A Historical and Cultural Context for Environmental Management in Belize and Fiji

§Introduction

I debated at length whether to write this chapter. It seemed that, if not written carefully, I could fall into a hypocritical trap where I would be doing exactly what I am arguing against in this thesis. My primary objective is to establish the need for bottom up management and argue that this stems from the need for a paradigmatic shift towards considering ourselves a part of our natural environments. I am arguing that this requires a multi-disciplinary, non-reductionist approach. My fear, when initially contemplating the outline for this chapter, was that I would state a few of the cultural and historical issues that I personally felt were important, establish those as management priorities, and in effect, display a subversive, yet readily apparent extension of historical colonialist perspectives that, I argue, result in environmental separation and destructive environmental practices.

Upon further contemplation, I decided that, as long as I clearly state that I am using my understanding of historical patterns as examples to look at how one might approach incorporation of such ideas into a management plan, not necessarily as some inclusive depiction of the correct path for the specific sites I’m considering, then this chapter could serve to help clarify my position and management methodology. In no way do I intend any of this actual paper to provide the specific historical or cultural basis for management in either of two areas mentioned. This would be a hypocritical, short-sighted mistake that would destroy the very foundation of my ideology. As I will clarify in the chapter on management, I believe that it is important for a truly representative group of the regional population to decide all aspects of the management of any area from the very beginning. Outside sources can be used, as is deemed appropriate by the indigenous population, but I believe that the affected population must do the ultimate decision making.

When I speak of indigenous populations, I consider any population, including that of the Eugene, Oregon area that I currently inhabit, as the appropriate decision making population for its specific environmental management strategies. Extending this concept, global environmental issues would be handled hierarchically by representatives of each region. Obviously with such issues it is more difficult to attain a truly representative population and thus the needs of many might not be met. My hope is that with a greater focus on regionalism, global environmental concerns would become less of a concern. Ultimate extension of this concept would focus on bioregionalism and ecologically based development of products where boundaries would be defined ecologically and not politically. These areas would then deal with their own waste management problems as much as possible. This, in turn, would foster development of “life-cycle” products based on natural ecological recycling principles where “waste” as it’s known today would be greatly limited.

In no way do I intend to espouse some fantasy of the “noble savage” that lives in key with his environment harmoniously, attempting some gross generalizations about all indigenous populations in the world, which, again, would define me as over-simplifying and destructive. I do believe that the traditional colonial mind-set which deals with environmental and cultural issues from afar will be inherently ineffective precisely because the environmental issues do not directly affect the colonialist governing bodies - the colonized environment is simply another area to be used - not one in which the colonialists have a direct, easily visible, environmental dependence and understanding of cause and effect relationships. As a result, I believe that the core management ideology which I defend in my paper would be just as relevant in the Fiji Islands as in Amherst MA.

Following a few more comments, I present some culturally and historically contextual information that might be relevant to environmental management in Fiji and Belize. As a note to the reader, throughout this paper I refer to personal observations drawn from my experiences living in Fiji and Belize for one year. I begin with a general historical background of both Fiji and Belize, specifically examining differences before and after colonial influence. While both Fiji and Belize became established as major producers of sugar and more recently have become prime tourist destinations, from my analysis I realized that the most important element of colonial influence for both countries is that a created society and culture has arisen. Both countries are now dominated by people of non-indigenous descent. Both countries also have complex political, economic, and class boundaries that strongly follow racial lines. Tensions are high in both countries and Fiji has already had two coup d’etas. Furthermore, despite the recently gained “independence” for both countries, they remain a part of the British commonwealth and are indirectly dominated by multi national interests. I believe that the continuation of colonialist practices and their resultant complexly constructed societies must have serious environmental implications.

To conclude this chapter, I briefly allude to some ideas regarding the presented historical and cultural context. The fifth chapter of this paper, regarding management recommendations contains my deeper analysis of the relevance of colonial influence for grass-roots bottom-up environmental management in both of the specific study areas.

As a final word of warning, one must be cautioned that most of the sources used are written by people from the “colonialist” background, not the indigenous inhabitants. A brief episode of which I was informed recently might help to demonstrate the potential (ir)relevance of much of this material: A student was in the island of Nauru in the South Pacific when she asked some local people about a festival she had read about in a book. The person she asked looked at her quizzically, then laughed heartily and said, “You read about this in some book right?” This student informed her that she had, in fact, read about the festival in a book that is widely quoted and considered, “the source for general history of the South Pacific islands.” The islander then said, “...we lied to that guy for years! He was obnoxious and everyone here hated him. There isn’t any festival like that!” Though the islander might potentially have been lying to the student, this example points to the difficulty of non-indigenous peoples speaking for others on any issue. It is very difficult to determine what is correct. Of course even indigenous populations might experience a further complication of this problem; for example the people of Nauru could have so many tourists coming to the island who are interested in this supposed festival that the Board of Tourism decides that it would be a good way to increase money to the economy. The festival might eventually become a real part of the culture. All of this shows that the issues presented are very complex.

Despite these complexities, I believe that the most viable management options will incorporate socio-economic and historical perspectives automatically if the regional population determines them. Furthermore, those perspectives will come from within the populations, who have a stronger grasp of the relevant socio-cultural issues than external sources. In the following, I examine potential areas to look at, as possibly relevant, but ultimately feel that the affected population will best decide relevant issues.

§Brief History of Colonial Belize

§Geographical Context of Belize

Belize is located in Northern Central America in the subtropical belt. On it’s immediate borders are Mexico to the North, Guatemala to the West and South, and the Caribbean Sea to the East (Figure 1). This small country, including the 20 km offshore and extensive inland lagoon systems is only 49% land and consists of a mere 46,620 km2. Reflecting this oceanic importance is the extensive reef system in the near coast of Belize. The 132 mile reef extending 25 miles off shore is the second largest barrier reef in the world. Further exemplifying this importance is the catastrophic impact of the rare cyclone that hits Belize; massive hurricane damage to this low lying country resulted in a move of the capitol from Belize City to Belmopan in 1971 (Ministry of Tourism and Environment 1994).

§Arrival of Europeans

Most Belizeans are not the indigenous Maya, but descendants from immigrants brought by different colonial powers (Shoman 1994). Throughout the colonial history of Belize, most of the Mayans were either killed off, through warfare and disease, or driven off of the colonial frontiers. Belize has become a nation of immigrants who have been decultured and re-oriented to British and United States identity (Spear 1990).

Initially English settlers arrived and used cayes, the southern coast, and mouth of the Belize River as bases from which to loot Spanish ships and harvest logwood for use in dye. Due to logwood related conflicts, British and Spanish relations were strained. Eventually peace treaties in 1783 and 1786 resulted in definition of natural resource concessions, including logwood and mahogany. Furthermore, no formal government, agriculture, or productive economic activities, other than wood cutting, were permitted. Though these concessions established that sovereignty was to be retained by Spain, settlers, including African slaves, beat off the Spanish attempts to capture St. George’s Caye in 1798. Following their victory, the English settlers formally requested British colonial status (Waddell 1981; Bolland 1977, 1988).

§Slavery, Racism, and Development of Colonial Dependence

African descended slaves were brought from the West Indies early in the 18th century. The slaves, brought primarily for cutting Mahogany, soon outnumbered the colonists (Dobson 1973). Though considered “slaves by name only” because work conditions were different than those on plantations, the number of runaways, abortions, suicides, murders of whites, and cruelties to slaves show that this myth is skewed and that slavery existed similarly to other areas (Bolland 1977, 1988).

This belief of non-slavery is found throughout oral histories and historical counts, resulting in a false context of the Creoles as British allies, resulting in separation from other colonially influenced cultures. Furthermore, this works to further the ideology of white supremacy; the Creoles do not consider the British as having inflicted any injustice. There is a sense that the Creoles freely denied their traditional African cultures, traditions and languages in preference for the British ideology that masks the true history of imposed slavery. Slavery, with little contact of those from the same geographic areas of Africa, prevented free use of language and preservation of cultural and traditional values. As a result, the British are not held responsible as separate entities for the evident poverty and underdevelopment; the Creoles consider themselves British so to them there exists no separate entity (Mintz and Price 1977).

When living in the Toledo district, Belize, I found pro-British attitudes to be common among the Creoles I spoke with. Many people considered themselves proud citizens of Britain and some of the older people I spoke with seemed genuinely angry about Belize’s independence. British products were often favored above others and there seemed to be a common false sense of the relative power of modern England; at one point I was speaking with some children in my middle class host family when they started arguing with me how England is the most powerful country in the world. The children eventually asked their parents. The father looked genuinely sad and reticent when he concurred that maybe England wasn’t quite the most powerful country any more. I also found that, along with an imposed internal color hierarchy, the Creoles deemed those with the least English influence as less sophisticated. Those that spoke primarily Creole or other languages, with a lack of ability in English, were considered less intelligent.

Though slavery was abolished in 1833, freed slaves were rapidly incorporated as indentured servants. The inaccessibility of available land due to British monopolization and the use of advances and truck systems kept the former slaves dependent on the British (Bolland 1988). In the late 1800’s many former slaves were incorporated as indentured servants for the increasing business of sugar production. Rapid growth in this industry and rice production caused the British to look to East India and China for new sources of labor. The British encouraged the Chinese and Indians to retain their traditions, which were considered conducive to hard work and revolutionary suppression. Ultimately, this retention of tradition by Asian groups, as opposed to disavowal by African groups resulted in further separation of the different peoples of Belize (Bolland 1986).

Another slave derived people, the Garifuna constitute a small population with a dominant influence in modern Belizean society. In the 17th century slaves escaping from shipwrecked European boats escaped to the Lesser Antilles. On these islands the former slaves mixed with the indigenous Caribs to produce the Garinagu people, most often referred to today as Garifuna. The Garifuna are generally darker than Creoles because of the limited European influence on their genealogy. Their language is primarily based on a Carib Indian language. In 1795 a Carib rebellion against British authority on St. Vincent resulted in deportation and exile to Honduras. Eventually many of these Garifuna migrated and settled on the coast of British Honduras. Despite their generally common descent, the Garifuna have never been accepted within the Creole community, which deems them inferior (Glassman 1989). Gonzalez (1988) postulates that this lack of acceptance is due to false rumors spread by the English settlers that depicted the Garifuna as evil devil worshippers. According to Gonzalez (1988), the Creoles who were faithfully attending the English missionary schools, appropriately reacted as good British Christians and joined in branding the Garifuna, some of whom might actually have been related to the Creoles.

Belize formally became the colony of British Honduras in 1862. This decision allowed the colony to serve as a major source of wood throughout the expanding empire. To retain their dependence, Britain required that the settlers import nearly all life necessities. Due partially to the early colonial treaty with Spain, Belize stayed relatively undeveloped; little land was used for roads and agriculture. Only women, young children, and the elderly within the slave population were allowed to farm small plots of land for personal consumption. These general patterns resulted in little development or environmental degradation (Dobson 1973).

The British settlers had little contact with the indigenous Mayan people until coastal logwood supplies were exhausted and woodcutters began moving into their forests (Bolland 1988). The Maya quickly responded to encroachment with military action. This action was quelled by British troops and the Maya were hence considered a serious threat to logging operations. Following continued Mayan resistance and fighting, ultimately they were adopted into the British colonial structure. In the second half of the 19th century, the relations between Mayans and English settlers improved as resource use shifted from forestry to agriculture (Jones 1989).

Despite external assimilation of the Mayan people, socially and culturally they remained remarkably autonomous. To govern them, the British implemented the Alcalde system, which consists of regional town council with mayors. This system, which uses a central mayor figure termed an Alcalde, was designed to meet the British conceptions of the Mayan people as primitive and weak, thus requiring a small de-centralized government (Bolland 1988). The Alcaldes were approved by the British and served to allow indirect control of each Mayan village. Despite British approval, the Alcalde system provided a means by which the Mayans could remain relatively independent of further colonial influence for a brief period of time (Jones, 1989).

This autonomy was quickly shattered when an increased interest in agriculture caused the British to look to the Mayans as a potentially large labor force. In the 1860’s the colonial authorities withdrew land rights from Mayans. From that point, Mayans could live on reservations or rent land from the “rightful owners”. The British felt that Mayans land ownership would threaten British dominance because of increasing independence and decrease Mayan incentive for laborious plantation work. Mayans were also goaded into labor by imposition of high land rents. To further add insult, the British set up these plantations on the land that was already in use by Mayans for subsistence farming (Bolland 1988). In effect, the British had observed the Mayans as farmers, stereotyped them as a people suited for agricultural conditions, then forced them into a situation where they had few options but to work on land that they had used for thousands of years. All of this so that they could pay high taxes to live on land that they had previously owned!

This same system of indirectly forced labor was used for the Mestizo population as well. Most of these genealogically Mayan and Spanish mixed immigrants arrived in the 1847 War of the Castes of Yucatan. Though allowed to own land, land availability for these populations was rare (Bolland 1977). This colonial dependence continued through later wage reductions and constant demands for increasing rent payments (Bolland 1988). The use of Mestizos and Mayans for agriculture and African descended Creoles for wood cutting worked in sync with linguistic and cultural differences to create a hierarchical structure with Europeans at the top, Creoles of mixed descent second, then those of pure African descent, and finally, the “savage” Amerindians at the bottom (Jones 1989).

§The Arrival of Refugees and Mennonites

The last large influxes of people into Belize were refugees and Mennonites. Refugees have historically come to Belize from surrounding Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras to escape social repression and political volatility. Though today these refugees are allowed to own land, this has resulted in disgruntlement and accusations by other groups that these “aliens” steal land, which rightfully belongs to the “true Belizeans” (Dobson 1973).

Many Mennonites came to Belize in the late 1950’s when trying to avoid inclusion in the Mexican social security system. The Belizean government established conditions that allowed them to freely practice their religious and educational beliefs. The Mennonites generally segregate themselves from the rest of society and have thus avoided large-scale inclusion in most political or racial conflicts (Sawatzky 1971).

§Recent History and Current Problems

§Industry: Sugar, Citrus, Tourism and Fisheries

By the late 1970’s, sugar became Belize’s prime industry. Due to pressure from organizations such as USAID, Belize has put so much effort into expansion of the sugar industry that thousands of jobs would be at stake if sugar demand falls. In attempts to diversify Belize has begun investing in citrus, bananas, and various other food crops, including corn, rice, kidney beans, beef, poultry, and honey. Most recently, tourism and fisheries have become very important for Belize (Spear 1990).

§Independence and the Continuation of Colonialism

Despite recently acquired independence in 1981, the tight fist of colonialism has yet to completely loosen its grip. Along with evident connections to Britain in being a member of the Commonwealth, more subtle holdovers are evident in surviving racial and class barriers. As Waddell (1961) states, class distinctions in Belize are closely tied to color for most populations. Those with lighter skin are generally from higher classes and thus benefit from increased opportunities in education and, as a result, employment. The United States exerts direct influences on Belize in terms of tourism, agriculture, and Belizean emigration. Belize has become a prime spot for tourism, particularly from the United States. The eventual effects on the beautiful reef and forest systems are yet to be fully understood. Partially due to a treaty that England signed with Spain hundreds of years ago, agriculture and large scale deforestation has never directly impacted Belize. As a result, Belize is still nearly 90% forested and, compared to its Central American neighbors, agricultural development has not had much impact. I further examine these issues in the chapter on management (Spear 1990).

§The Growth of Gang Violence and Drugs

Spear (1990) states that many Belizeans leave their country in search of greater economic possibilities in the United States. Unfortunately, most of them can’t find good employment opportunities and many join gangs and sell drugs. Inevitably, these youths are deported and, as a result, they have brought the gangs and drugs of the U.S. with them. Now it’s common to see signs of the “Bloods” and the “Crips”, the two largest L.A. gangs, especially in Belize city. Violent street crime is rapidly increasing (Shoman 1994).

§Television and the View of Colonialism Today

The direct impact of colonialism still in effect is best summed up by a quote from Caribbean novelist George Lamming speaking in reference to Caribbean states (Shoman 1994: 308):

They Govern but they do not rule. The transnational corporation has assumed a novel dominance in all regional affairs. Domestic policy is determined by international lending agencies. Independence has not yet won the right to sovereignty.

Today the biggest threat of colonial impact might be subtler yet. The United States continually broadcasts tens of channels of television to this country. The impact of constant barrages of advertisements and television programs which are filled with products and people that are irrelevant to local surroundings can only be guessed at. Many people in Belize that I knew watched just as much television as any United States families that I know of. Furthermore, they strive to be able to purchase the products advertised and alluded to in television programs. I spoke to one man that said that it was common for people to spend large sums of money on clothing items, which clearly were not designed for tropical environments, only to have them quickly ruined in the excessive heat and humidity.

Shoman (1994: 307) exemplifies the impact of television with another quote from George Lamming which states, “....the massive insult of imported television...is...not only imported...not only bad, it is the garbage of another world unloaded on a mesmerized and uncritical populace.” Shoman continues by saying, “Television is very much part of the global capitalist system, controlled by huge transnational corporations which make phenomenal profits by promoting false needs to multiple millions of people...if the market system is creating great expectations while at the same time poverty is increasing and the gap between rich and poor is getting wider, the social outcome is increased crime.”

I personally had a dramatic experience with the effect of television when a man stopped me on the street and spoke to me for over an hour about television. He told me that if I have any compassion for his country, I should go and change the television being broadcast to Belize; he believed that it was ruining the minds and spirits of the children of his generation.

§Brief History of Colonial Fiji

§Geographical Context

As in Belize, Fiji is a country dependent on its oceanic surroundings. Fiji is a group of over 320 beautiful tropical islands in the South Pacific. The 18,200 sq. km. of land is spread over 100,000 sq. km. of ocean. Fiji is the center of the cultural crossroads of Melanesia and Polynesia. Due to its proximity to Australia, New Zealand, and other Pacific countries, Fiji is a staging-post for airlines and shipping (Tinker et al. 1987). See Figure 2 for a map of the Fijian islands.

§Pre-Colonial Overview

Thousands of years ago, people from Asia moved in small bands into nearly every inhabitable island on the South Pacific. Each group of people inhabiting different islands developed languages, cultures, and societies which were carefully and skillfully balanced to adjust to their particular physical setting (Oliver 1989b: 1-5). Approximately 3500 years ago, groups that had already colonized more purely Melanesian countries such as Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands ventured further East into Fiji, a group of over 300 islands in the center of the South-West Pacific. These people brought root crops, animals, and Lapita pottery to aid in establishment of a culture primarily based on their Melanesian roots. The incorporation of Micronesian and Polynesian cultural traits in Fiji shows that, early on, this group of islands was the foundation of the cross-roads of the pacific (West 1961: 1-3; Howe 1984: 10-13; Oliver 1989b 14-25).

Howe (1984: 53) states that at the time of European arrival in the South Pacific, most islands societies had achieved a balance between population and essential natural resources. If such a general balance is true it might be explained by social-grouping systems such as those used by the Australian Aborigines. Many tribes of Australia extend social groupings to include plants, animals, natural forces, and natural objects. This universally inclusive social system allows the conception that all human beings are interrelated with all aspects of “nature” (Oliver 1951: 28).

Fiji held a large stratified chiefly society where the eldest males, were directly descended from the founding fathers of the chief clan or community of their tribe (Howe 1984: 62). Each tribe was divided into between 2 and 7 groups or “communities” to relegate responsibilities such as fishing, hunting, farming, crafts, fighting, and medicine. Those born into a specific community enacted duties associated with it. For example, if one were born of a chiefly clan, they would act as ministers, advisers, and councils. Sons of the chiefly clan are expected to act as a repository of tribal knowledge and must assume responsibility for the well-being of the entire tribe (Roth 1953: 59-64; Howe 1984: 62, 256; Personal Communication with a minister of a chiefly family in Savu Savu, Fiji). The actual chief is selected from the chiefly clan based on his ability and merit. The number of large tribal units in Fiji fluctuated, but immediately before European influence the number was probably at least 7 (Howe 1984: 256-258).

§Rapid Change - the Colonial Impact

Within the past few centuries, nearly all of these islands were rapidly altered by “Occidentals and westernized Orientals” who “transformed them into pastures, plantations, mines, and Sunday schools....whatever...they touched...they altered or destroyed”. (Oliver 1951: 3). Oliver (1951: 3) continues to briefly summarize the changes brought by the colonialists:

Missions needed converts, so savage exuberance was reduced to drab sobriety. Grazing required land, so the inhabitants were pushed off it. Copra required labor, so villages were ransacked for semi-slaves. Cane Growing demanded more monotonous efficiency than the masters could inculcate , so natives were shoved aside and Asiatics brought in in such numbers that they overwhelmed what was left of island life.

The sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries are termed the “Era of Discovery” in the Pacific. During this time Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and English charted out the islands of this ocean. Interestingly, at the same time that these “discoverers” of the Pacific Islands were barely able to escape the confines of the small land-locked Mediterranean sea, the “primitive” islanders had used their precocious navigational and seamanship skills to explore and populate most of the islands of the Pacific (Oliver 1951: 63). Though initially deemed “primitive” by Europeans, their ocean-going outrigger canoes were made to massive proportions, some 24 meters in length. Furthermore, they incorporated “modern” design features such as deep vee hulls, planking, ribbing, specialized caulking features, and sails designed to reduce drag and increase speed (Howe 1984: 22).

§The First Settlers: Whalers, Traders, and Missionaries

The first groups of Europeans to go to the Fiji Islands were whalers, traders, and missionaries. The rich schooling grounds of whales in Oceania were discovered in the late 18th century. This initial spawn of whalers had serious environmental and cultural consequences. As Oliver (1951: 77) describes it, “Picture the scene of a thousand lusty fellows suddenly turned loose...after months of poor rations, hard discipline, and body breaking work, away from the sight of women and the smell of rum....the science of a geneticist [would be] needed to appraise its lasting consequences”. Fortunately such scenes were apparently rarer in Fiji than in the more Polynesian islands due to the treacherous reefs and hostile inhabitants (Legge 1958: 10; Howe 1984: 258).

The first sustained impact was incurred by the various traders and merchants who came to Fiji, initially during the sandalwood rush of 1804 to 1810 (West 1961: 13). Following sandalwood, Beche-de-Mer, coconut oil, pearls, nacre, and tortoise shell were extracted; many to near complete removal or extinction. Exceptionally grotesque was the fascination with dried preserved human heads held by curio-hunters. Apparently the demand eventually led to an alarming increase in deaths of natives and reportedly some chiefs would even allow white traders to pick the heads to be dried from among the living (Oliver 1951; 78-79).

These traders exploited the native populations to their advantage. Exempt from governmental control found in their European homelands, they lied, cheated, and frauded to the best of their ability. Often this resulted in retaliation and counter retaliation, giving the Fijian islands a reputation for violence enshrined in the name “Cannibal Islands” (Oliver 1989: 46-59). Some of the first colonists arrived at this time in the form of deserters from ships and escaped convicts from Australia. Often these “beachcombers” were tolerated and even adopted due to benefits of their knowledge of firearms in native wars (Legge 1958: 10-11). Unfortunately, the exploitations of traders existed at least until 1951 when Oliver (1951: 79) wrote, “...even today in places like New Guinea one can hear traders complaining that natives are being ‘spoiled’ by too openhanded whites who barter goods or currency valued at fifteen cents for the product of a single day’s work.”.

Along with the obvious direct environmental impact, trading was particularly disastrous because it initiated Bau as the center of Fiji. The natives of this island were given large quantities of firearms and encouraged to use this new technology to take over a large area of Fiji. Eventually Fiji was thus transformed from a system of many loosely linked, yet constantly warring chiefdoms to a short lived kingdom with Cakobau (pronounced “Thakombau”) as the first ruler of all of Fiji (Howe 1984: 258-266).

The environment land culture changing acts of the traders and whalers were certainly great, but perhaps the most profound initial effects were felt by the large scale introduction of missionaries. Nearly as soon as the Europeans arrived, missionaries were used to colonize and control these countries. The English were particularly mischievous in these ventures in that they devised a scheme of control that required little expenditure from Her Majesty’s pocket-books. Britain avoided annexation due to high monetary and military costs, choosing instead to allow the government to develop itself as long as it heeded the advice of missionaries (Legge 1958: 1-10; Oliver 1951: 74).

Part of the success of missionaries might be explained by their relatively unimposing nature; these were the first white settlers that neither took the local women or goods and who maintained that they were solely there to help. Another obvious reason was the abundance of western goods accompanying any group of missionaries. Initially many Fijians did not convert but welcomed these Europeans primarily because it increased their contact with trader vessels and their desirable articles, such as firearms (Howe 1984: 268). This Christian influence was generally used for political as well as capital gains. Only when Cakobau had fallen from power and was in immediate threat from the US and England for alleged deeds against settlers did he welcome conversion to Christianity (Legge 1958: 12; Howe 1984: 269-273). Due to Cakobau’s high status, his conversion resulted in a nearly nationwide adoption of Christianity (West 1961: 16).

The missionary influence was thus subtler; power gained through conversions of chiefs and influential elders. Eventually of course, all aspects of Christianity were brought to the islands, including the eventual pitting of different island peoples against each other due to differences in beliefs of which Christian based sect was correct. The culmination of such religious differences are exemplified by the acts of Bouganville Island in 1931, where Methodist and Catholic converts were actively burning each others’ temples (Oliver 1951: 81-83).

When missionaries came to Fiji, they were appalled by the “un-Christian” displays of naked flesh and thus rapidly informed the local heathens that God would not tolerate such behavior. Following much prodding, and convincing of religious superiority due to greater military ability, the islanders decided to adopt the Europeans’ ways and began thoroughly covering their bodies, despite the repressive heat and humidity (Roth 1953: 14; Oliver 1951: 81). When I was at the University of the South Pacific, one student from the Solomon Islands pointed out the irony of this situation when he stated, “Nothing personal, but Europeans must be crazy -- first they come and tell us to cover our bodies with all of these clothes. As soon as we agree...they come back and want to walk around our beaches naked!”

A similarly impractical trend has resulted in housing construction. Traditionally Fijians used thatched houses but today most houses in Fiji are made of corrugated metal. Though now widely accepted, Roth (1953: 11-15) states that initially Fijians prided themselves on houses based on those of their colonists but apparently were also aware of their inappropriate nature for their tropical environments. Corrugated metal houses are intensely hot during the day and uncomfortably cold at night. Before a near universal change to this style of housing, many islanders who had adopted it would escape to their neighbors’ huts constructed of traditional housing material during exceptionally hot days or cold nights. Though traditional housing had many benefits, increased longevity and manufacturing time for metal roofs may have been the primary deciding factors for the wide-spread shift to this building material.

§Cultural Transformation from Colonial Agriculture

Following initial impact by small groups of whalers, traders, and missionaries, agriculture began in Fiji, eventually resulting in the profound transformation into the colonially constructed society existing today. Though each of the early European groups caused definite change, they joined together to set the seeds for real British growth in Fiji through the cotton and sugar industries. These industries eventually resulted in uncontrolled colonization by British nationals, the adoption of Fiji as a British possession, and two coups in 1987 and 1991 (Legge 1958, 12-13; Kaplan 1995: 188, 210).

In 1858, along with the arrival of the first British consul, came the cotton planter in need of large amounts of land, labor, and ordered conditions. A large scale need for cotton arose following the Union blockade of US cotton after the Civil War. This demand allowed Europeans to exploit the resources of Fiji, eventually causing it to be the center of the South Pacific cotton boom (Oliver 1951: 90). In 1858 there were only thirty or forty European settlers. Within eight years this number had multiplied to well over one thousand. In that same time period, Europeans had laid claims to 235,000 acres of land, nearly twenty thousand of which were already being used for the production of cotton (West 1961: 16-17).

This claim of large amounts of land certainly caused problems for the Fijians who traditionally probably didn’t even believe in the concept of land-ownership. They considered that they were selling land usage rights to the foreigners, not the physical land. Furthermore, often land sales consisted of vastly unbalanced trades of trinkets or guns to the local chief. Chiefs sometimes sold land many times, thinking that land use was in negotiation and that, of course, more than one group could use a single piece of land (West 1961: 17-18).

Surely the biggest change came about because the colonists had difficulty enticing local Fijians to do their plantation work. They had no great need for money from the colonists; nearly all of them lived a subsistence life, fishing and farming. If one ever fell sick, their village would take care of them. As a result, Fijians had no incentive to work under colonial masters in cotton and sugar plantations.

In the beginning, labor primarily came from surrounding South Pacific Islands in the evil practice of blackbirding. Blackbirders would go to other South Pacific islands where often illiterate natives were either enticed through lies, or forced at gunpoint to “sign” contracts of labor which they usually weren’t even capable of reading (Oliver 1951: 94-96; West 1961: 18).

§A Plea for Fijian Cession

It was at this time that serious discussions of Fijian cession began. William Thomas Pritchard, formerly Acting Consul at Samoa was determined to establish Fiji as a legitimized British colony. He saw Fiji as a, “‘highway of commerce’ between Australia and Panama...a base...for the development of trade in the south seas as a whole...[with]...great possibilities as far as soil, climate and native labor...for the growth of cotton” (Legge 1958: 29). Cakombau, the self appointed King of Fiji was easily convinced by Pritchard to promote a British cession. Cakombau had been increasingly worried about how to pay the grossly overestimated debt that a settler had requested in reference to Fijians stealing items from the settler’s house following an accidental house-fire. Since Cakombau had no way to pay the large sum of money requested, he believed that joining the British Empire would relieve him of his Kingly responsibilities for his people’s ill deeds. Following Cakombau’s approval, Pritchard was able to get all of the most powerful chiefs of Fiji to agree to allow the annexation of Fiji (Legge 1958: 32).

Pritchard brought samples of high quality Fijian cotton with the information of requested cession to the Colonial Office in Britain. Due to a variety of complexities, based primarily on lack of certainty of easy control and economic incentives, Britain chose not to annex Fiji for nearly twenty years. Though initial promise with the cotton industry resulted in much interest, rapid increase in sugar production and a rising settler population experiencing difficulties with Fijian governance were probably the prime incentive for the official annexation of 1874 (Howe: 276-277; Legge 1958: 2-3, 284).

§The Sugar Industry and the Arrival of East Indians

The onset of the sugar industry was also the genesis of Fiji’s primary political problem today. From the initial stages, the sugar industry was completely monopolized by British and U.S. companies - the islanders had no claim to either operation or profits taken in by the nation’s prime source of profit. As previously mentioned for cotton, the Fijians had little interest in working for the sugar companies and thus a massive import of labor from East India began (Oliver 1951: 91).

§Breakdown of the Traditional Communal System

The mixture of East Indian and Fijian culture has caused a variety of problems, unresolved even today in 1996. Coulter (1942: 3) described how the infusion of individualistic Indians resulted in breakdowns of the traditional communal system. The traditional communal system that provided a Fijian with life necessities such as food, clothing, and housing gave no initial incentive to adopt individualistic lifestyles used by the incoming Indians and Europeans. At least currently, this system seems to extend even beyond one’s village.

When in Fiji recently, I witnessed a general lack of respect for private property. People warned me of this initially because once something is lent, there is no expectation that it will be returned. For example, several different people commented on my guitar saying, “I had a guitar once...”. When asking where each individuals guitar was, I inevitably ran into a long story of how it was initially loaned to a relative or friend who loaned it to someone else, who loaned it again, until eventually the person had completely lost track of the object.

Throughout my six month stay, this system was constantly evident; one would not smoke a cigarette, drink, or eat without sharing it with everyone present. In fact, when drinking alcohol, the same glass was used by all present. A single person would fill the glass from the communally purchased liquor, then hand it out to the first person on the left who would down the whole glass and hand it back. This person would then return the glass and it would then be filled and handed to the next in line until everyone had a shot, after which the circle would start again. Everyone was expected to drink the exact same amount. It was further considered very rude to hold ones pack of cigarettes or food item and consume it if others present were interested in partaking.

I found this system to be intriguing and still firmly entrenched but with increasing western pressure, the future seems to be yielding definite change. One of the biggest threats is probably the imposition of Western materialist based class structures. As certain people acquire Western items, a refrigerator or TV, for example, which are not commonly held by the society at large, an uncharacteristic greed begins to set in. Suddenly people lose their interest in loaning out their newly acquired valuable possessions because they realize that it’s highly unlikely that they will get an equivalent item back in the future. This communal system traditionally worked partly because Fijians have ready access to a constant supply of enough healthy food due to large amounts of fertile soil and fishing grounds. The Fijian climate is also always characteristically tropical and thus no need exists for work spent heating or insulating shelter (Coulter 1942: 1-14). Hopefully Western influence won’t change the fact that (Coulter 1942: 20), “...an economic structure that lets one man starve while another plows under his corn must seem very cruel to a Fijian who gave freely of his yams and bananas to a neighbor who was in need.”

§Problems of Introduced Labor: Fijian and East Indian Conflicts

As a result of abundant food and space, the traditional life style has been relatively laid back. As Coulter (1942: 40) states, “...no one is called on to labor diligently and regularly; all are fed and sheltered and have plenty of time left over for social gatherings, recreation and lying in the shade. No one lives below a comfortable subsistence level...” This still persists throughout much of Fiji and other South Pacific Islands; several friends of mine regularly questioned why they bothered attending the University due to the excessive work pressure compared to traditional subsistence living on the islands. One of them said, “All I do when I’m home is go fishing every once in a while and maybe grow some Taro...Most of the day I just hang out and talk to my friends and family. I really have trouble motivating myself sometimes because the way I usually live seems so much easier and more fun than being in school.”

To create incentive for work, in light of this communal system, the Europeans began imposing a system of tax burdens. Fijians had no other way to pay these taxes and thus some form of occasional work became more common. (Coulter 1942: 3-6). As more indentured Indians were brought to Fiji and decided not to return to India following their stay, the population and resultant effects of Indian immigration grew. Many Indians were overjoyed to arrive in Fiji whose largely untapped resources marked a strong contrast to the competitively dominated society and the continual want and poverty of their homeland (Coulter 1942: 24).

As a result of this pleasant contrast and open possibilities for financial security, the hard labor involved in sugar cane cutting was a small price to pay for the independently minded Indians who soon flocked in large numbers to Fiji. By 1916 Indians were firmly in place economically and were demanding more political and property rights. Soon after, in 1926, sugar cane was the biggest business concern (Coulter 1942: 25-26). The Indians also rapidly reproduced, quickly becoming the dominant population financially and numerically. The reasons for this quick rise to a higher population of Indians than Fijians consist of lower reproduction rates among Fijians, higher mortality among Fijians, earlier average age of child-birth among Indians, and apparently a lower average number of female children borne to Fijian women (Roth 1953: xiv).

Fijians soon became worried that the Indians would take over their economy, land, and political rights due to their rapid rise in the sugar industry and growing independently spawned businesses. Though there were exceptions, Fijians usually had great difficulty competing because they had little direct economic incentive. Furthermore, their communal culture was nearly antithetical to individualistic market based capitalistic competition; traditionally one who had many things would give more items away to others and would not generally remain wealthy for long. Those that didn’t were frowned upon by others. As a result, a Fijian shopkeepers first priority is taking care of any people that come in and ask for his goods, whether they are able to pay for them or not. Obviously such a shopkeeper will do poorly economically when trying to compete with someone who doesn’t give away most of his stock for free (Oliver 1989: 133). The failure of Fijians to become directly important economic constituents is demonstrated by their 5 percent contribution to the national tax between 1965 and 1967. In these same years, Europeans contributed 49 per cent and Indians 40 per cent (Norton 1977: 10-11).

Indians continued to rise economically in power until they controlled nearly the entire smaller economic infrastructure. As Indians prospered economically, they were also more capable of paying for education. This educational advantage further added to their ability to secure high paying jobs. This resulted in a system where, like Belize, major social and economic divisions follow racial lines. The Europeans were on the top with control of all major economic and political position, the Indians secondary, and the Fijians on the bottom, controlling only their own property (Norton 1977: xiii, 10-11).

§The Rise of Cultural Tension and Resultant Coups

Following independence in 1970 (Central Office of Information 1970: 1), tensions continued growing between Fijians and Indians until in 1987 a military coup, replaced the “multi-racial” Labor party with an entirely ethnic Fijian chauvinist government and constitution . Following this coup, Indians were regarded as second class citizens with no land-holding privileges and reduced economic and political rights. During the time of the coup, many Indians were beaten and castigated. As a result of an uncertain future, a mass emigration was enacted which resulted in a population reduction to 48% Indian, down from well over 50% prior to the coup (Kaplan 1995: 11, 158, 188-189). Today, though less obviously volatile, the situation remains uncertain; many Indians I spoke with are worried and are still hoping for an opportunity to move to Australia, New Zealand, or the US.

§Current Colonial Control

As in Belize, direct impacts of colonialism are evident. Traditionally islanders subsisted on wild taro, yams, fish, turtles, crabs, lobsters, shrimp, clams, and sea cucumbers (Oliver 1951: 12). Though this kind of diet is still common today, I found increasing usage of canned products from Australia, Japan, Europe, and the United States. Particularly ironic was seeing people purchase canned fish for high prices, which was caught in Fiji by a multi-national corporation based in Japan or the US.

Though much less obvious and even subtler than in Belize, television is beginning to impact Fiji as well. Only in the last two or three years has Fiji had television. Only a small minority of the population currently receives the one television channel consisting of a strange blend of US, European, and, Australian programming. Though the effects of television will not be felt until the future, going to the University of the South Pacific slightly over a year after its introduction provided me with a window into some of the possible effects of this powerful technology.

Each of the rooms formerly set up as a common space for a certain area of dormitories had been remodeled with a television set. Students would flock to these rooms and watch the one station for hour upon hour, transfixed, watching the inane shows that had, as far as I could see, little direct relevance to their lives besides presentation of a trite, falsely depicted future that doesn’t even present life in the countries the shows are filmed in with any reality. The television images are becoming grained in a perverted display of caricatures of the wealthy and the beautiful that parade around in dazzling lights, taunting the islanders of a future that no one, not even the actors in their shows could hope to attain. Nearly everyone I met assumed that everyone in the United States is vastly wealthy, incredibly beautiful (probably largely because colonial imposed racial identity but possibly also to the generally implicit handsomeness of television actors), and possessing of large amounts of guns.

It was amusing and interesting to answer questions about the composition of my village and how Madonna or some other famous personas were doing. It was less amusing to have countless people tell me that their biggest dream is to go to the United States because of the apparently golden paved streets, racial harmony, and beautiful people. One person told me that his one requisite to happiness was whether he set his foot in the US before he dies. One of the more disturbingly dangerous misperceptions I encountered was an over-weight Samoan transvestite that had been accepted as an exchange student to a large state school in the southern US. S/he couldn’t wait to go to the incredibly liberal and accepting US atmosphere that would allow escape from the traditional teasing and taunting that Polynesians sometimes indulge in for their relatively common transvestite population. I can only pray that such teasing has been the worst thing encountered here in the US.

§Colonial Impacts and Implications for the Environment

§Summary and Comparison of Colonial Impact

People of any “third world” country are intrinsically tied through a socio-economic system that fosters the development of one part of society at the expense of another. They share a history of continuing social and political exploitation by other countries. By definition, colonialism implies a relationship of social inequality whereby the colonialists exploit the human and natural resources of the colonized area. In European colonialism this created a common exploitive root that resulted in an intrinsic relationship between all exploited peoples of a colony, regardless of cultural or ethnic background (Depres, 1967). Colonial societies are typically composed of many different groups because they are used and exploited for their specific cultural and physical make-up at different times depending on the economic or functional needs of the colonies (Wadell, 1961).

This has resulted in a common fragmentation of the majority poor working class based on ethnic and racial differences that prevents unification and results in a continuance of foreign dominance. Different races or cultures are considered ideal for different kinds of work (Williams 1991). For example, in Fiji, and to a lesser extent in Belize, a vast number of East Indians were brought to the islands to plant sugar; the Fijians could not be coaxed into this work because their communal system and relatively relaxed tropical life-style gave them no incentive to work for hard hours for money which they had relatively little use for (Coulter 1942, pp.). This class and race stratification has resulted in a framework for which the “independent” post-colonial societies are still based upon (Williams 1991).

Inherent difficulties have resulted for those whose life depends on low-wage work in colonial societies. As a result of racially based class distinctions, many people descending from colonial rule are still working in serf-like conditions. Despite surface level changes in labor structures, laboring people have found it difficult to free themselves from this influence. Until at least 1940, ex-slaves and their descendants in Belize were still locked in colonial labor constructs (Dobson 1973).

§Colonially Induced Racial Boundaries

The colonial system has further created strongly delineated racial boundaries for intellectual and moral abilities; invariably those with the lightest skin color, which is closest to that of the colonialists, are deemed superior to those of darker shades (Dobson 1973). When studying in Belize and particularly in Fiji, I continually experienced the “white man advantage”. I was permitted to enter clubs that the bouncers would find some reason to deny my friends. I continuously witnessed that lighter shaded people were considered more attractive; people would actually use skin color as a designation of attractiveness. Some students from the Solomon Islands told me that they considered themselves ugly due to their very dark coloration. Furthermore, I was informed that the most attractive people were those of “white” descent, the “Europeans”. Many students I spoke with would use racial terminology to speak of the other students at the University of the South Pacific of different ethnic backgrounds (USP is the university for 12 South Pacific Island countries).

Racism might be a prime causative factor for the riot that I witnessed when I was at the USP. In this fight, many Solomon Island students were severely beaten by Fijians to the extent that one of my friends was in a coma for six months and another had nearly every bone in his body broken. The fight lasted for hours and the one lone security guard was a Fijian who made no action to halt it; aimlessly waving a flashlight around. My reason for linking this to racism is partly based on my experience hearing Fijians speak in racist terminology of the Solomon Islanders, the darkest of the people of the Pacific islands. Certainly these islands might have tension for other reasons and this is a subjective opinion. These racial boundaries that proclaim “white” as the most desirable shade create a system in which colonially influenced indigenous people are pitted against each other while the colonialists continue exploiting them and their resources.

§Colonial Control Through Education

This has even permeated into the educational systems where schools and churches were used by missionaries and teachers to internalize virtues of humble work, social order, and obedience to authority, allowing the perpetuation of British superiority (Bolland 1988). Education in both countries is based on the English system where the children are taught to sit and take in the teachers’ words of wisdom, memorize, and spit the knowledge back.

In my experience of one semester at the University of the South Pacific, I encountered nearly no student based questions and little demand for critical thinking skills. The classes seemed to be largely structured to see the quantity of material that students could memorize. This material to be memorized is sure to have a significant British influence. Most of the students would religiously copy down every word the teacher said, re-write their notes as many times as possible, and often do poorly on the exams; despite the huge amount of effort put in by most students, it was nearly impossible to memorize such vast quantities of information.

Furthermore, many of the primary schools, and at least in Belize, all secondary schools (Waddell 1981) are run by churches with denominations in rough proportion to the total number of adherents. This results in schools functioning to further segregate the population into different religious groupings instead of focusing on issues dealing with unity. In Fiji schools were often mono-racial (usually Fijian or Indian) resulting in an early age separation of the two cultures (British Central Office of Information 1970: 27):

There is no racial segregation in schools, but because of problems of differing backgrounds and languages, primary schools are usually attended by children of the same race.

Further separation and marginalization might occur because school is taught in English in both Belize and Fiji, which is, in fact, the national language for both countries. Students of a background in which English is not their first language would be exceptionally disadvantaged. In Fiji this might have been particularly pronounced as a class dividing mechanism because primary schools were sometimes taught in the vernacular but secondary school was always in British. Those students that didn’t go on to further education would be disadvantaged in their own society in which the educated elite primarily use English (British Central Office of Information 1970; Waddell 1981).

§Conclusion and Implication for Environmental Management

As I stated initially in this chapter, I am hesitant to draw strong conclusions regarding which historical and cultural issues are the most important for environmental management. I am even more reticent to state definitive specific management priorities based on this historical data because I am not a local constituent and therefore my declaration of such a specific agenda would be counter to my very thesis.

As I will argue in the last chapter, I believe that there is a definite need for the industrialized world to help these countries become truly sovereign nations with less dependence and certainly less control. If not for them, Belize and Fiji would not exist in their current colonially constructed state. I believe that environmental protection can only work in these countries if all of the local people are empowered politically and economically to guide their own protection strategies. Economically advantaged countries, particularly those that have had profound impacts, should provide themselves as a scientific and economic resource. If given the opportunity to use these resources, the local populations will hopefully be able to secure an environmentally sound future. Otherwise, the colonial practice of resource exploitation is bound to continue. Furthermore, if local people are in a forced state of poverty, they will have no option but to use their resources in the cheapest easiest way, with little regard to future implications of resource degradation, which might well result in a complete inability for economic independence.

§Literature Cited

• Assad, S. 1994. Thirteen Chapters of a History of Belize. Belize City: Angelus Press. pp. 303-318
• Birch, D., and Diffenderfer, M. 1995. Bioregional Planning in the Twenty-First Century: Problems and Prospects. In: Hickey, K., and Demetri, K., eds. First International Interdisciplinary Conference on the Environment Boston: International Environmental Association Proceedings. pp. 1-6.
• Bolland, O. 1977. The Formation of a Colonial Society Belize, from Conquest to Crown Colony. Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 106-146.
• Bolland, O. 1986. Belize: A New Nation in Central America. London: Westview Press. pp. 39-68.
• Bolland, O. 1988. Colonialism and Resistance in Belize. Belize: Cubola Productions.
• Carrington, C. 1968. The British Overseas: Exploits of a Nation of Shopkeepers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 543 pp.
• Central Office of Information London. 1970. London: Her Majesties Stationary Office. 34 pp.
• Coulter, W. 1942. Fiji: Little India of the Pacific. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 156 pp.
• Depres, L. 1967. Cultural Pluralism and Nationalist Politics in British Guyana. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co. pp. 3-15.
• Dobson, N. 1973. A History of Belize. London: Longman Group. 362 pp.
• Duncan, A. 1995. Life-Cycle Thinking: Integrating Pollution Prevention with Consumer Choice. In: Hickey, K., and Demetri, K., eds. First International Interdisciplinary Conference on the Environment Boston: International Environmental Association Proceedings. pp. 28-33.
• Glassman, P. 1989. Belize Guide. New York: Passport Press.
• Gonzalez, N. 1988. Sojourners of the Caribbean: Ethnogenesis and Ethnohistory of the Garifuna. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
• Grant, C. 1976. The Making of Modern Belize: Politics, Society and British Colonialism in Central America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 7.
• Howe, K. 1984. Where the Waves Fall: A new South Sea Islands history from first settlement to colonial rule. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. 403 pp.
• Jones, G. 1989. Maya Resistance to Spanish Rule. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. pp. 99-123.
• Kaplan, M. 1995. Neither Cargo Nor Cult: Ritual Politics and the Colonial Imagination in Fiji. Durham: Duke University Press. 226 pp.
• Kelly, J. 1991. A Politics of Virtue: Hinduism, Sexuality, and Countercolonial Discourse in Fiji. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 266 pp.
• Legge, J. 1958. Britain in Fiji: 1858-1880. London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd. 307 pp.
• Mayer, A. 1973. Peasants in the Pacific: A study of Fiji Indian Rural Society. Berkely: University of California Press. 233 pp.
• Mintz, S., and Price, R. 1980. An Anthropological Approach to the Afro American Past: A Caribbean Perspective. USA: ISHI.
• Norton, R. 1977. Race and Politics in Fiji. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 210 pp.
• Oliver, D. 1989a. The Pacific Islands: Third Edition. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. 304 pp.
• Oliver, D. 1989b. Native Cultures of the Pacific Islands. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. 172 pp.
• Oliver, D. 1951. The Pacific Islands. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 313 pp.
• Plano, J. 1980. The Latin American Political Dictionary. England: Clio Press. pp. 25, 60-61, 197-199.
• Roth, G. 1953. Fijian Way of Life. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. 176 pp.
• Sawatzky, H. 1971. They Sought a Country: Mennonite Colonization in Mexico (With an Appendix on Colonization of British Honduras). Berkely: University of California. pp. 331-367.
• Setzekornm W. 1981. Formerly British Honduras: A Profile of the New Nation of Belize. Ohio: Ohio University Press.
• Smith, R. 1971. Culture and Social Structure in the Caribbean: Some Recent Work on Family and Kinship Studies. In: Horowitz, M (ed.). Peoples and Cultures of the Caribbean. Garden City: The Natural History Press. pp. 448-475.
• SPEAR. 1990. Spear Reports 3: Profile of Belize. Belize: SPEAR (Society for the Promotion of Education and Research). pp. 1-35
• Tinker, H., Duraiswamy, N, Ghai, Y., and Ennals, M. Fiji. The Minority Rights Group: Report No. London: Expedite Graphic Limited. 16 pp.
• Tumin, M. 1969. Comparative Perspectives on Race Relations. Boston: Little Brown. pp. 293-312.
• Waddell, D. 1961. British Honduras, a Historical and Contemporary Survey. Connecticut: Greenwood Press Publishers. pp. 61-82.
• West, F. 1961. Political Advancement in the South Pacific. London: Oxford University Press. 188 pp.
• Williams, B. 1991. Stains on my Name, War in my Veins: Guyana and the Politics of Cultural Struggle. Durham and London: Duke University Press. pp. 145-152.
• Wright, A., Romney, D., Arbuckle, R., and Vial, V. 1959. Land in British Honduras: A Report of the British Honduras Land Use Team. Colonial Research Publications No. 24. London: Her Majesties Stationary Office. 327 pp.
• Wright, R. 1986. On Fiji Islands. New York: Viking Penguin Inc. 257 pp.
• Wright, R. 1989. Time Among the Maya. New York: Weidenfield and Nicholson.
• Figure A: Map of Belize and the Port Honduras Area
• Figure B: Map of Fiji