this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2025

210 points (96.5% liked)

Late Stage Capitalism

883 readers

1061 users here now

A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.

A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.

RULES:

1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.

2 No Trolling

3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.

4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.

5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.

6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc.

founded 5 months ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

210

Should be a national holiday (lemmy.world)

submitted 19 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 15 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

I'm not sure this is a really fair appraisal of Cook.

Perhaps others are more knowledgeable than myself and can correct me, but my understanding is that Cook was more of an intrepid explorer and respected commander than a "colonizer".

For example, Cook is kind of credited with the discovery of Australia but that's not really what happened. The dutch knew that Van Diemens land existed for ages but no one was interested. Eventually when the English were looking for places to colonize so they sent Joseph (Joey) Banks who was kind of a rock star level celebrity naturalist to claim Australia, and Cook steered the ship for him.

It was Banks that returned to England and declared Australia to be "terra nullis" as in he falsely (fraudulently?) asserted that the land is free to be claimed because nobody has established use or control of the land.

It sounds like Cook took more effort than most captains to support good relations with natives on the various islands he visited. This wasn't altruistic, as ships often needed to resupply and what have you, but then there's resupply and there's "resupply" I guess.

Cook is well known for avoiding any kind of inappropriate personal liaisons with native women which was not the norm for this era. Relationships that we would describe as prostitution were normalised. Oddly enough the currency exchanged was usually nails, as islanders couldn't forge steel but nails could be sharpened into great knives far superior to anything you can make from bone.

Cook certainly wasn't in Hawaii to colonize them. IIRC they revered him as a god but something happened during a visit that betrayed him as a mortal (or something?) and the natives were angry at being tricked. IDK. Google it, but they didn't murder him because he was trying to colonize them.

It's hard to describe someone who lived 250 years ago as "good" or "bad" because it was literally a different era with different societal norms. However, if someone flew to Mars and planted a flag there you'd kinda have to respect that achievement even if they're not someone you'd like or really get along with.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

I've heard the story told a few different ways. The basics I remember were Cook came during a time of peace, left, encountered a storm, came back, but now it was a time of war which led to him being killed. Wikipedia has some more specifics pointing that Cook probably brought it on himself:

Cook and his crew were initially welcomed and treated with honour,[7] as his arrival coincided with the Makahiki season,[8] an ancient New Year festival in honour of the god Lono of the Hawaiian religion, and a celebration of the yearly harvest.[9]

It is not known for sure if Cook was considered a god (Lono) or not. They may have thought he was Lono due to some coincidental details or they may have just nicknamed him Lono for other reasons.

However, after Cook and the crews of both ships, HMS Resolution and HMS Discovery, left the islands, the festival season had ended and the season for battle and war had begun under the worship and rituals for Kūkaʻilimoku, the god of war.[11] Although Cook's sequential visits may have coincided with native traditional seasons, the natives had soured on Cook and his men by the time of Cook's initial departure.

During Cook's initial visit, he attempted to barter with the Hawaiians and ordered his men to remove the wood used to border the natives' sacred "Morai" burial ground, used for high-ranking individuals and depictions of their gods. Ledyard says in his journals that Cook offered some iron hatchets for the wooden border around the Morai and when the dismayed and insulted chiefs refused, Cook proceeded to give orders to ascend the Morai, chop down the fence and load the boats with the wood.[13] John Ledyard also tells of an episode where Captain Charles Clerke accused a native chieftain of stealing the Resolution's jolly boat. However, the boat was soon found and the native chief was incensed by the accusation.

On 6 February Cook's ships left Kealakekua Bay. They were soon met with an unexpected hard gale which wrenched the mainmast of the Resolution. On 11 February, the Resolution returned again to Kealakekua Bay to make repairs.

While the Resolution was anchored in Kealakekua Bay, one of its two longboats was stolen from the ship by the Hawaiians,[15] testing the foreigners' reaction to see how far they could go with such a significant loss. The Hawaiians had begun openly stealing from the foreigners. To try to obtain the return of the stolen longboat from the Hawaiians, Cook attempted to kidnap the aliʻi nui of the island of Hawaii, Kalaniʻōpuʻu.

The ruler did not know he was being abducted (he thought he was being invited onboard their ship) but once he realized it, he stopped cooperating and soon Cook and his men were surrounded by thousands of natives.

[High Chief] Kanaʻina angrily approached Cook, who reacted by striking the chief with the broad (flat) side of his sword. Kanaʻina jumped at Cook and grabbed him. Some accounts state that Kanaʻina did not intend to hit Cook while other descriptions say the chief deliberately struck the navigator across the head with his leiomano [shark-toothed club].[30] Either way, Kanaʻina pushed Cook, who fell to the sand. As Cook attempted to get up, Nuaa [the king's personal attendant] lunged at him and fatally stabbed him in the chest with a metal dagger, obtained by trade from Cook's ship during the same visit. Cook fell with his face in the water.[12] This caused a violent, close-quarters melee between the Hawaiians and Cook's men.[31]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_James_Cook

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago

What an ignominious end.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 hours ago

Hawaiian perspective:

Capt. James Cook of the British Royal Navy set up a blockade at Kealakekua Bay after the theft of one of his boats. To prove his point, he tries to take hostage the high chief Kalaniʻōpuʻu.

Confusion ensues and a chief is shot by Cook's men for not obeying the blockade.

And in this one tense moment, the chiefs are not having it, they’re not going to let Kalaniʻōpuʻu take another step forward and anybody who tries to move him is going to get it. And that’s when Cook is killed," she continued.

Abad said this was a symbolic moment for Native Hawaiians. Cook's arrival brought with it infectious diseases that devastated the Native Hawaiian population.

"There’s a growing sense that we can no longer tolerate the big and small incursions upon our land and our people and our culture and our language," Abad said. "And James Cook represents some of the worst of what has happened."

She said when Cook's continued behavior ended that day, it was a relief to Native Hawaiians. "It’s something in some areas that might even be a source of pride."

https://www.hawaiipublicradio.org/local-news/2023-02-13/valentines-day-marks-death-of-james-cook-a-significant-day-for-native-hawaiians

I found another perspective that I could not confirm if it is Hawaiian and looks kinda sus but it says:

The Hawaiians, accustomed to visitors leaving their shores after a short stay, began to see the prolonged presence of Cook and his men as a violation of their norms and hospitality.

The situation deteriorated when Cook’s ships returned to Hawaii for repairs after initially leaving, breaking the cultural protocol of the Makahiki season. This unexpected return was seen as an ill omen by the Hawaiians.

In an attempt to regain control, Cook planned to take Kalaniʻōpuʻu, the high chief of Hawaii, hostage. This act was a grave miscalculation, deeply offending the Hawaiians and challenging their sovereignty. The resulting confrontation, fueled by cultural misunderstandings and the Hawaiians’ defense of their dignity and leadership, led to Cook’s death. From the Hawaiian viewpoint, this was not a mere act of violence but a defense of their land, culture, and leaders against what they perceived as an overstepping of boundaries by the foreigners.

For Hawaiians, the death of Cook marked a significant moment in their history, signifying the complexities of early encounters with Europeans. It underscores the impact of foreign intrusion on indigenous cultures and the inevitable clash when cultural norms and values are misunderstood or disregarded. Cook’s death, from the Hawaiian perspective, is a story of resistance against foreign dominance and a poignant reminder of the need for mutual respect in cross-cultural interactions.

https://www.frnwh.com/2024/02/the-hawaiian-perspective-understanding-the-death-of-captain-james-cook/

[–] ShaggyBlarney 7 points 17 hours ago

My understanding was that the Hawaiian people had stolen (mistaken trade deal?) one of Cooks longboats. Cook reacted by taking the islands ruling chief hostage to demand the return of the longboat. This sparked outrage from the islanders who chased Cook and some of his crew down during their attempted escape and killed him.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

However, if someone flew to Mars and planted a flag there you'd kinda have to respect that achievement even if they're not someone you'd like or really get along with.

There are definitely some people who could land on Mars and still not earn my respect. In fact, I can think of one right off the top of my head who's actively trying...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 14 hours ago

Yeah that's a really good point.

Fuck I desperately hope spacex crumbles to dust before we can stage a manned mars mission.

Improbable but not impossible.