Pomare II of Tahiti and Polynesian imperialism

Abstract

and Tahitian states during the first decades of the nineteenth century, was a result of European contact. Powerful chiefs in a hierarchical society, hitherto circumscribed by custom, were quick to realize the advantages of terri torial control and economic exploitation and compete with the European entrepreneur on his own terms. Sailing ships could be used to convey property and display authority. For short periods, both the Hawaiian and Tahitian rulers cast their nets wide across the great sea of islands. Until European contact had weakened the traditional standards of social and political behaviour throughout Polynesia, concepts of dynastic hegemony and sustained 'imperial' expansion were almost unknown. This was not due to lack of personal ambition on the part of the major Poly nesian chiefs. Rather, it was the result of adherence to certain principles of political behaviour which appear to have been held in common by most of the Polynesians, despite the variations in the political structure of the groups.1 Pre-eminent was the principle of duality, an affirmation that good government can only be secured by the balance of power. A second balance, that of responsibility in a graded society, was achieved by the strict regula tions governing the 'ariki' or ruling class. The most politically significant of these rules was that which permitted the slaying or banishing of an oppressive ruler. In Hawaii, for instance, according to the 'civil polity', many kings had been put to death because of their oppression of the common people and a list of such occasions was incorporated in the maxims for government. The third principle of government was that which extolled personal hegemony. There was every provision in the majority of the Polynesian communities for the rise of a leader who had the trust of most of the people. The genealogical structure was usually such that a forceful candidate for paramountcy could acquire the necessary titles through his own descent, by marriage and by other forms of diplomacy. The mystique of personal rule was highly developed notwithstanding a customary regard for the rights of the individual. Because of these principles there was little scope for any significant

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 33 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.