How "Natives" Think: About Captain Cook, For Example

by Marshall Sahlins

When Western scholars write about non-Western societies, do they inevitably perpetuate the myths of European imperialism? Can they ever articulate the meanings and logics of non-Western peoples? Who has the right to speak for whom? Questions such as these are among the most hotly debated in contemporary intellectual life. In How "Natives" Think, Marshall Sahlins addresses these issues head on, while building a powerful case for the ability of anthropologists working in the Western tradition to understand other cultures.In recent years, these questions have arisen in debates over the death and deification of Captain James Cook on Hawai'i Island in 1779. Did the Hawaiians truly receive Cook as a manifestation of their own god Lono? Or were they too pragmatic, too worldly-wise to accept the foreigner as a god? Moreover, can a "non-native" scholar give voice to a "native" point of view? In his 1992 book The Apotheosis of Captain Cook, Gananath Obeyesekere used this very issue to attack Sahlins's decades of scholarship on Hawaii. Accusing Sahlins of elementary mistakes of fact and logic, even of intentional distortion, Obeyesekere portrayed Sahlins as accepting a naive, enthnocentric idea of superiority of the white man over "natives"—Hawaiian and otherwise. Claiming that his own Sri Lankan heritage gave him privileged access to the Polynesian native perspective, Obeyesekere contended that Hawaiians were actually pragmatists too rational and sensible to mistake Cook for a god.Curiously then, as Sahlins shows, Obeyesekere turns eighteenth-century Hawaiians into twentieth-century modern Europeans, living up to the highest Western standards of "practical rationality." By contrast, Western scholars are turned into classic custom-bound "natives", endlessly repeating their ancestral traditions of the White man's superiority by insisting Cook was taken for a god. But this inverted ethnocentrism can only be supported, as Sahlins demonstrates, through wholesale fabrications of Hawaiian ethnography and history—not to mention Obeyesekere's sustained misrepresentations of Sahlins's own work. And in the end, although he claims to be speaking on behalf of the "natives," Obeyesekere, by substituting a home-made "rationality" for Hawaiian culture, systematically eliminates the voices of Hawaiian people from their own history.How "Natives" Think goes far beyond specialized debates about the alleged superiority of Western traditions. The culmination of Sahlins's ethnohistorical research on Hawaii, it is a reaffirmation for understanding difference.

Genres: Anthropology, History, Nonfiction, Academic, Religion

314 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1981

About the author

Marshall David Sahlins was an American cultural anthropologist best known for his ethnographic work in the Pacific and for his contributions to anthropological theory. He was the Charles F. Grey Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and of Social Sciences at the University of Chicago.

Reviews

[Nick · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is the third book in a series of three on the subject of the voyages off captain Cook and his death at the hands of Polynesian warriors in Hawaii. This book, written by Sahlins is a response to book written by Obeyesekere which was a response to the first book written by Sahlins. The subject of this latest book was imperialistic attitude as a researcher towards native Hawaiians, Obeyesekere claimed in his book that Sahlins is last in a long line of westerners who portray non westerners as idiots bound by tradition, unable to distinguish myth from reality and see the white man as a god. Basically Obeyeskere calls Sahlins a cultural racist and damn did Sahlins not take this lightly. Sahlins claims that at first he did not want to respond to the book or even acknowledge it but when he found out Obeyesekere was praised for his work he felt it necessary to respond and clarify the matter. Ever wanted to read an academics version of an internet flame war? well this book is right up your alley.

Sahlins does not spare Obeyesekere not in the very least, every little thing Sahlins can find has to be discussed in great detail. A lot of the things Sahlins points out are valid points such as mistakes in the references to literature or historical sources, some peculiar theories and argumentation's used by Obeyesekere or the indeed puzzling claim that as a born Sri lankan Obeyesekere can truly understand 18th century Polynesians. But some are a bit tedious and Sahlins goes at it in the main text, the footnotes and over 80 pages of appendix (nearly a third of the book). you can't shake the feeling at times that Sahlins is taking this way to personal but on the other hand Obeyesekere made it personal to begin with. Even so as a reader you start thinking "Ok I get it" and then it goes on some more, that is never a good feeling for any book.The big climax of Sahlins retaliation is the claim that not only is Obeyesekere wrong in calling him an imperialist and racist, no it is he that is the real imperialist and racist!! (see why this a academics flame war?)At times however Sahlins does make some questionable choices and statements himself. For instance his determination to show the journals of western witnesses are solid ways to give a voice to the Polynesians involved is a bit troubling. It seems as if he treats these journals as exact reports of the events, a literal use of source material frowned upon in historiography. It seems as if since Obeyesekere is so hypercritical of these sources and others that Sahlins has to defend them and reject doubt in any form. He also claims that Obeyesekere claim that western thinkers have been supporting the notion of western divinity in contacts with non westerners is far fetched because historians are self critical and look for the truth. That is a baffling claim, for history always has been biased in some way, history is written by the winners is more than a t-shirt catchphrase. Assumptions based on ideology, racism, sexism and cultural superiority are still not completely dealt with in the world of historians.


So is that all there is to this book? no. Other parts of the book are dedicated to retelling what happened to captain cook on that fateful day and show why he was seen and honored as a god and killed because of it and another part of the book is dedicated to going great lengths at discussing why it is valid to defend the notion that a westerner was called a god by non westerners and how this makes one an anti imperialist when compared to Obeyesekere's so called universal rationality approach off mankind. This last part was to me the most interesting, questions are raised and answered in a well documented manner. questions such as how gods can differ in meaning and form depending on the culture, how the reality is perceived due to cultural differences, how the mythic interacts with empiric and how acknowledging this, is truly respecting non western cultures instead of assuming all people think alike and react the same in a given situation.

To me this book and the book written by Obeyesekere were books that should have been and could have been avoided. Sahlins should have discussed the questions he discussed in this book and Sahlins should have reflected on the western tradition of portraying the non western as idiots often involving deifying the westerner as Obeyesekere did. The value of this book for anyone not directly interested in these deeply theoretical discussions on cultural diversions or universal humanity should not bother with this book. Sahalins really should have made his first book a debate between the two ways off interpreting the events and memory of it in Hawaii in the 18th century, highlighting the consequences of each approach and then argue why a cultural influences frame work is better if one strives for an anti-imperialistic and post modern approach of history and anthropology. But this is only my opinion on the matter, for what it's worth.

[leah]

the girls are fightingggg

[Jose · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is a response towards the book wrote by Obeyesekere, so it is basically the autor' answer in a very personal way.
Nevertheless, it gives a hint over how other civilizations may think or interpret new things/people they encounter (foreign people).

[Simon Lavoie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book originates from a decade of careful data readings and re-collectings on hawaiian contact with European sailors headed by James Cook, whose untimely death is explained.

It is a must-read for anyone committed to view our thinking about self, others and the world as being collectively crafted and transmitted as our material-technological surroundings are. Sahlins shows how culture so taken, and further defined as a way of living framed on grand-narrative, works in informing the way we/they feel things, in turning perceptions into thinking and action. In so doing, he fosters the cultural, boassian anthropology's best and most profound insight on human nature to a wider public.

For anyone who holds that nature speaks by itself and to itself through a universal psychological calculus (or mechanism called practical reasoning), who holds that culture is a distorting lense, a source of error and illusion, this book will be irritating, not conforting. But by the same token, it is an opportunity to learn anew.

[Lennart · Rating 2 out of 5]

Schwer zu bewerten, weil ich nicht wirklich die Zielgruppe bin. Wollte es lesen, weil ich einen Artikel in der Zeit über das Buch gesehen habe. Mich hat eigentlich nur die Geschichte von James Cook interessiert.
Das Buch ist aber kein reines Geschichtsbuch, sondern eher eine akademische Analyse. Deswegen ist es sehr anstrengend zu lesen. Für akademische Zwecke auch sicherlich in Ordnung, aber wenn man einfach ein gemütliches Geschichtsbuch lesen möchte, ungeeignet.
Gerade der Anfang ist für mich kaum zu verstehen gewesen. Dafür fehlt mir Zeit und Intellekt. Die Geschichte fand ich grundsätzlich interessant, aber es war einfach zu umständlich geschrieben. Sahlins‘ These war, soweit ich das verstanden habe, dass Kulturen sich verändern, wenn sie auf andere Kulturen treffen und sich dabei trotzdem treu bleiben. Ich bin kein Freund von so philosophischen Zeug. Das kann man meiner Meinung nach immer deuten wie es gerade passt. Also es ist gut, dass sowas diskutiert wird, aber ich möchte sowas nicht lesen.

[D. Keali'i MacKenzie · Rating 3 out of 5]

A refute of another scholars work, I'm never sure what Sahlins' attitude towards Native Hawaiians actually is. Interestingly enough he quoted an ancestor of mine.