Was There Cruelty in German Colonies ?

BY GORDON THOMAS (EDITOR, “THE RABAUL TIMES’’).

SO-CALLED patriotic fervour is in clined to make the world cock-eyed; and your “valued correspondent”, in the October “P.1.M.”, who quotes from the Foreign Office hand-book, compiled at that particular time when the boot was being put in on Germany—with what was thought at the time every justifi cation—lays himself open to criticism on the point of cruelty by the Germans in their pre-War colonies.

Personally, I have never perused the hand-book in question. Post-war pro paganda left me cold. I had served with the A.I.F. in France and had some idea of what war meant in the front line and it was my experience that those people who banged the propaganda drum the loudest were furthest from the scene of action, and felt that they were “doing their bit” by lauching a campaign of hate.

Of the pre-War situation in Africa I know nothing from personal experience; but I do claim to speak with some au thority on conditions prevailing in New Guinea from the time of my arrival there in 1911 and onwards, and I can honestly say that the treatment meted out by the Germans in charge of native labour on a plantation was neither more brutal nor harsh than that shown by the Britishers either in New Guinea or the British Solomon Islands.

The German draws a very definite col our line in regard to native labourers;

he laid down and insisted upon the ob servance of strict discipline. He was not over-awed by a Government guided by a policy of “We are the saviours of the black races whom we have liberated from the heel of the oppressor”, which was the idea disseminated by many of the post-War British- drum-banging propa gandists.

There is a vast difference between dis cipline and brutality. The German de manded the former, and any breach of it made the offender liable to punish ment. The usual punishment in those days was a caning, half a dozen, a dozen or twenty-five strokes with a cane across the buttocks according to the seriousness of the offence. It was over in a few minutes, the native went back to his work and the matter ended. On isolated plantations where the visits of Govern ment officials were few and far between the plantation manager was granted a permit to administer canings from ten to fifteen strokes. These permits were termed Diziplinar Erlubnis and a regis ter was kept of every punishment in flicted. When the visiting official came to a plantation the labourers were “lined” and one of the routine ques tions addressed to the labourers was in respect to the use of the cane and “Has any ‘boy’ been caned?” was the ques tion. On a labourer stepping forward, the register was consulted and if no record had been made and the “boys” as sertion proved correct then the planta tion manager was “for it”. His permit would probably be cancelled as well as a fine being inflicted. Investigations were also made by the visiting official of cases recorded. Did the “boy” deny the justice of the punishment? How many strokes had he received, and for what offence?

At one period, I was possessed of such a permit and during the course of two years had only two occasions on which it was necessary to use it whilst run ning a “line” of 300 labourers. The great benefit of the disciplinary permit was the fact that the “master” had this per mission from the Government and was entitled to use it in cases of insubordin ation, petty crimes and other offences against “good order and plantation dis cipline”. No reasonably-minded man was going to abuse such a privileged safeguard of his discipline, knowing full well that unjust use meant the cancel lation of the permit.

Compare the situation on a plantation to what occurred later when caning per mits were abolished when the change of Administration came in. Corporal pun ishment of any kind inflicted by an over seer or manager was a crime. <f Masters” who had justly meted out punishment on an isolated estate were brought be fore the district official and fined. This new “fashion” soon became known by the labourers who realised they were im mune from corporal punishment at the hands of their “master”, who in turn was not prepared to make a Court case out of small breaches of discipline, which would necessitate travelling per haps many miles, or else waiting the ar rival of an official two or three months after the offence had been committed.

There was, naturally, instances when the caning permission was abused. In those days—as there are nowadays—there were men temperamentally unsuited to be in charge of labourers on isolated plantations: nervy, ill-healthed individ uals who thought the only way in which to obtain work from the “line” was by

brute force and fear, but I doubt very much if this type was more prevalent in the German time than it is now. At any rate it was seldom that one saw a white man strike a native with his closed fist and that has been no uncommon in cident since 1921. Of one thing it is certain: the present plantation man, or man in charge of native labour, is held in far less respect by the native than his German predecessor.

It was admittedly the policy of the German Government to give as little publicity as possible to the misdemean ours of white men in a black country.

Usually the offender was given an op portunity of clearing out of the country before legal action was taken; if this was ignored and the Court passed sen tence of imprisonment, then the term was usually served by the convicted man on an outstation —as Government plan tation-overseer or assistant roadmaster.

This policy was for the purpose of main taining prestige and preventing natives from witnessing the degradation of the “superior race”.

The following extract, taken from “In Wild New Britain”, compiled from the diary of Rev. Benjamin Danks, a well-known pioneer Methodist mission ary, is of interest. Writing of the per iod June, 1886, he says: “To them (the natives) everything but the commissariat sank into insignific ance. Truly, . they were big children.

The accoutrements and the organisation counted for little: and the fact that only houses were burnt, and some plan tations destroyed, by the expedition, seemed to them a small result for such a large effort.

“Just about this time we read so much in the public press about the Germans being hard and pitiless in their military affairs —‘men of blood and iron’—that we feared much for the people. I did not find them so. On the contrary they were anxious to avoid bloodshed as far as possible, and took every precaution to save the people from the consequences of their own savage folly. In this we, as interpreters, seconded their efforts to the utmost of our ability, and our ef forts were very warmly appreciated”.

My expressions of opinion refer solely to the actions of the German official and settlers with whom I came in contact during 1911 and onwards. It would be contrary to my sense of justice—whom soever may be accused —to allow the im pression to be circulated that the treat ment of the natives by the Germans was as brutal and ferocious as some people would have us believe, or that their sys tem of native control—under the con ditions existing then —should have been different.

Mrs. Andrew Kelly, well-known resid ent of Rabaul. N.G.. arrived in Sydney recently by the “Nellore” on her wav to America, where she will spend some time travelling around before returning to the Mandated Territory.