The Posthumous Adventures of Captain Cook Part 2

Why people think Cook did them

The legend of Captain Cook came about because Australians needed a foundation story. New ‘settler’ nations draw upon heroic origin tales to legitimise their usurpation, establish an identity and embody their values. The USA has the Pilgrim Fathers and the War of Independence. New Zealand has the Treaty Of Waitangi.

Australia had no victory against tyranny, no declaration of independence, no treaty. It was founded in 1901 by six separate British colonies federating into an even bigger British colony. It needed a unifying narrative to establish its identity, justify its existence and generate pride in its emergence as a self-governing dominion.

What the six colonies had in common were fervent loyalty to the British Empire and a belief in white racial superiority. In this context Australia retrofitted as its foundation stories three thoroughly British landings: Cook at Botany Bay, the First Fleet at Sydney Cove and the ANZACs at Gallipoli.

Cook as the perfect canvas

Cook’s was the first story to take off. Early colonial history books recognised explorers before Cook, but they were relegated when nationalism ramped up with the move towards federation. The previous 42 European ‘discoverers’ either weren’t British or weren’t respectable, and they didn’t land in the right place. The glorification of Cook, in the tradition of discoverer as white male hero, became a nation-building project.

And Cook was an ideal figure to memorialise. He rose to great achievements from a modest background, unlike Sir Joseph Banks, who was in fact the man largely responsible for NSW’s colonisation. It is easier to make a stirring tale out of a great navigator than out of a wealthy man lobbying a government.

 By 1901 Cook was firmly established as founding father. Federation was marked by a host of memorial events and a re-enactment of his landing at Botany Bay. After federation the commemorations and the erection of statues to Captain Cook gained even more momentum.

The case for Cook was summarised in a 1930 hagiography by Sir Joseph Carruthers, NSW member of parliament and federation delegate. Heroic, enlightened and British, Cook was divinely ordained to discover Australia. His claim of possession laid the foundation for the great nation he envisioned it would become.

That this stretched the truth did not matter. Cook was a canvas on which to project Australian values. According to Carruthers, in ‘an augury of the future of these great lands, our very founder was one who fought his way to success by unaided efforts, by industry and by patient but persevering labour. His life is a noble example to the people of Australia, who live under institutions which freely open the door of fame and power to all who display industry and ability.’ 

Cook as Australia’s discoverer, founder and father figure was taught in schools for most of the 20th century, despite the cognitive dissonance required to ignore everything beyond the eastern coastline, all of First Nations history, and most facts about Cook himself.

So successful was the re-engineering of Cook’s brief stopover at Botany Bay as the foundation of the nation that with it came the corresponding axiom that Cook had personally inflicted European occupation on First Nations people in places he had never been near. He became a potent symbol of dispossession.

Confusion of competing stories

Also seeking to shape Australia’s national identity was an organisation of white Australian-born men, the Australian Natives' Association (ANA). Disregarding the convicts, they campaigned in the lead up to Federation to commemorate the 1788 landing of the first fleet at Sydney Cove as Australia’s founding moment because it conferred the ‘gift’ of British civilization. Although this date had no relevance outside NSW, by 1935 they had succeeded in having 26 January designated as ‘Australia Day’. First Nations protests against celebrating this invasion began in 1938. In 1994 Australia Day was made a legislated public holiday in every state and territory, and under Prime Minister John Howard its celebration became a test of patriotism.

But by the time 26 January was deemed Australia’s foundation day, the belief in Cook as founding father had become so entrenched it seemed logical that he must have been there. Arthur Phillip never got the same profile. Given the incoherence of official discourse, it is understandable that the confusion between the two of them has never been dispelled. Cook’s landing at Botany Bay merged into that of the first fleet at Sydney Cove.

Creating history

The mythologising of Australia’s past, including the role James Cook played in it, goes back a long way. From the time federation was on the cards we began manufacturing our history in the service of our identity.

This was done by forgetting as much as by remembering. Forgotten were First Nations histories, non-British contacts and the actual details of how Australia was claimed, named, colonised, and federated. Historic celebrations featured Captain Cook, the first fleet, and the pioneers and their ‘conquest’ of the land. Of the men responsible for federation the only figure remembered was Sir Henry Parkes, who was safely dead before the real horse-trading began. Unmentioned were the bloody frontier wars that were still going at the time of federation. Remembered with solemn reverence was the sacrifice Australian soldiers made in Britain’s wars.

Our major theme was progress. We saw ourselves as a uniquely peaceful, highly enterprising, pioneering nation of British stock that had risen to great things from humble beginnings. These were the sterling qualities we projected onto Lieutenant Cook. We needed him as our progenitor, and so we attributed to him intentions he did not have and actions he had nothing to do with.

The flip side of this, of course, was that this attribution also assigned to him sole responsibility for the invasion and the catastrophic struggles that followed. It made Cook into a figure equally reviled as glorified for things he did not do.

What kind of a man Cook was is largely irrelevant to Australia’s history. What is more interesting is how his legend was created, enforced and accepted throughout the 20th century. As a result of this, he became weaponised in the prosecution of history wars that were fought over symbols rather than facts.

Where to now?

The mythologising of Australia’s history that served to create a particular national identity at federation has no justification today. Maybe it’s time to untangle facts from myths, stop clinging to symbols, and investigate what actually happened. Like many countries, our history, stretching back thousands of years as it does, is a kaleidoscope of nations and cultures, of invasion and resistance, of achievement and injustice, and of wide geographic and social diversity. Cook’s role in this is minor. But unless we re-examine our foundation stories and adopt a sense of historical perspective, ‘Captain’ Cook may just continue his afterlife of mythical exploits forever.