|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
... In the case of the Fiji islands, the colonials created a pan Fijian identity that hadn’t previously existed, by their ways of governing the society, and by the importation of Indian Indentured laborers. In Mauritius, the story of colonialism was dissimilar. ... This paper will compare the two seemingly different situations in Fiji and Mauritius, while explaining the communal underlying effects that Colonialism has had on the degrees of ethnic separation in the two countries. ... Today, they make up a vast majority of the Mauritian population numbering over 30,000. ...
This transition of the Indo-Mauritian population from indentured laborers to small farm and business owners was seen as a major threat by the middle class creoles. ...
A new plan for the diversification of the Mauritian economy was set, by putting stock in tourism and other potentially prosperous economic endeavors. ... By the time Independence came in 1968, “Mauritius was a society deeply divided between rich and poor, brown and white, black and brown. ... Eriksen suggests that positive ideals about Mauritian nationhood have come about. He suggests that there is a more homogenic view of the society. A vision stressing the emergence of a distinctive Mauritian culture on Mauritian soil, which is marked by the flowing together of French, English, Indian and African influences. ...
The pattern of colonialism in Fiji during the following century was similar to that in Mauritius: the pacification of the countryside, the spread of plantation agriculture, and the introduction of Indian indentured labor. Colonialism in Fiji served two fundamental purposes. ... Aimed at dividing the colonialised population to facilitate effective political motives, and secondly, a way of protecting Fijian interests against what was seen as an Indian threat. ... ” Gordon was persistent in his attempt to preserve Fijian culture and society; therefore, no Fijians would be asked to work on plantations because that would contribute to the breakdown of the village system and disrupt the balancing scales between the Fijian Chiefs and Governor Gordon. “ His policy of governing Fijians through their own traditional rulers and his creation of political institutions wherein Fijians alone participated were all part of his design to establish that in Fiji, Fijian interests were paramount (Ali 4). ... Due to Governor Gordon’s effort, the colony would achieve economic solvency and maintain traditional, hierarchical structures of the Fijian chiefly system. “From the time the Indians began coming into their (native Fijian’s) country, Fijians expressed anxiety about the influx of newcomers who were so unlike themselves (Ali 136). ... This model has roots both in Fijian and Indian cultures, and in British Colonialism. ... In the world of Colonialism, social intercourse between the two ethnic groups was discouraged.
This model has remained a part of the Fijian society and the Fijian and Indian communities subsequently feel that they each have their own roles in the country as a whole. ...
The 1970’s and the Independence of Fiji brought with it reformed views and forced the Indians and Native Fijians to try and break down the barriers that Colonialism imposed on their society. The Indians hoped that “independence would grant them the importance that colonialism had denied them as a community in its pursuit of paternalism towards Fijians and display of favoritism towards its kinsmen, the European minority (Ali 168)”. ... The removal of the inequalities between the Indians and the Fijians that was set in place by Colonialism would be hard to remove.
Approximate Word count = 2736
Approximate Pages = 10.9
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|