Re: Fiji (to Lou Paulsen)

["Lou Paulsen" <wwchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Blaut <70671.2032@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


>Phil:
>
>"Melanesian-Fijians are not a nation.  They are part of n emergent Fijian
>nation, which *includes* Indo-Fijians."
><
>
>Tell us why Fiji, or some major part of it, was not a nation before the
>Indians were brought in.

While we're exploring this formulation, what is the practical effect of
saying that the population of the Fiji Islands constitute an "emergent
Fijian nation" rather than two nations, two nationalities, two ethnic
groups, etc.?  I suppose an "emergent nation" is a group of people which
isn't a single nation today but which will at some future time be a single
nation (but then what are the parts of it today?).  But, bottom line,
suppose we were to accept this formulation: so what?  Would this make the
indigenous Fijians' grievances go away?  Would it make it reactionary for
indigenous Fijians to protest them or make certain demands?  Would it mean
that progressive Indo-Fijians, or we in the imperialist countries, wouldn't
have to act on them?  What?

Frankly from what I've seen the Fijian communities don't seem to be part of
a single "emergent nation" any more than the various communities in Chicago
are.  But who knows, maybe Phil would claim that everyone in Chicago is part
of an "emergent United States nation."

Lou