Future of the Pacific

Races

A Reply by Rev. J. W. Burton MY sole purpose in writing the pam phlet, "The Atlantic Charter and the Pacific Races” was to arouse wider interest and to promote healthy discussion, for I am not presumptuous enough to imagine for a moment that I can offer a solution to so vast and com plicated a problem.

I was glad, therefore, to read the criti cism by "P.D.” in the last issue of the "PIM,” and I have much in common with him. Possibly, if we could have a quiet yarn, we should find that we were in substantial agreement on principles, if not on details.

"P.D.” thinks that I am unfair to "commercialism.” It is all, I suppose, a matter of emphasis, based upon individual experience. If I appear to have over stressed the “rapacious” side (of which there is such glaring evidence) and have under-stated the "benign” side, then I am sorry.

There is one qualification, however, that "P.D.” seems to have overlooked: I spe cifically referred to the past, and I should be glad of a list of gentler adjectives to describe accurately the old land-grabs, the "exploiting” companies, and the Indian indenture system in Fiji, with which I lived side-by-side for nine years.

I recognised that there is a better spirit to-day; but there is still a long way to go before the native has elemental human rights and chivalrous treatment.

"P.D.” asks whether I wish to restrict the care of the natives to Government officials and missionaries.

I am sorry if I was not clear. Perhaps I may repeat my words: “There must be a policy of gradualness, and there will be needed the co-operation of Governments, missions, educationalists, anthropologists,

and the best elements of the commercial world.”

I do not think that “P.D.’s” imposed alternatives of a “native reserve” and our “complicated civilisation” exhaust the possibilities. There is, I think, something between—protection and education until the native is able to stand up against our Western economic system.

IAM in complete accord with “P.D.” that missions should not mix Chris tianity with business. I cannot speak for others, but the mission of which I am the executive officer does not allow its missionaries to engage in trade.

It is true that we own two small plan tations (one of which was purchased for the express purpose of providing addi tional garden land and of training our students in modern agriculture); but from neither does the mission derive any general profit—all profits the native church and are used for educational and welfare purposes.

I also agree with “P.D.” that it is a tragedy that there is any rivalry among Christian denominations, either here or in the Pacific; but how are we to over come it? I wish I knew.

IN reference to the editor’s comment regarding the increases in population in the South Pacific, it may be signi ficant —though I am not sure to what extent—that the larger increases are precisely in those areas where the inden ture system does not exist; but there are several districts in the North-west Paci fic where the evidence seems conclusive that the indenture system, mainly through over-recruiting, has been a cause of depopulation.

However, I am in hearty agreement with the editor’s statement that this is not a matter for acrimonious debate. On the contrary, men of goodwill and dis interested motive should get together and try to think through the problems that

affect the native races of the Pacific— and us.

In the main, it will be agreed that, as Australian citizens, we should fulfil our solemn pledge, and that the welfare of the native races should be paramount in their own countries. Given this spirit and this priority, lam confident that we shall reach, at length, satisfactory

conclusions.-

J. W. Burton.