Earlier this year the British Library had an exhibition about the voyages of Captain James Cook but I've only just got round to blogging about it.
It's a big year for remembering Cook as its 250 years since the first of his three voyages set sail from Britain, heading to the Pacific. As well as the British Library exhibition there is also Oceania at the Royal Academy (as posted earlier) and the National Maritime Museum has just opened a gallery dedicated to Pacific Encounters (which have yet to visit).
It's become a rather hot political potato in some quarters, and these alternative voices were given hearing in the British Library's exhibition which examined some of the issues involved in his voyages.
Sometimes it felt like there was a need of further balance. For example, someone from Taiti said that Tupaia (who joined Resolution there and was to act as translator) was not named and yet clearly he was as the BL had Bank's Journal on display with Tupaia's name clearly written.
That might just have been lack of precision, but a chief of the one of tribes of the American North West said he wished Cook had just sailed by. But would they really have wished no contact (even now?) and do they really blame Cook for everything?
A key question is whether Cook is to blame for what occurred after his death, in particular the negative aspects of colonialism. But is that legally or morally valid?
There were alternative visions. Adam Smith, no less, writing at the same time as Cook's voyages, proposed that trade not conquest would be a better route. This would have been consistent with Cook's voyages as Cook himself traded with the locals he encountered. I was delighted to spot some of the paddles he acquired in New Zealand at the Oceania exhibition, which noted that trade not pillage was the source of most of the exhibits.
First contact was naturally a difficult time when two cultures met and signals could easily misread. But often the blame for this lack of reading is placed solely on Cook when a more nuanced view would note that (for example) grabbing an object of value from the guests, in particular if it is a weapon, might not be a sensible way to open communications. This occurred when Cook first landed on New Zealand and the culprit was shot. Maybe this was an over-reaction, but such meetings could be fatal in the other direction too (see Cook, death in Hawaii) so is it right to put all the blame only on Cook?
Having said that, it was clear that the Cook of the third voyage was different from the Cook of the first voyage (for whatever reason) and that played its part too. Maybe its something about the third circumnavigation, as William Dampier was also a shadow of his normal self third time round.
Anyhow, slight diversion from what - as you can tell from the thoughts it triggered above - was a really fascinating exhibition full of original documents and pictures.
David Attenborough chipped in with his concise summary: that Cook was the greatest sea going explorer of all time, and that seemed a good way of identifying strengths without heading into deep waters (politically that is).
In a way, Cook was the victim of cultural appropriation, for without his permission or authority his name and story were taken over by those that wanted to promote the British Empire. It is this image of him, rather than that of an explorer, that is the issue.
This exhibition was bold, challenging and fascinating, re-apprising one of the world's all time great sailors, flaws and all.
