Historical patchwork: A reply to John Young's ‘race and sex in Fiji re‐visited’

Abstract

stated in his 1968 doctoral thesis, and its slightly qualified published version of 1984.2 In both he claims (and the following words are from the published version) that: 'It was not then the attitude of the male settlers, despite their covert racism, nor that of the Fijian authorities, which led to the development of racial antagonism between the two peoples. It was the arrival in Fiji of European women in numbers sufficient to revive eroded cultural identity.' Furthermore, 'the number of women was large enough to lead men to believe that Fiji would become the future home of a race of rampant Anglo-Saxons .. .'8 In his latest paper the argument has been re-stated in a more roundabout way. Young claims that the 'crucial role of white women' in the creation of the fantasy that a new 'white man's country' was possible in Fiji was two-fold. It was crucial, firstly, for biological reasons ? 'for without them there could be no future white society' ? and, secondly, because their presence encouraged 'expectations' which made them partners 'in the revival of the cultural identity of the settler community'. In other words, because women had babies, and because they were there, they were both active participants in history and (equally?) responsible with men for deteriorating race relations.4 We do not believe that accountability for deteriorating race relations can be assigned to white women merely because they were white women, had recently arrived in Fiji, or were expected by men to think and behave in particular Stereotypie ways. Nor does this establish their active participation in history. It allows for prescriptions, expectations and roles being held responsible for historical outcomes, rather than real people. Young's explanation is based on the ill-argued assumption that prior to the arrival of white women relations between white men and Fijians were harmonious, and fails to take into account the more basic factors responsible for racial tension. As Claudia Knapman pointed out in her critique of this position, Young himself suggested more fundamental social, political and economic reasons for conflict. These centred on the white settlers' primary concern for land, labour and security. Since Young has presented no new data nor new insights, which might advance our understanding, it should not be necessary to elaborate on the causes for tension nor the detailed objections to his argument here. They are discussed in detail in Knapman's White Women in Fiji.5 In Young's recent paper there is considerable misrepresentation of our views (frequently by implication), much of the discussion is not integrated with the argument and its relevance is unclear, and the elaborated re-statement of his earlier position fails to address the theoretical and methodological insights of feminist history. These three concerns will be addressed in turn. In terms of misrepresenting our views, the article seems to be based on the totally