Arguments For And Against
p. 17 · Read in the full issue
Broadening Use Of “Papuan”
Historically the name “Papuan” was not restricted to the people of Papua alone, said the Rev. D. E. Ure, when urging, in the Papua-New Guinea Legislative Council, the adoption of the name for all the indigenous people of the Territory.
Mr. Ure said he did not suggest that the term “native” was degrading, but there was nothing in it to inspire loyalty or respect for the country.
The indigenous people of Fiji were called Fijians, and the people of Samoa were called Samoans.
And for many years the people of Netherlands New Guinea had been known as Papuans, he pointed out.
In view of the multiplicity of languages and dialects in the Territory, and the tribal barriers which existed between the people, said Mr. Ure, some form of unity was essential. One of the best means of promoting this was to have a general name for the indigenous population.
Use of a common name could not be brought about by legislation, he added, but if Europeans gave the lead, in time the indigenous people would accept it and be as proud of it as Australians were of their national name. (The gradual disappearance of the term “native” elsewhere in the Pacific was noted in a Tropicality in June PIM).
ANEW BRITAIN correspondent (“Tolai”) wrote on July 26 that the proposal that all the in
digenous peoples of Papua and New Guinea should be called Papuans was not meeting with whole-hearted native approval.
“The Tolais of the Rabaul region, the Chimbus, Mapriks, Sepiks and many others of the New Guinea mainland, the Bukas of Bougain ville and Buka Island and so on, all have looks and characteristics dif ferent from the Papuans,” the writer continues. “To one familiar with the various tribes it is easy to identify the individual tribesmen.
“In the opinion of some natives near Rabaul, ‘New Guineans’ might be a better collective name than ‘Papuans.’
“After all, these people have at times been labelled Fuzzy-wuzzies and South Sea Islanders. There must be some good collective name.
But not ‘Papuans.’ ” (Further reference to this con troversy is made in this month’s “Territories Talk-Talk.”)