colonialism?

A seminar on colonialism?

From Felise Va’a in Suva

Social issues in Development Plan ning was the theme of a seminar held by the South Pacific Commission and the South Pacific Social Sciences Association at the University of the South Pacific in Suva towards the year-end. Hardly a platform for politicians, but, in the midst of 14 sessions with about four speakers to a session, colonialism found itself arraigned.

Not surprisingly, the majority of the accusing fingers were New Hebri dean or Solomon Islander, but colonialism had its defenders; not outright supporters but pleaders ready to prove that the defendant had his good points.

Government officials, church lea ders, academisc, journalists, youth leaders and prominent citizens from most of the Island countries discus sed development planning with the aid of wide-ranging papers covering topics like region’s role, sociali sation in the development process, the effects of development on culture, the mass media’s values and moti vations in national planning, who gets what from development, the casualties of development planning, role of youth, creative arts in de velopment planning, social and poli tical constraints of development planning, national integrity and self respect, tourism, decision paralysis in development planning, political inde pendence and economic independ ence.

The tone of the papers reflected the background of the speakers. Thus, the speakers from the New Hebrides and the Solomons emphasised colon ialism in their papers. It was not so much the topic that amazed the par ticipants, It was the vehemence of their condemnation of colonialism and neo-colonialism, George Kalkoa, senior executive officer of the British Administration, New Hebrides spoke on National In tegrity and Self-Respect. He lamented the fact that New Hebrideans were stateless persons, a condition which caused a lot of embarrassment for travelling New Hebrideans, for which he blamed the British and French administrations.

“What is my problem? Well, the answer is: I am facing an animal with three heads—first, the British, second

Three-Headed

Animal

the French, third the condominium.

If you look at these three very care fully, you will note that there are two governments and three administra tions. The New Hebrides is known as a condominium but I would think the appropriate name is pandemonium,” said Kalkoa, leader of a nationalistic party in the New Hebrides, having independence as its aim.

“It must have one government, one system of court, one system of edu cation, one legal system, a legislative council, land reforms, and political independence,” he said.

The New Hebrideans were oppress ed and they aimed to liberate them selves from their oppressions, he maintained. The oppressors exploited and raped by virtue of their power and could not liberate either them selves or the oppressed.

During question time, Kalkoa was hard put to explain why the French wanted to stay in the New Hebrides.

One Indian student exclaimed that the only way the New Hebrideans could

rid themselves of their inferiority complex was through violence, a method which Kalkoa did not sup port.

In short, though everyone sympa thised with Kalkoa’s problem, it was evident that rational and not emotional arguments would have more power with international bodies who could lend support to New Hebridean nationalistic aims.

One British administrator, also a participant, remarked, “It is not easy to talk about independence when you consider that the New Hebrides con sists of several hundred different races speaking their own languages, and numerous islands divided by wide spans of ocean.”

Francis Bugotu, senior education officer in the Solomons argued. “The psychology of neo-colonialism is a disguised and often silent one. Its strength lies behind clever and effec tive manipulation and planned role playing on the part of the colonialist causing confused passivity in the minds of the colonialised.”

However, when Ata Ma’i’ai, a stu dent at the University of the South Pacific asked him what could be done to counter this subtlety, Bugotu

was not able to answer, but he issued a challenge to the peoples of the South Pacific to “stand in the centre of the ring and be involved in the development process.”

He preferred local solutions to problems and condemned the copy ing of European solutions, reiter ating R. Keesing’s statement that the blatantly presumptuous British assur ance of cultural superiority and pater nalism in dealing with the ‘child-like savages’ had withered Melanesian pride and identity.

These statements did not go un challenged. “White” university pro fessors took the view that though the colonialists may have had a bad effect in some respects, yet they have also done a lot of good to native races.

One participant offered a com promise—things colonial should not necessarily be condemned because they are colonial (for they may in fact be useful to the Pacific peoples).

On the other hand, the Pacific peo ples should not be guilty of ethnocen trism, which is a belief that only things Island can be good.

But perhaps the statement by Sione Tupouiua, chairman of the seminar’s

Continued on p 47

organising committee, reflected the opinion held by the majority of the

seminar participants.

Commenting on Kalkoa's paper, he suggested the New Hebrideans should find more constructive meth ods of solving their problems than simply condemning the colonial pow ers. However, he praised the integ rity and courage of the speaker for presenting his views.

He believed in the right of the Island peoples to do their own thing and not be dependent on the colonial powers.

Mr Tupuola Efi, of Western Samoa, who spoke on political and economic independence, never once mentioned colonialism, but stressed the need to control foreign investment.

A limited quantity of foreign in vestments could be used when it brought technical expertise and catered to a self-generated export market he said, but foreign equity capital was financially and socially the most ex pensive import for any developing country. The possibility of economic control or even dominance by foreign investors and the long-term domin ance of foreign equity investments was too great a price to pay for a few initial easy years.