The Apotheosis of Captain Cook: European Mythmaking in the Pacific

Was Captain Cook viewed by Hawaiian people as a diety, specifically the god Lono? The author says not. This book by Professor Gannath Obeyesekere at Princeton University was conceived as a counter-argument to a theory proposed by Marshall Sahlins (in his 1981 book "Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities: Structure in the Early History of the Sandwich Islands"), "who used the apotheosis of Cook to advance a certain vision of structural history"(p52). This book, then, is a counter to that book written by Marhsall Sahlins, who has since written a counter to Obeyesekere's counter. Without having read Sahlins's original work that prompted this reaction from Obeyesekere, and having not read Sahlin's subsequent counter to Obeyesekere's criticisms, it was difficult for me to come to any conclusions about this controversy. To the uninitiated on the Captain Cook controversy, this volume was similar to wading through the House of Representatives' 1979 Report that concluded on the Lee Harvey Oswald controversy on whether he shot and killed President Kennedy that there were "other shooters" that day in Dallas. Like the 1979 Congressional Report, Obeyesekere's book was a difficult work to make sense of unless you were already familiar with what was already being said. Having said that, that doesn't mean this book was not interesting - it was! It deals with the murder in 1779 of Captain James Cook at Kealakekua Bay, Hawaii. Sahlins has been saying that Hawaiians mistook Cook to be their god Lono because of the coincidental timing of his arrival at the time of their Makahiki festival. They believed Lono had returned in the flesh, in accordance with prophecy. Obeyesekere says that's all bunk! He says they knew he was a human - a chief of a sailing ship, and came to know him as a nasty, murderous servant of the British Empire, so they killed him to pretty much stop him. After he was dead, they gave him a burial fit for a king in accordance with custom. Obeyesekere says the idea that Hawaiians believed Cook was Lono came from the European's own `we're better than you' mentality - they imagined themselves to be gods everywhere they were treated with South Pacific courtesy. The author chastises Sahlins for perpetuating the myth, saying "None of the new evidence substantiates Sahlins's thesis that the apotheosis of Cook is a Hawai'ian rather than a European phenonmenon; nor has he dealt adequately with the methodological criticisms that I made of his previous work, particulary those pertaining to source material" (p194). Unfortunately, the reader can know no more of Sahlins and his theory from reading this book than what Obeyesekere is telling. That said, I did notice that the two authors could be talking cross-purposes to some extent. And on this point it may be helpful to think about Oswald and Kennedy again. Obeyesekere is stuck on the point of whether Cook was Lono or not. But Sahlins comes across as being more interested in structura

I bought this book because of a general interest in Hawaiian history and Captain Cook. I'm not a professional historian and don't have any comment on such matters as quality of footnotes. However, I thought this was an excellent, very readable book. Mr. Obeyesekere takes historical fragments - diaries, letters, and so forth, and re-constucts the last few days of Cook's life. It's done so cleverly, in such a readable style, that it reminds one of the end of a mystery novel, where Sherlock Holmes explains his reasoning to Dr. Watson. However, there's the similar suspicion that it's being too clever, and that the author is taking evidence to fit the conclusion, rather than the other way around.Also of interest was the repeated theme of cultural imperialism, explaining how modern historians project their own cultural predjudices (in this case, the simple savage, and a view of religion that is decidedly rational and rooted in monotheism) onto foreign cultures, and the misunderstandings that naturally arise. There's a number of similar cases I can think of, where the common knowledge is so influenced - best example is the view that Cortez conquered Mexico as an unimpeded God, when a simple reading of Bernal Diaz shows that's not the case.I do have to complain, though, that a overly large portion of the book is given to the academic refutation of fellow scholar Mr. Sahlins. The author is challenging common thought, and I appreciate being able to read the debate with a prestigious scholar who represents the status quo. However, I thought it should have been made more distinct from the rest of the book - much interesting information is revealed in the argument, but it's comparatively dry reading.Still, overall, this book makes for a very interesting read, and encourages one to re-examine their historical and cultural assumptions. I definitely think it's worth reading.

Obeyesekere does a remarkable, clear and concise job by using the events in Hawaii to show that to get an understanding in the meeting of cultures we must look at the views of all cultures involved. Where Sahlins work resides mostly from the Mythical viewpoint and looks at the events of Cook's landing in Hawaii in 1779, Obeyesekere opens up for debate logical questions that may never be answered but remind us that we must look at the entire spectrum of any historical event. Obeyesekere is critical of the myth and the way Sahlins advances that myth. The better of the two authors questioned the myth of Cook and that is the correct way to interpret the actual events leading up to Cook's death.

Ten years hence it is tempting to beat up on this book and its shortcomings. We should resist the temptation. Obviously Nicholas Thomas in his new book "Cook" couldn't resist. That's a shame.This was a necessary book. It raised and raises fundamental issues about anthropology and the nature of socio-historical inquiry that were and remain unresolved and are perpetually debated.One thing Obeyesekere did with this book is expose the hypocritical underbelly of much of anthropology. Especially anthropology as practiced in Hawaii. Once he turned on the light, the cockroaches started running, and it got pretty ugly. Much of this book contains an extended response to various critics, especially the mostly pathetic "How Natives Think" by Marshall Sahlins. Somewhat regrettably, those two books are now linked forever.In the end I would like to think that this book is about more than just a pissing contest between two relatively elite and priviledged academics. While Obeyesekere here is far from perfect, he is more right than Sahlins and his sympathizers. One reason why establishment "white" superstar academics cannot deal with legitimate postcolonial criticism is that they can't stand the thought--whether they want to admit it or not--of being looked at with the same scrutinous gaze that they themselves use. This "using and taking" aspect of anthropology is a fundamental aspect of the discipline, and it's a big part of the book.The intellectual and political reaction of the Hawaiian community to this book is perhaps the most interesting aspect of it. Obeyesekere could have done a better job of establishing a sense of ethnographic authority with the Hawaiian community, but that in no way excuses the lame ass and racially prejudicial attacks he had to endure for being a "half breed" Sri Lankan intellectual. Quite frankly, I think many of the people at the Center for Hawaiian Studies at UH Manoa had no real clue what this book was about when it first came out and had to resort to the same old trite, truistic, and nationalistic slogans in response. Instead of accusing Obeyesekere of not being "Hawaiian" and therefore by definition not able to truly speak about, much less for, Hawaiians, why not encounter and respond to the man's argument?This book is now part of the postcolonial pantheon and it is still used in a lot of anthropology courses. Ironically, my sense of the book is that many of the people generally sympathetic to the themes of this book may harbor many of the elitist and romantic biases about Hawaii that Obeyesekere sought to challenge. And that is perhaps the book's biggest shortfall.