The second half of the nineteenth century saw the violent recurrence of the struggle between Tumua and Pule. 1844 to 1855 was the worst period of these civil wars, which involved nearly the whole of Savaii and Upolu. Before his death, Malietoa Vainu'upo - the last Tafa'ifa - visited the Tui Manu'a; these two leaders agreed that Samoa, because of the nation-wide acceptance of Christianity, was ready to acknowledge only one ruler, God.21 Consequently, Malietoa's mavaega (last testimony) scattered the Tafa'ifa titles amongst the various political districts. Malietoa's idealistic but naive faith in the ability of his people to keep the peace under Jehovah was a direct cause of the resumption of the Tumua-Pule wars. And even the missionaries could not stop their newly won converts from going to war.

From 1855 to 1866, Samoa experienced a diminuition in the struggle, especially under the ‘pule’ of Malietoa Moli. However, when Moli died in 1866, the wars resumed. The British consul and the missionaries, believing mistakenly that the ‘kingship’ was a hereditary one, supported Laupepa, Moli's son. Laupepa was rejected by Pule, but backed by Tumua. Moli's brother Talavou was Pule's candidate. Conflict broke out between the two factions. But the wars were not as severe as those during the earlier part of the century. By this time, the strife was intensified by the interference of foreign nationals within Samoa. Through the efforts of the missionaries (whose ‘enterprise’ could not function while its congregations were fighting each other) and the intervention of the American, German and British consuls (backing their decision with displays of naval might), peace was restored in 1873, and Laupepa was placed in the throne.

A colourful American adventurer, named Steinberger, made a brief appearance - in the years 1873 to 1876 - as the power behind Malietoa Laupepa's Government. Steinberger promised the Samoans the support of the United States Government, and by doing so, won their confidence and trust. He offered the Samoan political elite a way of restrengthening Samoan forces in the face of the European factions, centred at Apia, which were trying to manipulate Samoan politics to suit their own ends. Up to this time, Samoan efforts at establishing some form of stable Government had been rendered ineffective not only by the factional strife within the Samoan political elite but by the arrogant machinations of the European factions in Apia. To try and maintain their independence from these European factions, the Samoan elite accepted a Constitution evolved by Steinberger. This constitution alternated the royal title between Malietoa Laupepa and Tupua Pulepule, created two houses; Ta'imua (the upper house made up of the high chiefs) and Faipule (the lower house of the talking chiefs). Steinberger assumed the role of prime minister. And for three years Samoa enjoyed a peaceful interlude. But it could not last. The United Stated Government refused to support Steinberger. And because of his very success in gaining the trust of the Samoans, Steinberger exposed himself to the hostility of the European community; he was duly deported on a British warship.

Angered by Laupepa's action in signing the order for Steinberger's deportation, Ta'imua and Faipule dethroned him. Laupepa gained the support of a new party, the Puletua. A'ana and Atua (Tumua), supporting the claims of the Satupua family, put forth Malietoa Talavou as their candidate.

The foreign governments and consuls, concerned about their plantation and trading interests, strove to establish a strong Samoan government that would protect these interests. This task became more urgent when New Zealand attempts to force Britain into annexing Samoa grew more pronounced, and as the Samoans and missionaries pleaded with Britain (and America) to annex the territory. The consuls (and their governments), in this attempt to safeguard their interests in Samoa, signed treaties with various chiefly groups. In 1877, the Germans obtained exclusive rights to Saluafata harbour. The U.S.A. followed suit, in 1878, by gaining similar rights to Pago Pago harbour. Britain was guaranteed equal privileges in 1879. In these attempts to checkmate one another, these Three Powers became inextricably involved in Samoan affairs. Apart from the treaties, Apia was made a separate and neutral municipality governed jointly by the three consuls of Germany, Britain, and America.

This general settlement, safeguarding foreign interests in Samoa, and the acceptance in 1880, by the Samoan factions, of Malietoa Talavou as King, seemed to point towards peace. But Talavou died inconveniently in 1881, and the Samoan factions immediately jockeyed for political supremacy. The consuls advocated annexation as the solution. The majority of the Samoan political elite favoured annexation by Britain, with the U.S.A. as a second choice. Britain and America, however, refused. Economically, the Germans had the most to lose if Britain or America annexed the Territory. So German intrigue became more fervent.

The Germans forged an alliance with Tamasese. When this became known, the Americans and British backed Malietoa Laupepa and Pule. The rivalry between the two alliances began mounting towards open conflict. The Germans declared war on Laupepa, exiled him, and placed Tamasese in the throne. Most of the Samoan elite regarded Tamasese as a usurper and, in the war between Tamasese and Mata'afa - the new Malietoa leader, backed the latter. These events critically increased the tension between Germany, Britain and America, who all sent warships to Samoa. Seven warships gathered in Apia harbour and open war seemed tantamount. Nature intervened. The great hurricane of March 1889, destroyed six of the seven warships, and the Three Powers were forced to the conference table in Berlin. Samoa was declared neutral territory, with all the Powers and their respective citizens having equal rights within that territory, which was now to be governed jointly by the Three Powers. Laupepa was restored to the throne.

The new arrangement was unwieldy and could not work effectively because of the distrust between the consuls and between the Samoan factions. In 1893, political upheaval returned when the Mata'afa faction revolted. After a short but brutal war, the rebels were suppressed and Mata'afa was exiled. At the same time, the Tamasese party rebelled against Laupepa, and had to be put down by the Powers.

When Laupepa died in 1898 and the Supreme Court made an unpopular choice in appointing Malietoa Tanumafili as his successor, Tumua and Pule, in an unexpected fit of nationalism, threw their weight behind Mata'afa (who had returned from exile). In January 1899, a brief engagement occurred between the rival parties. Mata'afa and the rebels were triumphant. Two months later, American warships arrived to enforce the decision of the Supreme Court. March and April witnessed widespread warfare between the Samoan rival claimants. While these factions were engaged in hand-to-hand combat, the warships bombarded the Upolu villages which supported Mata'afa. After the shelling, landing parties burned the villages and plantations.

After these events, the Powers had to admit, to themselves, that the only solution to the Samoan ‘problem’ was partition. In another conference at Berlin in 1899, Upolu and Savaii went to Germany, while America assumed control of Eastern Samoa.

The brief survey of the pre-Partition period reveals some of the major causes of Samoan discontent. From 1844 to 1899, the Samoan civil wars, intensified by foreign intervention, cost hundreds of Samoan lives. All for what? so the Samoan leaders asked themselves: partition was effected without their consent. Some of them, who had wanted annexation, had pleaded for Britain or America. But in the final count, Samoa got Germany, the least preferable of the three.

During the struggle, the consuls, planters, traders and gunrunners used Samoan instability to increase their economic, political, and commercial footholds. They showed little genuine concern for Samoan welfare. When they strove for the establishment of a stable Samoan government, it was in order to safeguard their own selfish interests: stable government would facilitate the development of European plantations and trading. Any form of Samoan government, which did not suit one of these foreign groups, was rendered ineffective by that group. True, the Samoan factions, when in opposition, willingly accepted the aid of these groups, but there were times (such as the Steinberger period) when the Samoan leaders united to establish a unified Samoan government, but foreign interference usually resulted in the disintegration of such a government.

By 1890, Apia had become a state within a state, the bulwark of the domineering papalagi whose attitudes towards the Samoans were determined primarily by economic, political and commercial self-interest. Samoan governments could not function while Apia continued to be the instigator of plots to overthrow governments which threatened the interests of one or more of the foreign minorities. Most of the territory's revenue was controlled by the white inhabitants of Apia, and Samoan governments had no power over Apia. Any laws passed by Samoan governments had no legal effect over the papalagi, while the Samoans were expected to abide by the rulings of the foreigners. When these rulings or decisions were not obeyed, troops and warships were called in to enforce them. The last bombardment of Samoan villages in 1899 resulted in a great loss of life caused not only by the actual shelling but by the famine which followed the destruction of villages and plantations.

To many of the Samoan leaders, the papalagi were attempting to usurp their place as the rightful rulers of Samoa. And while they were usurping this power, they were also taking Samoan land. Many of the foreigners used the unsettled situation in Samoan to gain land cheaply. The Samoans needed arms and ammunition; they had only land to offer for these. Consequently, as the civil wars intensified, more and more land was sold for weapons. By 1894, over 135,000 acres had passed into the hands of the foreigners, particularly to the Germans.

As the papalagi minorities became more numerous and more rapacious - their will backed by the mights of their governments, - the image of the papalagi, in the Samoan mind, underwent drastic changes. The papalagi acquired a reputation for double-dealing, rapacity, and ruthlessness; completely lacking in breeding, they were motivated by the desire for economic and political power over the Samoans; they thought nothing of humiliating the Samoan leaders or breaking Samoan laws and taboos; they had brought the Word of God, yet they were the pharisees.

As Germany and New Zealand discovered later, Western Samoa had only been ‘conquered’ by name.

Apia had come from across the seas, in ships. Had grown out of copra, and the years had nailed it to the seashore. Law and order had come with the consuls backed by warships. Till by 1890 it had become not only the ‘port and mart, but the seat of the political sickness of Samoa’.40

The town was strung along the seashore at the foot of Mt. Vaea. Bordering it to the West was Mulinu'u Peninsula jutting into the sea, like an accusing finger. To the east was Matautu. Windswept, anchored to the soil by palms, and backed by a mangrove swamp, Mulinu'u was the seat of the Samoan paramount chiefs, but, by 1890, it had become the property of the D.H.P.G. Firm.

Next to Mulinu'u lay the stores, offices and barracks of the Firm. Then came Matafele housing German bars, stores, the German Consulate, the Catholic Mission and Cathedral, and ending at Mulivai Bridge. This bridge was the frontier between German influence and the Anglo-Saxon sphere of influence which extended from Mulivai to the Vaisigano River to the East. In this area were Anglo-Saxon stores, the English mission, church and newspaper. Over the Vaisigano, lay Matautu, pockmarked by the pilot-house, the signal-house and the British and American consulates.

Apia was far less glamorous than its physical setting. The houses were meanly built; the buildings being low, hastily put together, and often unpainted. The main street was unpaved, very dusty in fine weather and treacherous in rainy weather.

The population ranged from the permanent transients (sailors and beachcombers) to priests, Protestant missionaries, clerks and merchants. Sometimes, the transients outnumbered the residents. The Samoan population was more numerous than the papalagi, but they lived in the area behind the papalagi businesses. ‘The handful of whites (had) everything. The natives (walked) in a foreign town’.41

The Municipality of Apia had its own Court, collected its own revenue, and was supervised by the foreign consuls.

The seat of Samoan Government was shifted from place to place, depending on the foreign minority supporting it at a given time.

The frontier between Europe and Samoa was the boundary between the Municipality (the Ele'ele Sā) and the rest of Samoa.

All the money, luxury and business of Samoa was centred in Apia, a town which did not come under the jurisdiction of any Samoan ‘malo’, and administered by papalagi for papalagi.

Within Apia, the Samoans did little. The majority of papalagi were merchants, plying a lucrative trade in copra. The town thrived on gossip. Was crowded with amateur politicians whose favorite forums were the bars. (Some found Apia invigorating because of the daily conspiracies). All were after a livelihood narrowly based on copra. Some merchants were famous for foul play in business, (so a competitor would tell you). The only function of the Samoan, in the eyes of the Apia residents, was to supply them with copra and buy their goods.

(organised European Agitation)

The Citizens' Committee as a properly constituted and permanent Association, contrary to the view of the New Zealand Government in 1927, was not formed in 1926; it became the spearhead of European agitation in the years 1921-22. During these two years - the Europeans, namely; O. F. Nelson, A. G. Smyth, E. Curr, A. Williams, E. G. Westbrook and S. Meredith), who later led the Mau, assumed the leadership of the European community. This lengthy period of training up to 1926 gave these men the political experience vitally necessary to the mass agitation of the Mau period.

The Committee grew out of the troubled years of 1914 to 1922, and became the spokesman for the European dissident section. The growth of organised agitation coincided with the beginning of Tate's policy of discrimination, the enforcement of prohibition, the realisation that the Administration's native policy would be costly, the eruption of open Samoan hostility against the Government, the trade recession, the boycott of stores, the organised revolt against the Administration in American Samoa, and the assumption of European leadership by younger more aggressive men such as O. F. Nelson. 1921 was the most critical year in its growth, the year of feverish general discontent against New Zealand rule, the year of the Faipule's Petition to George V.

Before 1921, criticism of New Zealand rule, amongst the European-part-European community, had been widespread but loosely organised. Fourteen months after the beginning of New Zealand civic administration, in July 1921, a premonition of dire things to come took place. A petition, dated 5 July, 1921, was sent to the New Zealand Government by ‘representatives’ of the European-part-European community. The petition was signed by 66 British nationals (‘or half-castes’), 63 Americans, Germans, Chinese, Danes, French, Portuguese, Swiss, Norwegians, Russians and Belgians (‘or half-castes’). Among the signatories were the names - Nelson, Meredith, Westbrook, and Smyth. Most of the petitioners, so they claimed, had had ‘10 to 40’ years experience in ‘Island affairs’. One major grievance was stressed - a grievance which persisted right up to 1926 - FINANCE; the petitioners claimed that the territory was ‘drifting towards bankruptcy’, and that New Zealand should impose a policy of retrenchment and relieve ‘them’ of the ‘heavy burden of taxation’ (which the petitioners claimed had risen by 100 per cent). New Zealand rule, the petitioners concluded, ‘was a hopeless failure’. 46

Accompanying the petition was a table of expenditure and revenue. The table was highly misleading but this table was a forecast of future ‘expert’ reports on finance, health, education, and everything else which the ‘citizens’ wanted to attack.

A short time after the petition was sent, the Minister of External Affairs, E.P. Lee, visited Western Samoa. He returned to New Zealand without meeting the petitioners. (Who refused to meet him). Lee wrote to the petitioners, demolishing their arguments. So the ‘citizens’ continued to meet, agitate, and organise; their next target being Prime Minister Massey, who was planning to visit the Territory. The adamant and continued refusal of New Zealand to satisfy the citizens grievances forced them to organise. This was to be a characteristic feature of the opposition movement: any failure would lead to more efficient organisation, to greater, more concerted anti-Administration activity.

On 31 January, 1922, a meeting of citizens took place in the Apia market place, (later to be their favourite forum).47 The meeting was very similar to the crucial meetings of 1926 in the way it was conducted, the leading personalities involved, the topics discussed and the way they were discussed. The only difference between 1922 and 1926 was the absence of Samoans from the 1922 meeting.

The meeting floated on a cushion of bravery, with the self-styled ‘reformers’ not knowing (or caring) what the consequences of their very promises and actions would lead to four years later. ‘Grand’ meetings, such as this, were rare in the history of Apia. When one occurred it was almost a festive occasion where lengthy speeches and brave resolutions served, to some extent, to relieve the boredom of life on the ‘beach’. (Without concerts, rallies, movies, and other ‘cultural’ features of civilisation). Gave some of the permanent transients some meaning out of a life so far away from Europe and the United States. And like all selfstyled ‘reformers’, they took themselves too seriously, perhaps. They seemed prepared to face any odds because they recognised no odds. ‘The humorous lust for aristocracy in this world is unending … deep in the heart of every … reformer … you find personal envy, jealousy, hunger for personal aristocracy, in a new, clever disguise, running a very close race with desire for more food and less poverty’.48

The meeting was called to formulate proposals to be put before Massey when he arrived, and it marked the ascendance of O. F. Nelson as the leader of European agitation. He was elected chairman, unanimously. (It must be noted here that there was no permanent, properly constituted Citizens' Committee. Committees were appointed for each night). E. G. Curr appeared, for the first time, as a member of the committee; Meredith as a seconder for a motion to draw up a financial statement; A. Williams as a seconder for one committee member; and A. G. Smyth made a verbose, bubbling speech on topics ranging from a Municipality for Apia through to the free press, electric lighting, education, the police force (‘an expensive luxury’), up to elected members for the Legislative Council and the lofty question of prohibition.

After the election of committee members, the hall resounded with speeches concerning certain grievances. The main grievances paraded were associated with indentured labour, finance (agreed that a financial statement should be put before Massey), and prohibition (Massey would be asked to have a plebescite ‘amongst all taxpayers other than natives’ to determine their feelings about prohibition).

Before closing, the meeting agreed to hold another meeting four weeks later. The grievances aired persisted right up to 1926.

Blinded by the belief that the Europeans were people whose ‘lives had been spent in making money out of the natives’, and who were now trying to secure ‘a political ascendancy over the natives’, Tate persuaded Massey to postpone his visit, indefinitely. The Prime Minister did so in March, 1922.

By the end of Tate's Administration, certain racial myths had become deeply entrenched in the minds of the racial groups in Western Samoa. Myths about one another, and myths about themselves and the country in which they lived. These myths are important because they reveal the almost complete lack of communication between the Administration and the Samoans on one hand, and the Administration and the European-part-European group on the other. This lack of communication - the mutual exchange of ideas (views) without suspicion or condition or distortion - make the Mau completely inevitable. These myths - the product of the clash between Europe and Samoa - coloured and distorted race relations at all levels before the Mau and after it. (They still govern, to a marked degree, the race relations in modern Samoan society).

A racialist myth about the Samoans (‘natives’) evolved, in the minds of the papalagi, during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

The papalagi groped for some kind of ‘pattern’ in Samoan society, searched for an ‘average’ type of Samoan personality to replace the eighteenth century myth of the childlike, noble savage which had been shattered when the papalagi had come face to face with the harsh realities of the South Seas and the Samoans. Out of this ‘quest’ emerged a racialist myth regarding the Samoans. A general outline of this myth can be discerned from the list of complaints about the Samoans.50