Independent media needs you. Join the Tyee.

Books

Tyee Books

Sailing into History

Summer reading voyages with Captain Vancouver and Gandhi.

By Rafe Mair 28 Jul 2008 | TheTyee.ca

Rafe Mair writes a Monday column for The Tyee and is a spokesperson for Save Our Rivers.

image atom
George Vancouver: Lashed out.

I recently found time on our trip down the Rhine and the Danube, from Amsterdam to Budapest, to read two books. I thought I might just tell you about them.

The first is a dandy, short (237 pages) biography of Captain George Vancouver. As a native of the city that bears his name, I've often wondered why I didn't know more about this great, and great he was, sea captain. Stephen R. Bown, born in Ottawa but successfully overcoming that great handicap, has answered my question in Madness, Betrayal and the Lash, published by Douglas & McIntyre.

My grave discovery

I had thought about Vancouver a lot especially when, in 1986, the centennial of his namesake, I traveled to his place of birth, King's Lynn in Norfolk. Unhappily, his birthplace has little if any help to offer. I was amused to learn that his home is now a Chinese restaurant! I went to Savile Row and learned from the latest Mr. Gieves, of the famous bespoke tailors Gieves and Hawkes, that while they would have certainly made his uniforms, all records had been lost in the war. For the sake of safety, all Gieves and Hawkes records had been moved from their West End location only to have their safe cache destroyed by a V2 rocket. The store got through the war unscathed!

I visited Vancouver's grave at Petersham, near Kew Gardens, and was appalled at the shape it was in. I reported this back to then mayor Mike Harcourt, who ordered it tended to, as it is regularly now, I understand.

Captain Vancouver's mission

Vancouver had sailed in Cook's epic journey, which has been so well remembered for his Nootka visit in 1778. In 1791, Europe was full of brushfires about to burst into flame all over the world, especially on the coast of what is now British Columbia where claims were made by Britain, Spain and Russia -- later to be joined by the fledgling republic to the south.

Moreover, London had never ceased to hope that a northwest passage did indeed exist and only needed proof. Vancouver was sent upon what became one of the great voyages of the days of sail and one that has waited until now to be told.

As we know, Vancouver met Bodega y Quadra and settled matters, then named a big island "Vancouver & Quadra's Island" which is now simply Vancouver Island.

Vancouver's charts of the B.C. coast were nothing short of amazing and were used well into the 19th century. He demonstrated that what Cook had assumed was a gulf was in fact the Strait of Georgia and established once and for all the claims of His Britannic Majesty's claims to the B.C. coast -- until, of course, the 1840s when the U.S., crying "54-40 or fight!", tried to make it theirs.

Sinking fortunes

Bown's book is, however, a good rallying point for native claims and if one was to read this book for that purpose only they would be well rewarded.

What went wrong?

Well, Vancouver was in ill health throughout and though many diagnoses are possible, he certainly suffered mental illness contributing to mad unleashing of temper with many lashings of seamen the result. His worst mistake was to, twice, publicly lash a young man named Thomas Pitt, who was related to the two Pitt prime ministers and who became Lord Camelford and who did everything he could to discredit Vancouver. Indeed, he chased him around England challenging him to duels.

I'll say no more except that this is a book all Vancouverites, native or converts, and indeed all British Columbians, should read. Indeed, those from Mr Bown's hometown, especially those on Parliament Hill, ought to read it.

Port of call: Gandhi, Churchill

A more challenging read is Gandhi and Churchill, the Epic Rivalry That Destroyed an Empire and Forged our Age by an American, Arthur Herman (Bantam Books).

It's Herman's thesis that a rivalry between Churchill and Gandhi set up the battle for Indian independence, but he doesn't make his case. I would still recommend the book especially if, unlike me, you're not a Churchill fan.

Gandhi is, of course, an interesting study. He was never elected to anything yet was, for 50 years, the dominant figure in Indian political affairs. I was surprised to learn that until well after the First World War Gandhi was a passionate supporter of the British Empire and considered himself a patriotic subject of the King/Emperor.

Gandhi was like no public figure before or since. He was married with children, forsook sex but kept his wife as a loyal partner for the rest of his life. He was a high caste Hindu who fought for the rights of the "untouchables." He became a powerful force for independence and fought until the end to keep Muslims within the new nation. He was an ascetic who went on fasts to bring home his point and more than once came within an inch of death.

When independence was finally achieved, he was, by his own admission, utterly without influence, yet his assassination in 1948 brought a temporary stop to the immense slaughter that came when the British Raj left.

Churchill's racism

The case that Gandhi and Churchill fought the battle that brought independence is nonsense. They were both players but Herman slides by the fact that during the huge nationwide debate in the U.K. and parliament about Indian independence, Churchill was out of office. During World War II, Churchill was indeed prime minister, but the issue was off the table pending victory, and victory over Japan came after Churchill had been thrown out of office.

There is no doubt that Churchill opposed independence and for not very noble reasons, at least judged by today's standards. He believed that coloured people were generally unable to manage their own affairs, that the British Empire ought always to be preserved and that Gandhi was a "seditious Middle Temple lawyer ... posing as a fakir of a type well known in the East, striding half naked up the steps of the vice-regal palace ... to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor."

The Churchill-led the forces fighting independence during the '30s could never muster more than a handful of votes in parliament. Herman makes the classic error of taking Churchill when he was all-powerful and transposing that image to the Churchill of 1931-39, when it might be remembered that he wasn't listened to on other much more serious matters in that period either.

It's not that I defend Churchill's position on India, which I don't, but I assert that he had no power to do anything about the matter.

Watch those facts

I always worry when an author makes silly mistakes of fact because it makes me concerned about more serious assertions. A few examples. He has the Churchills married at Blenheim Palace instead of at St. Margaret's, Westminster; he names their first child Dinah and it was Diana; he correctly points out that three of the five (one died as a young child) had serious problems in life but doesn't mention Lady Mary Soames, who has turned out to be a very remarkable women indeed, or that two of his grandchildren were members of parliament; he misquotes Churchill's famous praise for "the few"; and for whatever value it may have, has the atom bombing of Nagasaki on Aug. 8, 1945, instead of Aug. 9. (I raise these matters with trepidation since in one of my books I once killed off the wrong Jewish Nazi hunter!)

As I say, Herman falls short of making his case but the presentation of his arguments makes the book worth reading.

 [Tyee]