Possessing the Pacific: Land, Settlers, and Indigenous People from Australia to Alaska

by Stuart Banner

During the nineteenth century, British and American settlers acquired a vast amount of land from indigenous people throughout the Pacific, but in no two places did they acquire it the same way. Stuart Banner tells the story of colonial settlement in Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Tonga, Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska. Today, indigenous people own much more land in some of these places than in others. And certain indigenous peoples benefit from treaty rights, while others do not. These variations are traceable to choices made more than a century ago--choices about whether indigenous people were the owners of their land and how that land was to be transferred to whites.

Banner argues that these differences were not due to any deliberate land policy created in London or Washington. Rather, the decisions were made locally by settlers and colonial officials and were based on factors peculiar to each colony, such as whether the local indigenous people were agriculturalists and what level of political organization they had attained. These differences loom very large now, perhaps even larger than they did in the nineteenth century, because they continue to influence the course of litigation and political struggle between indigenous people and whites over claims to land and other resources.

"Possessing the Pacific" is an original and broadly conceived study of how colonial struggles over land still shape the relations between whites and indigenous people throughout much of the world.

Genres: History, Law, Nonfiction, Indigenous

400 pages, Hardcover

First published November 1, 2007

Reviews

[Boyd Cothran · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent and insightful comparative study of land dispossession throughout the English-speaking Pacific world during the age of colonialism. Looking explicitly at the processes of land dispossession in a variety of locations, Banner reveals how local economic conditions, the political unity of the Indigenous communities, and the timing of land dispossession all resulted in different outcomes across a variety of circumstances. Would have been interesting if Banner hadn't limited himself to colonial projects carried out by English speakers.

[Katherine · Rating 5 out of 5]

EXCELLENT historical summary of the property law issues of various indigenous groups in the Pacific as they were taken over by the Americans and the British. Learned a TON, highly recommend.

[Brynn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Loved Banner’s writing!! Learned a TON, especially about settler colonialism in Australia and New Zealand. Great book!

[Malcolm · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the frustrating things about having an interest in and working on issues to do with histories of colonialism is the lack of good comparative studies: I don't expect to agree with them (and prefer when I don't) but I do want more of them. There are often claims made in histories of particular areas that are comparative but these tend to be based on policy and official statements rather than on-the-ground practice – and I know from my policy work in New Zealand that on-the-ground practice in terms of colonial era land acquisition can vary markedly within the same jurisdiction and policy instruction, let alone between jurisdictions.

So, Banner's contribution to Anglo-world (using Belich's recent label) Pacific history is most welcome. He is a law professor at UCLA and seems to have used his study leave to get to some fabulous places to produce case studies of Australia, New Zealand, Hawai'i, California, British Columbia, Oregon and Washington, Fiji and Tonga, and Alaska. This is in many senses the sort of close on-the-ground investigation we need.

His case is that land acquisition in the Anglo-world Pacific was influenced by three factors (never explicit in policy but interpreted from practice): 1) the existence of indigenous agriculture as a key factor in British recognition of any specific property rights (cultivation implies ownership and demarcation of space) – this was seen as a marker of 'civilization'; 2) the degree of indigenous political organisation: the more large and complex political organisation was, the more likely the British were to recognise ownership rights (and these indigenous groups better at physically resisting occupation – and treaties are cheaper than wars); 3) speed of settlement and timing of establishment of imperial control (arrival of whites before colonial government and their practices placed constraints on colonial governments re recognition of specific types of title). But that these were modified by 1) long term trend through 19th century towards concern with welfare of indigenous peoples and disenchantment with land acquisition by treaty on humanitarian grounds; and 2) local contingencies.

It is, I think, a valuable contribution to comparative colonial and legal histories. Of course, local specialists will find fault (there are elements of the New Zealand case which I think are problematic) but I suspect none of them would be so serious as to invalidate the case being made, and the book's value to a range of scholarly areas. The case is lucid, clearly written, and straightforward in argument – but I suspect the readership will be limited mainly to other academics, and people working in the policy sector dealing with the effects of land loss (BTW – those effects are fairly common across the region, despite the major differences in land acquisition policy). This is, I think, a major contribution to the field

[Matthew Rohn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting comparative history of the white pacific somewhat in the vein of Lake and Reynolds' Drawing the Global Colour Line, but about settlement rather than state solidification and with more of a legal history bent. My understanding is that some of the indigenous history here leaves out some important elements, but if you read with that in mind it's still very worthwhile