Restless Samoa
Irresponsible Criticism
Not Desired
Where Lies Solution
Of Troubles?
BECAUSE, in October, we published a summary of the annual report of the Administrator of Samoa, and headed it “Samoa Is Settling Down,” we have been asked by a valued correspondent to publish some portion of an article entitled “What The Samoans Want.”
The article was produced in New Zea land in October, and was written by the Hon. O. F. Nelson, who has worked hard and suffered for the Cause of Samoan independence.
Now, it is a notorious fact that, when New Zealand assumed responsibility for the government of Samoa, 15 years ago, she took on the liveliest adminis trative job in the Pacific. The Samo ans are a clever, proud, restless, in triguing people, who are temperamen tally and everlastingly “agin the Gov ernment.” They have well been named “the Irishmen of the South Seas.”
Anyone acquainted with the stormy history of the beautiful islands, extend ing over the last 75 years, will sympa thise with any country asked to govern such a hornets’ nest.
Into this den of trouble came the New Zealanders —wholly inexperienced in this kind of administration, lacking any sort of trained personnel, inclined to treat the Samoans as if they were indeed the simple, harmless islanders of a hundred South Seas romances—and, above all, making the initial mistake of regarding the Samoan mandate as a means of finding attractive jobs for a swarm of semi-military officials.
Of course, there was trouble. The Samoans resented the autocratic, some what bombastic administration, and the manner in which high administra tive costs were throwing the country into debt. The New Zealanders, very proud of the fact that the League of Nations had entrusted them with a mandate to govern, and inclined to compare the critical Samoans with the tractable, friendly Maoris, were too ready to display the truculence of the iron hand instead of the persuasiveness of the velvet glove.
Both sides were honest and sincere in their wish to do the best thing for Samoa —only, unfortunately, neither could understand the other’s point of view.
Had New Zealand had available, for the Samoan job, a man of exceptional wisdom, with some knowledge of native administration in general, and Samoan history and psychology in particular, all might have been well. But super men are rare and the officials who were sent to Samoa were just average honest, one-idea’d men. who tackle the job in the same way they would have undertaken the building of a bridge or the preparation of a report—by rule of thumb methods, backed by the force of law and authority. An American writer, describing Samoa under the New Zealanders, called them “Prus sians from Auckland.”
The inevitable clash came in Decem ber, 1929, and valuable lives were lost, including the patriotic chief Tamasese.
Since then both sides have kept apart, licking their wounds, and wondering where lies the solution of their diffi culties. Each side must realise it has made grave errors —the New Zealand ers, in the manner described; the Samoans, in their too ready inclination to deal with intriguers and under ground engineers—and there can be no peace in Samoa until they come to gether in a spirit of mutual tolerance, and a greater readiness to appreciate each other’s viewpoint and motives.
The New Zealander must throw aside his arrogance, and the Samoan his pride and suspicion.
Mr. Nelson, in his article, is charac teristically outspoken, but is hyper critical, intolerant and threatening.
There is much justice in his demands, but they have been framed in an atmosphere of belligerence, and so they cannot help much in the search for a peaceful solution of Samoa’s difficul ties.
Therefore, we do not publish them.
The Pacific Islands Monthly does not wish to take sides in this Samoan con troversy, because to do so, it must de pend upon ex parte statements. It pre fers to independently investigate the position, later on, and try to offer con structive comment, rather than irre sponsible and irritating criticism.