his contact with them could not have a negative impact.
ReplyDeleteCook’s background and qualifications were much different from most Naval Officers of England at that time. He was brought up in a Quaker family and those influences can be evidenced easily in his interactions and handling of circumstances with the natives. Obvious too, are the difference in how Cook’s crew would handle those same instances. This led to what appears to be a loss of respect the crew had for Cook and which also contributed to his death in Hawaii. But Cook cannot be blamed solely for the differing perspectives with him and his crew. The crew was made up of sailors and Marines. Not an educated and enlightened bunch in 1760(ish)! How could he have shared the enlightened perspectives and ideals that he was advised to explore with? Loyalty from the crew would be much easier to attain with increased rations of grog and Polynesian girls!
The fact that such an effort was made to interact with the natives in an enlightened manner does set a precedent when compared to expeditions to the America’s. Though it wasn’t truly fulfilled, at least there is a notable difference/attempt. The reality of years at sea and miles upon miles away from civilization as they understood it, the crew could not meet the expectations set forth. It does not justify their actions but merely tries to explain them. The punishments crewmembers received compared to the lack discipline displayed towards the natives for theft, cannibalism and so forth, only distanced Cook further from his crew. As enlightened as Cook was, it was naive to believe it could be parlayed throughout the ship and shared with the natives as well.