"Mutiny on the Bounty."

[Prof]

2004.10.02 12:18(gmt+2)

The month is April, the year 1790, and Fletcher Christian moves surreptitiously in the darkness to imbue his fellow conspirators with enthusiasm to hi-jack the good ship HMS Bounty. He had had enough of the, according to whom you believe, tyrannical Captain William Bligh, and the harsh conditions the men laboured under...

On the 28th of that fateful month, he leaded several men in a mutiny, which would put the conspirators not only in command of the ship, but unbeknowngst to them the final spasms of their deed will reverberate throughout the world via a court of law in the year 2004.

After procuring the Bounty, the conspirators set the "tyrannical" Captain Bligh and his men adrift in a boat and sailed for Tahiti. Here Fletcher had time to contemplate, and realised that sooner than later the Brits would come looking to exact justice, meaning death.

Accordingly, 8 of the mutineers, together with six Tahitian men and 12 Tahitian women soon set sail on the South Seas in search of a save refuge. On the 15th of January, 1790 they found such at the uninhabited island of Pitcairn, 2160 km southeast of Tahiti, and 14 885 km from london. Undiscovered they went about their business until 1808, as Pitcairn was indicated wrongly on the then charts.

Pitcairn island being the habitat of 47 souls, is only 5 square km in size, and virtually inaccessible, except by longboat. It is situated roughly halfway between New Zealand and Pananma, and is the only British possession in the Pacific.

For all practical purposes the inhabitants mostly ruled themselves ever since Duncan Fletcher and his men arrived all those years ago, but technically speaking the British laws of the day is equally applicable to Pitcairn.

Then it came about that someone complained to a British policewoman (stationed on the island) in 1999 that she was raped, one of the main defendants being Mayor Steve Christian. Half of the male population stands accused, with several of the women ( although they have quite possibly subjected themselves willingly to the same "offence."
supporting them.

The accused, and their supporters claim that due to its isolation consensual sex from age 12 and up was the accepted norm on Pitcairn, that although British rule is a fact, Pitcairn must be viewed as an exception due to its unique circumstances. The court case continues.

Personally I definitely do not condone the engagement of children in sexual activity, but one needs to be ever so careful that one does not cloud one's historical judgement with one's personal perceptions. The fact is that Pitcairn was quite unique as a "closed" community . It also is a fact that according to your and my values children were raped.

I beg all visitors to please not engage in a moral debate, for it is agreed by you and I that such is morally unacceptable, but to comment in a historical context.

[Jay]

Hey Prof., maybe I'm rather dull but ... why have you posted this? I mean... what's its purpose, what do you want to hear from us? I've seen the film about the mutiny, that one with Mel Gibson, just recently, I have no idea about the 2004 or any contemporary events on that island... what you wanted to say by that ... comment? Bear with me please, I'm a bit out of shape.
Welcome to the site btw

[Prof]

2004.10.02 22:99(gmt+2)

Jay,
Unfortunately I do not attend the cinema, ever, or watch television for that matter! But I recall that the "mutiny" was immortalised in more than one movie, amongst others by none other than Marlon Brando.

What I would like to know is how how you personally judge the actions of those involved, in an historical context. According to our own perceptions we, of course, denounce what took place. But, seen through the eyes of those directly involved, how will we judge?

I appreciate your welcome, and look forward to your judgement! Naturally there are intricacies which I have not posted, but, come on, let us know how you see it.

How are circumstances there in the Czech Republic?

Prof.

[Kirsty]

2004.10.02 12:18(gmt+2)
I beg all visitors to please not engage in a moral debate, for it is agreed by you and I that such is morally unacceptable, but to comment in a historical context.

The island and its inhabitants no longer exist in a historical context but in this century. To discuss it without moral feeling or opinion, but just in terms of history seems merely academic. The rest of the world has changed for better or worse. If you are trying to say that perhaps this is acceptable as they have lived under a different moral code based on their history and isolation, then I disagree.
I don't want to sound colonial, because so many cultures have been attacked and assimilated because their customs offended those who considered themselves to possess "so-called" higher morals, but I just don't really think it is fair on those women and children. Culture is hard to judge and this island is not alone in having had this type of lifestyle, it just sounds awful to me anyhow. I think that it is the very small population side of things that kind of disturbs me also.
I have to say I do not know their stories in any great depth but this is what I feel about it.

[Prof]

Kirsty, the fact being that according to your and my moral values such is decidedly unacceptable. However, it is also a fact that quite a few of the woman, who
were "subjected to the same fate" condones it!

It appears to me, and I might well be at fault, that the "general" perception on the island, prior to 1999 was that such behaviour is quite normal! It further appears, and I might now be putting both feet into my mouth, that "the error of their ways was only deemed to be wrong by certain individuals, after they came into lengthy contact with members of the outside world."

It must be noted that we have a small community, virtually isolated from the outside world for hundreds of years. When judging, one might well keep in mind William Golding's book "Lord of the Flies." Isolation might well influence one's behaviour in a major way, and even have an acceptable detrimental effect on such. By acceptable I mean acceptable for the community involved.

The longer any group is exposed to such, the greater the probability that every member of such will eventually "change for the worse." Which of course does not necessarily justify it in any way. What I propose is that "one must feel obliged to judge the specific case in context of the community's historical circumstances."

Prof.

[Prof]

2004.10.03 19:52(gmt+2)

Kirsty, the fact being that according to your and my moral values such is decidedly unacceptable. However, it is also a fact that quite a few of the woman, who
were "subjected to the same fate" condones it!

It appears to me, and I might well be at fault, that the "general" perception on the island, prior to 1999 was that such behaviour is quite normal! It further appears, and I might now be putting both feet into my mouth, that "the error of their ways was only deemed to be wrong by certain individuals, after they came into lengthy contact with members of the outside world."

It must be noted that we have a small community, virtually isolated from the outside world for hundreds of years. When judging, one might well keep in mind William Golding's book "Lord of the Flies." Isolation might well influence one's behaviour in a major way, and even have an acceptable detrimental effect on such. By acceptable I mean acceptable for the community involved.

The longer any group is exposed to such, the greater the probability that every member of such will eventually "change for the worse." Which of course does not necessarily justify it in any way. What I propose is that "one must feel obliged to judge the specific case in context of the community's historical circumstances."

Prof.

[Jay]

In my opinion, what's in the past should stay there. If people were to dwell on the past too much no one woud be able to be friendly to each other. If the guy's happen to be called Christian, why looking back what other Christian did, I never liked this predestination things. Who your ancestors are should not be taken as something that predestines you. If a guy whose great-great-grandfather used to be a crook (for exampe), it does NOT mean he is a crook as well just because of that.
To the historical event (the mutiny), as far as the movie goes, I think Christian did the right think, he didn't seem to be a bad guy, he just fell in love and wanted to be with his wife and their unborn child. The captain did a mistake and he forced the other men to stand against him. Still not sure why looking at one man's crime now and seeing something more to it than it is (so NOT taking the guy's side here though), just trying to say... he commited a crime and should be punished for that, and that only. Though I think I can see you might find the coincidence interesting somehow.