top of page

Subscribe Form

Thanks for submitting!

Search

MARK STOCKER: Captain Cook’s Loss of Face in Christchurch

Nowhere is immune from the vandals and topplers of public statues, or alas from the left-leaning middle class which honestly should know better and condones or even supports them. I feel this keenly because last week such an attack happened on my doorstep, Christchurch, New Zealand. Probably no city in this country feels its history and heritage more proudly than this originally Anglican settlement, boasting more public statues per capita than anywhere else. Accordingly, the earthquakes of 2010–2012 were felt particularly cruelly. Needless damage, such as that meted out twice over on Christchurch’s Captain James Cook statue last week, has a similar if admittedly less life-and-death effect. It is all the more ironical that this same statue had survived the earthquakes largely unscathed.





It is distressing to enlarge too much on what was done to him – I say ‘him’ as this capable and effective statue is very much Cook, a sentient being in marble – but suffice to say his eyes were gouged out, his nose was ground off and a red cross daubed on him. To the great credit of Christchurch City Council, facial repairs have already been made, though the cross is still very visible. This article will not engage in the vexed question of Cook’s impact on New Zealand history, other than to say that his voyages – and tragic death – preceded any significant European settlement by decades. Therefore, holding him to any personal, adverse responsibility here is both silly and misplaced. The same goes for a North Island tribal chief executive’s characterisation of Cook as ‘a barbarian’ when the whole ethos behind Cook’s voyages was specifically not imperial conquest but that noble Enlightenment goal (trashed by postcolonial academics in recent years), ‘dare to know’. All this and more has been said in the columns of History Reclaimed, when Robert Tombs explained why ‘Scapegoating Cook is a facile response to problems that we are far from having solved. We can’t hide 21st century failings by blaming Cook’.


If we turn to 1930s Christchurch, when William Trethewey’s statue was unveiled, our ancestors put us to shame. At the unveiling ceremony in 1932, the Governor-General, Lord Bledisloe, specifically alluded to the civilising force of New Zealand’s founding constitutional document, the Treaty of Waitangi, which contrary to recent shrill protestations has never been forgotten. Then it was the turn of the Labour MP and Mayor of Christchurch, Dan Sullivan, who referred in his speech to Cook’s humble beginnings as the son of a labourer, and having first been a common seaman. Sullivan also spoke of the special interest that Cook had for the working class, then keen to soak up historical knowledge. Finally, the benefactor, Matthew Barnett, who had made his fortune as a bookmaker, revealed not just the common touch but a social conscience, referring to the tough economic conditions, with many people suffering in the Great Depression. He explained that he made the gift of the statue three years ago when times had been much better. To that end, he presented a cheque of 100 guineas for the Mayor’s relief fund.


Governor-General, Mayor and benefactor were thus united in their support of beautifying and didactic public art, which today we deface, whilst condoning the defacers. Which moment in time now looks nobler, 1932 or 2024? What makes the vandalism all the more senseless is its implicit attack on the ‘bicultural’ experience of its location, Victoria Square, where a neighbour of Cook is Fayne Robinson’s impressive carving Manu Motuhake, two upright Māori waka (canoes), installed in 2019. Were these vandalised (perish the thought!), there would be justifiable outrage, probably coming loudest from those hostile or apathetic to Cook.


So, what is to be done? I advocated a possible solution in a letter – sadly unpublished – which I sent to Christchurch’s newspaper, The Press, as soon as I had heard of Cook’s plight. Its reasoning should be familiar to History Reclaimed readers but cannot be stated often enough in a context like this:

It is the vandals, not Captain Cook, who are blind. Their defacement of his statue is an emotionally immature and ill-educated act of copycat vandalism, probably influenced by the recent uprooting of his Melbourne statue. Smashing Cook’s face helps no one’s understanding of history and does nothing to allay the suffering of indigenous peoples as a consequence of the arrival of Europeans. His complex and controversial legacy in Aotearoa [New Zealand] is best addressed by having an explanatory caption beside the statue, complemented by smartphone accessible QR codes, providing a range of interpretations. Indigenous responses would be central to this. We should not forget that Cook is an art historically notable work by Christchurch’s own William Trethewey (1892–1956), who sculpted statuary honouring Kupe and fellow voyagers gracing Wellington’s waterfront, as well as a memorial statue of Sir Maui Pomare at Waitara, hardly the landmarks of racist colonialism. Cook must be repaired, retained and explained, otherwise our heritage is trash.

Mark Stocker, FSA, is former Curator, Historical International Art, at the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. He has taught at the universities of Canterbury and Otago. His publications include numerous contributions to The Burlington Magazine and When Britain Went Decimal: The Coinage of 1971 (2021).



This article was originally published in History Reclaimed

3,804 views209 comments

209 Comments


Jake Dee
Jake Dee
Mar 18

It's not a bad piece but Mark Stocker concedes far too much ground to the radical post-colonial grievance studies that are behind much of this literal and figurative cultural vandalism.

Mark Stocker is an academic, and I'm sure that within his field he does some good work, but scholarship requires that conclusions are based on evidence and reasons.

Why, for example did "New Zealand" in his article become "Aotearoa [New Zealand]" in his letter to The Press, and can he clearly articulate his reasons?

He correctly states,

 

"Smashing Cook’s face helps no one’s understanding of history and does nothing to allay the suffering of indigenous peoples as a consequence of the arrival of Europeans."

 

But note he uses…

Like

26azula
26azula
Mar 11

I wouldn't let my standards get down to their level of vandalising their statues, anyhow their would be war if us white people done that. A lot of dark skinned people are hypocrites they always forget to take the speck out of their own eyes and condemn us paler skinned people It all becomes very tiresome. No race is lilly pure anyway when you look in pass and the present.

Like

After reading many of the comments it has come to mind that Cook was generally speaking a person of strict morals and ethics and having a statue erected in his honour is a mark of respect recognising his place in New Zealand.

The same can not be said about the monument erected in Horowhenua to commemorate te Rauparaha who marauded, murdered and ate his way round the North Island and much of the South Island’s east coast. Maybe there should be calls for it’e removal?

Like

Well done by the man who said "Retain $ Explain" Would very much like to be able to contact you, Dr Stocker re proposal to remove "Weeping Woman" statue in Motua Gardens, Whanganui, NZ's first war memorial erected in 1865 by the Wellington Provincial Government to honour those, mosstly Maori, who perished repelling the Hauhau invaders on Motua Island up our Awa. My phone 0274450460 Terry Coxon

Like

And George Vancouver, both trained by Cook.

Like
bottom of page