Talk:James Cook

Reference to colonisation

There is a bit of a discussion going on with reference to the last sentence in the introduction. <br"However, his role in opening areas of the Pacific to colonisation and its subsequent effects on indigenous peoples have been the subject of both political and scholarly debate." /> I am not sure how this adds to the entry on Cook, it seems more of a personal point of view. I note that this is unreferenced, but then I am sure one could find just as many references to support or deny this hypothesis. My own belief is that Cook himself played virtually no part in the colonisation, short of reporting the islands some of which were unknown to the British Crown. This sentence further seems to indicate that colonisation has had a negative effect on the indigenous people. I would propose that this sentence be removed. Brain696 (talk) 05:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It would belong in an article on colonisation, or on impact of Europeans on indigenous people, etc, but not here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. To put this in context we must include the preceding sentence and consider both as an entity. Namely:

"He left a legacy of scientific and geographical knowledge which was to influence his successors well into the 20th century and numerous memorials worldwide have been dedicated to him. However, his role in opening areas of the Pacific to colonisation and its subsequent effects on indigenous peoples have been the subject of both political and scholarly debate."

Right, if the second sentence is unreferenced per Brain696, then so is the first. If Brain696 thinks it seems more like a POV, then let him demonstrate it. Let Brain696 give sources here for his POV claim that "Cook himself played virtually no part in the colonisation" of the Pacific. Let Brain696 explain why it is wrong to say "his role" (Cook's) in colonisation has "been the subject of both political and scholarly debate". Let Brain696 quote the actual passage in the sentence which "seems to indicate that colonisation has had a negative effect on the indigenous people". Then, let Brain696 provide here evidence for the first sentence which states Cook "left a legacy of scientific and geographical knowledge which was to influence his successors well into the 20th century ".

If Cook influenced scientific and geographic knowledge (first sentence) he also influenced colonisation of the Pacific (second sentence) and it would be a travesty to remove either point from the article. If one goes through lack of referencing then so must the other. Moriori (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Both assertions referred to can be referenced to the book: "Captain Cook. Explorations and Reassessments" Edited by Glyndwr Williams. Boydell Press. Woodbridge,Suffolk. 2004 ISBN:1843831007, pages 230-245.--Harkey _Talk 15:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

@Moriori Nicely put. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't intend to start a flame war Moriori, so please try not to attack me personally. It is MY opinion that Cook played little part in any colonisation, and I have no intention of putting that in the entry. My opinion is based in part on the idea that if Cook is running around finding hitherto places unknown to the Crown, then when does he find time to colonise the same places? The Wikipedia entry on colonisation says Colonization refers strictly to migration, for example, to settler colonies, trading posts, and plantations. I agree that if the first sentence can not be referenced it too should be removed, however further down in Cooks entry it does seem to support these assertions. I do agree with you to the extent that it could be argued that the uninhabited islands that Cook discovered he did contribute to the colonisation, the already colonised lands he visited he played very little part in. In the case of Cook, and based on Wikipedias own definition, I believe the sentence should be removed. Brain696 (talk) 07:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

QUOTE: "....please try not to attack me personally.....". Get a grip. Moriori (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You are arguing that Cook didn't personally colonized any of the islands but the entry is not stating that Cook did the colonizing himself; he had a lasting influence and legacy in the later colonization (Imperialism/Conquest in the case of the already inhabited islands) of the region, and one negative thing that his crew personally did was pass diseases to the natives and kill many of the many of those they encountered.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This sentence is about colonisation, not about Imperialism/Conquest don't confuse the two. I guess the first question one must ask is what is the colonising that Cook undertook? Off the top of my heard I don't actually know of any island(s) he discovered, but I expect someone will put me right on this matter. If he hasn't actually found any islands he can't have colonised any! Most islands in the Pacific that Cook visited had already been colonised by Polynesians, Micronesians, and Melanesians. I would expect Kavebear that Cook and/or his crew did bring disease to the native inhabitants, (I would be supprised if they hadn't) and it is documented that his crew did on occasion kill locals (though I am not sure that Cook personally did) but this has nothing to do with colonisation. Brain696 (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay forget about imperialism/conquest then. Colonization still applies. For example the article Colonization of Africa is not one about apes turning into humans billions of years ago and discovering it; so your statement that colonization can't happen in a region already discovered and inhabited by natives doesn't make sense. Colonization and discovery are two different things. He didn't personally colonized. He opened the region to later colonization by other people. Colonization, especially European colonization brought disease, death and destructions to natives around the world. That was his legacy. This would be a stupid article, if everyone followed your guidlines and only included things he did personally from 1728 to 1779.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Kavebear, I don't quite follow you. You now seem to be confusing colonisation with evolution over the last few millions (not billions) of years. You are correct, colonisation and discovery are different things and Wikipedia says 'Colonization refers strictly to migration, for example, to settler colonies, trading posts, and plantations' Cook did none of this, that is indisputable. Now if you want to talk about European imperialism/conquest you are correct when you state that this brought "disease, death and destructions" (sic), though you might want to add literacy, science, medicine, democracy, increase in lifespan, abolishment of slavery, abolishment of cannibalism etc. Don't just choose the bad (and I agree there are bad points) of European colonisation. My point is that you need to be objective, and not let your own POV and/or prejudices be incorporated in to the entry. Can you tell me how Cook opened up the areas of the Pacific to colonisation? Is it just by reporting on the location of where these islands were located? If this is so then it would seem to me to be a fairly weak argument, and you yourself agree with this when you said above that "Colonization and discovery are two different things". Brain696 (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do you keep arguing that Cook didn't personally did the colonization, that is already an establish fact by both of us that he didn't colonize any place personally. I am saying he left an legacy by which others began the process of colonization...Looking back on the sentence we are all arguing about, "However, his role in opening areas of the Pacific to colonisation and its subsequent effects on indigenous peoples have been the subject of both political and scholarly debate", it can be interpret by readers as negative effects or positive effects, so I don't see any prejudice or POV; I was merely using extremes to state my point. Also note this line, "In New Zealand the coming of Cook is often used to signify the onset of colonisation."--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

OK then we are all agreed that Cook didn't do any colonising. My question is what was his part in opening up areas of the Pacific to Colonisation? Are you arguing that by telling other people the location of these islands he is culpable? IMHO this seems a fairly tenuous link. Or did Cook himself have an ongoing part in the subsequent subjugation and colonisation? Brain696 (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

New twist: There are multiple references that Cook claimed some lands he discovered for the British crown. Key word some, I don't know what but you can easily look it up on wikipedia and the internet which mentions a few including Australia and New Zealand. If that isn't colonialism or an act that opens the way for later colonization, I don't know what.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Brain696 You are actually taking part in a debate which you claim does not exist. The sentence:

However, his role in opening areas of the Pacific to colonisation and its subsequent effects on indigenous peoples have been the subject of both political and scholarly debate.

simply states that a debate about his role exists. --Harkey _Talk 18:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This should be removed, for two reasons. First, it is uncited. Second, the lead should summarise the body of the article, and this statement (while possibly true) is not expanded on in the article. The first part of the sentence is expanded (and referenced) in the article body so doesn't need a reference in the lead. Adpete (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. There should be some kind of statement about Cook's legacy in the body of the article, but that's what it needs to be, not some vague mention of colonism. I don't really understand the point of the above discussion. Cook's discovery of the east Coast of Australia in 1770 did lead to the British settlement of Australia in 1788. His exploration of the South Pacific was under orders from the British Royal Navy and did have the aim of expanding the British Empire and forestalling any French imperial ambitions. This is universally acknowledged, and is an important part of his legacy. There is no debate on that point.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Nathaniel Dance-Holland

At the time Dance made his painting of Cook he was just Nathaniel Dance; he painted professionally only under this name. When he took the name Holland (he did not use Dance-Holland), on 4 July 1800, he had given up professional portraiture. To save the article from this slightly over-scrupulous anachronism I'm proposing to RV this wholly good-faith edit. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Addition: Ethnographic Collections

Hello,

I have added the first paragraph of the recently created article 'The Cook Collection: The Australian Museum.' I inserted this under the new heading 'Ethnographic Collections,' within the existing legacy header. I also added a photograph relevant to collection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver James Perkins (talk • contribs) 04:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I have also placed a link in the {{Captain James Cook}} template. Keith D (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 June 2012

The Captain Cook Society has a new website. The url of the homepage changed to http://www.captaincooksociety.com/ The currect URL is being redirected but this is only temporary. By HolonCom, Hosting the CCS website.

Rsiera (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Done Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Death

Captain James Cook died February 14, 1779 (aged 50) in Kealakekua Bay, Hawaii

Hollywog (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Local Pilots Employed By Captain James Cook

Thank you for the excellent resource.

The following section from the existing article has an omission.

EXISTING (as of March 7, 2012): Cook's aptitude for surveying was put to good use mapping the jagged coast of Newfoundland in the 1760s, aboard HMS Grenville. He surveyed the northwest stretch in 1763 and 1764, the south coast between the Burin Peninsula and Cape Ray in 1765 and 1766, and the west coast in 1767. At this time Cook employed local pilots to point out the "rocks and hidden dangers" along the south and west coasts. During the 1765 season, four pilots were engaged at 4 shillings a day each: John Beck for the coast west of "Great St. Lawrence", Morgan Snook for Fortune Bay, John Dawson for Connaigre and Hermitage Bay, and John Peck for the "Bay of Despair." [14]

PROPOSED INCLUSION: Grand Banks derives its name from the circumstance of its having the appearance of a beautiful green bank. It has been inhabited about 180 years. Mr. Jonathan Hickman, the oldest inhabitant, died in 1848, at the advanced age of 100 years. He piloted the celebrated Captain Cooke along this part of the coast during the time he surveyed the coast of Newfoundland 100 years ago.

There are many sources, however one which I can provide is "NEWFOUNDLAND AS IT WAS, AND AS IT IS IN 1877 BY: THE REV. PHILIP TOCQUE, A. M.,".

C2C2C — Preceding unsigned comment added by C2C2C (talk • contribs) 20:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Source request on 28 February 2014

The last sentence in the introduction:

"He raped his children after coming to Australia."

It is a joke or a fact? I think this claim could need a credible source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.219.43.14 (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

That was vandalism, and was automatically reverted by Cluebot less than a minute later. --Avenue (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2014

The vandalism in the first paragraph still exists.

110.20.186.74 (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know, I've done a WP:PURGE of the page which seems to have fixed the problem.--Melburnian (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)