Murder and Education

A Missionary's Views On Murder and Education

Letter to the Editor.

AS a reader of your Monthly from the first number, I have been somewhat surprised at your attitude over the murder of missionaries in the Mt. Hagen district of New Guinea. With the wisdom or otherwise of these missionaries rush ing into the newly discovered area as they did, I will not concern myself at the moment; but I am surprised that a journal having the well-informed outlook that characterises the P.I.M. should raise the old cry of “leave them alone,” and should raise it on humanitarian grounds.

The noble savage, still untempted by the snake of civilisation, living a life of idyllic happiness in an earthly paradise, may have actually existed in some parts of the Pacific, though I rather doubt it. Certainly he has never existed in Papua or New Guinea. Here primitive native life is, in the main, a dark and dreadful thing. The primitive native is only romantic when one is near enough to see him, but not near enough to smell him.

It is possible that a Government expedition to pacify the area may involve a certain amount of bloodshed, though experience in Papua (and prob ably in New Guinea, too) has shown that where such an expedition is led by well-trained and ex perienced officers the amount of bloodshed may be very small indeed. But suppose that a consider able number of natives are killed in the pacifica tion of the area. If, as a result, the area is brought under effective control, with consequent elimination (or at any rate, drastic reduction) of head-hunting, cannibalism, infanticide, and/or whatever other causes of sudden death are found in that particu lar region, it is, I think, safe to say that in five years many more native lives will have been saved that were lost in the original pacification.

Your humanitarianism, Sir, seems to be rather a short range one.

Now may I turn to another subject— not so com pletely disconnected with this as at first sight appears—Mr. W. C. Groves’ letter on “Mission aries and/or Anthropologists.” I am one of those missionaries who have had the pleasure of meet ing Mr. Groves. I was greatly impressed by his sympathetic interest in missionary work, and I

found his views on native education both interest ing and stimulating.

Many missionaries nowadays are glad to avail themselves of the results of the anthropologist's researches. In the field of native education, many of us are profoundly dissatisfied with the present too facile imitation of the conventional European curriculum, and are looking around for something more suited to the needs of the people. We are glad to take all the help that anthropology can give us. Unfortunately, it only too often hap pens that, when the anthropologist talks about native education, he indulges merely in vague generalisations, which, while perfectly true, are not of much help to the missionary who is tackling the job of organising native schools. We want the help of anthropologists, and particularly of those who, like Mr. Groves, have themselves been teachers, and know what it is like to stand up in front of a class of native children and wonder whether you have anything to give them that is worth giving. But we want the anthropologists to understand that it is time they had got past the generalisations—however true or however im portant—and got down to brass tacks. We want them to help us to produce a practical scheme of native education, which will meet the principles they have laid down in their generalisations, and which will work under the conditions in which educational work is carried on in the Territories.

When we have such a scheme, we can with even less reluctance than before “clean up” areas like the Mt. Hagen district, confident that any hurt we may do the people in the process of pacifica tion we shall be able to repay a thousand fold in the years to come.

Perhaps Mr. Groves’ forthcoming book is going to give us this scheme.

As regards the need for introducing new recrea tional activities to replace native ones that are dying out, I fancy that that need is widely recog nised among missionaries, and that on the mission stations of Papua (and probably of New Guinea, too) there are many “organisers of joy,” though they may not call themselves by that name. If the intent of Mr. Groves’ suggestion in that this matter is so important that the missions should have men devoting their whole time and attention to it, I entirely agree with him. But I am afraid that, in the present state of the missionary bodies’ fin ances, the suggestion is not very likely to hear fruit.

Apart from its general interest, Mr. Groves’ letter was worth reading for one notable phrase: “ . . the concern of Anthropology, as of the Missions, is with the living present and the hopeful future rather than with the dying past.” I

should like to have that sentence, printed in capital letters, placed over the desk of every anthropologist—and not a few missionaries. And judging by your attitude over the Mt. Hagen murders, it might usefully find a place, Mr. Editor, over yours.

I am, etc.,

Percy Chatterton.

London Missionary Society, Port Moresby, Papua.

February 26, 1935.