Pacific Races’

Future

Future Relations of Natives and Europeans

Letter to the Editor STILL another contribution to the study of the post-war Pacific terri tories is “The Atlantic Charter and Pacific Races.” written by the Rev. J. W.

Burton, of the Methodist Mission, and published in booklet form by the National Missionary Council of Australia.

Reduced to one sentence, Mr. Burton’s main plea is this: That after the war, the “exploitation” of the Pacific races by means of indentured labour for the “pro fit” of commercial enterprises must cease and the welfare of the native inhabi tants of the territories must come first.

It is a comprehensive study of one side of a very big question and contains much that should be read by every person interested in the Pacific races. Unfor tunately. however, Mr. Burton cannot think of commercial enterprise in the Pacific without conjuring up ideas which can be expressed only by words such as— “exnloitatlon,” “rapacity,” “demoniacal,”

“ruthless,” “avaricious,” “oppression, cruelty and outrage,” “serfdom,” “devil’s doctrine.”

The article abounds with these and similar words; and their continued repe tition shows a bias in the mind of the author which is unfortunate.

MR. Burton says of Government ser vants in the Pacific territories; “On the whole, they are not less equip ped than, nor inferior to, the average missionary ...” But of commercial men. apparently, he can think of nothing good to say. and seems to infer they belong to an inferior type of the white race, in no way comparable to missionaries, or even Government servants.

It is suggested Mr. Burton must first make one important decision before he attempts to solve the problem of the Pacific races. Is he to attempt to make the Pacific territpries a gigantic “native reserve”; or will he endeavour to help the territories to struggle and survive in the present complicated and somewhat strangelv developed civilisation?

Possibly, there is much that may be said in favour of the former plan. But, if so. is there still room in such a reserve for the missionary? Would it be in the best interests of the inhabitants to upset their mode of life, in such circumstances, with the diversified claims of the differ ent denominations of the Christian religion?

As to the alternative, is Mr. Burton right in assuming that it is impossible adeauately to protect the native races under the combined influences of Euro pean administrations, commercial enter prise and missions? Does he really believe it can be achieved by administra tive officers and missionaries alone?

Surely there can be no half measures.

Either the native races must be segre gated entirely in reserves and protected against the buffeting of civilisation: or they must be brought to a standard which will enable them to resist the blows and hold their own in the struggle.

This is no attempt to argue these two points of view, but only to stress the necessity of giving them consideration and making a decision before attempting a “new order” for native races.

NOW, to correct a few inaccuracies and unjust inferences in Mr. Burton’s article. It is not true of all Euro pean administrations in the Pacific dur

ing recent years that the result of com mercial enterprise and the employment of native labour has been depopulation In some places, at least, the native popu lation has increased. (The population in every South Pacific Territory, where reliable figures are available, has increased during the past 20 years.—Ed. “PIM”.) It is not true, as a general statement that working as labourers on agricultural projects of white owners has unfitted natives to become peasant agriculturists The suggestion that missionaries have to battle with European settlers in attempting “to protect natives against liquor, gambling and other foreign vices” is untrue, as regards Australia’s Pacific Territories, at least. There, the Adminis trations. and all commercial interests have fully realised the necessity for, and attempted vigorously to enforce, the pro hibition of these evils.

Furthermore, it must be remembered that various mission bodies include com mercial activities in their undertakings employing natives under indentures’

“exploiting” their labour for profit, and competing with private enterprise in various commercial activities; thus assist ing in enlarging the evil of commer cialism amongst native races (as Mr.

Burton would have it).

MR. BURTON should be fair—or, at least, as fair as the commercial settlers of the Territories. They admit the good that missionaries can do for native races. They believe the mis sionaries can assist them by education, improved health and hygiene, and the teaching of a moral code similar to ours —not necessarily because it is the best, but because it is necessary if the natives are to take their place alongside the white people in this world.

Most of the commercial settlers believe that missionaries will best serve the natives by refraining from teaching them conflicting doctrines, and that any one particular sect is right, and all others wrong; and by refraining from mixing Christianity and business, which is likely to confuse the native mind and bring both missions and commerce under sus picion.

I am, etc.,

P.D.

Sydney, Sept. 30, 1943.

Editorial Note

The foregoing is typical of endless dis cussion about the future of the Pacific, with which editors generally are being bombarded just now. From the “PIM” viewpoint, the outstanding facts of the situation are:— (1) All native communities in the Pacific, from the East Indies right across to Tahiti, have been so deeply disturbed by war developments that they never will return to 1939 conditions. (2) Intense penetration of all these Territories by European armies, and by military builders of roads, posts and air fields for purposes of war, will inevitably be followed by a vast immigration of European civilians, seeking settlement and development. (3) The influence of the United States will be paramount in practically all Ter ritories for a considerable time, until there has been satisfactory stabilisation of local conditions; and American policy surely will provide for the clear defini tion, and protection, of the fundamental rights of the native people of each Ter ritory.

There is, ahead, a tremendous job of work for Administrations and mission bodies. If they are wise, they will cease arguing and try to evolve policies and plans which can be fitted in between the three foregoing inescapeable facts.