This is an extract of the first part.
Qoliqoli and cannibalism
3-Oct-2006
In response to the military commander’s recent comments concerning the return to cannibalism if the proposed Qoliqoli Bill is introduced, let me say this: Cannibalism has never left the Fiji Islands since it was introduced. Our ancestors when they were baptized en masse into Western civilisation were only converted into another form of cannibalism. Neo-cannibalism would be a more appropriate term but cannibalism all the same.
The difference in the two forms of cannibalism is only in degrees. The cannibalism our ancestor practised was to do with ritual eating flesh and blood of the people while the practice of neo-cannibalism they were introduce into, is to do with exterminating their descendants while they are yet alive i.e. civilisation which is urbanisation.
Read what Professor Scott explains how what form neo-cannibalism subtly worms its way into an suspecting people who thought they have done away with being ‘eaters’ to being the ‘eaten’ alive:“Urbanisation itself was probably the most important political sociological phenomenon of the last century, for the whole of humanity and possibly also for the portion which lived in Fiji.
In any society known to humans since the last 18th century at least, has it been possible to stop urbanisation—even when people wanted to do so. The best such social reactionaries have managed has been to delay the process which itself builds up the basis for later conflicts.
For the future to occur it will probably be necessary to also go through the pains associated with rapid rates of urban migration, high levels of unemployment, landlessness and urban crime” (USP Parkinson’s Lecture series. USP 19th September, 2001).
The Fiji Daily Post editorial, ‘Ownership first then custodianship’ concludes positively with: ‘Communal ownership is a positive strength in Fijian culture but will not benefit anyone if government is constantly baby-sitting the mataqali…’
We have seen the effects of the above process on the members of the Fijian ethnic sector of our society. This is because those who were supposed to be with their people in the villages have opted for urbanisation rather then ploughing back their investment to improve their peoples’ lot. They prefer to drive past urban and peri-urban squatter settlements and call their own people ‘thieves’.
Our army commander does not have to make the threat that the Fijian people will go back to cannibalism when his own people are already being cannibalised by their own leaders—economically and landholding-wise.
The Fijian people were cannibalised by the urbanisation process when the British changed the word “governance” into “possession” in the 1874 Deed Of Cession. Let us return to 1874 and see how this happened:
Customary law was used to seal the final understanding leading to the signing of the 1874 Deed of Cession. Commodore Goodenough and Thurston represented Queen Victoria on the 20th March, 1874.
The relevant part of the report reads:“Sa qai tu cake ko na Komadoa ka vakamacalataka mai ni sa yalataki walega na Lewa ni Matanitu kivei Peritania ka sa sega ni soli vata kaya edua na tamata se dua na tiki ni vanua se dua na co ka sa tubu kina...Sa qai uliva nai tukutuku ko Rokotuiviwa ka ra sa vaka-mana-edina ko ira kece na turaga...”What happened and barely seven months later, on the 10th of October was this sacred intention altered from “governance” to “possession”. Witness the relevant toxins injected into the initial objectives of the Cession outlined above:
In English the report states that: “ The Commodore stood up to explain that only the administration of governance pertaining to the Fiji Islands was being ceded to the British Government and the cession does not include any Fijian nor does it included any land or piece of the vanua nor any grass that might be growing on it.. This understanding was sealed by ‘so be it’ ritual...”
(AI VOLA NI LAWA I TAUKEI—VAKATOTOMI, 1877-1901).
Applied Terra Nullius or Vacant Land Doctrine
Relevant preamble to the 1874 Deed of Cession reads: And Whereas in order to the establishment of British government within the said islands the said Tui Viti and other several high chiefs thereof for themselves and their respective tribes have agreed to cede the POSSESSION (author’s emphasis) of and the dominion and sovereignty over the said islands and over the inhabitants thereof…(Extract from preamble).
Clause 4 actually converts Fijian native lands into terra nulliu’ or the applied vacant land doctrine. The toxin reads:
That the absolute proprietorship of all lands not shown to be now alienated so as to have become bona fide property of Europeans or other foreigners or not now in the actual use or occupation of some chief or tribe shall be and is hereby declared to be vested in Her said Majesty her heirs and successors.
Clause 5—That Her Majesty (now to be the State—author’s brackets) Her Majesty shall have the power, whenever it shall be deemed necessary for public purposes, to take any lands upon payment to the proprietor of a reasonable sum by way of compensation for the deprivation thereof.
Echo of the past
We experience the past resounding in the essence of what our army commander, ex PM Rabuka, Ratu Epeli Ganilau and others with similar apprehensive objective and political intentions.
On the Qoliqoli Bill, we refer to comments by Ratu Epeli Ganilau (‘Qoliqoli Bill will raise conflicts’, Fiji Times, 26/09/05) where he claims the Fisheries and Qoliqoli Bill will cause national and sectional or racial interests.
Ratu Epeli Ganilau and others of similar hyperbolic negative thinkers’ main worry is the fact that such a bill allows for a broader and more equitable sharing of the economic returns of indigenous peoples’ resources. [Ganilau's] suggestion that “We would rather the seas in Fiji become a perpetual asset for all the people of Fiji – a national heritage or so,” reflects the terra nullius ethos that has become ingrained in the attitude, mindset and policy-direction of Fijian chiefs and their upper-class cohorts.
His argument that an Eco Tax of $20 per departure to be distributed to i qoliqoli owners is shallow and does not reflect the real economic benefits of indigenous’ peoples resources.
It does not take into account items like: loss of access to fishing grounds, loss of fish and other food items, loss of customs and traditional sustainable environmental practices, pollution caused by economic activity (hotels, commercial fishing etc). The intent is seeking to reduce the ownership question to one of “racial interests” thus he has failed miserably to delineate and differentiate “racial interests” and “indigenous interests/rights”.
What is apparently, and obviously, emerging into the Fijian ownership question is not only neo-cannibalism but neo-colonialism in its nakedness as well. We have just witnessed a judgement that applied in effect that the NLTB owns the land.
Now the pro-nationalisation syndrome edges its way into the minds of our Fijian leaders whose ancestors committed the very same cannibalistic process by alienating lands that were never theirs. Nationalisation here meaning, a de-ownership process for indigenous people, where their land and other natural resources become “nationalised” or absorbed into national ownership. This is a very scary concept.
To be continued
FRANCIS WAQA SOKONIBOGI
Club Em Designs
