Re: Tahiti News

Maddog (Christopher.Morgan@JCU.EDU.AU)
Wed, 13 Sep 1995 13:03:58 +1000

Ania -

>> Now, what about some of the other colonial possessions in the region?
>> Hawaii and "American" Samoa come to mind..............
>Australia comes to mind too. Although I agree with the general tone of
>the mail, my question is which lands are not colonies?? In a sense, maybe
>just the Sarangetti, or maybe even this too...
>I think anthroplogy has to remember that: that' s life. As far as
>evaluation is concerned, that's another issue.

Hmm.... I was mindful of glass house from which I threw that paticular
stone, but there are some fairly vital differences between the situation in
Oz and NZ and that which pertains in e.g. Hawaii, "American" Samoa,
"French" Polynesia and New Caledonia. For one thing, Oz is a constituted
independent state [or will be when we appoint an Australian head of state
:-)], while the above territories remain colonial possessions which are
ultimately subject to rule by the USA and France, respectively. The
ludicrousness of this situation is evidenced by Chirac's assertion that
Tahiti IS France.

Where Oz could fairly be regarded as 'neocolonial', particularly in the
light of Keating's speech yesterday, is in its assertion of sovereignty in
the Torres Strait Islands in the face of the nascent independence movement
there. However, this situation is complicated by the fact that there are
more Torres Strait Islanders living in Queensland [yes, I'm aware of the
irony] than there are in Torres Strait - many of them here in Townsville.

However, as you said, that's life [without accepting some of the social
Darwinist implications of theat statement;-)]. But I still find it
interesting that the only direct responses I've had (from posting to 3
lists) are from Australians - all of whom are conscious of Australia's
vulnerability to poco criticism.

Bow Wow,

P.S. What do you do at UQ? I'll be down there next week for a conference.