page v

PREFACE

‘Each generation has its own private history, its own peculiar brand of prophecy’.

(Aldous Huxley)

What was the Mau? What were its origins and causes; how did it develop? Did Richardson cause the Mau or not? These were the main questions I set out to answer, if I could. These questions forced me to examine the growth of discontent during the nineteenth and early twentieth century. The growth of Samoan and European-part-European discontent is contained in Book One. Book Two is devoted to Richardson's Administration and the first two years of the Mau.

While trying to answer the main questions, other questions kept intruding. Such as: What type of men were O. F. Nelson and Richardson? Were the ‘myths’ about these men true? Were the Samoans led ‘astray’ by Nelson? Were the Mau's criticisms of Richardson's Administration valid or not? Why did the Commission of 1927 dismiss Mau complaints as being of no consequence. One question led to another and so on. The thesis was getting beyond my control. So I ended it with an analysis of the 1927 Royal Commission. And was stranded with the major task of offering an ‘interpretation’ of the Mau.

What I found necessitated the destruction of certain widely-held views concerning the Mau, the men who led it and those who opposed it. Fearing for my own personal safety, as it were, I have withheld ‘certain information’ which may prove ‘harmful’ to the reputation of certain Mau leaders (now dead) and their families (non living). But wherever possible page vi I have answered the questions posed to the best of my ability. Perhaps not with extreme detachment, but at least with some measure of intellectual honesty. And, I hope, with some degree of sincerity.

The main sources I drew upon were the official records of the New Zealand Administration in Western Samoa. I found these, on the whole, heavily weighted towards a condemnation of the Mau. On the other hand, they contained the information I needed. This information I reinterpreted after wading through the Mau literature contained in files, pamphlets, and newspapers. To achieve more ‘balance’, I talked with and interviewed a number of people who lived during the Mau. Also a few Samoans who may be called folk-historians. This proved extremely worthwhile not only in the actual information gained, but in providing me with a feeling for those troubled years and the men who lived them out; for the problems people faced, how they faced them and why. It also stopped me from creating heroes (and villains) out of the dead.

For this study I am deeply indebted to certain people. To the Archivist and Staff of the National Archives, Wellington. To Mrs Mary Boyd, who, as my tutor and lecture in Pacific history, opened my eyes (and mind) to the importance of studying (and writing down) the history of my own country; and who also suggested the important aspects and themes for this study. To those people and families in Western Samoa who had to tolerate my often stupid and naive questions, especially le Susuga a Saveaali'i Ioane. To Professor Jim Davidson who revealed, to me, how little I knew of the history of my own country.

To all these people, I wish to express my deepest gratitude.