How Low-Class Whites Contribute to New Guinea’s
pp. 32-34 · Read in the full issue
Native Problem
Written for the P.I.M. by M.G., who has had lengthy experience in handling New Guinea Native Labour
SO much has been written lately for and against corporal punishment for the disciplining of natives in T.N.G., that one wonders whether many of the writers have stopped to consider the subject before ex pressing their opinions so definitely.
One says it is necessary for discipline and prestige; another that it is inhuman and “un-British.” I conclude from years of residence in this Territory, and from fairly extensive reading on the subject, that both parties are wrong—neither qualify their statements.
Some say, and rightly, too, that the natives here, particularly the indentured labourers in Rabaul and on the Goldfields, are out of hand, dangerously so. They point out the continual molestation— actually attempts to rape—of white women and children, most of which are kept “dark.” They point to the insolence, dis obedience and wilful destruction of minor property by natives, and the killing and
maiming of horses and cattle around Wau.
No one can dispute these accusations.
They are true. In fact, one could fill this journal with the list of misdemeanours and crimes committed in one week in any main centre in T.N.G.
But is this any argument in favour of the application of the “cane”? Will the use of the cane alone put matters right?
I doubt it.
The cause of the trouble with the natives indubitably, is lack of prestige. And will the cane re-establish prestige?
The Administration are always blamed for the lack of respect shown by the natives to the “whites,” as though respect was a Government monopoly. Occasion ally, someone may bracket the missions with the Government as the sole cause of lost prestige.
But rarely—very rarely—does one hear any blame attached to these who are primarily responsible;— 1. The drunks—i.e., those who become helplessly intoxicated in view of natives. 2. The profligates—i.e., Europeans who live with mistresses, or misconduct them selves with other men’s wives. Natives know what is going on, and it reflects no credit on our morals. 3. The slum type—i.e., those who habitu allj* are low and dirty in their persons, and live in filthy homes. Products of the slums, their greatest amusement here is in telling filthy jokes to, or in the presence of, natives, and saying obscene things (as apart from cursing and swearing) about themselves or their own womenfolk. They never let a native woman pass without some odious remarks being made to her. 4. The curs—i.e., white men who at heart are “scared stiff” of the natives —a much more numerous type than might be sup posed. They are afraid to give a native an order, except in an appealing and apolo getic manner, and are afraid to demand of their native servants that cleanliness and respect which servants should give their employers the world over. Above all, they always evade the issue when they are defied by a native. 5. The psychologically unfit—men who are unsuited by their psychological make up to be in contact with natives. It shows up in many forms. Some are just per verts. Others are over-developed in their parental instinct, and treat all natives as their own children. There is one official I have in mind who is a glaring example of this type. He could not possibly be just, for every native—however hardened or habitual a criminal he may be—raises that “mothering” instinct in him so that he protects that native against the punish ment he merits, even as a mother will pro tect her child from the law. This type is often found among the missionaries. 6. The missions with their conflicting denominations, and the “all men are equal” theory. Their “Brothering” mode of address does not protect the “white pres tige.” 7. The Government, for allowing undesir able white types to remain in the Terri tory—for ineffective police work where petty theft is concerned —and for their failure to set a standard of conduct for all Europeans to follow.
There is yet a worse offender, but I do not know where to catalogue him. That is the decent, well-behaved citizen who places the whole blame on the Government and missions, and who treats the undesir ables as the equal of himself, thereby
giving the native a completely wrong im pression.
Ostracism of undesirables is the first step towards restoring prestige—elimination of them by the concerted action of employers and Government. The cane should come last. The Government is not justified in introducing the cane until the residents conduct themselves in a manner that should make for a satisfactory relation ship with the natives.
As to those who argue that the cane is inhuman and un-British, one can only say that they are both illogical and ill
informed. The cane is and always must be used as an indispensable aid to disci pline. Every race, of every creed and colour, must undergo a period of discipline —that is part of the evolutionary system.
The New Guinea natives have no hope of building up a national character without knowing something of discipline, and it is our duty—“our sacred trust”—to teach them. But we should not undertake such an important task unless we ourselves are worthy.