BUCCANEERS AND CHIEFL Y HISTORIANS Simione Durlltalo MATANITU: THE STRUGGLE FOR POWER IN EARLY FIJI. 247 pp., Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific, 1985, David Routledge. This book is essentially a revised version of the author's Ph.D. thesis, first written in 1965. The theme we are told is to do with "the struggle for political dominance between the great chiefdoms of Fiji until the first half of the nine­ teenth century, and then between Fijians, Tongans and Europeans in the years 1855 to 1874" (p. 5). Given the paucity of work on Fijian history generally, the book fills in some empirical gaps in Fijian history in the early part of the last century. But the book cannot be evaluated on empiricist grounds alone for the author is the leading advocate of new type of Pacific history and he uses this present work to utilise this new approach. "The study seeks to be not merely island-centred but Islander-oriented. It re-establishes the status of Fijians as the main protagonists in their own history, something which has been lost sight of in much past history-writing" (p. 6). Routledge has claimed in a recent article (Routledge 1985:91), "that he leans towards the tenets of what is sometimes called social history" along the lines of the French Annales school, founded by Marc Bloch and Lucien Febure, which is interested "with the persistent patterns of the long term, with the quantative and the structural, with what is recurrent, or at least comparable, in the process of history" - in contrast to the 'history of mere events' used for the traditional orient­ ation towards the surface history of the actions of great personalities. Furthermore, Routledge emphasises that practi­ tioners of the 'new Pacific history' must study: whole societies, and study, moreover, according to the worldview of the people themselves. One must study process and not merely sequence of events and one must emphasise social categories rather than individuals. JOURNAL OF PACIFIC STUDIES SSED, university of the South Pacific, Suva Volume 11, 1985, pp. 117-156 117 How does the present work measure up to the aims that the author has set us the guiding principles of the 'new Pacific history'? What this reviewer finds astonishing is that despite all these pronouncements of a new orientation in Pacific history, the present work fails miserably to fulfill any of the historio­ graphical tasks that he champions and sets for others. If the work under review is an example of the new Pacific history "as seen from the Pacific Islands", which the author claims it is and of which he is the self-appointed high priest, then the new approach of 'island-oriented' history has some serious short­ comings and might be even considered as just another version of the 'Pacifi~ Way' in different guise. These shortcomings can be discerned at three levels, firstly at the level of theory. Most historians, particularly those subscribing to the A.N.U. orthodoxy, refuse to acknowledge that the practice of history is a theoretical practice. The implicit assumption is that historical evidence (i. e. the truth) can be presented independently of theory. This is particularly surprising for in the post-Thompsonian world in which we live the art of writing history can no longer be regarded as a matter of theory - neutral technique. Even a conservative historian like E.H. Carr has partly conceded the point that presentation of historical evidence cannot be theoretically neutral when he remarked: It .used to be said that facts speak for themselves. This is of course, untrue. The facts speak only when the historian calls on them: it is he who decides to which facts to give the floor, and in what order or context (Carr, 1964:11). For Carr the facts need an interpretation. But this inter­ pretation works only to select the facts of history, to determine them as having historical significance, rather than say personal significance or no significance at all. In themselves, facts are given, they are independent of theory. The Battle of Kaba occurred on 7 April 1855. Whether this is an historical fact is up to the historian, but the historian does not doubt the fact itself. Carr likens facts to fish swimming in an ocean; "What the historian catches will depend partly on chance, but mainly on what part of the ocean he chooses to fish in and what tackle he chooses to use" (Carr 1964:23). But even facts such as the data of the Battle of Kaba or the annexation of Fiji depend on theory - very low level theory it is true, and for that reason 118 -they are often uncontroversial. For Carr, facts are externally related to their interpretations. Thompson among other has convincingly demonstrated in The History of the English Working Class that 'interpretation' does not merely select the facts but provides the theoretical framework within which the facts are composed. One of the greatest shortcoming of Matani tu is the fact that the place of Fiji in relation to the wider global, particularly economic forces is played down. Routledge, like AND historians Scarr ( 1979) and MacNaught (1982), believes that there was no comprehensive cause or purpose behind Britain's colonisation of Fiji; it was a fortuitous freak. The strength of Australian oplnl0n was sufficient at least twice to force the Colonial Secretary to bring the question of Fiji before his colleagues. Institutional inertia, however, frustrated any positive line of action until the issue had virtually gone by default. Britain found itself being forced from expedient to expedient until no retreat from annexation was possible (p. 187) [emphasis added]. The author is here putting forward the great theory which tries to portray the picture that Britain was a 'reluctant colonist' in the case of Fiji. This theme of 'reluctance' permeates Routledge's present work where he also adds that Fijian leaders were reluctant to accept independence in 1970 (p. 220). His explanation for the reasons behind this reluctance is, as will be shown later, rather superficial, employing approvingly the conventional apologia for British imperialism; "that the empire was acquired in a fit of absentmindedness" (p. 186). The most outstanding element of Pacific colonial historio­ graphy, of which Routledge's work is but one example, is the deliberate or unwitting omission of the exploitative and racist relationship between white Europeans and indigenous people, between members of the native ruling class and their subjects, between co10niser and colonised. Thus Routledge condones the hiring out of the defeated Lovoni people as plantation labourers as being true to rules of the Fijian polity. E.L. Layard and J.G. Goodenough ••• b1unt1y condemned the hiring of the Lovoni as an act of slavery, but their understanding of the Fijian polity was not acute and they were also prejudiced. Sir Arthur Gordon, 119 the first governor of the crown colony, not only accused the Cakobau Government of selling the Lovoni people into slavery, but implied that other campaigns had been conducted with the avowed object of aiding the exchequer by obtaining lands to sell and prisoners to dispose of. His inability to quote examples, however weakened the force of his allegations (p.141). Routledge again excuses the exiling of eight hundred Vatusila and Magodro people to the island of Koro and the hiring of three hundred men among these to white planters and suggests that Commodore Gdodenough 's attempt to interfere was ill-conceived (p. 194). Imperialism in this scheme is seen merely as the extension of peaceful foreign British rule into Fiji (i.e. colonialism) . So imperialism and colonialism are equated as one and the same thing. Lenin (1964) had defined imperialism in its economic essence as nothing less than monopoly capitalism, which mainly involved the struggle among the white imperialist powers to redivide an already divided world. Colonialism is just a phase of this which involved the division of the world among the imperial powers of Europe and the United States. Monopoly capitalism grew out of colonial policy. To the 'old' motives of colonial policy, finance capital added the struggle for the sources of raw materials, for the export of capital, for 'spheres of 'influence' (Le. for spheres of profitable deals, concessions, monopolist profits and so on) and finally the economic territory in general. This means that those who assert that Fiji was reluctantly colonised by the British are not only parochial nonglobal and ahistorical, but their outlook constitutes an attempt to eschew a class analysis of local Fijian historical development within an overall context of integration into the global imperialist network. For example, Routledge suggests that the British refusal of the first offer of Cession in 1858 was due more to the person­ ality of Lieutenant Colonel W.J. Smythe: As a somewhat unimaginative army officer, brought up to obey to the letter, he was quite unsuited to assess the complex and irregular situations existing in Fiji. His own instructions made it clear that irrefutable reasons would be required before annexation would even be considered ..• He travelled extensively, 120 questioning the Fijian chiefs along the lines laid down for him, but making no attempt to understand the general nature of the policy. In particular, he accepted too readily the very subjective opinions of the Wesleyan missionaries. It is no surprise that he abided by the tenor of his instructions and recommended the rejection of the offer. The colonial office accepted the advice without demur (p. 98). Britain's disinterest in these early offers of Cessions needs to be placed into a much broader perspective reflecting a general disinterest in the colonies that was natural in the early 19th century when Britain was the pre-eminent economic and military power.