Slavery as an industrial system

by H. J. Nieboer

In Tonga, the lowest class were the tooas. “The tooas can be divided into three categories. A few of them are warriors and form part of the retinue of the chiefs; some are professed cooks in the service of the superior or inferior chiefs; others, and these form the majority, till the soil. The latter are found all over the country and have no other employment”[92].

“The institutions of Niué seem always to have been republican” says B. Thomson[93].

In Samoa, in Turner’s time, a democratic and even communistic régime prevailed. Speaking of the chief, Turner says: “With a few exceptions, he moves about, and shares in everyday employments, just like a common man. He goes out with the fishing party, works in his plantations, helps at house-building, and lends a hand at the native oven.” The Samoans were very hospitable: “In addition to their own individual wants, their hospitable custom in supplying, without money and without stint, the wants of visitors from all parts of the group, was a great drain on their plantations.” Hale states that “the common people are in general the relatives and dependents of the tulafales [landlords] and have no direct influence in the government”[94]. We have seen that recently a class of people destitute of land has been created by some chiefs; but their lot does not seem to be a hard one.

Gardiner, in his description of Rotuma, makes no mention of social classes.

In Tahiti, the lowest class were the manahune, including, besides the titi or slaves, “the teuteu or servants of the chiefs; all who were destitute of any land, and ignorant of the rude [[334]]arts of carpentering, building, etc., which are respected among them, and such as were reduced to a state of dependence upon those in higher stations.” Speaking of the great landholders, our informant says: “Possessing at all times the most ample stores of native provisions, the number of their dependents, or retainers, was great. The destitute and thoughtless readily attached themselves to their establishments, for the purpose of securing the means of subsistence without care or apprehension of want.” That the landholders enjoyed great consideration is also proved by Wilkes’s remark, that the chiefs “find in their possession [of land] an acknowledged right to rank and respectability”[95].

In Hawaii, four social ranks existed. The members of the third rank held land, “cultivating it either by their own dependents and domestics, or letting it out in small allotments to tenants.… In the fourth rank may be included the small farmers, who rent from ten to twenty or thirty acres of land; the mechanics, namely, canoe and house builders, fishermen, musicians, and dancers; indeed, all the labouring classes, those who attach themselves to some chief or farmer, and labour on his land for their food and clothing, as well as those who cultivate small portions of land for their own advantage.” “Sometimes the poor people take a piece of land, on condition of cultivating a given portion for the chief, and the remainder for themselves, making a fresh agreement after every crop. In addition to the above demands, the common people are in general obliged to labour, if required, part of two days out of seven, in cultivating farms, building houses, etc. for their landlord. A time is usually appointed for receiving the rent, when the people repair to the governor’s with what they have to pay. If the required amount is furnished, they return, and, as they express it (komo hou), enter again on their land. But if unable to pay the required sum, and their landlords are dissatisfied with the presents they have received, or think the tenants have neglected their farm, they are forbidden to return, and the land is offered to another. When, however, the produce brought is nearly equal to the required rent, and the chiefs think the [[335]]occupants have exerted themselves to procure it, they remit the deficiency, and allow them to return”[96]. This is quite the reverse of what occurs in slave countries. The slave or serf is prevented from escaping and compelled to remain with his master; the Hawaiian tenant, if the landlord is dissatisfied with the produce brought, is forbidden to return to the land of his employer. In the same sense, Wilkes remarks: “What appears most extraordinary, this bond [i.e. the bond between landlord and tenant] was more often severed by the superiors than by their vassals”[97].

In Rarotonga, the lowest class are the unga or servants who have to cultivate the lands of the nobles, build their houses and canoes, make nets for them, pay them tributes, and in general obey all their demands[98].

In the Marquesas Islands, the kikinos (common people) were servants and soldiers of the chiefs. They were always free to leave their employers. The chief, in his turn, if he was not satisfied with a servant, might expel him from his domain[99]. Here again we may mark the great difference between the lower classes of Polynesia and slaves; for the latter are not expelled by way of punishment, but on the contrary forced to remain with their masters.

In Mangarewa, as has been noticed, the whole of the land belonged to the nobility, who often leased their lands to the third class, the common people[100].

In the Tokelau group, the common people till the lands of the nobles for a payment in kind. A labourer has the right to leave his employer and go into another man’s service[101].