The Editors' Mailbag
pp. 67-73 · Read in the full issue
Sir, —I do not know whether educationist Father O'Hanlon has a specialty subject, but his letter, “Toliman and the Mission” ( PIM, Nov,, p. 69) on “Gorohauve’s” article indicates a bent towards fiction rather than history. Not parti cularly good fiction at that.
BUT if it is assessed as an attempt to rewrite history, the O’Hanlon commentary, while lacking the es sential ingredient of verisimilitude, must be regarded more seriously.
In the New Guinea of 1966 the native policy dogfights of the early 1950’s seem almost as remote as Dewars at 10 bob a bottle. Nowadays, most of the religious missions have learnt to be flexible in adapting to rapidly changing native situations— situations which call for more re straint and subtlety in the exercise of both spiritual and temporal authority than was fashionable in the past.
Nowadays, Mission/Administration relations are generally cordial.
Opening Old Wounds
It is therefore to be regretted that Father O’Hanlon, in trying to justify some pretty unscrupulous rearguard actions by sundry members of his own parent organisation, should have succeeded in scarifying old healed wounds.
Since he has done so, it seems only fair to the handful of greying field officers who, against heavy odds, suc cessfully pioneered the Local Gov ernment policy on the Gazelle Pen insula, and whom he has libelled, to recapitulate a few small points.
It may be that “the prophets of the new order were poorly equipped for their tasks,” but subsequent history indicates that they were more far-sighted than those missionaries (I would specifically exclude some of the old Germans) who tried to white ant them.
The new-look kiaps were not all exactly new boys, either. Having learnt their trade the hard way, in cluding war years in the bush, they were constantly surprised at what the veteran Tolai-speaking missionaries did not know about their Tolai flocks.
The charge that these brash officials riled the missionaries by their “tact less and omniscient attitudes” is a tired old defensive gimmick.
In fact, being well aware of the probability of mission opposition and of the importance of winning mission
Genesis Of Tolai
Local Government
Councils
co-operation, the early practitioners of native local government went to considerable pains to enlist mission support. Herewith, some historical facts.
At the time the new policy was launched, the then New Britain Dis trict Commissioner (J. K. McCarthy) organised a public conference designed to explain Administration intentions, to resolve doubts and to enlist non native support for the area council approach.
Of the missions, only Father O’Hanlon’s headquarters saw fit to boycott this meeting. The then Secre tary of Vunapope (who was not ad verse to councils) later privately in formed the writer that his superiors regarded the new-fangled policy as simply another bit of post-war liberal froth that would soon blow away.
Mau-Mau
Father O’Hanlon is correct in stat ing that Bishop Scharmach once publicly commended the local govern ment policy to Tolai leaders. He might also have added that the Bishop later wrote (or at least signed) letters to the Administrator and to various members of the House of Represent atives, accusing the officer immedi ately responsible for organising councils of having introduced Mau- Mau into the Tolai area from Kenya.
These libellous documents still exist.
It is correct that on numerous occasions various missionaries accepted invitations to attend council functions and sat in on council meet ings. It is equally true that at other times the same missionaries mounted scurrilous attacks on councils and criticised elected leaders and officials from their pulpits.
During the period 1951-55 there
were numerous incidents where missionaries attempted to interfere in the conduct of council elections (e.g., Kuraip, 1952), forebade their flock to attend council-built schools (even in localities where no other education was offering), organised a “Catholic Kivung” as an anti-council body (some of the “Kivung” minutes make interesting reading), dissuaded some village groups from entering councils (the current Taviliu situation is a memorial to the zeal of one little fanatic) and fomented resistance to the payment of council tax.
If Father O’Hanlon was around at the time he must recall the extra ordinary antics of one of his col leagues in the Vunadadir-Toma area —behaviour which ultimately led to this missionary’s removal.
I do not recall any “untoward cir cumstances” warranting mission de nunciation, in the establishment of the Tolai Cocoa Project.
I do recall that at Ramalmal, in the heart of the Reimber council area, the mission, while endeavouring to remain in the background, took the initiative in organising a central cocoa fermentary financed by a Rabaul firm, in direct opposition to the two exist ing Project units already operating in that area.
Surely Father O’Hanlon must know Mr. Lawrence, the former manager of the “Ramalmal Advancement Society (Catholic Division) Fermentary” who is now living at Malaguna.
Hahalis Riots
It has never been suggested that the missions were directly responsible for fomenting the Raluana situation which ultimately led to the Navuneram and Hahalis riots.
But they played along with it, and many Methodist mission teachers—to the embarrassment of the MOM leadership—were active in peddling this local independence movement’s wares.
The Raluana “movement” developed from a mission-sponsored “young men’s kivung” which had got out of control during the war and whose subsequent activities, including subversion of council villages, were aided and abetted by some sections of the Administration itself, par ticularly certain police officers who were opposed to the area council policy.
The resulting messy situation was gleefully, and as events proved, un wisely exploited by some missionaries.
The letters columns of the South Pacific Post for the years 1954-55 will show that the youthful Mr. Matt
Tollman (at that time a Vuvu teacher) was used by his mission as a front man in campaigning against councils. (The Kiaps, of course, had their own front men.) He was at one stage a prominent member of the anti-council “Catholic Kivung”.
As mission opposition to Local Government withered, Tollman’s at titudes changed. He is a nice, sincere guy still very much under mission influence, and worried about his chances of re-election.
Perusal of the same South Pacific Post files, as also Hansard, will leave no doubts about the denigration of Councils and local government officers by missionaries such as the Rev, Father Dwyer.
Regarding these interdenominational statutory bodies as a threat to mission finances (annual mission collections still exceed council tax) and to clerical temporal authority he sniped continu ously.
But perhaps the most amusing touch in Father O’Hanlon’s com mentary is his claim that the Gazelle Peninsula missionaries were “always way out front” in their progressive attitudes. If the Father really believes that, he had better do a refresher course in church history.
The teething troubles of the area council policy on the Gazelle Pen insula were immensely complicated by lack of comprehension at Adminis tration headquarters, by inter-depart mental feuds, and by the reluctance of many missionaries to accept the fact that in 1952 their pre-war philosophies of native administration had become outmoded.
Ex-Kiap.
Port Moresby. 0 Editors’ Note : “Ex-Kiap’s” full name and address were supplied.
Watom Island's Pottery
Sir, —One thing that emerged clearly from Tolala’s article, “Something Belong Before” (PIM, Jan., p. 55) was that not only is he badly informed but he also has a bad memory.
His article refers to my visit last November to Watom Island, when I carried out a short archaeological sur vey of the island, and visited a site discovered by Father Otto Meyer in 1909.
Tolala was correct in assuming that the newspaper article that gave him news of my visit was an in accurate piece of reporting. 1 was not interviewed by the news paper concerned, and my first know ledge of that article was from Tolala’s reference to it. However, Tolala is far off the mark in his own comments about myself and Stanley’s report.
In the first place Stanley’s report nowhere mentions “ancient copper ware” on Watom Island, neither did Meyer’s original ones. The metal mentioned by Tolala is a figment of his own imagination.
Stanley pointed out that there was absolutely no proof of a Peruvian origin for the pottery. His own view was that the pottery might indicate the place where Grijalva’s ship was wrecked, but he preferred to leave the matter wide open.
For Tolala, however, an unproven, tentative suggestion has become un assailable fact. He obviously does not know what has been happening in Pacific archaeology since 1923.
The Peruvians and Spaniards of Stanley’s day have gone the same way as the mythical continent of Mu; they have disappeared into oblivion. Not even Tolala’s wishful thinking can bring them back to Watom.
Were Tolala in closer contact with present-day events in the Pacific, he would have heard about archaeologi cal excavations in Fiji, Tonga, New Caledonia and the New Hebrides.
In each of these island groups have been found pottery wares that are closely related to the Watom Island pottery. If Tolala reads pages 69 to 72 of the January issue of PIM, he will find out why this pottery is im portant. It seems to represent the
earliest settlement by man of many of the Pacific islands, in the sth century BC or earlier; a little before the Spanish and Peruvians enter world history! The probable area of origin of this pottery complex is South-East Asia or South China.
As yet Watom Island is the 9nly place where it occurs in New Guinea territory. Further work is needed on Watom Island, and a start will be made later this year on excavating Meyer’s site.
Tolala’s quip about archaeologists in Canberra just waking up to the fact that prehistoric pottery has been found on Watom is utter nonsense.
The first archaeologists in Canberra only arrived in 1961. So how on earth can we be criticised for not having solved every archaeological problem in the Western Pacific in less than six years! Research can only progress as fast as the archaeologists can work.
J. R. Specht.
University House, Canberra, A.C.T. • For Tolala's comments, see “Territories Talk-Talk” elsewhere.
Royal Society Bigwigs
Sir, —I would like to refer to your review of Tahiti in your January issue (p. 93). The reviewer stated that the author’s statement, that a party of Royal Society bigwigs accompanied Capt. Cook on his first voyage was incorrect, and that the only member of the Royal Society aboard ship was Joseph Banks.
Sir Joseph Banks was accompanied by quite a large staff consisting of artists, assistants and servants; some of the artists or assistants may have been members of the Royal Society.
However, one of these, one Dr.
Daniel Charles Solander, certainly was a member of the Royal Society.
Dr. Solander, who was the Keeper of the British Museum and who ac companied Cook and Banks on the first voyage, was elected to member ship of the Royal Society on June 7, 1764.
Sydney Parkinson, assistant and artist to Sir Joseph Banks on the same voyage, was sent out with Cook and Banks by the Royal Society. He died from fever in 1770 at Batavia.
Walter O. Cernohorsky.
Vatukoula, FIJI.
Editors' Note : Red-faced, our re viewer admits that he overlooked Dr. Solander’s membership of the Royal Society, and that there were, in fact, two members of the Society in the Endeavour. But that’s as far as he’ll go. According to Vol. 1 of the Hakluyt Society edition of Cook’s
Voyages, Solander was the only other member besides Banks. Although heavyweights, those two were scarcely “a party of Royal Society bigwigs,” our reviewer says.
Fiji Nuns
Sir, —I have just read your October issue and have been much interested by the article of Beryl Cates, of Suva, concerning the Fiji nuns.
I am sending you two old issues of our little paper Petites Nouvelles Missionaires which might interest you.
I am glad to have this opportunity of telling you how much I appreciate the PIM, that keeps me in touch with the Islands, especially the Fijis, where I stayed for 15 years.
I recently met a few Pacific Islanders, in London, on the occasion of the ordination to the priesthood of Rev. Father Beato Ratulow, from Solevu, Fiji.
Sister Mary JOEL.
Missionary Sisters of the Society of Mary, Sainte Foy-les-Lyon,