SAMOA TO-DAY

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 164, 9 April 1934, Page 10

SAMOA TO-DAY

Independence Unrest COMMENT BY STUDENT Mau: Present and Future Comment on the vast problems and future possibilities of the Mau or independence movement) of Western Samoa is contained in the following passages from a book written recently by Felia: JJ. Kccsing, M.A., D.Litt., who is now a member of the Research staff of the Institute of Pacific Relations* To say that the Mau started in 192627 is quite inadequate. It is likewise insufficient to find its origins either in the grievances advanced against the Government on the one hand or in the intrigues of “half a dozen whites and half-castes” on the other. Its roots lie in the Polynesian past. Its trunk and branches in the history of Samoan-white interaction —fed by the potent sap of cultural conflict and change, pruned by the political knife of the German authorities, forced by the strong fertiliser of democratic sentiment, the atmosphere of heat generated partly by New Zealand's enthusiastic schemes, partly through friction between the Mandatory and the European community, merely brought it to sudden flower and fruit. Influence Toward Unrest-. The Mau is essentially a manifestation of a cultural-pathological condition in Samoan life, product of the long period of conflict, repression, psychological stress. lack of interest and excitement, social disintegration, baulking and general unbalance and malaise, aggravated after 1924 by sudden official pressure. Other manifestations had appeared earlier, such as the Lauati outbreak (the Mau of Savai’i), the discontent of 1921-22, and in less spectacular and comprehensive fashion the modern changing of Samoan social aud ceremonial organisation. The European opponents of the Government, who in 1926 set themselves up publicly as champions of native wrongs, were merely jgents in releasing and directing long-pent-up forces. The grievances cited were the visible ills on which the deeper and less articulate unrest fastened itself; they were thus symptoms rather than causes. In this sense, the Samoan Mau offers a close parallel to the Hauliau and other prophetic movements among the Maori in New Zealand, the Ghost and Dream dances, and kindred movements among American tribes, the so-called “heathen” revival under King Kalakaua in Hawaii, the Colorum sect in the Philippines, and number? of other organisations the world over that have emerged more or less spontaneously out of the flux of transition and pressure. Yet it was typically Samoan in that it assumed a political-ceremonial-social rather than a religious form, and this continued to be its major mark until forceful measures were taken early in 1930 to suppress it. From this time on, however, it has tended to assume the more mystical form that has characterised many of these other organisations when forcibly thwarted. . . . Problem of Cure. Conceivably the movement might have -been stamped out by forceful measures at its start. The emotion of fear could possibly have closed the point of outlet. Thus did the Germans meet the Lauati uprising which potentially was just as serious, following as it did on a similar sudden pressure of political change. Perhaps it could have been lulled, as has the parallel movement in American Samoa, by constructive and psychological measures to meet the visible grievances. including necessarily those of the Europeans, who held the balance of power and influence in the native sphere at the time. Even so, if this interpretation is at all correct, the fundamental causes would yet have remained practically untouched in either case, the sickness of the Samoan body politic uncured. Sooner or later, perhaps under non-native auspices, probably under the influence of a growing body of more educated and ambitious natives who were necessarily thwarted by the governmental policy of temnerii 1 --; the rate of adjustment toward autonomy to the mass rather than the few, the break would have come again. Neither effective force nor rapid ameliorative action was tried, however, by the New Zealand authorities. For some three years the movement gathered way, little obstructed from the official side—in fact, strengthened, if anything, by the apparent weakness (which [to the natives] spelt guilt), by half-hearted repressive measures (that made heroes and martyrs), by letting existing enactments fall into abeyance (which made disregard for law a virtue), by refusing to hear the iitjlive voice except through the constituted authority (which caused a loss of faith and confidence in New Zealand), and by condemnatory declarations (making increasingly wide the breach between “loyalists” and “rebels”). It also gained strength from the growing circle of sympathisers abroad. The movement became rationalised until in due course it assumed the form of a “struggle for the fundamentals of Briti-sn justice,” "a revolt against tyranny and slavery”— in fart, a full-blown movement for national and racial autonomy. . . . Writer Pessimistic. The eclipse of the present Mau movement as such, from the viewpoint of the student, is merely incidental to the major problem, namely, as to whether the forces that brought the Mau into existence will have exhausted themselves or been stamped out permanently, or whether they will remain much the same, a potential of similar conflict in the future. Here really is the true answer to the question as to whether the Mau is due 10 disappear or survive. The writer finds himself extremely pessimistic. The figurative tree of the Mau visualised at the beginning of this section <s showing no signs of withering, rather of growing, blossoming and bearing again. In other words, the culturalpathological condition,- product of clash, disintegration, and inadequate reintegration, seems due to increase. The discrepancy between the desire of the few for leadership and their capacity to master as yet an adequate technique for loading their people, between the wishes of the people for autonomy and the idea that the authorities have of their present ability to achieve it. between the activities of a native organisation whose uni-.y lies in grievance and those of a responsible organisation of constructive self-government, the deep crevasses or emotion mid antagonism lh-'t mathe surface of relationships between

the Government and the inhabitants of the territory, European and Samoan, product of an historical process that goes back to the establishment of the mandate, all these have not finished their part in the Samoan'drama. Nor are they unique to Samoa: they are largely problems inherent in the administration of dependencies of many other areas to-day. . . . Inadequate and “simple,” even futile. as tlie movement may seem to western eyes, especially to those charged wit li the tasks of administration, it represents a native attempt (witli guidance, wise or not, from Europeans and part-Samoans, in whom the Samoans have confidence) to reintegrate their political and social life in terms comprehensible to them. At. least it is worthy of deep study; and if such study were launched the opportunity might arise for a transformation of tlie Mau into a co-operative rather than a “seditious” movement, or at least for its dynamic spirit to be utilised constructively without 100 much loss--of precious face by either Mau or Malo (Government). Could this kilter be accomplished (lie pessimistic outlook for Samoan affairs might lie greatly brightened. [♦“Modern Samoa: Its Government and Changing Life.” (London: Allen and Unwin.)]