Mentality and Future of

Native Races “Highest Papuan is Superior to Lowest European”

THE Lieutenant-Governor of Papua (Sir Hubert Murray), in Sydney at the end of January, prior to his departure for Europe, contributed to The Sun of Janu ary 31 a valuable article on the questions he himself set; “Can we set a limit to the progress of a race? Can we say to the Papuans and other ‘primitives’ that they may be taken to a certain stage on the road to civilisation, and no further?’’

The article is too long to reproduce: but the arguments and conclusions of Sir Hubert —especially as they come from one of the wisest, most experienced, and most successful Pacific Administrators are very interesting and significant. Here are some of them.

It is no more ridiculous to assume that Papuan head-hunters and cannibals can not attain our degree of culture than it was for the Romans to regard the in habitants of Britain and Gaul as hopeless, benighted savages. The weight of scien tific opinion seems to maintain that there is practically no difference, as regards natural intelligence, between the so-called “primitive races” and those of the higher culture. On the other hand, few Euro peans who have lived and worked in Papua subscribe to the theory of natural intellectual equality.

“Personally, after more than 30 years in Papua,” says Sir Hubert, “I must ad mit that this theory appears to me to be rather fantastic and very difficult to reconcile with fact. But there is, I think, no doubt that the two, that is, the Euro pean and the Papuan, overlap, and that the highest Papuan is superior to the lowest European.

“And I think, further, that the mental processes of the Papuan are the same as ours, for I have never found any evidence which, so far as Papuans are concerned, would support the theory that the .‘men tality’ of the savage is generically differ ent from that of the civilised man.

“Papuans seem to me to reason in exactly the same way as ourselves, and apparent differences can generally be ex plained as being due to a difference in the premises from which we argue.”

From these premises, Sir Hubert pro ceeds to discuss the problem of the future treatment of the native races. Can they be relegated always to the position of being servants of the white man? Must not provision be made for future develop ment? He points out that, as a rule, the British govern the natives as a separate community, quite distinct from the Euro pean community, which method accentu

ates colour and racial distinctions; where as the French method is to treat the community as a whole, with the s /* me laws and living conditions. Sir Hubert, is in favour of the latter system; in fact, he says that they have it alreadv in Papua, where, except in purely domestic matters, the laws are the same for all classes and races.

Sir Hubert believes that increasing de velopment of Papuan resources will sup ply more opportunities for Papuans; and he sees no reason why Papua should not supply all the skilled artisan labour needed, and fill many many minor execu tive posts, such as plantation managers,

overseers, foremen, assistant engineel s, and mates of vessels. A “For my own part I find it difficult 10 believe that the Papuan will ever be in dustrially the equal of the European. So cially, I think that the white man will always keep apart from the native, and, personally. I think it desirable; but, otherwise, there is no reason why both races should not (as in Booker Washing ton’s famous simile of the hand and the fingers) work together for the common good.

“But the crucial test will come when a white man is asked to take orders from a native,”