Right to
Letters
Kanak
debate
Madam, In her most recent proclamation as the louthpiece for us, the Kanak people, )unei-Small is perhaps trying to make p for the fact that she was no where to e seen in Kanaky during les evenements of le 1980 s. By purposefully misinterpret ig Newborn’s letter to suit her own ersonal agenda, and maligning those ho risk much to help us and others in ic Pacific, she is playing directly into the mds of the mining and nuclear indus ies; hardly the tactics of a street-wise :tivist.
The Kanak people are not, and never ive been, “acutely aware” of the ivironmental and health problems as ciated with the mining industry in our untry, neither have we made it a ocus” of our struggle “for decades”, as unei-Small states. Perhaps she needs minding that the reason my comrade, oi Machoro, blocked the Thio mine for ree months in 1984 was to paralyse the ritory’s economy, not to demonstrate out pollution. However, Julian K and itonin C, with whom I was impos ed, blocked the mine of N’Goye in 79 because of pollution. This, and the }test in 1983 by the brave families of
»inde Ouipont against the logging of
;ir forest and the pollution of their sam, are the only two occasions when naks have scratched the surface of dronmental issues. I helped organise protest of May 1985, (not 1986), the f a young Kanak was killed by fascist nch settlers (not by the army) in the ranee to one of our ghettos in umea, a protest which focussed on ideal themes but also included a louncement of French nuclear testing. nei-Small should check her facts with se of us who were there at the time Dre attempting to write our history for 4uch can be done to try and solve se problems raised in Newborn’s “r, without having to wait as nei-Small would have us for that when France will relinquish all lomic and political powers. Kanak vists, young and old, have come ;ther to form our first environmental sure group and we have recently i collecting samples of nickel pol
)n for independent analysis outside
laky. And this year, for the first time
its history, the FLNKS Cong ress
ed a resolution on the environment.
Perhaps the years living outside the struggle, and the privilege of a foreign education, have contributed to Ounei- Small’s short-sightedness and self aggrandizing perspective which stifles the slightest possibility of an authentic Kanak debate. Those of us who stayed behind to fight, however, are more humble about the role we played in the continuing struggle for Kanak indepen dence and the suffering we have all endured, Kanak and non-Kanak alike.
On what grounds does Ounei-Small give herself the right to prevent others from giving us necessary information with which to further our cause? She offers no pragmatic solutions to a struggle from which she has long been absent.
Neither is she, nor has she ever been, the spokesperson for my people.
Luc Tutuporo
Minister for Economic Development Gouvernement de Kanaky
Right to
criticise
Madam, Susanna Small’s recent letter ( PIM , September, 1992) raises an interesting point: who are, and who are not, permitted to criticise so-called “indigen ous peoples”, what they do, say or write?
By her own criteria, Susanna Small could silence all non-indigenous reports for the people of Bougainville or East Timor, or any discussion on the Fiji Constitution or the destruction of tribal homelands in Malaysia.
Has she not realised that neo-colonialism in the Pacific is not race or colour specific?
Anaru Dyer
Auckland, New Zealand
Pacific
research
Madam, Stuart Schwartzstein, ( PIM , September, 1992) has some unflattering things to say about Pacific anthropology against which he suffers a “visceral reaction”. Now while no one could nor would want to defend all past anthropological research, cultural awareness will be vitally important for the success of any future research efforts and it is anthropologists both metropolitan and island based who have provided much of this cross-cultural understanding.
If National Science Foundation supports new Pacific research let us hope they invite the collaboration of local, island anthropol ogists who understand Pacific cultures.
They, unlike some well-paid non anthropological sorts, typically spend longer than “one day or [even] five in a place.” Dr Schwartzstein cites “the old joke about the typical Pacific family, a mother, father, two kids and the live-in anthropologist.” Equally well-known now adays are expensive research and develop mental projects that have been both pernicious and disastrous because of a lack of local cultural awareness and these are not jokes. An anthropologist might begin by explaining to Dr Schwartzstein that “a mother, father and two kids” in no way is “the typical Pacific family!”
Lamont Lindstrom
Oklahoma,