Hello everyone! Wishing you all a Happy New Year and welcome to the first blog of 2024 on IN THE WHITE.  

This write-up is an essay I had written for one of my postgraduate unit’s in 2023, hope you find it interesting and informative.

Overview 

Situated in the South Pacific region, a small island developing state called Fiji is no stranger when it comes to the topic of poverty. While it has its own social, economic, and political challenges that has contributed to poverty in Fiji, the threat posed by multiculturalism and the influence of international actors cannot be ignored. It is important to note that poverty is a broad topic and documented evidence surrounding this topic is limited, when it comes to research in the Pacific, especially on a specific country like Fiji. However, this Independent Policy Analysis Paper uses several journal articles and book chapters such as “Public Spending and the Poor: Theory and Evidence,” Poverty in Fiji: Who are the Urban Poor? Poverty and Affirmative Action Policies in Fiji: Paradigmatic Fault lines, Introduction: Poverty in Fiji-Evidence from Recent Data, Social Welfare and Poverty Alleviation Programs in Fiji: Are they pro poor? And Strengthening Fiji’s national poverty policies in the context of regionalism “to support its claims.

In the initial stages of this paper, it is necessary to highlight that Fiji gained its independence from the British on 10^th October 1970, and majority of its policies developed during the pre, and even post-independence era were based on race, ethnicity, and economic status. Notably, there were two major racial groups at that time comprising of the Indigenous Fijians and Indo-Fijians communities (Kumar, n.d.) who were imported from India under the indentured labor system. To this research paper, major discussions will cover poverty in Fiji from the period of the 1990’s to the early 2000’s.

Furthermore, the role of international actors cannot be overlooked in the context of Fiji, as it heavily relies on its international partners for development aid, trade, and other diplomatic relations. It may not be as straightforward as it looks since countries seek to benefit from other states through their actions.

Rationale

 The primary objective of this research paper is to assess the role of international actors and their influence on poverty policies in Fiji. some of the key aspects that this document will elaborate on includes poverty based on race, employment opportunities, the use of aid diplomacy and the effectiveness of social welfare programs. While most authors cited in this essay argue that Fiji’s poverty policies and schemes were a failure (Kumar, 2007); (Kaitani, 2007), this write-up will try to investigate the reason(s) behind such claims and possibly propose alternatives to improve the lives of the poor. 

This research is important as it concerns those who do not have a stable income, struggling to put food on the table for themselves or their families or those who cannot afford proper housing. These are common issues faced by people under the poverty line. It is sad to note that there are limited articles relating to poverty in Fiji and this document could add to the limited resource list available. The essay hopes to educate its readers about the poverty situation in Fiji and inspire further research in this area.

Theoretical Framework

This essay will be aligned with the concept of neoliberalism. Although those against neoliberalism question the relevance of the concept to the current political spectrum, claiming neoliberalism is just another form of capitalism (Feldman, 2019), others think neoliberalism was once relevant has now lost its touch in the modern political era. Nonetheless, the author Guy Feldman in his article “Neoliberalism and poverty: An Unbreakable Relationship” notes that “the state, the market and people of the present generation” (Feldman, 2019) play a vital role in understanding how the poor are ruled.

According to Feldman, “restructuring of the welfare state” (Feldman, 2019) took place in the early stages of the 1970’s when economic crisis such as the “inflation and stagnation” (Feldman, 2019) were on the rise.  The welfare state nature of countries after World War two raised serious concerns in the neoliberal camp as they claimed welfare states created a burden on the economy by depending heavily on the state for their well-being. Hence, this would discourage the poor through limited opportunities and push them further into poverty (Feldman, 2019).

The growing uncertainty and inequality are another form of poverty highlighted by Guy Feldman. The labor force is the most affected, especially those who are on short-term contracts, as they face the risk of automatic termination if the contracts are not renewed (Feldman, 2019). Also, the pay is not sufficient to lift the people out of poverty. The author gives examples of such scenarios from the United Kingdom and the United States, but similar situations can be easily found in the Pacific with unskilled labor. The construction industry in Fiji is one where workers are vulnerable to short-term assignments and less income.

Feldman also emphasizes on the “fabrication of entrepreneurial subjectivity” (Feldman, 2019), claiming that neoliberalism has changed the perception of citizenship and what it means to be a good citizen. Feldman believes in the current neoliberal order, citizens are viewed as nothing less than a mechanism of “market actors” (Feldman, 2019), who compete against each other and search for ways to increase their market value.

In line with another document titled “Public Spending and the Poor: Theory and Evidence”, which was reviewed for this essay, a popular Indian economist Amartya Sen highlights the “political economy of targeting” (Walle, 1995), where he views taking a targeted approach would enable assistance to reach as many poor people as possible, at the same time is cost efficient and minimizes wastage (Walle, 1995). While the point put forward by Sen is valid, he is also concerned about ““information distortion” (Walle, 1995) where he states if the subsidies are given to the poor through a specific criteria, those that do not qualify for the scheme or program will pretend to do so to take advantage from the system. The author notes that this is a communal problem around the world. Yet, he proposes to take a targeted approach. This is something that Fiji has tried to do for a long time now, but have they been successful or not is a question that needs to be addressed.

Main Discussion of Relevant Literature

A prominent feature of Fiji is its multiculturalism that gives this island nation a unique identity. But the same diverse ethnic groups became a thorn in Fiji’s development. A journal article titled “Poverty and Affirmative Action Policies in Fiji: Paradigmatic Fault lines” by Sunil Kumar mentions of “affirmative action policies” that were used by governments in ethnically divided countries (Kumar, 2007). As Kumar argues, racial politics in Fiji remained intact after independence in 1970, but a lot of psychological changes took place after the 1987 coup. Those in authority after the coup believed that affirmative action policies were the way forward to achieving equality between Indo-Fijians and the Ethnic Fijians, especially in the fields of business and education. Interestingly, the affirmative action policies did bare fruits of positivity, but came at the expense of racial discrimination and unfair treatment against the Indo-Fijians. Kumar further in his article refers to the 1990 Fijian constitution (Kumar, 2007) that had legal provisions for affirmative action policies favoring the native Fijians in particular. Whereas the 1997 constitution mandated the government to introduce affirmative action policies, to ease the economic communities (Kumar, 2007), which looked like a better option.

In a more general term, the then government policies, especially relating to welfare assistance were concerning as it lacked clarity in mainstream welfare policies (Kumar, 2007). The lack of knowledge and understanding of welfare issues amongst newly appointed employees created a gap in coordination and loss of direction amongst the program administrators. Also, there were no proper mechanisms or procedures to monitor cases once it is approved.

If we are to look at Fiji’s poverty situation post-independence, the challenges faced by urban dwellers cannot be overlooked from those in the rural setting. Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Sustainable Commercial Use of Customary Land in the Pacific 2016-17 View project Indigenous Pacific Approaches to Climate Change View project Jennifer Joy Bryant‐Tokalau in her article “Poverty in Fiji: Who are the urban poor?” the author notes that “one in every right people residing in Suva was a squatter settlement resident, where access to basic amenities such as water and electricity were limited. Tokalau notes that 56.7 percent of people living in squatters where Indo-Fijians, 39.6 percent Fijians, while the rest comprised of other races (Bryant-Tokalau, 2006). If squatter settlements are to be viewed as a base for poverty, then it can be implied that the two major races in Fiji live in poverty.

In economic aspects, those who lived in squatters were mostly employed in the informal sector. The ability to save money were extremely challenging as people spent more in a week, than they could save (Bryant-Tokalau, 2006). Earning around 50-70 dollars a week (Bryant-Tokalau, 2006) is surely not enough for a family of nine to ten people. If there are sick or elderly people in the house, it is added extra cost for the family to cater for the person’s travel and treatment at medical clinics. Local or international remittances played a vital role for the poor as family and friends from villages or overseas sent money to their loved ones. It is fascinating to know that remittances were sent locally although we did not have digital mechanisms as we have today. According to a 1991 survey cited by Tokalau, whatever the poor saved was spent on paying school fees for their children, repaying credit to grocery store owners, or paying utility bills. Hence, they did not get the opportunity to invest in land or house purchasing.

This leads to an interesting question of whether the government assistance schemes are in favor of the poor or not. Miliakere Kaitani’s article “Social Welfare and Poverty Alleviation Programs in Fiji: Are they Pro-Poor?” clearly indicates that the assistance by the government was not enough to meet the needs of the poor. Kaitani considers assorted reasons for this. Firstly, the government does not want to turn Fiji into a welfare state, as it creates dependency on the state, as well as become unsustainable for the country’s economy to survive (Kaitani, 2007). Agreeably, efforts to reduce poverty have not been successful for Fiji due to the unstable political and economic environment, lack of proper wealth distribution machinery or failure to use project funds for its intended purposes (Kaitani, 2007). While income of Indo-Fijians and ethnic Fijians were almost similar, some viewed the Indo-Fijians as slightly above their other ethnic counterparts by six percent whereas the ethnic Fijians and others dropped by ten percent  (Kumar, n.d.), which could be seen as a driving force for discrimination based on race.

Lastly, “foreign aid” (Gounder, 2007) is critical for a developing country like Fiji. These international aid programs have helped the Fijian economy in the past. Sadly, not much priority was given by the government to secure external funds in poverty alleviation. In fact, Rukmani Gounder, in her article titled “Strengthening Fiji’s national poverty policies in the context of regionalism” notes that the government pored in a lot of money through various grants such as bilateral aid, grant aid, and technical co-operation grant aid had enabled the government to inject funds in areas such as economic infrastructure, production sectors and rural education (Gounder, 2007). However, it is time that the government prioritizes and invests in poverty alleviation programs to ensure poverty gap between the rich and the poor is enclosed.

Conclusion

To conclude, Fiji is a Pacific Island nation that is no stranger to poverty risks. Its small economy and unstable political nature increase the threat of pushing more people into the poverty line. This research paper used neoliberal theoretical perspective to look at poverty in Fiji. It is important to note that after independence, the then administration, introduced race-based policies favoring the ethnic Fijians. This was so evident that it was reflected in the 1990 constitution. Notably, there was a competition like environment between the ethnic Fijians and the Indo-Fijians, despite not being a hug poverty gap between the two.

While the author of this document acknowledges that rural poverty exists in Fiji, it highlights the economic challenges faced by urban dwellers, which indicates people in the city and towns were not immune from poverty. Additionally, the findings suggest that most of the poor families lived in squatter settlements with employment in the informal sector where they survived on a 50-70 dollar per week income, with their expenses being much higher. Those that managed to do savings ended up spending on their Childrens’ school fees, repaying grocery credit or utility bills. They were lucky if investment in land or housing was achieved.

Finally, the failure of the government to prioritize poverty reduction programs and seek foreign assistance in this regard, shows that the government was unwilling to improve on the existing packages. Although it claimed not to make Fiji a welfare state and encouraged traditional method of family support. This does not mean the state is not responsible for the well-being of its citizens.

Thank you for reading. I hope you found this piece of writing interesting and knowledgable.

References

Bryant-Tokalau, J. J., 2006. Poverty in Fiji: Who are the Urban Poor. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, August.13(2).

Feldman, G., 2019. Neoliberalism and poverty: An unbreakable Relationship. In: Routledge International Handbook of Poverty. s.l.:Routledge.

Gounder, R., 2007. Strengthening Fiji’s national poverty policies in the context of regionalism. Pacific Economic Bulletin, 17 January.22(2).

Kaitani, M., 2007. Social Welfare and Poverty Alleviation Programs in Fiji: Are they Pro Poor?. Fijian Studies: A Journal of Contemporary Fiji, 5(2).

Kumar, S., 2007. Poverty and Affirmative Action Policies in Fiji: Paradigmatic Fault Line. Fijian Studies; A Journal of Contemporary Fiji, 5(2).

Kumar, S., n.d. Introduction: Poverty in Fiji- Evidence from Recent Data. Fijian Studies: A Journal of Contemporary Fiji, 5(2).

Walle, D. V. D. W. &. K. N. ed., 1995. The Political Economy o Targeting. In: Public Spendingand the Poor: Theory and Evidence. s.l.:World Bank, pp. 12-13.

Hello everyone! Welcome to IN THE WHITE. Hope you all are doing well and enjoying the current festive season. The following write-up is an essay I wrote sometime ago for one of my Politics unit. Hope you find it interesting and informative.

The Begining

Whenever the agenda of colonialism is discussed, the topic of race is often followed. It is like the two go hand in hand. In most colonized countries the race card was commonly used by the colonizers to rule its colonies. This was no exception in the case of the Philippines when the United States took power in 1898. This essay looks at “Race” as a key element to understand the United States’ decision to colonize and the brutal treatment in the Philippines between 1898 and 1920.

Before contextualizing the concept of race and concluding the American choice of colonizing the Philippines. First, it is important to note how race was perceived in the context of the Filipinos. The Americans had two different perspectives of the natives of the Philippines. One group consisting of military soldiers, who had been on the island since its occupation labeled the Filipinos as “nigggers”.[1] The term was commonly used to distinguish class between the Filipinos and the Americans, hence, indicating white superiority. The other view was of an imperial mind, where Albert Beveridge read a speech before the senate in 1900, where he labeled the Filipinos as a “Barbarous race”[2], referring to the three centuries of contact with the Spanish. Beveridge claimed that as a result of their biological constitution, “Filipinos were incapable of governing themselves.”[3] He described the Filipinos as “Orientals and Malaya’s,” although they differed biologically, blood and stock.[4]

To begin with, the Philippine- American war is a major event in understanding the U.S. decision to colonize the Philippines, particularly in the context of race. The battle which is referred to as the “race war”[5] was fought between 1899 to 1902. While addressing a large crowd on Memorial Day at Arlington Cemetery, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt classified his country’s soldiers brutal acts in the Philippines as a “race war.” Although aware of the atrocities done by the U.S. soldiers, Roosevelt justified the actions by saying “for every American atrocity, a very cruel and treacherous enemy had done a hundred acts of far greater atrocities.”[6] Like Roosevelt, Stuart Creighton Miller in his writing puts “racism at the core of the U.S. troops conduct.”[7]  

Racial ideologies and changes in strategy moved side- by side in a dark, violent spiral. Political culture and patterns of warfare gave the Philippines its racial status from the Europeans and Americans. The U.S. natives disliked the way the Filipinos fought the war and classified them as “civilized” and the others “savage.” The civilized were the ones who understood the conventional war, while those who did not were tagged as guerrillas. Given the nature of the fight, the American soldiers saw the Filipinos as savage[8].

The war at Manila Bay marked the start of a crucial six months for both the Philippines and the United States, as the two sides faced off for the first time, unaware of each other’s strengths and weaknesses. The first inaugural encounter between the Filipinos and the Americans was over “food, liquor, transport, and sex”[9]. Constant pressure forced the U.S. to capture Manila and its municipal government, which did not go well with the Filipinos who tried to avoid defeat. At this stage, “colluding interests, mutual suspiciousness and questions over laws easily sparked conflicts”[10] where drunk American soldiers labeled Filipinos as “filthy, diseased, lazy and sometimes described them as niggers”[11].  One black solder recalled the war and said, “The confrontation had not have initially taken place if the Americans had treated us like humans.”[12] It is unfortunate to learn that the American media and its citizens saw the Spanish empire as a threat and deemed its destruction as necessary to establish their own[13]. The Americans viewed themselves as heroes of civilization and peace on the island.     

The “1898 Treaty of Paris”[14]  is a significant document in the Philippines-American conflict as it transferred the country’s governing powers from Spain to the United States for a sum of twenty million dollars, which saw the U.S. expand its powers and desires. The United State political agenda, literature, and scientific racism promoted westernization and living standards. According to the U.S. government, the Filipinos were not to run the affairs of their island nation due to a lack of guidance “on a more civilized western culture.”[15]   

It comes as no surprise, that class, social status, and hierarchy played a strong role in this game of race. According to the organized structure, Anglo-Saxons were put at the very top and people of color were placed at the bottom. The colonizers believed that they had a duty to civilize the lowest-ranked colored population using “culture, religion and political values”[16] of the foreign powers.

Further to this discrimination, it is interesting to learn how a few educated Americans viewed Filipinos. One of America’s prominent experts on the Philippines noted a typical understanding of white superiority. C. Worcester, the man who carried out research work on the Philippines described the Filipinos as having a childlike nature, possessing deceitful traits and dishonesty. Worcester claims that there are more than eighty ethnic groups in the Philippines that were put into three different categories, namely “Malayans, Indonesians and wooly headed, black, savage dwarf and Negritos,” who were later excluded from the human count at once.[17]  

Talking about American contact with the Filipinos after 1898, there was very little change to the perceptions of the Americans regarding the islanders. They continued to view the Filipinos as “lazy and having childish behavior.”[18] The U.S. Army General, Robert Hughes once said in a congress meeting that the Filipino’s only worry was “to attend cock fights, gamble and whet their bolos.”[19] The Americans were quick to make comparisons between the Filipinos and other non-whites, sometimes comparing them to American Indians. Another example of this comparison is reflected in the U.S. Army General, Charles King’s comments, where he describes the Filipinos as “utterly without conscience and full of treachery as the people of Arizona.

The term “nigger”[20] was again emphasized on by Mark D, van Ells, in his article called “Assuming the White Man’s Burden: The Seizure of the Philippines, 1898-1902”, where he also mentions of a new word “gugu” or goo-goo” invented by the Americans as a hate vocabulary for the Filipinos. Filipino women were not spared of this dirty game of racism either, as a Filipino women were labeled as “squaw”[21] by the whites.

As far as the Filipino culture is concerned, the Americans refused to accept that the Filipino culture once existed. This, after Filipino elites were seen as “Glib” and able to run off phrases”[22], from what they had learnt in Spanish developed universities, but had hardships understanding difficult concepts. The catholic and protestant dispute also impacted the Philippines as as the Americans disliked the blending of the two cultures with the Filipino traditions.

To further stress on the point that there is “nothing such as Filipino culture”[23], Worcester claimed that the islanders were not fit for self-governance as a result of being derived racial segregation. He argued that the Philippines was not a nation, but made up of several tribes and its population’s loyalty are to their tribes[24]. However, when the statement was revisited many years later by Dr. Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera, he found the idea of race and racial origin was primitive along with its ideological views superseding its contribution scientific veracity.     

Moreover, the ordinary American population viewed the Filipinos as models in a parade. The featuring of Filipinos in “various ethnological exhibitions throughout the United States and around the world”[25], could easily make one believe that the Filipinos were treated as objects of entertainment. The 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition is a good example of this modeling, whereby the Philippine’s “mestizo class, the clever Visayans, the “strong followers of Mohammed and monkey-like” Negrito population”[26] were showcased in the event.   

Additionally, Philippines labor industry also felt the brunt of the ongoing racial marathon in the country. There were several labor programs introduced under the American regime to increase export market, as well as showcase its economic and military might. The issue of “education and race management”[27] was a major challenge for colonizers, therefore, they set up industrialized schools, a concept derived from the European and American continents. To tackle the problem of race management, stricter laws such as “imprisonment”[28] was put in place. Fascinatingly, Muslims in the Southern part of the Philippines were chosen to spread the developments made by the United States Empire, throughout the country. It is without a doubt that the elites benefited marvelously from this racial division. 

Lastly, the sports arena was not safe either, filled with racist remarks as Dean Worcester, in a 1914 publication claimed that prior to the arrival of the Americans the Filipinos did not know how to play and had no name worthy athletes. He states that it was the Americans who taught the Filipinos to play baseball and boxing, in order to strengthen their muscles and wrist. Another reason to encourage baseball was that, it was the United States official sport, and the fact that the Philippines was now a U.S. territory. The American led “Manila Times” went on to declare “baseball more than just a game but rather a method of influence or power for good.”[29] The impact of the sport was so strong that Filipino children began trying out the game long before the American teachers in 1901, and the inclusion of girls in the sport commenced in 1903[30]. This is somewhat a clear indication of the media and baseball being used as tools to transform Philippines into another United States[31].   

The Conclusion

To conclude, the Philippines became an American colony in 1898 when the Spanish ceded the island for a price of twenty million dollars and the Treaty of Paris. In an effort to refuse American rule, the Philippine-American war broke out, which is often referred to as “Race War” by American scholars and leaders. Dean C. Worcester, a prominent researcher on the Philippines, among other writers claim that the Philippines were not fit to govern themselves. The west argued that the Filipinos lacked the expertise of self-governance and needed to be westernized. It is sad to note, how the Americans saw the native Filipinos as filthy, lazy niggers. The bitter level was so high that new words such as “gugu” or “goo-goo was invented. To impose their governance, the whites questioned the existence of Filipino culture and origin. Apart from dictating the Philippine’s social, economic, political and industrial sectors, the U.S. also influenced the country’s sports arena by introducing the game of baseball and boxing to the Filipinos. Baseball in particular was highly rated as it was the official national sport of the Americans. Prior to the introduction of sports, the Americans perceived that the Filipinos did not have any idea of games or sporting activities. Finally, the events that took place in the Philippines under the colonial leadership of the United States suggest, that racism was used as a driving force to assert the powers of the U.S. around the world.  

Thank you for reading.

 

Bibliography

Ablett, Phillip. 3024. Colonialism in Denial: US Propaganda in the Philippine-American War. ResearchGate , July. Accessed June 9, 2022. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260125750 .

Blanco, John D. 2011. “Race as Praxis in the Philippines at the Turn of the Twentieth Century.” Southeast Asian Studies (Online) 49 (3). Accessed June 5, 2022. https://kyoto-seas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/490302.pdf.

Cadusale, M. Carmella. 2016. Allegiance and Identity: Race and Ethnicity in the Era of the Philippine-American War, 1898-1914. Youngtown State University , August. Accessed June 5, 2022. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=ysu1472243324&disposition=inline.

Charbonneau, Oliver. 2022. Colonizing Workers: Labor, Race, and U.S. Military Governance in the Southern Philippines. Online, Cambridge University Press, March 29. Accessed June 20, 2022. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/mah.2021.4 .

Ells, Mark D. Van. 1995. “Assuming the White Man’s Burden: The Seizure of the Philippines, 1898-1902.” Ateneo ( Ateneo de Manila University ) 43 (4). Accessed June 5, 2022. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42634171.

Gems, Gerald R. 2014. “The Athletic Crusade: Sport and Colonialism in the Philippines.” International Journal of History of Sport (Online) 1-4. Accessed JUNE 9, 2022. doi:10.1080/09523360412331305983.

Go, Julian. 2004. ““Racism” and Colonialism: Meanings of Difference and Ruling Practices in America’s Pacific Empire.” Article in Qualitative Sociology (University of Chicago) 35-58. Accessed June 9, 2022. doi:10.1023/B:QUAS.0000015543.66075.b4.

Kramer, Paul A. 2006. “Race-Making and Colonial Violence in the U.S. Empire: The Philippine-American War as Race War.” Oxford Journals (Oxford University Press) 30 (2): 169-210. Accessed June 5, 2022. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24915090.