The death of Cook

Human beings are social creatures and are born with the innate desire to fit in. despite these desires however, human beings are rather different and formulate various personal traits that are influenced by their experiences. The events that transpire in an individual’s life greatly influence their opinions and approaches towards life. This leads people to form different personality traits that determine how they perceive others and the community they live in. despite these differences however, the desire to fit in to society has led to the development of stereotypes and beliefs that enable people to view the world similarly or share common interests. Human plurality has created an environment where people are more likely to turn from their personal beliefs and even general reasoning and abide to common notions and beliefs shared by the majority. The debate between Sahlins and Obeyesekere concerning James Cook’s death in Hawaii is a good example of how an individual or group’s beliefs can be altered in favor of human plurality.

          James Cook served as a surveyor in the royal navy and in 1768; he was promoted to lieutenant and given command of the HMS Endeavour and started an expedition to Tahiti. When he returned to England in 1771, his exploration had covered Australia and the coast of New Zealand. In 1772, his expedition ventured into the south pacific and the Antarctic. Cook made his first visit to the Hawaiian Islands in 1778 while commanding the Discovery and HMS Resolution and is likely to have been the first European to reach that far (History, 2010). During their visit, Cook and his crew were welcomed by the natives who were impressed by the European ships, their ability to use iron and also the opportunity to trade. Cook then proceeded to Ni’ihau to look for a passage that would link the North Atlantic and the pacific before returning to Hawaii a year later and sought safe harbor in Kealakekua Bay.

          According to Sahlin’s interpretation, the Hawaiians regarded Cook and his men as Gods and this greatly attributed to the special treatment they received on the second visit of their voyage. Cook’s arrival took place in Kealakekua Bay which was regarded as the sacred harbor of Lono. Coincidentally, Cook and his crew arrived when the locals were conducting a festival dedicated to Lono which led to them being treated as gods (Sahlin, n.d). Whether intentional, accidental or by coincidence, the treatment Cook and his men received is a good example of how universalism and cultural particularity influences people’s decisions and interaction. Sahlin’s argument suggests that the decision to treat Cook as a god was as a result of the local’s universalistic belief of religion and culture (Roldan & Vermeulen, 2013). Despite having worshipped Lono for years, they strongly believed that a foreigner from a different land was their god reincarnated because they believed their culture and religion exceeded the bounds of their community. They therefore abandoned reason and treated people from foreign lands as gods without taking the time to learn their culture.

          On the other hand, Obeyesekere’s arguments suggest that human beings are influenced by cultural relativism rather than ethnocentrism. A good example is the argument where the special treatment that Cook and his crew received was as a result of the festivities held during the Makahiki season and not because the locals thought that Cook was the god Lono. The locals practiced cultural relativism where they respected Cook’s culture and extended the hospitality required by their own customs and traditions especially during a time where they were paying tribute to their god (Obeyesekere, n.d). The argument that Cook was seen as a god is ethnocentric in that the Europeans perceived their culture as being superior to a point where locals would mistake them for gods or superior beings. The Europeans may have misinterpreted the warm welcome offered as worship especially because they regarded all locals they encountered as inferior.

            Sahlin’s ethnocentric nature further extends to the disruption of the relationship between Cook and the locals. According to Sahlin, Cook and his compatriots continued to enjoy the benefits of being mistaken for gods until the locals realize their mistake (Sahlin, n.d). When a member of Cook’s crew died, the locals came to the realization that cook and his men were actually human and not gods. Sahlin’s argument fails to acknowledge the locals customs and traditions. Assuming that people can mistake their god for a foreigner is a good example of ethnocentrism as Sahlin assumes relies on his own customs and traditions to analyze Cook’s reception at the harbor.

          Contrary to Sahlin’s belief, Obeyesekere takes on a universalistic approach and tries to explain the events with consideration to the culture of all parties involved. Rather than presenting the locals as primitives who haven’t fully understood how to interprete their religious manifestations, Obysekere presents the locals as hospitabl individuals willing to play as good hosts even to foreigners (Obeyesekere, n.d). According to Obeyesekere, Cook and his crew were welcomed and treated well simply because they arrived during special festivities. The locals did not mistake Cook for Lono but rather extended special treatment to guests that arrived during festivities held in his name.

          Obeyesekere’s arguents is validated during Cook’s next visit to Hawaii after the festival season was over. Cook makes his next visit during a time for battle and the locals are engaged in practices to the god of war Kukailimoku. In addition, previous encounters between Cook and the locals had damaged the good relationship that existed during previous visits (Obeyesekere, n.d). A good example is the case where Cook wanted the locals to trade using wood that was used for the borders protecting their sacred Morai burial grounds. The sacred ground was reserved for high ranking individuals as well as depictions for their gods (Obeyesekere, n.d). Since Cook was willing to go o with the delusion that the locals perceived him as a reincarnation of their god, he did not see any problem taking pieces of wood that locals considered sacred.

          The contrasting opinions between Sahil and Obeyesekere are a perfect example of how people are not only different but also how these differences influence the decisions that people make. Jim Cook’s death is influenced by his belief that Europeans were superior and this led to him taking advantage of the locals. He failed to acknowledge the various differences in culture that existed between the two people and this led to his death at the hands of the same people who supposedly regarded him as a god. Although both Sahil and Obeyesekere offer convincing arguments for their beliefs, their varying opinions on an event that already took place only goes to prove how difficult it is to change people’s opinions and beliefs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

History, (2010) “Captain Cook killed in Hawaii” retreieved from,     https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/captain-cook-killed-in-hawaii

Obeyesekere G, (n.d) “Captain Cook and the European imagination”

Roldan A and Vermeulen H, (2013) “Fieldwork and footnotes: Studies in the history of European anthropology” Routledge

Saglin, (n.d) “Captain James Cook, or the Dying God”