Nero
Well-known member
Exactly. Where does it stop? What about statues in Rome? Slaves were part of the Roman Empire, so any statue of any Emperor should be removed too.
On this day in 1779 Captain James Cook was Killed
- Thread starter rob_fmttm
- Start date
Exactly. Where does it stop? What about statues in Rome? Slaves were part of the Roman Empire, so any statue of any Emperor should be removed too.
rob_fmttm
Administrator
No. Not really. We plan a programme of events/talks in May in Local History Month debating Cook and his legacy. I thought the debate between Tosh Warwick and Black History Month organiser was really interesting and thoughtful.
I wrote a piece myself last week on facebook about my personal thoughts and as I say above you have to start talking about these things. They are part of the history. History does not remain static.
Cook was not a slaver. He was in the era of slavery - and remember Britain moved 3.5 million people out of Africa in the slave trade. Other European countries shipped another 3.5 million people. They are vast numbers, manacled and not people but property. The industrial revolution was funded on the displacement of all those people. It has to be right we recognise that, I feel.
But Cook was not engaged in slavery. In fact he had worked for Quakers in Whitby and they were firmly anti-slavery. He was a scientist, member of the Royal Society and a naval officer. He had responsibilities as a scientist but above all safe guarding his crew. We have to remember this. He had to defend his crew.
Rather than just talking about toppling statues I think we can see this as an opportunity to learn and educate ourselves and our children. That is what we will be doing and offering in May, Local History Month and that is what the council does already with the education based out of the Birthplace Museum.
We have been challenged and yes, there are many things we can feel distinctly uncomfortable about in our past. But we can all learn, can't we and grow because of it.
At the Marton, Birthplace Cook Museum you will see galleries showing the different cultures Cook encountered. That is what the museum is all about as well as marking his birthplace and early life. The traditions are respected and the education programme carried out through 75% of local schools link us here to those different peoples and their histories.
In Middlesbrough and the Cook Country we draw ourselves closer to the different people and also flora and fauna his voyages uncovered. We can have an advantage over the rest of the country and a greater understanding here in Cook Country.
I am designing a new information sign in Marton and it will inform about the aboriginal people as well as Cook and Marton. I feel we are privileged to have these links and should really build on them.
I wrote a piece myself last week on facebook about my personal thoughts and as I say above you have to start talking about these things. They are part of the history. History does not remain static.
Cook was not a slaver. He was in the era of slavery - and remember Britain moved 3.5 million people out of Africa in the slave trade. Other European countries shipped another 3.5 million people. They are vast numbers, manacled and not people but property. The industrial revolution was funded on the displacement of all those people. It has to be right we recognise that, I feel.
But Cook was not engaged in slavery. In fact he had worked for Quakers in Whitby and they were firmly anti-slavery. He was a scientist, member of the Royal Society and a naval officer. He had responsibilities as a scientist but above all safe guarding his crew. We have to remember this. He had to defend his crew.
Rather than just talking about toppling statues I think we can see this as an opportunity to learn and educate ourselves and our children. That is what we will be doing and offering in May, Local History Month and that is what the council does already with the education based out of the Birthplace Museum.
We have been challenged and yes, there are many things we can feel distinctly uncomfortable about in our past. But we can all learn, can't we and grow because of it.
At the Marton, Birthplace Cook Museum you will see galleries showing the different cultures Cook encountered. That is what the museum is all about as well as marking his birthplace and early life. The traditions are respected and the education programme carried out through 75% of local schools link us here to those different peoples and their histories.
In Middlesbrough and the Cook Country we draw ourselves closer to the different people and also flora and fauna his voyages uncovered. We can have an advantage over the rest of the country and a greater understanding here in Cook Country.
I am designing a new information sign in Marton and it will inform about the aboriginal people as well as Cook and Marton. I feel we are privileged to have these links and should really build on them.
HarryVegas
Well-known member
I really liked and appreciated Phil Philo's thoughtful piece on this last year. Might be worth linking it Rob.
rob_fmttm
Administrator
He is giving another talk about the first voyage and also there will be a debate about legacy in May.
I wonder where Phil's piece is. Found it - the piece below needs careful reading and consideration I think.
Last edited:
rob_fmttm
Administrator
These are the words of Former Curator of Middlesbrough Museums, Phil Philo - written last summer.
Phil is someone that lived, breathed and worked James Cook for many years. He has also travelled to some of the countries and islands explored by Cook and his three voyages and Phil made so many new links to peoples from the other side of the world.
Here are his words written last year in the heat of the first wave of Black Lives Matter discussion and actions...
Why People Should Have A Problem With Aspects of The Legacy of Captain Cook
This is in response to a misrepresentation of my personal views. I do not and cannot speak for the Captain Cook Birthplace Museum.
Why People Should Have A Problem With Aspects of The Legacy of Captain Cook
There is rightly debate about the legacy of Captain Cook. The story of any human being is multi-facetted and nuanced – the same is true of Cook. Over the last two hundred years, literature, film, tv, art, etc., has placed much emphasis on the western colonial perspective and the heroic ‘ideal’. In the twenty first century there must be further discussion of Cook, based on established ‘facts’ and an evolving open conversation with indigenous peoples, leading to a more enlightened approach to the story of the United Kingdom. This is not written in defence of Cook or in support of all of his actions. It seeks to establish certain ‘facts’ that are open to interpretation.
I was Senior Curator of the Captain Cook Birthplace Museum, Marton, Middlesbrough, for nearly fifteen years (2002-17). During that time, I developed a professional and personal interest in Cook, his fellow voyagers (scientists, artists as well as crew) and the people and cultures that they came into contact with.
I cannot, and do not, speak for the Captain Cook Birthplace Museum and Middlesbrough Council, or the international Captain Cook Society, of which I am a member. These are my personal thoughts. During my time as Senior Curator, we worked with Pacific Island, New Zealand and Australian artists, in the creation of work celebrating and facilitating the continuity of their cultures, and also as cross-cultural contemporary responses to Cook. During this time, young people and community groups from the Middlesbrough area met and worked with these artists directly in an attempt to present a more ‘balanced’ picture of the Cook story.
The statues and memorials at the centre of current discussions were not set up by the subjects themselves, but by people who came later and who made their own value judgements based on the ‘facts’ and context of their own time. Only after an informed and rational debate of the ‘facts’, can we review whether or not these statues and memorials have a place in contemporary society and what form that might take. Perhaps that might involve more enlightened interpretation in situ or even removal to another location, such as a museum.
Many Cook ‘facts’ have grown out of popular folklore. For instance, the misconception that he ‘discovered’ Australia, hides the reality that Aboriginal people were there 65,000 years ago, and that other European explorers had visited long before Cook! His achievements, as the son of a North Yorkshire farm labourer who became a Royal Navy officer, navigator, cartographer, explorer, scientist, leader, etc., are undisputed, but there is, indeed, another side of the story. He acknowledged responsibility as commanding officer for the killing of indigenous people and the claiming of land on behalf of the British Crown.
Lieutenant Cook (Cook was made commander and captain after the first and second voyages respectively) was a relatively junior officer. Despite his later fame, at no time during his career was he in a position to make high level political decisions. We can only imagine the situation for a serving Royal Navy officer to have returned without having carried out his orders. He could be criticised for following through with orders instructing him, on discovering countries ‘hitherto unknown’, to ‘take possession for His Majesty’. This was within the controversial European doctrine of ‘terra nullius’ (empty lands without owners). If Cook was even aware of this doctrine, he did not explicitly declare any of the lands that he visited to be ‘terra nullius’. Indeed, he described both the people of the land and their habitations in some detail in his journal. Nevertheless, Cook’s claims of possession of lands on behalf of the British Crown according to the three main ways that permitted it, were outside the given guidelines that claims could be made on:
Uninhabited lands: Cook’s journal descriptions clearly state that the land was not uninhabited.
Lands with the consent of indigenous people: Cook’s acts of ‘taking possession’ were not with the consent of the indigenous people.
Conquered lands: Cook’s voyages were scientific voyages of exploration, not conquest, and there was no direct conquest, colonisation or settlement of the lands by Cook or his crew.
Cook’s descriptions of Australia were not of an uninhabited land, but of a vast landscape thinly populated and seemingly not farmed or economically exploited on any scale by the indigenous people. Cook observed, and he acknowledged that it was only an observation of certain small coastal communities, that the Aboriginal people seemed to be principally nomadic hunter gatherers, although he did describe huts and shelters.
Cook made observations in his journal of the Aboriginal people and how attuned they were to their environment,
Thus live these I had almost said happy people, content with little nay almost nothing, Far enough removd from the anxieties attending upon riches, or even the possession of what we Europeans call common necessaries…
I do not look upon them to be a warlike people; on the contrary, I think them a Timerous and inoffensive race, no ways inclined to Cruelty … neither are they very numerous. They live in small parties along by the Sea Coast, the banks of Lakes, Rivers, Creeks, etc. They seem to have no fixed habitation, but move about from place to place.
Cook’s descriptions of the places and people he visited were, however, used after his death to justify and further colonialism, and the brutal regimes that followed. It is argued that his accounts, and those of his fellow travellers, were used by the British Government to justify their later actions within the doctrine of ‘terra nullius’, such as in the planning for sending the First Fleet and the establishment of a penal colony in in Australia in 1788. This was eighteen years after Cook’s visit and ten years after his death.
Cook did not lie about the status of the land (and certainly not to Queen and Empire – the monarch was George III 1760-1820). It is true that generations of indigenous people in Australia and the Pacific have suffered gross injustices, especially during the period since the late 18th century. The legacy of Empire has led to the racial inequality experienced today – which is to be condemned and must stop.
During the ten years of Cook’s three voyages, it has been estimated that in contact with 15 different nations (today’s boundaries) at least 25 indigenous people were killed by Cook and his crew and others injured. One of the worst episodes was at Poverty Bay, New Zealand, October 1769, when four Maori were killed, five wounded and three taken captive. Cook declared,
This ended the most disagreeable day My life has ever seen, black be the mark for it and heaven send that such may never return to embitter future reflection.
There is no doubt that events of that day went against the instructions he was given before setting out by the Earl of Morton, President of the Royal Society, sponsors of the voyage.
Morton advised,
• ‘the utmost patience and forbearance with respect to the Natives of the several Lands where the Ship may touch’.
• To check the petulance of the Sailors, and restrain the wanton use of Fire Arms.
• To have it still in view that sheding the blood of those people is a crime of the highest nature:—They are human creatures, the work of the same omnipotent Author, equally under his care with the most polished European; perhaps being less offensive, more entitled to his favor.
• They are the natural, and in the strictest sense of the word, the legal possessors of the several Regions they inhabit.
• No European Nation has a right to occupy any part of their country, or settle among them without their voluntary consent. Conquest over such people can give no just title; because they could never be the Aggressors.
The Poverty Bay incident was also counter to his usual way of interacting with indigenous peoples. Cook is credited with restraint in many situations, such as refusing to avenge the deaths of his crew after the Grass Cove Massacre in New Zealand in 1773.
We cannot change history, but we can continue to re-evaluate the ‘facts’. It is crucial that we re-examine how Governments have used the descriptions and evidence that their agents and explorers brought back with them to support and justify their later actions. In this debate, it is important that the voices of those people who have been affected by past actions are heard, and this includes those impacted by Cook’s legacy.
Cook alone cannot be held wholly responsible for the way that indigenous people across the globe have been and continue to be treated. The conduct of subsequent generations and society today must be held up to scrutiny and lead to swift change.
If, after rational consideration of the ‘facts’, it is decided to remove a statue from its current position, then let it be re-housed and reinterpreted to include coverage of issues surrounding colonialization and the world-wide injustices that continue today. It is essential that the Captain Cook Birthplace Museum and the other Cook-related institutions and museums, along with local and world-wide communities, are part of and respond to this debate.
Phil Philo
16 June 2020
Phil is someone that lived, breathed and worked James Cook for many years. He has also travelled to some of the countries and islands explored by Cook and his three voyages and Phil made so many new links to peoples from the other side of the world.
Here are his words written last year in the heat of the first wave of Black Lives Matter discussion and actions...
Why People Should Have A Problem With Aspects of The Legacy of Captain Cook
This is in response to a misrepresentation of my personal views. I do not and cannot speak for the Captain Cook Birthplace Museum.
Why People Should Have A Problem With Aspects of The Legacy of Captain Cook
There is rightly debate about the legacy of Captain Cook. The story of any human being is multi-facetted and nuanced – the same is true of Cook. Over the last two hundred years, literature, film, tv, art, etc., has placed much emphasis on the western colonial perspective and the heroic ‘ideal’. In the twenty first century there must be further discussion of Cook, based on established ‘facts’ and an evolving open conversation with indigenous peoples, leading to a more enlightened approach to the story of the United Kingdom. This is not written in defence of Cook or in support of all of his actions. It seeks to establish certain ‘facts’ that are open to interpretation.
I was Senior Curator of the Captain Cook Birthplace Museum, Marton, Middlesbrough, for nearly fifteen years (2002-17). During that time, I developed a professional and personal interest in Cook, his fellow voyagers (scientists, artists as well as crew) and the people and cultures that they came into contact with.
I cannot, and do not, speak for the Captain Cook Birthplace Museum and Middlesbrough Council, or the international Captain Cook Society, of which I am a member. These are my personal thoughts. During my time as Senior Curator, we worked with Pacific Island, New Zealand and Australian artists, in the creation of work celebrating and facilitating the continuity of their cultures, and also as cross-cultural contemporary responses to Cook. During this time, young people and community groups from the Middlesbrough area met and worked with these artists directly in an attempt to present a more ‘balanced’ picture of the Cook story.
The statues and memorials at the centre of current discussions were not set up by the subjects themselves, but by people who came later and who made their own value judgements based on the ‘facts’ and context of their own time. Only after an informed and rational debate of the ‘facts’, can we review whether or not these statues and memorials have a place in contemporary society and what form that might take. Perhaps that might involve more enlightened interpretation in situ or even removal to another location, such as a museum.
Many Cook ‘facts’ have grown out of popular folklore. For instance, the misconception that he ‘discovered’ Australia, hides the reality that Aboriginal people were there 65,000 years ago, and that other European explorers had visited long before Cook! His achievements, as the son of a North Yorkshire farm labourer who became a Royal Navy officer, navigator, cartographer, explorer, scientist, leader, etc., are undisputed, but there is, indeed, another side of the story. He acknowledged responsibility as commanding officer for the killing of indigenous people and the claiming of land on behalf of the British Crown.
Lieutenant Cook (Cook was made commander and captain after the first and second voyages respectively) was a relatively junior officer. Despite his later fame, at no time during his career was he in a position to make high level political decisions. We can only imagine the situation for a serving Royal Navy officer to have returned without having carried out his orders. He could be criticised for following through with orders instructing him, on discovering countries ‘hitherto unknown’, to ‘take possession for His Majesty’. This was within the controversial European doctrine of ‘terra nullius’ (empty lands without owners). If Cook was even aware of this doctrine, he did not explicitly declare any of the lands that he visited to be ‘terra nullius’. Indeed, he described both the people of the land and their habitations in some detail in his journal. Nevertheless, Cook’s claims of possession of lands on behalf of the British Crown according to the three main ways that permitted it, were outside the given guidelines that claims could be made on:
Uninhabited lands: Cook’s journal descriptions clearly state that the land was not uninhabited.
Lands with the consent of indigenous people: Cook’s acts of ‘taking possession’ were not with the consent of the indigenous people.
Conquered lands: Cook’s voyages were scientific voyages of exploration, not conquest, and there was no direct conquest, colonisation or settlement of the lands by Cook or his crew.
Cook’s descriptions of Australia were not of an uninhabited land, but of a vast landscape thinly populated and seemingly not farmed or economically exploited on any scale by the indigenous people. Cook observed, and he acknowledged that it was only an observation of certain small coastal communities, that the Aboriginal people seemed to be principally nomadic hunter gatherers, although he did describe huts and shelters.
Cook made observations in his journal of the Aboriginal people and how attuned they were to their environment,
Thus live these I had almost said happy people, content with little nay almost nothing, Far enough removd from the anxieties attending upon riches, or even the possession of what we Europeans call common necessaries…
I do not look upon them to be a warlike people; on the contrary, I think them a Timerous and inoffensive race, no ways inclined to Cruelty … neither are they very numerous. They live in small parties along by the Sea Coast, the banks of Lakes, Rivers, Creeks, etc. They seem to have no fixed habitation, but move about from place to place.
Cook’s descriptions of the places and people he visited were, however, used after his death to justify and further colonialism, and the brutal regimes that followed. It is argued that his accounts, and those of his fellow travellers, were used by the British Government to justify their later actions within the doctrine of ‘terra nullius’, such as in the planning for sending the First Fleet and the establishment of a penal colony in in Australia in 1788. This was eighteen years after Cook’s visit and ten years after his death.
Cook did not lie about the status of the land (and certainly not to Queen and Empire – the monarch was George III 1760-1820). It is true that generations of indigenous people in Australia and the Pacific have suffered gross injustices, especially during the period since the late 18th century. The legacy of Empire has led to the racial inequality experienced today – which is to be condemned and must stop.
During the ten years of Cook’s three voyages, it has been estimated that in contact with 15 different nations (today’s boundaries) at least 25 indigenous people were killed by Cook and his crew and others injured. One of the worst episodes was at Poverty Bay, New Zealand, October 1769, when four Maori were killed, five wounded and three taken captive. Cook declared,
This ended the most disagreeable day My life has ever seen, black be the mark for it and heaven send that such may never return to embitter future reflection.
There is no doubt that events of that day went against the instructions he was given before setting out by the Earl of Morton, President of the Royal Society, sponsors of the voyage.
Morton advised,
• ‘the utmost patience and forbearance with respect to the Natives of the several Lands where the Ship may touch’.
• To check the petulance of the Sailors, and restrain the wanton use of Fire Arms.
• To have it still in view that sheding the blood of those people is a crime of the highest nature:—They are human creatures, the work of the same omnipotent Author, equally under his care with the most polished European; perhaps being less offensive, more entitled to his favor.
• They are the natural, and in the strictest sense of the word, the legal possessors of the several Regions they inhabit.
• No European Nation has a right to occupy any part of their country, or settle among them without their voluntary consent. Conquest over such people can give no just title; because they could never be the Aggressors.
The Poverty Bay incident was also counter to his usual way of interacting with indigenous peoples. Cook is credited with restraint in many situations, such as refusing to avenge the deaths of his crew after the Grass Cove Massacre in New Zealand in 1773.
We cannot change history, but we can continue to re-evaluate the ‘facts’. It is crucial that we re-examine how Governments have used the descriptions and evidence that their agents and explorers brought back with them to support and justify their later actions. In this debate, it is important that the voices of those people who have been affected by past actions are heard, and this includes those impacted by Cook’s legacy.
Cook alone cannot be held wholly responsible for the way that indigenous people across the globe have been and continue to be treated. The conduct of subsequent generations and society today must be held up to scrutiny and lead to swift change.
If, after rational consideration of the ‘facts’, it is decided to remove a statue from its current position, then let it be re-housed and reinterpreted to include coverage of issues surrounding colonialization and the world-wide injustices that continue today. It is essential that the Captain Cook Birthplace Museum and the other Cook-related institutions and museums, along with local and world-wide communities, are part of and respond to this debate.
Phil Philo
16 June 2020
Joy_Division_Oven_Gloves
Well-known member
You and I both know that won’t happen. It’s simply about about re-examining recent history and the affect on our lives today. It’s good that we question the actions of our recent ancestors and the impact on now.
Randy
Well-known member
I spent a good 2 hours in the museum on Great Ayton in 2019 just soaking all the information in.
NZBoro1
Well-known member
Interesting piece that Rob, and I have mixed feelings on the whole thing. Pride in him coming from the same area as I do, but also understand and feel the same as some of his critics, especially given where home is now.
Sam Neil made an excellent series about his voyages, well worth a watch. I’m sure it will be on you tube.
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
I think this is a complex area.
Education levels, culture, peer group expectations, even government pressures all need to be taken into account.
In my lifetime I’ve seen massive changes in the way things are looked at in all areas of society, people are of their time and act in ways befitting of their time.
Things have moved on a lot since Cook sailed to Australia in a converted coal ship, and it was dangerous, he ended up murdered himself.
I don’t think people should be too judgemental about Captain Cook.
Education levels, culture, peer group expectations, even government pressures all need to be taken into account.
In my lifetime I’ve seen massive changes in the way things are looked at in all areas of society, people are of their time and act in ways befitting of their time.
Things have moved on a lot since Cook sailed to Australia in a converted coal ship, and it was dangerous, he ended up murdered himself.
I don’t think people should be too judgemental about Captain Cook.
Subbuteo_171
Well-known member
I’ll throw my favourite book into the mix here.
www.worldofbooks.com
Great read including a good section in the north east.
Into the Blue By Tony Horwitz | Used | 9780747564553 | World of Books
Buy Into the Blue: Boldly Going Where Captain Cook Has Gone Before By Tony Horwitz. Available in used condition with free delivery in the UK. ISBN: 9780747564553. ISBN-10: 0747564558
Great read including a good section in the north east.
oh yes, it is very good and like Phil Philo referenced above Tony tried his hand at crewing the Endeavour (replica).
Osboro
Well-known member
add a favourite book of mine, "A Pirate of Exquisite Mind, William Dampier" .
Rob I read the Navy's official account of the Bounty Mutiny ( borrowed from the Municiple Library) and I could have sworn Bligh took command of the Endeavour( his career was summarised in the preamble),perhaps only after the other chaps death . I read it over 30 years ago.
rob_fmttm
Administrator
On my way back from London once reading the Catalogue to the Cook exhibition at British Library a couple of blokes sitting opposite me told me about that Dampier book - and how Dampier was a real inspiration to one them. I will have to look that up one day, many thanks indeed.
And have a look at the Navy account of the Bounty Mutiny also.
This is what happened command wise on the 3rd voyage - "Following the death of Clerke, Resolution and Discovery turned for home commanded by John Gore, a veteran of Cook's first voyage (and now in command of the expedition), and James King." Lt Bligh now had a major role beneath the two.
Actually did you know that the ill luck of the voyage continued and the Resolution was driven by storms north to find a port of refuge at Stromness, Orkney. Cook's dinner service from the Resolution actually ended up at the hall, Skaill House, now part of Skara Brae museum - they needed to flog everything for provisions as they had run out of everything. They took water on board from a well at Stromness, that is still there with a plaque about the Resolution.
Meanwhile, William Bligh went ashore and was invited to dinner at one of the big houses that still sits overlooking the harbour. I talk about this evening on the last Shrug LP but basically there was a young officer with Bligh, who shocked Bligh by his behaviour, trying to chat up the very young daughter of the house. But the son was obviously in awe of Bligh's stories from the voyage and Bligh was obviously impressed by him because he enlisted on the Bounty 7 years later.
And have a look at the Navy account of the Bounty Mutiny also.
This is what happened command wise on the 3rd voyage - "Following the death of Clerke, Resolution and Discovery turned for home commanded by John Gore, a veteran of Cook's first voyage (and now in command of the expedition), and James King." Lt Bligh now had a major role beneath the two.
Actually did you know that the ill luck of the voyage continued and the Resolution was driven by storms north to find a port of refuge at Stromness, Orkney. Cook's dinner service from the Resolution actually ended up at the hall, Skaill House, now part of Skara Brae museum - they needed to flog everything for provisions as they had run out of everything. They took water on board from a well at Stromness, that is still there with a plaque about the Resolution.
Meanwhile, William Bligh went ashore and was invited to dinner at one of the big houses that still sits overlooking the harbour. I talk about this evening on the last Shrug LP but basically there was a young officer with Bligh, who shocked Bligh by his behaviour, trying to chat up the very young daughter of the house. But the son was obviously in awe of Bligh's stories from the voyage and Bligh was obviously impressed by him because he enlisted on the Bounty 7 years later.
Subbuteo_171
Well-known member
Interesting Cook fact. He has no known direct descendants.
He and his wife had 6 children, none of them had any known offspring and all 6 died before their mother. She lived for 40 years after the last of her children died.
He and his wife had 6 children, none of them had any known offspring and all 6 died before their mother. She lived for 40 years after the last of her children died.
rob_fmttm
Administrator
One of his son's drowned in mysterious circumstances trying to board his ship in Poole Harbour.
Someone actually contacted me on facebook last week with his family tree traced back to a relative of James Cook's. His sister lived and married in Redcar - and had children. There was information on the house in the little museum in Staithes that sadly closed when the curator died. That was in 2019 I think. His wife auctioned everything off, poor lady was very hard hit by her husband's death. It was a treasure trove, with some wonderful gems amongst all sort of cheap tourist sourvenirs, newspaper cuttings and also a unique collection of Staithes bonnets and Staithes shop fittings etc. All went up for auction.
Someone actually contacted me on facebook last week with his family tree traced back to a relative of James Cook's. His sister lived and married in Redcar - and had children. There was information on the house in the little museum in Staithes that sadly closed when the curator died. That was in 2019 I think. His wife auctioned everything off, poor lady was very hard hit by her husband's death. It was a treasure trove, with some wonderful gems amongst all sort of cheap tourist sourvenirs, newspaper cuttings and also a unique collection of Staithes bonnets and Staithes shop fittings etc. All went up for auction.
Simply red
Well-known member
On this day , is Erimus74 , trade mark , you should be ashamed !
Yesterdays_Jam
Active member
It's a shame that nothing more is said in the media about the Grass Cove Massacre in 1777 that Phil mentions...it's the first time I've ever heard of it. People never mention the restraint that Cook had not to get revenge over the Maori for their killings.
NZBoro1
Well-known member
Depending on which account you read, theres never really an explanation for why the Maori who were in the cove attacked them. Link from the NZ history.
Ten crew from the <em>Adventure</em> killed
At Wharehunga Bay, Queen Charlotte Sound, 10 men serving on the ship accompanying James Cook's Resolution died at the hands of Ngāti Kuia and Rangitāne.
Ingleby_Flash
Well-known member
You did point out it was her descendent from criminals not you.