The Apotheosis of Captain Cook

Rating:
Summary: Very interesting
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Very interesting
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: See Sahlins for Rebuttal
Review: In addition to asking some very important theoretical questions relevant to the practice of history and anthropology, Obeyesekere takes aim at Marshall Sahlins in this book. Sahlins went on to write a blow by blow response in the book "How 'Natives' Think: About Captain Cook, For Example" which should probably be read along with Obeyesekere's.

While I have only read selections of both, my feeling is that Sahlins has probably defended his honor, revealed big flaws in his opponent's arguments, but done little to blunt the critique Obeyesekere launches against the structuralist approach to the apotheosis of captain Cook. Even if some of his specific claims are called into question, Obeyesekere's best contributions are 1) showing the importance of "myth models" not only for natives, but for modern Western cultures and 2) showing that cultural specificity does not rob the "natives" of their capacity to engage in a kind of "pragmatic rationality" and we must hold open the possibility that considerable irrationality can creep into the "civilized" characters such as Cook.

Sahlin and other reviewers of this book argue that Obeyesekere simply reverses things, making the natives "bourgeois rationalists" and the Westerners irrational savages. I find this totally unpersuasive. His conception of pragmatic reasoning is flawed, but doesn't ignore the importance of culture in configuring the parameters of possible action.

Rating:
Summary: Foolish views from a diluted man
Review: This book is a travesty. I'm a history student researching the death of Captain Cook. My prof. who gained his PhD from Yale suggested I read this book as a counterpoint for how historical research should be done, and presented. Obeyesekere is way out of his league in this book. First he claims to be an islander so he can relate to the natives (in fact he is 1/2 sri lankan and the other half is european). From taht point it goes down hill. The man's arguments while compelling on the surface are completely unfounded. If you actually read the footnotes of his arguments they site often his own articles and essays, or take comments from European acounts out of context that when read do not state at all what Obeyesekere says they do. Do not get taken in by the popular denial of the truth of Cook's death. This book represents an obvious vendeta against historians who know what they are talking and have true expertise in the field such as Sahlins.Who knows ancient Hawwian traditions, is an expert in ancient polynesean language and culture, and studied in many places in the south pacific. Unlike Obyesekere who has no background in any of these things. This is another great example of a man who is way out of his league atempting to make a name for himself by rocking the boat.

Rating:
Summary: The Great "Cook" Book Debate
Review: You have to give Obeyesekere credit for looking beyond the Makahiki festival, which dominates Marshall Sahlins' study of the apotheosis of James Cook. Obeyesekere sparked a minor maelstrom when he challenged the renown scholar's thesis that Cook was personified as a god by the Hawaiians. Obeyesekere looks beyond bicameral minds, and insists that the Hawaiians were fully conscious of their actions.

Cook was not the great god Lono, nor did he pretend to be. While his second arrival at the Sandwich Islands did coincide with the Makahiki festival, the Hawaiians did not deify him, but rather invited the Captain and his crew to take part in the ritual. Unfortunately for the Captain things seem to devolve afterward, and the Hawaiians killed him and several members of his crew.

Many have tried to piece together the tattered remnants of this story. Several of his crew kept journals and attempts were made after the fact to collect oral history from Hawaiians who were part of the cannibalistic ritual. Unfortunately, few of these accounts jive. Marshall Sahlins has done the most to try to piece together the events, but he seems to discount the Hawaiians ability for cognitive thinking, which tarnishes his work.

Obeyesekere attempted to draw Sahlins out, which he did with this book. Sahlins responded with the more scholarly but overbearing "How Natives Think," which he hoped would settle the issue once and for all. Unfortunately, Obeyeskere is not an anthropologist and his arguments tend to be a bit thin, but he does shoot plenty of holes into Sahlins' thesis.

Rating:
Summary: The Great "Cook" Book Debate
Review: You have to give Obeyesekere credit for looking beyond the Makahiki festival, which dominates Marshall Sahlins' study of the apotheosis of James Cook. Obeyesekere sparked a minor maelstrom when he challenged the renown scholar's thesis that Cook was personified as a god by the Hawaiians. Obeyesekere looks beyond bicameral minds, and insists that the Hawaiians were fully conscious of their actions.

Cook was not the great god Lono, nor did he pretend to be. While his second arrival at the Sandwich Islands did coincide with the Makahiki festival, the Hawaiians did not deify him, but rather invited the Captain and his crew to take part in the ritual. Unfortunately for the Captain things seem to devolve afterward, and the Hawaiians killed him and several members of his crew.

Many have tried to piece together the tattered remnants of this story. Several of his crew kept journals and attempts were made after the fact to collect oral history from Hawaiians who were part of the cannibalistic ritual. Unfortunately, few of these accounts jive. Marshall Sahlins has done the most to try to piece together the events, but he seems to discount the Hawaiians ability for cognitive thinking, which tarnishes his work.

Obeyesekere attempted to draw Sahlins out, which he did with this book. Sahlins responded with the more scholarly but overbearing "How Natives Think," which he hoped would settle the issue once and for all. Unfortunately, Obeyeskere is not an anthropologist and his arguments tend to be a bit thin, but he does shoot plenty of holes into Sahlins' thesis.