Pacific II

Colonising European Armies in the Pacific

Text by Peter Rawlingson, updated in April 2023

European Periods in the Pacific

1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2023
Explorers 1521 1829
Missionaries 1668 2023
Sealers 1790 1830
Whalers 1802 1860
Plantations 1860 2023
Armed Colonisation 1788 1914 2023
Decolonisation 1901 2023

Introduction
Here we are almost at the end of the first year of a Batchelor in Applied Foreign Languages (Asia-
Pacific). In this English course called 'Europeans in the Pacific', you have almost completed a 500-
year trip through colonialisation, starting in 1521 with Ferdinand Magellan and finishing today (in
1914) with the invasion of the Pacific by European armies. You have travelled a long way, with many
long reading hours. After many years of studying English, your B1-level is miles above your Chinese,
Korean or Indonesian levels and should allow you a good reading speed. All this reading has helped
you to become budding (en herb) "Pacific specialists".

Throughout these lessons, we have been studying the biggest change in the Pacific since its islands
were populated, that of colonisation, with an ongoing question (un problèmatique) of when exactly
did colonisation start? Was it with the European explorers? Or was it with the missionaries? Or was it
with the seal and whale hunters? Or was it with the plantation owners? Or did it only start with the
arrival or European armies, which are the subject of this text?

Like almost everything imposed in this world, colonisation was driven by money and power. The
Pacific is a far-away place from Europe. At first, long-distance trade (commerce à grande distance)
was financially unprofitable and the USA was preoccupied with its civil war and conquering its west.
But improved European boat construction and long-distance sea navigation (la navigation sur de
longues distances) made the whaling industry possible. With the whaling, new trading towns went
hand in hand. There was also a political change. With their better weaponry (armements), European
monarchies and politicians became power-hungry for empire-building. Empire-building was also
about money, both finding or exploiting natural riches (maybe gold!!) and growing sugar, cotton,
coffee and coconuts to export back home. I don't that that Spanish colonisation was driven by money,
not because Spaniards are not money-minded, but because the maritime technology of their
1 / 10
colonising period didn't allow much shipping. However, the English were very money-minded and the
technology to sail to the Pacific was ripe (mure). Sometime before 1788, England decided that those
far-away islands would provide useful natural products and their populations would become useful
markets for the products of the new European industrial revolution (1760-1840) and that
"controlling uncivilised" Pacific islanders might be good for empire-building. After the English,
other Europeans and then U.S. governments became interested in politically annexing parts of the
Pacific in a permanent way. They reasoned that the Pacific could be good for making money, for
empire-building, for prestige building, for strategic military purposes, for gold and just to prevent
other rival countries from becoming too big. Starting in 1788, the existing whaling towns became the
hubs (centres) of organised, state-sponsored, Pacific colonisation, which is the subject of these next
pages. You are going to learn how the Philippines became Spanish (and then independent), how
Australia and New Zealand became British, how French Polynesia became French, and how Hawai'i
became American.

This is all interesting stuff for students who have chosen to study for a Degree in Applied Asian-Pacific
Languages. When you finish your studies, this Asian-Pacific field will be your 'forte'. The things you
have learned this semester will be a basis for all your Pacific studies for the next two years. In your 2 nd
year, you will learn more about the geographical side and the contemporary side of today's two biggest
Pacific players, Aotearoa-New Zealand and Australia and in your 3 rd year you will study the issues in
the Pacific that are still unresolved. These issues include, the unequal roles played by Pacific women,
global warming, political problems, economic problems and poverty. You will see that these issues are
not specific to the Pacific, they are global issues.

But this semester has brought you something more than knowledge about Pacific history. It has taught
you how to use English better. Through a couple of targeted grammar pearls, you have learnt to
understand better when you read and to express yourself better when you write.

Final Test Preparation - Grammar

At the end of the semester, during the written test, students will need to remember the grammar
pearls, the first of which asked students to become more familiar with using -ing words, as verbs,
as nouns, as adjective and as reduced adverbials. Before looking for examples in the first part
of this text, try using the word "colonising" in four sentences:
1. as a verb: Many European powers engaged in colonising various regions of the world during
the Age of Exploration.
2. as a noun: The colonising of the Americas had a profound impact on the indigenous peoples
who had long lived there.
3. as an adjective: The legacy of colonising powers can still be seen in many aspects of society and
culture across the world.
4. as a reduced adverbial: Despite efforts to move past its colonising past, the country still
grapples with the ongoing effects of its actions on indigenous populations.

Armed Spanish "Colonisation" in the Pacific

In the late 16th century, the Spanish attempted to settle the Strait of Magellan, with the aim of
controlling (is this -ing word a verb, a noun, an adjective or a reduced adverbial? Verb) the only
known passage between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans at the time. However, because of diseases,
starvation and resupply difficulties, this attempted colonisation was abandoned and the last known
Spanish survivor was rescued by a passing (type of -ing word? Adjective) ship in 1590.
From 1565, the Spanish set up the Spanish East Indies, in and around the
Philippines, but administered from Mexico. In the 16 th century, the Spanish
were present in present-day Philippines, Guam and the Mariana Islands, as well
as Palau, and in Northern Taiwan for a brief period. The Spanish army aided the
Spanish missionaries to set up their missions.

However, the Spanish did not have enough good ships to supply plantations so this "colonisation" was
very small scale, which is why I have not included it in the graph above. All Spanish presence in the
Pacific ended as a result of the Spanish-American War in 1898, when the USA took the Spanish
2 / 10
Philippines and Guam. The vast majority of these people still speak Spanish and are still very religious
Roman Catholics (86%) but they are no longer Spanish colonies. The few remaining (type of -ing
word? Adjective) islands were ceded to Germany in 1899 or to the United States in 1901.

Armed English Colonisation in the Pacific - Australia

Armed English soldiers arrived in the Pacific in 1788, on the 26th of January 1788 to be exact. These
soldiers (who were also jailers) and their escorted convicts (prisonniers) arrived in Botany Bay (near
Sydney, Australia) to build prisons and start a penal colony. This was the biggest fleet of European
ships that the Pacific had ever seen. Why did this huge fleet of 11 British ships go to Botany Bay? How
many guesses do you need? Because Captain Cook had told the English authorities about this good
natural port with lots of fresh drinking (type of -ing word? Adjective) water.

The First Fleet arrived with 1,500 people onboard, half of them being
convicts and the other half being (type of -ing word? Verb) armed
soldiers who, using (type of -ing word? Noun) their arms, controlled
both the convicts and the Australian First Nation people. Despite the
stories that Australian school children are taught, the British soldiers
were not welcomed with open arms by the Australian Aboriginals and
almost immediately the first ‘Aboriginal Resistance Wars’ began. The
first massacre using (type of -ing word? noun) guns, was in
Hawkesbury River in 1794. Unfortunately, it was not the last massacre
and it was not the worst one.

The British soldiers and convicts had "officially" been sent to Australia by the English government in
order to free up space (libérer de l’espace) in English jails. But this is a doubtful reason. It was cheaper
to build more jails in England than to build boats and jails in Australia. The unofficial reason was to
populate or to people (peupler) Australia. Three years later another organised fleet of convicts,
soldiers and settlers arrived in Sydney. For the first time in the Pacific, Europeans began to
deliberately (délibérément) and systematically colonise a country in an organised, military way. The
Australian Aborigines were pacific Pacific people and could not repel the ‘invaders’ and so Britain
continued to ship (expédier) convicts to New South Wales until 1840, at which time the colony's
population of convicts, ex-convicts and their descendants numbered 56,000. These ex-convict
colonisers, together with other ‘free’ colonisers, farmed coastal New South Wales and exported
Australian wool and gold back home. After Britain, several other countries also started colonising
(type of -ing word? Verb) the Pacific. New Caledonia became a French penal colony (une colonie
pénitentiaire) in 1863.

The second helped students to be

come more familiar with using truc de truc-type noun groups such as noun+noun, noun's
noun and noun of noun. In your final exam essay, hopefully, you will be able to use one of each
type. Practice now with the noun group un cri d'alarme.
Your 3 sentences should clearly show why each form was the best one to choose.
1. noun+noun: A cry of alarm sounded in the city.
2. noun’s noun: The firefighters responded to a cry of alarm.
3. noun of noun The citizens' cry of alarm was finally heard

This example, with 'un bateau de guerre' shows some restrictions (bateau = ship in this
collocation)
1. noun+noun: Ship of war
2. noun’s noun: (I think) a war's ship is impossible. I cannot think of an occasion when a war
would "own" a ship. There is only one occurrence of war's ship on the internet
https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/4uwv78/quick_question_why_are_english_native_speakers
3. noun of noun (I think) a ship of war is almost impossible, except as the name of a book or a
video game. Warship

Armed English Colonisation in the Pacific - New Zealand

In 1769, Captain Cook ‘claimed’ New Zealand for the British crown (la courronne d'Angleterre =
noun + noun). In 1819 about 200 European traders, whalers and missionaries were living in NZ, most
were English, from NSW, Australia and a few were French. In 1833, in a first formal move, a British
representative, James Busby tried to annex NZ for Britain, but he had no army. In 1839, ‘The New
3 / 10
Zealand Company’ was founded. It was a shipping company whose express purpose was to
systematically create a British colony in the South Pacific by shipping thousands of British people (en
français Des milliers de Britanniques= noun of noun+noun) to populate New Zealand. Wakefield’s
company (la compagnie de Wakefield = noun's noun) paid the local Māori (les Māori locaux =
noun+noun) as little as possible for the land it brought from them, if it paid at all. Often, they failed to
identify the true owners of the land (les véritables propriétaires de la terre = noun of noun) it
purchased, as Māoris didn’t own land in the European sense. Often Wakefield paid in blankets,
whisky and later muskets.

In 1840, British Governor Hobson (from NSW) and 45

northern Māori Chiefs (45 Chefs Māori du Nord=
noun+noun) signed a treaty. It was called the Treaty of
Waitangi. (………………………. = noun of noun) It made Māori
into British subjects and it made NZ a British Commonwealth
country. The New Zealand Company’s success (Le Traité de
Waitangi= noun's noun) and France’s interest in New Zealand
(L'intérêt de la France pour la Nouvelle-Zélande = noun's
noun) sudden (Jean François l'Anglois) were the two main
reasons why Britain decided to ‘annex’ the country and make
all land sales there a monopoly of the British Crown. (un
Monopole de la Couronne britannique. = noun of
noun+noun)

In 1845, there were 25, 000 foreigners in NZ, in 1853, there were 100, 000. New Zealand was
becoming British and quickly had more Britons than Māori. The colonists’ demand for land forced
normally hostile tribes to unite and in 1858 they chose their own Māori King. In 1853 the first
elections elected New Zealand's first Parliament. (Le premier Parlement de Nouvelle-Zélande =
noun's noun). However, Māori were not allowed to vote until 1867, because they didn’t (individually)
own land.

Between 1860 and 1865, the situation came to an impasse, then to war. Labelling the Māori as the
‘aggressors’, the British waged the then-named ‘Māori Wars' (today named ‘NZ Land Wars’). The
British had an army of 14 000 professional soldiers, (une armée de 14 000 soldats professionnels =
noun of noun) and the help of some Māori, (L'aide de certains Māori = noun of noun) but the Māori,
with the help of some settlers (L'aide de certains colons = noun of noun) resisted. The Māori were
excellent fighters and had over 1000 impregnable pā. No decisive battle was ever fought and by mid
1860s, the war had dwindled (avait diminué) to intermittent local conflicts.

After the early 1870s, when virtually all Māori resistance had collapsed, most of the Māoris (La
plupart des Māoris = noun of noun) remaining land titles were bought up by individual settlers. In
1881, a peace agreement was signed. The British Chief Justice, Mr. Prendergast, ruled that the Treaty
of Waitangi was ‘a simple nullity’, whereupon huge amounts of the best Māori land (D'énormes
quantités des meilleures terres Māori = noun of noun) were confiscated by the Crown and sold to
colonists.

Many of New Zealand’s settlements (Les colonies de Nouvelle-Zélande = noun's noun) were made up
of uprooted (déplacés) British farming communities who came to NZ together and who lived together
in NZ. In this way, many West Country British Anglicans settled in New Plymouth, many Scottish
Presbyterians settled in Dunedin and many Danish people settled in Dannevirke. Owning land was
always the colonists’ priority (la priorité des colons = noun's noun). Using the land and cheap labour,
they produced wealth for the home country. By 1890, the British colonists owned 22 million hectares
of NZ’s total (Le total de la Nouvelle-Zélande = noun's noun) which was 26 million hectares. (26
millions d'hectares = noun + noun). The many Māori with no land at all became tenant croppers and
day labourers. Māori villages vanished. By 1900, much of the forest that had covered the country had
been cut down to make New Zealand a sheep farming country. NZ was British, in both blood and soil.

The third helped students to become more familiar with using long noun groups.
Deter Opinion Size Age Shape Colour Origin Material Attributive Head Prepositi
miner noun Noun onal
phrase

4 / 10
Translate this French 'groupe nominal ' un sac à dos tactique de militaire' into one long noun
group. a tactical military backpack

Armed French Colonisation in the Pacific - French Polynesia

Tahiti, like all Pacific islands, was settled by many somewhat-related Austronesian tribes (describe
each word of this long noun group : adjective that indicates quantity+ adjective phrase that
describes the relationship between the tribes+ adjective that describes the origin of the tribes+ noun
that indicates a group of people with a common ancestry or culture) which lived independently. One
Tahitian tribal chief from Matavai Bay (indefinite article used to indicate a singular noun+ adjective
+adjective+noun+preposition+proper noun) welcomed the first missionaries to his village. These
missionaries were English. The English missionaries helped this chief to gain power over all Tahiti
and to become Tahiti’s first King in 1788. His name became Pomare I. In exchange for becoming King
Pomare I, he allowed his subjects to be converted to Christianity. The new King and the English
missionaries helped each other. Pomare I died in 1803. Pomare II died quite young of over drinking
and Pomare III, his son, died while still a boy. In 1827 his younger half-sister Pomare Vahine IV
possessive pronoun + adjective+ compound noun+ proper noun+ noun) became the first Queen of
Tahiti.
In 1836, during the reign of Pomare Vahine IV, although
most Tahitians were Anglicans, two French missionaries
arrived in Tahiti. They were M. Honaré Laval and M.
François Caret of the Congregation of the Sacred Heart.
Queen Pomare Vahine IV immediately expelled them as she
resented any competition to her London Missionary friends.
At that time the Queen had a consul, a sneeky Belgian trader
named Mr. Jacques-Antoine Moerenhout (indefinite article
+adjective+ adjective+noun+verb+ proper noun). Mr.
Moerenhout convinced many French naval officers, including
Admiral Able Albert du Petit-Thouars, to insist on reparation
from the Queen for having banned the two French
missionaries and for having insulted the French nation.

In 1838, a well-armed French frigate (indefinite article+ adjective+ adjective+ noun) arrived in
Pape’ete and, threatening immediate violence, it demanded $2000 in compensation and a salute to
the French flag. The Tahitian Queen complied, but then she asked Queen Victoria of Great Britain
(noun+ proper noun+ preposition+ proper noun) for assistance, without success. The French
Admiral also demanded free entry into Tahiti for Roman Catholic missionaries. Under threat, the
Tahitian Queen again complied.

Then Admiral Able Albert Du Petit-Thouars suggested to the French government that they establish a
colony in the Marquesas Islands, where whale hunting was good. The French government approved
the idea, especially in order to counter British advances in the Tahiti region. In May and June 1842,
Admiral Able Albert Du Petit-Thouars took control of the Marquesas Islands archipelago (definite
article+ proper noun+ noun) for France. The Marquesan people, who had been there for about 80
generations were outraged and they resisted but, in the end, all Tahitian resistance was militarily
crushed.

After succeeding in the Marquesas, Admiral Able Albert Du Petit-Thouars sailed his fleet to Tahiti. As
the Tahitian Queen was away at that time, and her trusted British advisor and former missionary Mr.
Pritchard (possessive pronoun+ adjective+ noun+ coordinating conjunction+ adjective+ noun+
proper noun) was also away, the French consul, Mr. Moerenhout, encouraged four Tahitian chiefs to
sign a petition that requested France’s protection (from the English) for Tahiti. Admiral Able Albert
Du Petit-Thouars accepted the petition on behalf of France and, on 09 September 1842, declared that
Tahiti was a French protectorate. In the same year, when the Queen (Pomare Vahine IV) returned to
Tahiti, she and Admiral Able Aubert Du Petit-Thouars signed a treaty making Tahiti a French
protectorate. But Queen Pomare refused to cede actual governance. So, on 08 November 1843,
Admiral Able Albert Du Petit-Thouars disposed the monarchy and militarily occupied Tahiti. France
then deported Mr. Prichard to England and the Tahitian Queen fled to the island of Ra’iatea. In 1844,
the French King, Louis Philippe, ratified Tahiti's protectorate status.

The Three-Year War

5 / 10
For 3 years, 1843 until 1847, Tahitians violently resisted the occupation of their island and much
blood was spilt on both sides. Most traditional laws were maintained, including forbidding foreigners
from purchasing land, so very few French colonists arrived in Tahiti. There was little economic
development there and thus little incentive to colonise. Britain and France almost went to war over
what was called ‘the Tahitian Affair’.

Finally, years later, an agreement was reached between the Tahitian Queen, France and England.
Queen Pomare would submit to France’s protectorate as long as France promised not to annex the
Leeward Islands (Ra’iatea, Bora Bora and Huahine). Many French missionaries arrived to convert the
Tahitians to Catholicism, but they were only successful in the Marquesas Islands, where the London
missionaries had failed. Today Tahiti is still predominantly French Protestant (50%), not Catholic
(35%). The native Pomare Family ruled until December 29, 1880, when Tahiti finally became a French
colony. In 1957, the islands were reconstituted into an official French Overseas Territory (indefinite
article+ adjective *3+ noun) and it was given the official name French Polynesia. In June 1880, Tahiti
officially became ‘l’établissement française de l’Océanie’, an annex of the French state.

The fourth helped students to put adverbials in the right place in sentences. English,
unlike French, doesn't often allow adverbials of place, time, circumstance, manner, cause, degree, etc.
to be placed directly after verbs. Name the following types of adverbials and say (yes or no, whether
the are in the right places. Hint: three adverbials are in the wrong places.

Armed North American Colonisation in the Pacific - Hawai'i

Hawaii was a kingdom from 1810 until 1893. (Is this an adverbial of place, time, circumstance,
manner or cause? time Is it in the right place? (yes/no) In 1810 (An adverbial of time in the right
place? Yes) King Kamehameha (1758 – 1819) became the first king. He was a very forward-thinking
King. In 1819, (Adverbial of time right place? yes) seeing what was happening in other Pacific islands,
(Adverbial of cause right place? Yes) he had Hawai’i, (then known as the Sandwich Islands) formally
recognised by all foreign powers as a sovereign nation. Britain, France and the USA agreed to
Hawai’i’s declaration of independence.

His son, King Kamehameha II, ruled equally well and he asked a missionary named Mr. William
Richards to write Hawai’i’s Declaration of Rights (1838), and Code of Civil Law (1839) which became
part of Hawai’i’s first constitution.

The next King, Kamehameha III, died young. King Kamehameha IV also died young (aged 29) and
ruled for only one decade (1855 – 1863) (Adverbial of time, right place? Yes) King Kamehameha V
ruled for one decade (Adverbial of time, right place? Yes) very well as well (1863-1972). The next
King, King Lunalilo drank too much and only stayed for one year (An adverbial of time, right place?
Yes) on the throne. The next monarch, King Kalakaua, toured the world signing treaties and
conventions with some 20 nations (An adverbial of manner, right place? Yes) and establishing some
100 diplomatic and consular posts.

Hawaiian Sugar Plantations

In 1835, (An adverbial of time, right place? Yes) the first sugar-cane
plantations were established by US and Germans colonials (An
adverbial of manner , right place? Yes) They didn’t like the Hawaiian
constitution because it was written by a missionary (An adverbial of
cause , right place? Yes) So pressures mounted between the Hawaiians
and the European North American planters and merchants and
between the Germans, British and French.

When thousands of Hawaiian men went to work on whaling ships, (An adverbial of circumstance ,
right place? Yes) the American and German plantation owners feared that their plantations would be
ruined due to a labour shortage (An adverbial of cause right place? Yes) They asked the Hawaiian
government to let them bring labourers from other countries (An adverbial of place right place? No)
The government agreed to accept foreign workers in very small numbers (An adverbial of degree
right place? No) but the planters abused their authorisation and brought into Hawai'i (An adverbial
of place right place? No) tens of thousands of Japanese, Koreans, Philippinos, Chinese, Puerto Ricans
and Portuguese.

6 / 10
In 1973, while King Kalakaua was touring the world signing treaties and conventions, (An adverbial
of time, right place? yes) the plantation owners and shipping magnates assumed colonial superiority
and began secretly planning to violent overthrow the Hawaiian government. Sugar, not the King, now
ruled Hawai’i and there were more North American planters and merchants (called Haole meaning
non-Hawaiian) living in Hawai'i (An adverbial of circumstance right place? Yes) than indigenous
Hawaiians.

When King Kalakaua died, (An adverbial of time right place? Yes) his sister
Lili’uokalani became Queen. In 1892, (Adverbial of time right place? Yes) the
US Consul to Hawai’i secretly encouraged a small group of white
revolutionaries (aided by a US navy captain) to force Queen Lili’uokalani to
capitulate, which she did. In 1893, (Adverbial of ? time right place? yes )
Queen Liliʻuokalani was overthrown by a small group of white revolutionaries
(Adverbial of circumstance right place? Yes) (aided by a US navy captain and
his sailors), and replaced by a Provisional USA Government. Queen
Liliʻuokalani of Hawaii kept trying to re-establish her throne and President
Grover Cleveland declared that it was illegal, (Adverbial of circumstance right
place? Yes) the removal of Queen Liliʻuokalani.

In 1993, President Clinton apologizing for the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. This is the first
time in American history that the United States government has apologized for overthrowing the
government of a sovereign nation, (Adverbial of cause right place? Yes) but they did not grant Hawai'i
it's independence.

The fifth helped students to become more familiar reducing adverbials into -ing
words (present participles) Here is a sentence from this text: 'Because of the plantations (a non
reduced adverbial), foreign governments began sending troops and officials to the Pacific islands
without the consent of the local people, forcing themselves upon the indigenous people, in fact,
governing them.' (two reduced adverbial of consequence). Write a similar sentence, in your own
words with one non-reduced adverbial and one reduced adverbial (with -ing).
Because of the armies (a non-reduced adverbial), neighboring countries started to feel threatened and
began increasing their military spending, ultimately leading to an arms race and destabilization of the
region (a reduced adverbial of consequence with "-ing").

Conclusion (this course's four intentions)

We are now at the end of this semester's study into European colonisation in the Pacific. There is no
doubt that the examples given above were examples of. They were blatant, obvious, armed
colonisation. During the 1799-1914 period, European armed forces were sent by their (very wrongly
named) Ministries of Defence to threaten and "annexe" other people's lands and countries. At this
point in history, European powers used their military and technological superiority to invade and
govern other countries in a desire to expand their control of a still ‘largely unknown’ part of the world.
And when the colonisers encountered resistance, they used military force to kill their opponents (in
the name of ‘civilisation’). Although European countries had multitudes of problems at home, in the
name of ‘overcrowding’ (of prisons), in the name of their monarchs, in the name of religion, in the
name of commerce, in the name of ‘civilisation’, they imposed themselves on fragmented and mostly
pacific Pacific tribes.

7 / 10
 Civilised English, civilised German and civilised US warships in Samoa (1899)

Your teacher sincerely hopes that you have gained a lot from this university-level course about
European presence in the Pacific Ocean. Hopefully, not only has it taught Asia-Pacific students about
the human history of the Pacific, and by extension, about the colonisation of the whole world, but also
this information should help clarify your next two years' study. (That was the 1 st intention of this
course.)

This course has also aimed to teach students about the nature of "History" (with a capital "H"). About
the types of information that find their way into history books and the types of information that get
"forgotten" or "ignored". This "forgetting" and "ignoring" happens for many reasons, legitimate ones
like not knowing some information or to simplify history books for school kids, because human
endeavours are never simple, they are always a mixture of good and bad. But some reasons are less
legitimate like to glorify home countries and some reasons are downright (carrément) illegitimate like
to hide past wrong-doings (méfaits). Because you are now university-level students, you can probably
see right through many of your secondary school history lessons, while still understanding why they
were taught the way they were. (Is this a reduced adverbial of place, time, circumstance, manner,
cause, or degree?) (That was the 2nd intention of this course.)

This course's 3rd intention has been to make you students think for yourselves about a very big
question which has no authoritive or definite answer. The ongoing question throughout this course
has been "When did European colonisation of the Pacific begin?" Was it with the explorers? Was it
with the missionaries? Was it with the sealers and the whalers? Was it with the plantation farmers?
Or was it with the armed soldiers? There is no right or wrong answer to this question and yet your
teacher wants you to come up with (trouver) an answer. The way to come up with an answer is to use
an authoritive definition of "to colonise"1 like the Oxford Languages one and to apply it. And yet the
answer still won't be clear cut (clair et net). When exactly did Europeans establish control (or
political control) over the Pacific? When exactly did Europeans appropriate the Pacific? The two
answers may be different and the answer for each island will surely be different. The solution is to
limit your scope (la portée) and explain and justify your reasoning. To explain why you are going to
use x or y definition and to explain why you are going to limit your answer to x or y country as an
example. If one day you do a doctorate as a PhD student, you will have to do exactly the same thing,
limit you scope and explain and justify your methodology.

In Australian history books, the year 1788 is called the "English colonisation start date" and indeed in
that year, a huge "public" symbol (the arrival of the First Fleet) marked the beginning of a new
political way of thinking, but was it really the beginning of English colonialisation? Before this date,
the public reasons for the European presence in the Pacific were to collect knowledge, souls and
natural resources. To make maps, Christians and money. But had Europeans already begun colonising
the Pacific before 1788? Before you answer that question, remind yourself of the definition of "to
colonise".

to colonise (Oxford Languages)

- to send settlers to a place and establish political control over it.
- to settle among and establish control over the indigenous people of an area.
1
You may question the authoritive definition, but to do that you need to be as expert on the subject as the authoritve
definition's author.
8 / 10
 - to appropriate a place for one's own use.

This course's 4th intention, which has not been mentioned so far, is to explain that we can't change
history and that today's generations are not responsible for it. We can understand that wrong things
were done (in light of 21st century understanding) and we can feel regret for past wrongs, definitely, we
can even try to right (réctifier) past wrongs. But today's generation is not responsible for past
generations' crimes. I could go even further and say that even "normal" everyday past generation
people are not responsible for their leaders' bad decisions to invade and control other countries, just
as today's Russian school kids are not responsible for Vladimir Putin and his followers' invasion and
attempted colonisation of Ukraine. History repeats itself all the time. Some leaders are good, some are
bad, as we have seen time and time again.

Sources (text adapted from):

FISHCHER, Steven, Roger, 2002, ‘A History of the Pacific Islands’, Palgrave Macmillan Publishers, New York.
CAMPBELL, Ian, 2011, Worlds Apart, a History of the Pacific Islands, Canterbury University Press.
Wikipedia (the world’s online encyclopaedia)

Colonialisation (this question is a …………………. (une lapalissade)

Did armed armies directly or indirectly control the Pacific people? (you can give examples)
Direct control was exercised through the establishment of colonial governments and the deployment
of military forces to enforce colonial rule. Examples of this include the French colonial army's
occupation of Tahiti and other Pacific islands, as well as the German Empire's use of force to establish
control over German New Guinea.

Indirect control was exercised through economic and political domination, often through the
imposition of unequal treaties and the use of economic coercion. Examples include the British
exploitation of Fijian sugar plantations and the forced labor of Pacific Islanders on German-owned
copra plantations.

Did they cause the indigenous Pacific people to be controlled by someone else or at a later date?
Yes, the actions of the armed forces did cause the indigenous Pacific people to be controlled by
someone else. The colonization and annexation of Pacific islands by foreign powers led to the loss of
sovereignty and control by the indigenous peoples. Additionally, the introduction of foreign systems of
government, such as colonial administration and military rule, also resulted in control of the Pacific
people by outsiders.

Would you call the armed armies colonisers or part of the Pacific colonisation process? (yes/no)
The armed armies that controlled and subjugated the Pacific people were definitely a part of the
Pacific colonisation process. They were often sent by their own countries to claim territories, establish
control, and exploit resources, leading to the loss of sovereignty, culture, and land for the indigenous
populations. Their actions directly contributed to the colonialism of the Pacific islands and the
ongoing impacts that are still felt today.

Vocabulary
Choose eight underlined words from the texts above and invent a new sentence with each one.
1. (word(s) to right
(new sentence) : He took the pen to right the mistake on the paper.
2. (word(s) clear cut
(new sentence) The instructions were clear cut, so he easily assembled the furniture.
3. (word(s) scope
(new sentence) The project's scope was vast and required a lot of resources.
4. (word(s) to come up with
(new sentence) We need to come up with a new strategy to boost our sales.
5. (word(s) downright
(new sentence) Her behavior was downright rude and unacceptable.
6. (word(s) wrong-doings
(new sentence) The company apologized for their wrong-doings and promised to make things right.
7. (word(s) hubs
(new sentence) The airport serves as one of the busiest travel hubs in the world.
8. (word(s) convicts
9 / 10
(new sentence) The prison houses both violent and non-violent convicts.

Final Test Preparation - Vocabulary

At the end of the semester, during the written test, students will need to remember the eight words
they chose to learn from each text. Try a practice test now. Can you remember (without looking) the
eight words you chose to learn from the 'Missionaries' text?
1. sinful
2.bartered
3. consenting
4.outright disastrous
5. singing their hearts out
6. by word of mouth
7.field of work
8.converted

A Possible Final Exam Question

5. Who were the colonising European armies and what was their influence on
today's Pacific? Your teacher has given you a few hints, but students need to find this information
for themselves.

Hints:
Spanish armies protected missionaries Colonising: European armies were notorious for exploiting the
natural resources and labour of the Pacific Islands. On the other hand, Spanish armies provided
protection to missionaries who were spreading Christianity in the region.

English and French armies "protected" prisoners :

Colonising European armies played a crucial role in the colonization process of many regions around
the world. They were often responsible for imposing their authority and forcing local populations to
submit to their rule. While they may have claimed to offer protection to local communities, this was
often a guise to justify their presence and domination.

In the case of the English and French armies, they also used their military power to protect prisoners
who were often held captive in hostile territories. This allowed them to maintain their control over
these regions and use the prisoners as leverage in negotiations with local leaders. However, this also
meant that the armies were complicit in perpetuating the cycle of violence and oppression that
characterized colonialism.

English, French and American armies protected missionaries:

English, French, and American armies all played a role in the colonialization of various parts of the
world. While their primary goal may have been to expand their own power and influence, they often
used missionaries as a way to justify their presence and gain support from local populations. These
armies believed that by protecting missionaries, they were also protecting their own interests and
ensuring the spread of their culture and beliefs. However, this protection often came at the expense of
the indigenous people, who were forced to accept the influence and authority of these foreign powers.

English, French and American armies protected plantation and ranch farmers
English, French, and American armies were involved in protecting plantation and ranch farmers in
various parts of the world. In many cases, these armies were used to suppress local uprisings and
maintain the status quo, allowing foreign interests to continue to exploit local resources. The use of
military force to protect economic interests has been a common strategy of colonial powers
throughout history, often at the expense of indigenous populations. Despite the potential benefits for
foreign investors and plantation owners, this approach has frequently led to long-term social and
economic instability in the regions affected.
English, French and American armies overthrew monarchies:
English, French, and American armies have a long history of interfering with the political affairs of
other nations, often leading to the overthrow of monarchies. In some cases, these interventions were
driven by economic interests or geopolitical strategies, while in others they were motivated by

10 / 10
humanitarian concerns or a desire to spread democracy. Regardless of the reasons, the legacies of
these interventions are still felt in many parts of the world today, often with profound consequences
for the countries and people involved.

English, French and American armies protected traders and trading ships:
English, French, and American armies played a significant role in safeguarding the interests of their
traders and trading ships in different parts of the world. For instance, during the 19th century, British
armies protected their commercial interests in China during the Opium Wars, while French and
American armies protected their trading ships in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. These military
interventions were often justified as protecting national interests and promoting free trade, but they
also contributed to the colonization and exploitation of these regions
English, French and American armies protected colonial governors:
English, French and American armies were often used to protect colonial governors and other officials
from local uprisings or rebellions in the colonies. This was especially true during times of political
unrest or when there was a perceived threat to the colonial power's authority. The use of military force
in these situations was often controversial and could lead to further resentment and resistance from
the local population. Nevertheless, the colonial powers believed it was necessary to maintain their
control over the colonies and protect their interests.

This week's Grammar is the hardest one of all.

It is about the differences between how the French language and the English see the world!!!

(1) Actions over time or happening now

One big difference is easy. The French language places little importance on whether (1) an action
occurs over time or is happening (en cours). Whether the action be in the present, past or
future, the French language rarely uses the option "je suis/j'étais/je serai en train de". Whereas the
English language places a lot of importance on this difference. In the present, it's fundamental.
Whereas French letters never start with 'Je suis en train de vous écrire pour demander" when
English people write a letter, they must start with "I am writing to you to ask….." because it's a
one-off event that is happening "now". They cannot start it with "I write to you to ask….", because
they don't write letters regularly, over time, the verb of writing is not over time. Because the French
language doesn't worry much about this regular/en cours verbal difference, it always uses the easiest
option. Because of this, French speakers forget or don't find the difference important either. This is a
very big difference to remember; this verbal difference is fundamental in English. I read …/I am
reading …. are totally different events.

(2) No 'présent du narration' in English

I challenge all students to read back over all the texts we have read over the past 8 weeks and to find
one example of the present tense. English does have a présent du narration Cooks discovers New
Zealand in 1769, but it is almost NEVER used. This tense is so infrequently used in English that we
can't find a consensual name for it. It can be called the historical present or the historic present, or
the dramatic present or the narrative present. It has more names than uses, because but it's almost
never used!! In English, past actions must stay in the past. This is totally different to the French way of
seeing the world. The French language loves using the présent du narration, sometimes called le
présent historique. Think back to the last English novel that you read. Did it use the présent du
narration, as French novels do? Now think ahead to your final exam. Don't use the present tense
there to talk about Magellan or Cook or the Missionaries. They were past events and the verbs
describing them must stay in the past tenses.

(3) Past actions en "present du narration"

However, English makes up for not having a présent historique by having a present perfect. For
example, if I ask the following question? Did you read the above paragraph? In French you can answer
"Oui, je l'ai lu," using the French passé composé. In English, you can use the past, or another tense.
Like in French, we can reply "Yes, I read it." (the past) OR we can use a present tense for past
actions in the present which is "Yes, I have read it." We have this second option, called the
present perfect, because the action isn't locked to the past as it would be with a question like "Did you
read the above paragraph yesterday?

11 / 10
Here's another example question: "Did you understand the above paragraph? In French, you can
answer "Oui, je l'ai compris" (the passé composé again) OR "Oui, je le compreds" (le présent).
In English, we have the same two options, plus another one: "Yes, I understood it." (the past) or
"Yes, I understand it." (the present) or we have a third option which is "Yes, I have understood
it."
This is another big difference is the way the two languages see the world concerning past actions.

Preparing Your Final Tests

Sylvie, an Italian C2 level student, explains how she prepared for the Cambridge English Exam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v1fpm-i15Y

How to write better essays (C1/C2 level) in the Cambridge Proficiency English Exams
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goqQFP8r4-o

Upload this Document to Moodle

When you have finished reading, noting key-words and answering the questions, please upload this
document to Moodle. Completing it will count for your presence at this week's lesson.

12 / 10