Tom Harrisson in
p. 56 · Read in the full issue
the New Hebrides
Letter to the Editor FN your June issue was an article en -*■ titled “Tom Harrisson’s Exploits in New Hebrides Sharply Challenged by Malekula Resident.” This article seems to imply that Mr. Harrisson is an im poster who has just published a book under false pretences, deceiving the read ing public with an account of work which he didt not actually carry out.
Some P.I.M. readers might imagine your correspondent’s criticisms and in dictments to be justified, and they might thereby miss an opportunity of reading Savage Civilisation or the two papers which Mr. Harrisson read before the Royal Geographical Society. This would be a vast pity, because I know several thoughtful readers in the New Hebrides who can estimate a brilliant piece of work at its true value, even if they hap pened to dislike the author’s personality.
The article was not a review but a criticism based on a review. It is very evident that the writer has not read the book nor the scientific papers, but the reviewer has apparently roused his ire by calling Mr, Harrisson an anthropolo gist. It may soothe your correspondent
to learn that Mr. Harrisson himself has not made such a statement, on the con trary he wrote “though primarily an or nithologist, I accumulated much anthro pological information.”
The greatest authority on primitive cultures in Malekula, Mr. John Layard, referring to Mr. Harrisson before the R.G.S., said; “He went to the New Hebrides as an ornithologist knowing nothing about anthropology, and he has returned knowing more about the natives than most anthropologists.”
Since Mr. Harrisson never inferred that he was more than three weeks with the Big Nambas tribe it is perplexing why that should be quoted against him.
Nor does it seem to merit censure that he “gives great praise to missionaries.”
In fact the whole article gives the de plorable impression that the writer (who cannot, of course, have intended this) has some private grudge which needs sating. Moreover, it rouses a feeling of contempt for the method of attack with its final hint of blackmail: “You daren’t throw mud at me because I can stir up more mud than you!”
Most people enjoy a clean fight, but it is not pretty to try to wind your oppon ent. When a big thing has been accom plished and has been approved by those who are competent to judge (such as Sir Arthur Keith, Dr. Haddon, etc.), it seems a pity that this pettifogging mishandling of main issues should be presented to your wide-spread Pacific readers.
I am, etc.,
Evelyn. Cheesman,
London, Sept. 12.