In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

138 This chapter traces historical changes in Oceania from early Euroamerican contacts through colonial rule into the post-1945 era of decolonization. The reader should be aware, however, that history is never separate from the present, because each generation reinterprets the past in light of its own priorities. The written history of the Pacific Islands was produced mainly by outsiders until very recently, and as an academic subject that is taught in universities the field really dates only to the 1950s. Foreign explorers, missionaries , traders, and colonial officials kept many records, but their accounts were often biased, privileging the “civilizing” influence of outsiders. Colonial historians tended to perpetuate these one-sided impressions, while critics stressed the negative effects of outsiders on indigenous societies, from deaths caused by introduced diseases to cultural losses when native peoples adopted Christianity or metal tools and weapons. For example, Alan Moorehead’s The Fatal Impact describes the decline of native peoples and customs in Tahiti and Australia after contact. This Eurocentric historiography of the islands began to change in the 1950s, when J. W. Davidson of the Australian National University recommended what came to be called an “island-centered” or “islander-oriented” approach. He and his followers urged scholars to do fieldwork, rather than simply researching in colonial archives, and to consider other sources of data, such as oral traditions, archeology, ethnobotany, linguistics, and anthropology. The goal was to focus on the historical interplay between indigenous and foreign actors to reveal participation by native peoples in making their own history (Howe 1984). Greg Dening (1980) and Marshall Sahlins (1985) blended histories of culture contact with anthropological data, creating “ethnographic history.” Other scholars warned that a Euroamerican-dominated capitalist “world system” created economic exploitation and dependency (Howard and Durutalo 1987), and indigenous nationalists spoke of past and ongoing victimization by outsiders (Trask 1993; Walker 1990). As more Oceanians joined the ranks of academic historians, they added their voices to these debates (e.g. Meleisea 1987). Early Interactions with Euroamericans Before Ferdinand Magellan named and crossed the Pacific in 1520–1521, the ocean basin was divided into subregions by an equilibrium of disinterest. For thousands of years, sheer distance had limited contact between Oceania and the Pacific Rim to sporadic interaction with insular Southeast Asia and, probably, South America. Oceania was a self-contained, culturally diverse maritime world linked together by its own exchange networks and canoe migrations, but like the Americas it hovered just out of reach of global trends. In 1513, however, Portuguese and Spanish explorers arrived at the western and eastern shores of the Pacific, respectively, and soon other explorers began to cross Oceania on missions for the emerging world economy. European monarchs sought to bypass Middle Eastern middlemen and gain direct access to Asian spices and silks. In the process, Columbus stumbled upon the Americas, where Spain reaped a windfall of gold and silver by enslaving native peoples (Hezel 1983; Howe 1984). Ferdinand Magellan, a Portuguese sailing for Spain, left Europe in 1519 with five ships to finish the job that Columbus had set out to do—reach Asia by sailing west. By the time the expedition rounded Cape Horn, the stormy tip of South America, the sea beyond looked relatively peaceful, hence the name “Pacific” (by a lucky coincidence, it was not hurricane season). Magellan next accomplished two things: his ships were the first known to have crossed the entire Pacific, and they did so without seeing anyone until they reached Guam. Unfortunately, the latter feat meant that his crews were starving and ill when they encountered the Cha­ morro people of the Marianas. Moreover, two systems of property were colliding: the Spanish believed in private ownership (and knew they were only halfway around the globe), while the Chamorros , like most Oceanians, emphasized communal property sharing and expected to assimilate new arrivals, including their material possessions. The Chamorros went out to the Spanish ships in sailing canoes to exchange gifts. Antonio Pigafetta, Magellan’s chronicler, wrote that they “boarded the ships and stole one thing after another, to such an extent that our men could not protect their belongings” (Paige 1969). Violence resulted, and Magellan labeled Guam the Island of Thieves, beginning a process of (mis)naming that would persist for centuries. He himself died in another conflict in the Philippines, but one of his ships managed to return home with enough cloves to make a profit, thus encouraging more Spanish adventures across the Pacific (Rogers 1995). These included three expeditions from...

Share