bigbluemeanie

You are obviously trying to provoke.  Cook was well known for his above board treatment of the indigenous peoples he encountered.  His attitude in that respect was much more French than English.

He is not generally regarded as having abused the hospitality he received in Hawaii.  His death came at the end of a several incidents that led to growing tension between the locals and the visitors.  Most writers struggle to explain the tensions, given the climate of previous visits and given Cook’s history of firm but fair relationships with local peoples. He was very strict with his own crew who abused local peoples, and was not averse to demonstrating his justice in front of those peoples.

Yes, I’m being provocative but I’m trying to make a point too.

Cook may have been “better than his contemporaries” (and he commanded their respect) but I am holding him to a different standard.

Perhaps his behaviour was “firm but fair” in terms of British standards at the time: He helped himself to food from the islanders, he allowed his men to remove wooden images from a sacred area, when the islanders took his cutter he attempted to kidnap the king as a hostage for its return.

It doesn’t seem as if the Hawaiians at the time considered it very fair, and he paid for it with his life.

Regarding the experience at the National Maritime Museum the whole theme seems to be “we were better than the others” (the French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc). Britain’s role in ending slavery was no doubt important, but her role in perpetuating slavery and the role of slavery in building empire and the ports/cities of Bristol, Liverpool, London surely deserve recognition too.

I’ve read four biographies of Cook and you have not presented an accurate picture of the man.