Diversity and tolerance
Walzer stated, “Toleration makes difference possible; difference makes toleration necessary” (1997, p. xii). This statement nicely encapsulates the key message of this book and can therefore be considered its guiding motto. A motto, however, can easily become an empty slogan that attracts attention but has little use for practical and analytical purposes. After all, what exactly is meant with “toleration” and with “difference”, and what do we mean with related terms such as “diversity”, “inclusion”, “recognition”, “acceptance”, and “respect”? What sort of tolerance and which type of differences are we talking about? Diversity is a fact of life but is the implication that we need to tolerate all sorts of differences, also those that are unsettling or even harmful to others or society more generally? And can tolerance not lead to indifference and a distancing towards those who think, feel, and act differently? And how does toleration relate to social justice and equality? Making difference possible is useful, but in how far does toleration contribute to inclusion, equality, and equity or rather to justifying existing power relations? And do differences not require recognition, appreciation, and respect, rather than mere toleration?
These are all relevant questions that require serious consideration. A precondition of tolerance is that there must be a difference that in one way or another is considered relevant or important. Tolerance is based on diversity and therefore an option that people have when there are differences in opinions, beliefs, worldviews, commitments, or ways of life.
Many countries, cities, neighbourhoods, organisations, institutions, and schools around the world face the question of how to manage diversity. The continuing increase in the degree and types of diversity makes this a hotly debated topic. In these debates, some express concerns about too much diversity undermining social cohesion, unity, and the functioning of communities, organisations, and society. Diversity would lead to a lack of shared values and norms and to “us vs. them”
thinking with feelings of outgroup threat and intergroup competition with the related tensions and conflicts. Others argue that diversity implies opportunities for intergroup contact, cultural learning, and cognitive adaptations that lead to innovation, less stereotyping, and higher outgroup acceptance. Thus, some would rather like to reduce diversity for communitarian reasons, while others want to support diversity by encouraging and embracing it (e.g. multiculturalism). And still others want to ignore diversity in favour of individual characteristics (e.g. colour blindness) or focus on the dominant majority group for rejecting diversity (e.g. assimilation).
Much is at stake in these debates, and it has become clear that there is not one best way for managing differences, independent of the type of diversity, the domain of life, and the social situation and broader societal context. It is not very useful to argue in favour or against diversity without knowing what the diversity is about and why that sort of diversity would be valuable or rather problematic in a particular situation. Demographic diversity is something else than worldview diversity; diversity in preferences and tastes differs from moral diversity; diversity in sexual orientation is not the same as religious diversity; racial diversity differs from linguistic diversity; cultural diversity in organisations is something else than ideological diversity in politics; and diversity in global cities and liberal democracies is something else than in rural areas and autocratic societies (e.g. Haidt et al., 2003).
Diversity might be good or might be bad, but it certainly is not easy. Diversity can mean different things to different people with liberals, for example, perceiving demographic diversity as more relevant and conservatives focusing on viewpoint diversity (Howard et al., 2022). Diversity raises complex questions and implies challenges and opportunities, struggles, and uncertainties, especially for common people who actually live with forms of diversity in their everyday lives (e.g. Bell & Hartmann, 2007; A. Harris, 2012; Wise & Velayutham, 2009). The term “diversity” is also increasingly used in combination with terms such as “inclusion”, “recognition”, “equity”, and “social justice”. An inclusive, equal, and just society would require that differences are acknowledged, appreciated, and genuinely accepted; that every person and group should not merely endure and condone but rather respect and esteem the lifeways of others.
However, this is more easily said than done, because there can be substantial and deep, even irreconcilable differences in convictions, beliefs, values, and practices. These sorts of differences will be difficult to fully accept, let alone appreciate, when they conflict with one’s own convictions and way of life. Afterall, each person tends to believe in the rightness and sensibilities of their values, beliefs, and convictions. Thus, not all beliefs, values, and practices can be simultaneously affirmed and confirmed because of their “propositional content that implies a distinction between true and false, right and wrong, beautiful and ugly” (Joppke, 2004, p. 242). Pro-life activists will not appreciate and embrace the convictions and beliefs of pro-choice activists (and vice versa); orthodox religious believers will find it very difficult to fully accept homosexuality; some feminists consider the Muslim headscarf as a symbol of oppression; antivaxers believe that vaxers are misguided and wrong (and
vice versa); and liberals will not appreciate and embrace conservative policies (and vice versa).
A diverse, equal, and peaceful society depends, however, on people’s willingness to allow others to have and express their own opinions and beliefs and to let them live the life that they want. It requires that people have to learn to put up with things they disagree with, dislike, or disapprove of, also with things that are antithetical and incompatible with their own convictions, commitments, and worldviews. In short, it requires tolerance as forbearance: or as the philosopher, Bertrand Russell puts it in a BBC interview,1
In this world, which is getting more and more interconnected, we have to learn to tolerate each other. We have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don’t like. We can only live together in that way.
Tolerance is considered “indispensable for any decent society – or at least for societies encompassing deeply divergent ways of life” (Oberdiek, 2001, p. 23); it is “the cost we pay for our adventure in liberty” (Dworkin, 1993, p. 167), and “the price we pay for sustaining any enduring human relationship” (Jones, 2010, p. 39). It is “one of the few viable solutions to the tensions and conflict brought about by multiculturalism and political heterogeneity: tolerance is an essential endorphin of a democratic body politic” (Gibson, 2006a, p. 21), and
like the incest taboo, tolerance is an essential prerequisite to justice and democracy, an ethos and practice of coexistence required before it is even possible to inaugurate the project of sharing power and rule, settling law, and respecting all human beings as ends.
(Brown, 2015, p. 6)
When people are aware of meaningful differences and disagree about the value of various viewpoints and ways of life, the question of tolerance arises. Not only in relation to religious, cultural, viewpoint, and ideological differences but also concerning fairly mundane things such as annoying habits of one’s partner, the “risky” views and behaviour of one’s children, family disputes, being a principled vegetarian and having meat-eating friends, irritations and disagreements at work, neighbourhood hassles and disputes, and also in relation to dissenting beliefs and actions of ingroup members. Tolerance gets at the heart of what it means to be human and is an indispensable attribute of a free and peaceful society and enduring social relationships.
Tolerance as a buzzword
It is not a novel idea that the management of diversity requires tolerance, but in the last few decades, this idea had become a prominent narrative in many settings. Tolerance became a buzzword in national, international, and organisational settings
for establishing multicultural justice and peaceful coexistence. The importance of tolerance for a diverse, equal, and open society is widely recognised, and there is, for example, a Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles and in Jerusalem, and Tolerance Centres in cities such as Amsterdam, London, and New York. The importance of tolerance has only increased in our polarised times in which people from opposing sides refuse to listen to each other at best and try to silence and threaten each other, at worst. An indication for the importance of tolerance is provided by a search with Google Books Ngram Viewer.2 This is a tool for estimating the prevalence of words of interest (as a percentage of all words) among the more than 40 million English language books that have been digitised by Google. The prevalence of the word “tolerance” shows a steady increase up to around 2010, followed by a small decrease. Similarly, the relative prevalence of the word “intolerance” demonstrates a rise starting in the mid-1970s to the mid-2000s. These patterns of change correspond to that of the phrase “cultural diversity” which became more prevalent around the 1980s to rise until the mid-2000s, before declining somewhat.
The importance of tolerance for a diverse and equal society is also recognised by leaders from various countries and across a diverse ideological and left-right political field. For example, in relation to the US, the then president Obama stated, “all of us have to send a clarion call and behave with the values of tolerance and diversity that should be the hallmark of our democracy” (Obama, 5 August 2014), and talking about the middle east, the then president Trump stated, “We must practice tolerance and respect for each other once again – and make this region a place where every man and woman, no matter their faith or ethnicity, can enjoy a life of dignity and hope” (Trump, 5–2017 Saudi Speech Islam). To give some further examples: in 2004, Latvia presented a “National Programme for the Promotion of Tolerance”; the state programme “Youth of Azerbaijan” aimed to promote “national-religious tolerance”; the British Educational Council is advised to consider “tolerance” as one of the fundamental British values that schools should promote3; the president of the country with the largest Muslim population (Joko Widodo of Indonesia) has expressed a strong commitment to and argued for the need of a moderate Islam that propagates tolerance; the United Arab Emirates declared 2019 as the year of tolerance and appointed a Minister of State for tolerance; and the “International Organization of Parliaments” chose in 2009 the theme of “Democracy and political tolerance” for the International Day of Democracy in order to highlight the importance of creating a culture of tolerance in society, and political life in particular.
Additionally, the African Union, the European Union, the United Nations, and nongovernmental organisations have all emphasised the importance of policies that promote tolerance. For example, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) published in 1995 the Declaration on the Principles of Toleration. And in 1996, the UN General Assembly invited Member States to observe 16 November as the “International Day for Tolerance”, following from the “UN Year for Tolerance” in 1995. The African Union has promulgated tolerance as a foundational element for social justice, sustainable peace, and preventing recurrence of violence.4 In Europe, there is a “European medal of tolerance”, and
the “European day of tolerance”; the former German chancellor Angela Merkel (13 November 2018) declared, “Tolerance is the soul of Europe and an essential basic value of the European idea”, and tolerance has been defined as one of the four core features of European culture.5
There are also documents like “Promoting tolerance in the EU”,6 and there is the European “Model National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance”7 which is based on the assumption that “Tolerance must be seen as the glue that enables a pluralist democratic society to function successfully”. Furthermore, the Council of Europe proposed making tolerance part of the national school curriculum and all member states agreed (Barrett, 2020). Similarly, religious and civic associations as well as schools worldwide promulgate tolerance, and according to some, a “diversity and tolerance industry” has permeated schools (Weissberg, 2008). For example, the national Dutch Education Council (2021) published “Set limits, allow freedom” as a normative framework for freedom and tolerance, within the outer limits of the principles of a democratic society. Magazines such as “Teaching Tolerance” started to appear, and in the aftermath of 9/11, the lesson plan “Tolerance in Times of Trial” was developed by Public Broadcasting Service for increasing tolerance towards Muslims and Islam. Furthermore, in the academic world, tolerance of different perspectives and methods has been argued for as being necessary for psychological research (Zitzmann & Loreth, 2021) and for preventing science moralisation and (self-)censorship (Krylov, 2021).
Drawbacks of becoming a popular notion
When a particular notion such as tolerance becomes popular, two things are likely to happen. First, the meaning of the notion is extended to capture qualitatively different phenomena, and the original meaning can even be substituted by a new one (Haslam, 2016). There is always the danger that one takes the topic of study too far and overstretch its relevance and importance. Identity researchers, for example, tend to consider all things having to do with people’s mental world as identity questions (see Verkuyten, 2018a), and prejudice researchers tend to interpret all outgroup criticisms as forms of subtle, indirect, or covert expressions of prejudicial attitudes (see Tileagă et al., 2021). The understandable passion that scholars have for their topic of interest can turn into a sort of academic imperialism in which meaningful conceptual distinctions are blurred; a range of different phenomena are considered to be similar; and the own favoured approach is turned into a normative position about what should and should not be examined. In the literature, terms such as “identity”, “diversity”, “prejudice”, “racism”, and also “tolerance” and “intolerance” are used extensively, in a wide range of situations and in many different ways. As a result, there is a tendency for these terms to lose all significant and coherent meaning which might make them useful for rhetorical and political ends but not for analytical and scientific purposes (Machado & Silva, 2007).
The important idea of tolerance as forbearance and putting up with things that you disagree with, dislike, or disapprove of is often replaced by tolerance as appreciation and full acceptance of diversity. This can be seen in various statements,
policy proposals, and educational initiatives and is already apparent in UNESCO’s declaration: “tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world’s cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human”. This reinterpretation of tolerance as appreciation means that the critical notion of tolerance as forbearance is lost sight off. This is unfortunate theoretically but also for learning to live with diversity and managing differences that really matter to people. Theoretically, forbearance with the related self-restraint is something else than appreciation, and in everyday life, people will not embrace differences that go against their own deeply felt beliefs and commitments. Tolerance as appreciation is a synonym of being open-minded and non-prejudiced, and this cannot replace the much-needed and indispensable notion of tolerance as forbearance.
The second thing that is likely to happen when a notion becomes popular is disappointment and increased criticism, because it does not seem to deliver what it mistakenly is taken to promise. The concept of tolerance goes back to classical antiquity in ancient India and Greece and was developed further in 17th-century Europe as a pragmatic approach for managing religious conflicts and disputes about deeply felt beliefs, convictions, and practices. With the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the notion of tolerance was proposed as a solution for dealing with religious diversity and for individual claims of consciousness against church and state authority. Conflicting religious claims were not settled or reconciled, but the practice of toleration was institutionalised, as in the English Toleration Act of 1689. With the enlightenment and the development of humanitarian principles in the 18th century, the notion of tolerance was gradually extended to differences in ideological and political views and to the freedom to express and live by these views. Furthermore, tolerance nowadays also involves the acceptance of people expressing views and engaging in the related practices that one considers morally wrong, such as abortion, euthanasia, pornography, and same-sex marriage.
In all these cases, tolerance is suitable and critically important for the task of managing diversity and preventing conflicts. However, similar to multicultural approaches, intergroup contact interventions, and prejudice reduction strategies, tolerance is not a panacea or silver bullet that provides an answer to all questions related to managing diversity. Extending the concept of tolerance inappropriately will lead to disappointments and some unpleasant surprises in the form of backlashes and unintended consequences. A focus on tolerance cannot replace antiracism and prejudice reduction strategies, but these strategies also do not make a focus on tolerance superfluous. A cure meant for a particular “illness” will not work for another “disease”, and it does not make sense to criticise the cure for not doing so.
However, when a notion becomes popular, it is likely to receive increased criticism. Not only because it is considered to fail to deliver (what it never promised) but also because of the always existing limitations that become visible and obvious. As a result, the notion of tolerance is more and more replaced by terms such as “inclusiveness”, “full acceptance”, “equity”, “appreciation”, and “social justice”. As one illustration, in the beginning of 2021, the popular magazine “Teaching Tolerance” changed its name to “Learning Justice”, because “even we have admitted that
‘tolerance’ is an imperfect term”, and the new name reflects the focus on “celebration of identity and diversity”.8 Another example is the discourse of COC Netherlands (mainstream Dutch LGBTQ+ organisation) that for a long time focused on the need for tolerance but changed its language to full acceptance and inclusion. In contrast, the discourse of tolerance is also considered as being too indulgent and accommodating for dissenting views and practices and as too demanding for majority members, because it requires them to show self-restraint in putting up with things that go against what they sincerely value and belief. Thus, a focus on tolerance is criticised for either being too little and something we should go beyond or rather being too much and something we should restrict. An example of the former is the Canadian prime minister Trudeau stating:
The third pillar of peace and security is the advancement of human rights, liberty, and tolerance – the very touchstones of our societies. Although, even the word tolerance is something that I’d like to think we can get past. Because use the word tolerance in a sentence; I tolerate that you exist. Doesn’t sound very warm, I mean, there’s no religion in the world that says tolerate thy neighbor. I mean, there are places in the world where a little tolerance will go a long way, but I think in countries like Canada and the United States, and Atlantic democracies, we need to move beyond putting up with each other, towards words like friendship, acceptance, and yes, love.
(the Atlantic Council Global Citizen Award Gala Dinner, 19 September 2017)
An example of the latter is the then prime minister of the UK, Cameron, stating at a political party conference:
For too long, we’ve been so frightened of causing offence that we haven’t looked hard enough at what is going on in our communities. This is passive tolerance. And I’ll tell you where it leads: To children, British children, going to Pakistan in the summer holidays, before they’ve even started their GCSEs, and forced to marry a man they’ve never met . . . children, British children, having their genitals mutilated, not just in a clinic in Lagos but the backstreets in Britain. This passive tolerance has turned us into a less integrated country; it’s put our children in danger. It is unforgivable. So let me say it right here: no more passive tolerance in Britain.9
Both prime ministers question the relevance and usefulness of tolerance for plural societies, but for different reasons. For the one, it is outdated and not going far enough, and for the other, it tends to go much too far. For Trudeau, tolerance is demeaning and falls short of truly affirming and accepting, or even loving, each other, and for Cameron, tolerance can lead to culpable indulgence concerning the mistreatment of those who are vulnerable within minority communities.
Tolerance is not the answer to all the complex questions of diversity, and the different points of criticisms are not without merit. However, throwing out the baby
with the bathwater does not help. If something does not always work, it doesn’t mean that it never works; and if something is useful sometimes and for some purposes, it doesn’t mean that it is useful all the time and for all purposes. Tolerance as forbearance is an incredibly valuable idea that is indispensable for a diverse society: it is a necessary condition for peaceful coexistence but obviously not a sufficient one. Trudeau’s plea for friendship, acceptance, and love is of course valuable, but there will always be beliefs, values, and conduct one disagrees with, dislikes, or disapproves of: e.g. an atheist objecting to religious schooling, a religious person who is convinced in the wrongness of abortion, a vegan who finds meat eating morally repugnant, a climate activist who objects to the continuing use of fossil fuel, a libertarian who opposes governmental policies. People cannot, will not, and should not appreciate and celebrate all forms of diversity, but they should accept that others have the equal right to live the life that they want. Already young children do not accept and appreciate everything but can tolerate what they do not find desirable (Wainryb et al., 2001). They can describe some persons as misguided, ignorant, or immature and nevertheless judge that person’s beliefs and acts should be tolerated.
Tolerance might be considered minimal, but this also makes it crucial, and probably even more so in our times of increasing diversity and sectarianism and polarisation that threatens liberal democracies (Finkel et al., 2020). It is rather ironic that “mere” tolerance is increasingly criticised just when intolerance is considered one of the most pressing problems in contemporary western societies10 with opponents using social media and other forms of communication for name-calling, shaming, silencing, harassing, and threatening with violence.
The importance of toleration is that others can live according to their own commitments and values, without you yourself having to compromise or give up on what you believe in and are committed to. In the words of the former US president John F. Kennedy, “Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one’s own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others”. Or as the African American writer, James Baldwin, said in an interview, “We can disagree and still love each other unless your opinion contributes to my oppression and the denial of my right to exist”. Differences in beliefs, convictions, viewpoints, and practices are inevitable, but silencing, cancelling, oppressing, discriminating, and violence are not. Legally, for example, the European highest court has ruled that opinions and views which “shock, offend and disturb” fall under the right of free speech, but discrimination and hate speech do not. Tolerance is what keeps criticisms, disagreements, dislikes, and disapprovals from becoming negative actions that interfere with the freedoms and rights of others.
Psychology of tolerance
In (social) psychology and the social sciences more generally, there is a large literature on prejudice and racism. Thousands of studies have been conducted examining the nature of prejudice and racism, various forms and manifestations, generalised and target-specific aspects, underlying causes and conditions, and the implications
and consequences for the targets concerned. Prejudice towards gender, racial, ethnic, linguistic, cultural, national, age, religious, sexual, immigrant, and ideological target groups have been examined, and more. In contrast to this large body of work, there is very little systematic psychological theorising and empirical investigation into toleration in which differences are endured. Already 45 years ago, Jackman (1977) argued that this is unfortunate.
A shift in emphasis in the ethnic attitudes literature from prime concern with intergroup feelings (however measured) to equal concern with intergroup tolerance would broaden the scope of the literature from both a theoretical and a policy perspective, increasing both its sensitivity to and its relevance for the general problem of multigroup coexistence in a democratic society.
(p. 167, emphasis in original)
This plea for focusing more on tolerance has not been followed up by many scholars. In contrast to the extensive research on tolerance in political science, there is still little systematic work conducted on the (social) psychology of tolerance. Vogt’s (1997) assessment nearly 20 years ago is still accurate and forms a main reason for writing this book.
Although social psychology has contributed crucially to our understanding of phenomena related to tolerance, such as stereotyping and prejudice, the theoretical work on tolerance itself in social psychology is so underdeveloped that almost any systematic investigation is likely to be productive.
(p. 237)
The lack of psychological theorising and research is unfortunate for several reasons, with the critical importance of tolerance for diversity and plural societies being the most important one. Another reason is that a focus on tolerance draws attention to concrete beliefs, norms, and practices, and to the notion of citizenship which is a subject that is little addressed directly by psychological theory and research (Andreouli, 2019). In diverse societies, the hotly debated questions and issues evolve around foreign dress code, language use, dietary requirements, Mosque building, freedom of speech, same-sex marriage, and many other religious, cultural, moral, and ideological beliefs and practices. It is around concrete issues that diversity is put to the test, ways of life collide, and the need for toleration is discussed. Similar to the endorsement of free speech, most people will support the general idea of tolerance but can react negatively when facing the practical, concrete consequences of endorsing tolerance or free speech.
Fortunately, in recent years, social psychologists have shown a growing interest in understanding and examining the psychological underpinnings of tolerance (e.g. Crawford, 2014, Skitka et al., 2013; Simpson et al., 2018; Sullivan & Transue, 1999), and the research discussed in this book is based on our own programme of research and the “forbearance model of tolerance” that we developed. In this
research, we have examined when and why people are tolerant, and how people define the boundaries of tolerance. The model proposes that tolerance involves the weighing of reasons for objection with reasons for acceptance. Additionally, the model considers how people draw the boundaries of tolerance by prioritising reasons to reject disapproved of beliefs and behaviours over reasons to accept these beliefs and behaviours. Furthermore, there are various individual differences in tolerance judgements and behaviours, and all sorts of situational circumstances that make tolerance less or more likely. We also have considered in our research how the notion of tolerance can be (mis)used for strategic political reasons and for making ingroup favouring distinctions between “us and them”. Finally, we have considered whether, when, and why the experience of being tolerated – of being an object of toleration – might have positive and negative psychological meanings and consequences, especially in comparison to experiences of being rejected and being appreciated. Toleration is likely to have more positive implications than being rejected but might also have negative implications, because it can be considered patronising and lacking appreciation.
Our research
In our research, we have used different methods, ranging from in-depth interviews and ethnographic work to surveys, online experiments, and neuropsychological studies. However, most of our empirical work involves well-powered survey-embedded online experiments among national samples in the Netherlands and Germany. These between-subject experiments have the advantage of combining representative samples and random assignment making it possible to draw more generalisable conclusions, compared to laboratory experiments (Sniderman, 2018; see also Schlueter & Schmidt, 2010). These experiments are especially valuable in light of the continuing debate in psychology about the weaknesses and questionable societal relevance of experimental laboratory research that focuses on internal validity (e.g. Diener et al., 2022; Lin et al., 2021), and the pitfalls of using convenient online samples such as Amazon Mechanical Turk rather than a (national) sample from the population of interest (Zhou & Fishbach, 2016; but see Mullinix et al., 2015).
In studying tolerance, we have focused much on perceived religious differences in relation to Muslim minorities. Historically in Europe, the need for tolerance was discussed and developed in relation to religious difference, and the increasing number of Muslim citizens has given a renewed urgency to the notion of tolerance. The migration of Muslims to Western societies has led to strong public and political debates also within Muslim communities, especially since the beginning of the 21st century. What citizens think about Muslim immigrants and their nonimmigrant children has important implications for intergroup relations, civic cohesion, the acceptance of immigration and asylum policies, and political responses to Muslim societal participation and integration. And what Muslim minorities think about Western liberal democracies has implications for their orientation towards and participation in those societies.
In contrast to, for example, the United States, in the relatively secular European countries, religion is often viewed unfavourably, and various Muslim minority beliefs, practices, and behaviours11 tend to receive broad public disapproval (Verkuyten, 2021) making debates around religion especially relevant for studying processes of toleration. In Europe, religion is typically considered a barrier to the inclusion of Muslims; “religion is at the heart of concerns about immigrant integration in Western Europe, and the central issues have to do with Islam” (Alba & Foner, 2015, p. 118). Bright boundaries would characterise the European context for Muslim minorities, and it has been suggested that the disadvantaged minority status of Muslims in Europe resembles most closely that of African Americans (Suarez-Orozco, 1991).
Islam is often construed and viewed as a threat to Western liberal values and democracy, and there is an increasing number of discriminatory, hostile, and violent actions against Muslims and Islamic facilities. In the US, Muslims experience various forms of discrimination, including being treated with suspicion, singled out by airport security, or called offensive names.12 In Australia, Muslims have been found to experience discrimination at three times the rate of other Australians.13 And in Europe, Muslims are discriminated in the areas of employment and education, and their rights to freedom of religion and of expressing their religious identity are sometimes restricted (Amnesty, 2012). Furthermore, there is widespread public support for a restriction, or even ban, on Muslim immigration (Marfouk, 2019). Furthermore, research indicates that anti-Muslim prejudices are fairly widespread in Western societies, although there are important country differences (e.g. Ogan et al., 2014; Shaver et al., 2016). For example, a large-scale representative survey in different countries found that majorities (>65%) in Hungary, Italy, Poland, and Greece express unfavourable views about Muslims, while these views were less common in Northern and Western Europe and in the United States (around 25–30%, PEW, 2017) and in Australia (around 10%).14
Almost all Muslims living in Western countries are of immigrant origin, and West Europeans tend to think about Muslims when thinking about the category of foreigners and newcomers (e.g. Wallrich et al., 2020). However, in addition to the prejudices and discrimination faced by immigrants, Muslim have to cope with prejudices related to their religious background. In the media and in political and public debates, Muslims are construed negatively as a “suspect community” (Richardson, 2009; Matthews, 2015; Van Meeteren & Van Oosterdorp, 2019) and singled out as the prototypical negative other (Zolberg & Woon, 1999), and greater news exposure has been found to be associated with stronger anti-Muslim attitudes (Ogan et al., 2014; Shaver et al., 2017). Furthermore, in Europe, there is fairly widespread public support for the idea that “Islam is fundamentally incompatible with our country’s culture and values”, ranging from 53% in Italy to more than 40% in Germany, The Netherlands, Denmark, and Switzerland.15
Yet the fact that anti-Muslim prejudices exist does not mean that all people are negative about Muslims and that they cannot have genuine concerns about specific Muslim beliefs and practices, or that critique of Islam cannot have other sources
(Zuquete, 2008). These concerns and criticisms are fuelled by orthodox Islamic clerics and a substantial group of devout Muslims with anti-democratic beliefs: for example, 47% of Muslims in Germany and 72% in Austria considered following Islamic religious command as more important than following the laws of democracy, and 37% of Muslims in Britain preferred to live under Sharia law (see Wagner, 2021). Freedom and tolerance are under pressure when too many majority people think that Islam does not fit into democracy, and too many Muslim minorities think that democracy does not fit into Islam.
Although some of our research has been conducted in various West European countries and also in the United States, most of the research that I will discuss has been conducted in Germany and the Netherlands. The particular national context has an impact on the topics and groups considered, the questions asked, the research conducted, and the results found (e.g. Van Bavel et al., 2016). This is true for any national context, including the United States, where most psychological findings are produced. The theoretical, conceptual, and empirical work in the US has resulted in a substantial and rich body of social psychological literature that, understandably, reflects the particular history and context of the country. For example, the American history of immigration and slavery, with its pervasive “colour line”, differs from the history of non-settler European countries, and American biparty politics and the strong religiousness of the country16 differ from the multi-party politics and the more secular nature of many European societies. Furthermore, the United States and Europe do represent, of course, only a small fraction of the world population and do not reflect the large range of cultural, religious, economic, and political contexts that matter for people’s thinking, feeling, and doing in various parts of the world (Arnett, 2008; Henrich et al., 2010).17
The relevance of the particular national context also relates to the terms that are used and how they are understood. For example, in continental Europe, the term “race” is used much less than in the United States, and Europeans are sometimes quite surprised when an American person who “looks white” defines themselves as black because of the “one-drop rule”. The sensibilities and discourses of US race relations are often transferred and applied in ways that show little sensitivity to different systems of meaning and little understanding of other historical, political, and cultural contexts. As a result, not contextualising “race” can lead to misunderstandings of European and other non-US contexts (Siebers, 2017), and the same applies to the use of terms such as microaggression, native, multiculturalism, and colour blindness (Guimond et al., 2014).18
However, despite the important differences, there are also similarities in processes and findings. For example, forms of exclusion, intolerance, and discrimination against minorities are well documented in many countries around the world, and similar types of coping responses seem to be operative among different minority groups in different settings trying to deal with these negative circumstances. And whereas the topics of debate and concern and the related disagreements and objections can differ greatly between cultures and societies, the psychological processes involved in toleration can be quite similar. Those aspects of the claims made about toleration
that have a certain generality to them can be more theoretical than empirical. Existing notions and theories can be used as starting points from which to examine tolerance and diversity, and in the process of doing so, the notions and theories themselves can be scrutinised and evaluated. However, this does not mean that descriptive findings are not important and that there are no normative and moral issues to consider.
Describing and explaining
Finding that people are on average reluctant to accept immigrants or critical of Islamic practices and beliefs or that a relatively high percentage of the population has anti-immigrant or anti-Muslim sentiments is something else than explaining why this is the case. A descriptive question and finding should not be confused with an explanatory question and result. Ignoring the distinction between these two question is a logical fallacy and can easily lead to a “jumping to conclusions”, such as (tacitly) assuming that differences in outcomes (e.g. in education and labour market) imply differences in opportunities (e.g. discrimination), that opposing less strict immigration policies is based on xenophobia, that objections to Islamic primary schools are driven by Islamophobia, that pushing against Christian normative values and practices implies hatred of Christians, or that criticising and condemning the national (e.g. US) government for their actions abroad is driven by unpatriotic feelings (e.g. anti-American). These types of explanations can certainly be correct, but they do not follow from describing what people’s views and attitudes are. Racist motives can underlie opposition to government programmes to assist minorities, but there can be many other reasons for why people are opposed to such policies. Blurring the distinction between descriptive and explanatory questions distorts academic, public, and political debates.
Social psychologists often have the tendency to ignore descriptive findings in favour of hypothesis testing for examining explanatory processes and mechanism. This is unfortunate, because descriptive findings give us an idea about what it is that we are talking about. There are many social psychological studies that, for example, examine the correlates and causes of prejudicial attitudes among (student) samples that on average do not express negative attitudes at all, with the majority of participants scoring on the positive side of the scales (Henry, 2008). And there is research on generalised prejudice that was developed around the finding that attitudes towards different minority groups are strongly correlated and thus have a common component (Akrami et al., 2011; Bergh & Akrami, 2016). However, a high degree of commonality does not have to indicate generalised negativity but might also indicate general positivity or an overall relatively neutral stance towards various minority groups: “In other words, the analyses are blind to the magnitude (or even existence) of prejudice across target groups” (Meeusen et al., 2017, p. 646). Nevertheless, interpretations about what drives prejudices are made, as are recommendations for ways to address prejudicial attitudes.
When using large, representative samples, descriptive findings provide critical information about the generality of attitudes and behaviours. This information
allows us to establish how widespread a phenomenon is and thereby prevents from either overemphasising what is exceptional or ignoring what is common. There are always individual differences and it matters for society and research whether, for example, 80% or rather 20% of the population favours more strict immigration policies, or 70% rather than 30% supports the religious freedoms of Muslim minorities. Some social psychologists have argued for a greater emphasis on description, because it directs us to what is particularly worth studying (“phenomenon detection”), and for its foundational role in theory formation (“phenomenon-driven research”; Cooper, 2015; Funder, 2009; Haig, 2013; Rozin, 2009). Describing a phenomena and knowing how broadly and robustly it exists are very useful, even if there is no clear theory that explains it. I therefore will present in various chapters descriptive findings wherever these are informative and useful.
Obviously, arguing for the relevance of descriptions does not mean to denigrate or eschew the central goal of explanation in almost all sciences, including psychology and research on intergroup relations, prejudice, and tolerance in particular. The aim is to provide answers to “how, why and when questions”, but for doing so, sufficient knowledge about robust phenomena in the world is needed (Eronen & Bringmann, 2021). Furthermore, whereas finding material and social external causes for attitudes and behaviours is relatively easy, finding psychological internal causes is often extremely difficult (Eronen, 2020). It requires clearly defined concepts and a recognition that there are typically multiple mental processes that interact in various ways, especially in the real world outside of the lab setting. And there is the danger that theories and lab experiments become wedded to each other with theories describing experimental findings leading to further experiments that increasingly lose touch with reality and our ability to understand real-world group differences and disparities (Cesario, 2022; Lin et al., 2021). The use of different methodological approaches, survey-embedded experiments, and conceptual replications reduces these dangers and allows to examine various explanations at different levels of analysis. In that way, it hopefully is possible to separate substantive and methodological issues and make reliable and valid contributions to the understanding and explanation of tolerance and intolerance.
Blaming and truth
There is another issue that I briefly want to discuss, because it can make theoretical explanations difficult and contested, especially in intergroup research and in studying politically and morally charged topics such as diversity, equality, racism, prejudice, and tolerance. The issue is relatively sensitive but cannot be fully ignored in a book on tolerance and diversity, and for understanding the argumentation and contribution.
In our qualitative research among poor working-class whites in inner city neighbourhoods, we have sometimes been asked why scholars tend to use a double standard in accepting the perceptions, feelings, and experiences of ethnic and religious minority group members for what they are, while the framework of
justifications, rationalisations, and hidden biases is used for their own perceptions, feelings, and experiences: why their perceptions and concerns are treated with suspicion and considered disingenuous, whereas those of minorities are considered genuine and not to be unwarranted. They felt that only their feelings and views were not considered genuine expressions about how their lives were being transformed, but rather disqualified with accusations of racisms as yet another means of controlling and silencing poor people (Verkuyten, 1997).19
These questions resonate with the debate on politicised, activist scholarship in the humanities and social sciences, and the liberal confirmation and coverage biases in the behavioural sciences (Duerte et al., 2015; Pluckrose & Lindsay, 2020). In social psychology, there is empirical evidence for these biases, for example, with the use of measures that comprise ideological values, conservative people being described more negatively than liberals, and conservatism being more often the focus of explanation than liberalism (Chambers & Schlenker, 2015; Eitan et al., 2018; Sniderman & Tetlock, 1986). Scholars tend to view things that diverge from their own liberal position as deviance to be explained and there is a tendency in the social sciences to consider vulnerable groups as “sacred victims” leading to onesided analyses (Horowitz et al., 2018).
The debate about activist scholarship and the liberal bias in the social sciences involves different issues, and confirmation and coverage biases also occur, of course, among politically conservative scholars. The result is a tendency to perceive particular findings and explanations as justifications, or rather as accusations, and therefore as moral rather than epistemic issues. This has to do with the tendency to equate cause and blame, and to evaluate interpretations and explanations according to the level of blame attributed to the groups concerned (Felson, 1991). Empirical findings are sometimes dismissed, because these would blame the victim or rather because they would morally brand (poor) whites as (covert) racists. Findings, interpretations, and explanations are not evaluated according to their accuracy but the extent to which they blame disadvantaged or rather advantaged groups: “a theory or explanation is evaluated according to the identity or image it projects for certain groups” (Felson, 1991, p. 8). Whatever the facts, an interpretation can be rejected, because it attributes some role to disadvantaged minority groups which would cause offense or harm, or rather because it passes moral-political judgement on advantaged group members (being “mad and bad”).
In doing so, the relevance for particular outcomes of both more distal and proximal processes and the combination of external and internal factors is typically ignored. Blaming the system implies a focus on more distal societal factors (e.g. “structures”), and blaming the victim involves an emphasis on more proximate subjective ones (e.g. “lack of effort”). For example, for the one person, lower educational outcomes of minorities are explained in terms of systemic discrimination and structural disadvantages, and right-wing populist voting in terms of voters xenophobia and racism. For the other person, populist voting is explained in terms of economic decline and globalisation, and minority lower educational outcomes in terms of language and home environment deficits. Both explanations selectively
ignore or dismiss structural and systemic conditions or rather people’s agency and the role of their beliefs and behaviours and the social networks in which they live their lives.
These forms of blame attributions go together with name-calling (e.g. “political correct”, or rather “racist”) in which scholars are discouraged to examine controversial issues and ad hominem arguments replace scholarly debate. Being aware and recognising that descriptive findings and causal interpretations can be used in various ways to blame various groups is very important and a requirement for responsible scholarship. However, not telling how it is might actually cause more harm that accepting the facts of the matter. Societal and scientific progress in understanding and addressing critical issues related to diversity, equality, and justice is not served by one-sided, group-serving causal analyses, ignoring inconvenient facts and findings, ideological interpretations, (self-)censorship, and wishful thinking (Loury, 1994). Being a scholar and truth-seeker is something else than being a prophet or a politician, and being a teacher is something else than being a preacher. What is required is intellectual integrity and open and respectful debate about divergent findings, viewpoints, approaches, and interpretations: a debate that toleration makes possible and that can lead to the further development of shared knowledge (Rauch, 2021).
Afterall, scientific progress involves increasing the acceptability of truth claims which depends on further and better reasoning about a range of issues, including theories, methods, data, analyses, and interpretations. Researchers should be able to argue for, justify, and explain their claims about reality for an imaginary, virtual, or actual audience of colleagues. Argumentation in which claims are attacked and defended, refuted, and justified is central for making scientific progress. Discover the truth is the raison d’être of scientific work and the mission of institutions such as universities and research centres. However, there is debate about what “truth” means and also whether “truth” is an exact enough criterion.
The first point relates to statements that “truth is relative”, or, more modestly, that “truth has a historical or a cultural or a partisan and political dimension”. These sorts of statements are often well-intentioned but typically imply mystification resting on a reification error. The problem is that the term “truth” can be grammatically expressed as a noun, and therefore, it is often assumed to have substance, like a kind of thing, like a house. Discussions can then revolve around the question of whether it is ultimately unchanging in its own nature or might change with contexts, circumstances, and time. But a substantive abstract truth in its own right does not exist. Truth does not have substance, in the way concrete things have, or in the way abstract terms like “collectivity” or “consciousness” have. The term’s meaning just refers to statements which are thought to “have” truth, in the sense of being true (an adjective word and a qualifier). The concept of “truth/true” qualifies judgements in a particular way; not as “attractive” (personal preferences), not as “good” (moral evaluative), but simply as “true”. A true judgement attributes characteristics to an object which correspond with the characteristics the judged object in fact possesses. The concept is about a relationship between a subject (i.e. researcher) and a phenomenon (discrimination, racism) in which a judgement by
the subject is made about the phenomenon; a judgement of a particular kind, in which the subject wants to know (seeks knowledge) about characteristics actually possessed by the phenomenon (e.g. whether there actually is discrimination, how it looks like, how extensive it is). If the judgement is factually right in that way, the attribution tallies; ergo what the subject says in this respect about the object is true. If not, what they say is untrue, false. The distinction between true and false is not only critical for being able to function in the world, in everyday social interactions, and in institutional contexts (e.g. legal courts), but especially also for scientific progress.
Second, people can believe that something is true but for the wrong reasons. Someone can, accurately, believe that 1% of the richest persons own 99% of the wealth. But if they think that the reason for this is that this 1% is genetically predisposed to be super rich, they believe a true thing, but for the wrong reasons. Knowledge does not only imply that one is correct but also that one’s claims are justified in the right way, are formed by the right kind of process. What is needed are theoretical notions, adequate data, and good arguments that provide a correct understanding and explanation of the phenomenon one is interested in. Knowledge implies that one is able to provide reasons and arguments for why you think something is true. It requires the willingness to exchange views and justify one’s claims, and correct these if they turn out to be wrong, because others provide more adequate and compelling reasons for their truth claims. This applies to all programmes of research including the research that is discussed in the current book.
An outline
Tolerance is a much-discussed notion in different academic disciplines, in political and policy debates, in institutions and organisations, in educational contexts, and in everyday life. However, it is also a notion that is increasingly criticised, with its relevance for plural societies being questioned. In Chapter 2, therefore, I first discuss various reasons for why tolerance is an indispensable ingredient for living with all sorts of differences. Additionally, I will discuss and evaluate several key points of criticism, namely that tolerance would be of limited use, that it is demeaning, and that it is a depoliticising discourse. I will argue that recognising these critical points does not make tolerance superfluous or inadequate, but rather raises questions about the scope of tolerance, the construal of tolerance, and for empirical research. After considering the relevance of toleration for plural societies, I turn in Chapter 3 to the question how tolerance can be conceptualised and what it involves. I will make a distinction between tolerance as appreciation and tolerance as forbearance and will discuss the latter more extensively, because this is the distinct meaning that we have focused upon in our research. I will explain the “forbearance model of tolerance” that we developed and that relates to “objection, acceptance, and rejection” as the three central aspects of the tolerance process. Furthermore, tolerance implies that there must be something to tolerate, which means that it is important to discuss the question what sorts of things are the proper objects
of tolerance. Additionally, tolerance can be considered an attitude, belief, virtue, action, or behaviour, and for being tolerant, one must be in a position to do so. Hence, I will also discuss various dimensions of tolerance and the importance of power relations.
In Chapters 4–8, the focus is on the empirical research of particular questions and issues that we examined. I will not discuss all the technical details of the different studies and describe all findings, because these can be found in the various published journal articles that are indicated in the text. Rather I am concerned with the examples and the evidence that these studies provide in relation to the tolerance process. The intention is to discuss the nature, meaning, and processes of tolerance in relation to various real-world examples, the research conducted in different fields, and the findings from our research that examines the different aspects of our forbearance model of tolerance. In this way, it should become clear what psychologically is involved in tolerance, how people determine the boundaries of tolerance, when and why intolerance of differences become less or more likely, and what the implications are of being a target of toleration.
Chapter 4 is concerned with the question whether objections towards particular practices and beliefs can reflect not only prejudicial attitudes but also more principled concerns and considerations. This is an important question, because there is little room for tolerance if criticism, disagreement, dislike, or disapproval is driven by group-based antipathy. If that is the case, then the focus should not be on tolerance but rather on understanding forms of prejudice, racism, and discrimination and on evaluating prejudice-reduction, anti-racism, and anti-discrimination approaches. The empirical research that I will discuss clearly demonstrates that disagreements, dislikes, and disapprovals of specific beliefs, practices, and behaviours often do not simply reflect underlying group-based prejudices and therefore raise the question of tolerance.
In Chapter 5, the focus is on the psychological processes involved in practicing tolerance. Individuals differ in their general tendency to be tolerant and in their more pragmatic and principled reasons for toleration. Furthermore, a dual-process model argues for the importance of deliberation in the tolerance process and the implications of this model, and the related empirical research will be discussed. Additionally, tolerance depends on the motivations that dissenting others have for engaging in behaviour that is criticised, disliked, or disapproved off. Moreover, tolerance does not only depend on how we understand and evaluate the dissenting behaviour of others but also on how we understand ourselves as group members. The content of the ingroup identity and the degree of ingroup identification matter, and can also lead to higher rather than lower tolerance.
No individual, group, or society can be tolerant of everything, and the boundaries of tolerance are found where reasons for rejection of the objectionable practice or belief are considered more important than the reasons for acceptance. Chapter 6 deals with the ways in which people draw the boundaries of tolerance by considering things to be intolerable. Specifically, these reasons involve, first, the harm and rights principle and the related processes of moralisation and the weighing of moral
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
cloth, &c., which is not usually all paid at once, but by instalments during several years. A father, who has many daughters, becomes a rich man by the presents which he receives for each on their marriage. If a young man wishes to marry, and is possessed of nothing, it often occurs that he makes a voyage of a year's duration among the other islands, and making known his purpose demands contributions from those he visits, to enable him to make up the instalment of goods which it is necessary to place in the hands of the parents. The ceremony of betrothing is celebrated by a feast, at which arrack forms a very necessary adjunct.
It is not lawful for a man to enter the house of a neighbour during his absence, and if any one offends in this particular he is obliged to pay a piece of cloth, or some other goods, to the owner of the house. The sentence is passed by the elders, who openly call upon the offender to pay the fine, which makes him so ashamed, that he either does so immediately or leaves the village. This fine is called "Pakul Dende" by the natives. Should any one even touch the wife of another, he must make a large atonement for the offence. The Macassar traders informed me, that they were always obliged to watch their people narrowly, to keep them from approaching too near to the married women, as the least touch would render them liable to a fine, and unless this was paid the Arafuras would not be satisfied. They pride themselves much in the possession of a number of elephants' tusks, and brass gongs; the value of the first being determined according to their length, and of the latter by their weight and circumference. They formerly obtained these articles from the Banda traders, who themselves procured them from Batavia; but now they are brought by the Macassars from Batavia, Malacca and Singapore.[24] These articles do not form for them a necessary article of life, but are put to a more worthy use, which one would scarcely expect to find among such uncivilized people. They have a very excusable ambition to gain the name of rich men, by paying the debts of their poorer fellow villagers. The officer, whom I quoted above, related to me a very striking instance of this. At Affara he was present at the election of the village chiefs, two individuals aspiring to the station of Orang Tua. The people chose the elder of the two,
which greatly afflicted the other, but he soon afterwards expressed himself satisfied with the choice the people had made, and said to M. Bik, who had been sent there on a commission, "What reason have I to grieve; whether I am Orang Tua or not, I still have it in my power to assist my fellow villagers." Several old men agreed to this, apparently to comfort him. Thus the only use they make of their riches is to employ it in settling differences, and as this is essentially necessary in an Orang Tua, none but wealthy villagers can aspire to the office.
The following occurrence gives a remarkable proof of the mildness of their laws. An Arafura, who had gone out fishing, intending to be absent eight days, did not return, and his wife, who had no more provisions at home than would last for this period, requested assistance from her neighbour. Hence arose a mutual friendship, which, however, at first only shewed itself in little attentions, the man drawing water, cutting wood, and providing fish for his fair neighbour, who could not avoid feeling grateful for the kindness; and no one will be surprised at their friendship at length ripening into love, when, conscious of their guilt, they took flight to one of the neighbouring islands. The husband, who had been detained by contrary winds, returned at the end of two months, and demanded his wife of her brothers, who were therefore necessitated to go in search of her, when the guilty couple were soon discovered and brought back to their village. The injured husband demanded an enormous fine from the seducer of his wife, which the latter refused to pay, stating that during his entire life he should not be able to collect a sufficient quantity of trepang to make up the sum. An appeal was therefore made to the elders, and on the woman being questioned, she frankly stated the kindness of her neighbour in supplying her wants had called forth her gratitude, and this ripened into love—she had made the first advances. The elders considered this mode of proceeding on the part of the wife rather strange, and taking it into consideration that it was very difficult for any one to withstand a declaration of love from a young woman, they lost sight of the severe laws respecting the conduct of men towards married women, and determined that the offender should only pay a small fine, and advised the husband never again to leave his wife at home without provisions. The lady
returned home with her husband, who was wise enough never to mention the subject, following up the old proverb—
"Men moet geene aude Koeijen uit de sloot halen."
Among the Arafuras the treatment of their dead betrays, in the greatest degree, their uncivilized condition, and the uncertainty which exists among them as to their future state.[25] When a man dies all his relations assemble and destroy all the goods he may have collected during his life, even the gongs are broken to pieces and thrown away. In their villages I met with several heaps of porcelain plates and basins,[26] the property of deceased individuals, the survivors entertaining an idea that they have no right to make use of them.
After death the body is laid out on a small mat, and supported against a ladder until the relatives of the deceased assemble, which seldom takes place until four days have elapsed; and as decomposition will have commenced before this, the parts where moisture has appeared are covered with lime. Fruitless endeavours to stop the progress of decay! In the meantime damar or resin is continually burnt in the house, while the guests who have already assembled regale themselves with quantities of arrack, and of a spirit they themselves prepare from the juice of a fruit, amid violent raving, the discord being increased by the beating of gongs and the howling and lamentation of the women. Food is offered to the deceased, and when they find that he does not partake of it, the mouth is filled with eatables, siri and arrack, until it runs down the body, and spreads over the floor.
When the friends and relatives are all collected the body is placed upon a bier, on which had been laid numerous pieces of cloth, the quantity being according to the ability of the deceased; and under the bier are placed large dishes of China porcelain, to catch any moisture that may fall from the body. The dishes which have been put to this purpose are afterwards much prized, and it is for this reason that dishes of an enormous size are so much prized by the Arafuras. A portion of the moisture that has exuded, is mixed with
arrack and drunk by the guests, who think that they thus show the true affection they bore to the deceased. During two or three days the house of the dead is constantly full of drunken and raving guests. The body is then brought out before the house, and supported against a post, when attempts are again made to induce it to eat.
Lighted segars, arrack, rice, fruit, &c., are again stuffed into its mouth, and the by-standers, striking up a song, demand whether the sight of all his friends and fellow villagers will not induce the deceased to awaken? At length, when they find all these endeavours to be fruitless, they place the body on a bier adorned with flags, and carry it out into the forest, where it is fixed upon the top of four posts. A tree, usually the Pavetta Indica, is then planted near it; and it is remarkable that at this last ceremony none but women, entirely naked, are present. This last ceremony is called by the Arafuras "Sudah Buang,"[27] by which they mean that the body is now cast away, and can listen to them no longer The entire ceremony proves, that the Arafuras are deprived of that consolation afforded by our religion; and that they only give expression to the grief they naturally feel at parting from one to whom they have been attached.
The children, almost from their birth, are fed with boiled labu or pumpkin, which renders it easy to wean them at a very early period. On the birth of a child, a cocoa-nut, with some fish, rice and sago are hung up under the house, and permitted to drop off when they have decayed. They informed me that this was intended to prevent the child from ever being in want of anything during his after life.
Those who know how to read the human heart will, perhaps, find in the character of these remote and untutored people many points of interest; and I therefore trust that my reader will pardon this little digression. I will now proceed with a further description of the Arru Islands.
FOOTNOTES:
[23] On all festive occasions, the starboard side of the deck was given up to the European seamen, while the Javanese occupied
the larboard side, each amusing themselves according to their own fashion. As I had music for both parties, the gaieties on board often attracted spectators from the shore, when we were laying in harbour
[24] No better proof can be given of the richness of the Arru Islands, than the fact of the natives being enabled to purchase so costly an article as ivory, which is always in great demand at Singapore for the European market. It is at the latter place chiefly that the Bughis and Macassar traders obtain the tusks, which are brought thither from Siam and Cochin China. The brass gongs are the manufacture of China.
[25] How much it is to be wished that these people, who are simple, not incredulous, should be converted to Christianity! The Mohammedans, who always have priests in these parts, make many proselytes. Yet religion is the chief bond by which the natives of India are attached to us.
[26] These articles, which are the manufacture of China, are brought hither from Singapore by the Bughis traders Ed
[27] This term, together with those previously given as in use among the Arafuras, are all pure Malay, whence we may conclude that that language, if not their own, is at least familiar to them. Ed.
CHAPTER XI.
THE ARRU ISLANDS.
Trade of the Arru Islands.—Chief Productions.—Trepang.
—The Island Vorkay.—The Pearl Fishery.—The Arafuras of Kobroor and Kobiwatu.—Duryella, the capital of Wama.
—The Schoolmaster.—Homage paid by the Natives to M. Kam.
F many years since the inhabitants of the Arru Islands have been uncontrolled by Europeans, and have been without Christian instructors, so that they have advanced but little in civilization. They have also been considerable sufferers from not having the protection of the Dutch authorities, as the Bughis and Macassars, who come here to trade, are great extortioners, and appeared more in the light of plunderers than of friendly traders; which, indeed, is the case with all the people of India when they are the strongest, and are not controlled by our Government.
The Arru Islands have, however, always been much visited by native merchants, chiefly on account of the trepang, tortoise-shell, edible birds'-nests and pearls which they afford. It will be useful here to give rather a full account of the first of these products, since it is from this that the natives derive the greater part of their riches.
The trepang, which is a species of holothurie, is found chiefly on banks composed of clay mixed with fine sand, and covered with slimy sea-weed, which, at low water, appears above the surface of the sea. Those engaged in the trade are acquainted with no less than twenty different sorts, besides which there are several others which are not eatable, having a very bitter taste. The different sorts are arranged in the following order:—
1. Trepang Passir, or sand trepang, which is found on banks composed chiefly of sand, is considered the best, being much in
demand at Kouding, Aring, and Macassar The price it usually fetches is one hundred and sixty guilders the picul. The different sorts which follow decrease in value from this, until the lowest is thirty guilders the picul.
2. Trepang batu. These have a bluish tinge, and it is necessary to cut them through the thickest part, or they cannot be properly dried.
3. Trepang corro. This is also cut open, and the entrails removed.
4. Trepang pandang.
5. Trepang nanas, or pine-apple trepang, is covered over with spines like the fruit whose name it bears.
6. Trepang itam, or black trepang.
7. Trepang kossong, white with black speckles.
8. Trepang buang kulit, from which it is necessary to strip off two thin skins which cover it.
9. Trepang kay Java.
10. Trepang Marigi. This is obtained on the coast of New Holland, and is boiled up with the bark of the kayu bankudu, which imparts to the animal a red colour, and preserves it dry for a long period.
11. Trepang donga.
12. Trepang kunyit.
13. Trepang gama.
14. Trepang taai konkong.
15. Trepang bilala. This is black, and the only species that is flat.
16. Trepang massee.
17. Trepang katjang goreng. This is small, and is also cured with the bark of the kayu bankudu.
18. Trepang kuwas.
19. Trepang puti. This sort is small, and of a whitish colour.
After the trepang is caught, it is immediately boiled in sea-water, in which the leaves of the papya are steeped, to take off a thin skin which covers it. It is then placed in baskets or holes, and covered up with earth until the following morning, when it is washed repeatedly to deprive it as much as possible of the disagreeable taste of coral which it possesses, after which it is spread out on mats, and dried. Even then it is not entirely free from the unpleasant flavour which is peculiar to all holothuries or polypes, for which reason the Chinese, before making it up into soups or ragouts, boil it with sugar-cane.
The Arafuras sell the trepang to the Bughis and others by the ukur, a measure containing about half a picul. The traders sort the trepang, there being a great difference in the value of the various kinds. The price of the first sort in China is one hundred and twenty Spanish dollars the picul, while the various sorts mixed together can be purchased at the back of the islands, as the eastern parts are called, at the rate of ten to fifteen Spanish dollars the picul. The number of the traders, who now visit the Arrus, has caused the price of this article to increase considerably above that which was formerly given. When the people of Banda had the trade exclusively in their hands, a picul of trepang might be obtained for a sarong, or piece of cloth of the value of eight guilders, and twenty birdsnests for a choppingknife; while now the latter, which will weigh less than a kati, or 11/4lb., cannot be purchased for less than from fourteen to eighteen guilders. These articles would, however, still yield a large profit were it not necessary to remain among the Arrus for a period of four months to collect a cargo of any importance. On this account small brigs and paduakans only are employed in the trade, as their expense is less than that of larger vessels.
Vorkay, an island lying exposed to the ocean at the south-eastern extremity of the group, is of great importance from its pearl fishery. At a distance of eight miles to the eastward lay several small islands, between which and Vorkay the trepang banks are situated. At low water hundreds of men, with their wives and children, may be perceived wading from Vorkay towards these islets, (the water being only two or three feet deep,) carrying a basket at their backs, and having in their hands a stick provided with an iron point. When the
water is deeper than this, they make use of canoes. For fishing on the banks situated at a greater distance, the Arafuras use a prahu, constructed for the purpose, in which they embark their entire family. These vessels have a very strange appearance. They have great beams, and the stern runs up into a high curve, while two planks project forward from the bows. The family resides in three or four huts, composed of atap or palm leaves, erected within the vessel, and a railing runs entirely round it, apparently to prevent the children from falling overboard. The prahu is propelled by a large sail made of rushes, which folds up like a fan, (in a similar manner to the sails of the Chinese junks), set upon a tripod mast of bamboos, while it is steered by two rudders. Two other masts are also erected, which answer no purpose but that of displaying several small flags.
As I have already stated, it is almost impossible for a large ship to approach the eastern side of the Arrus, as in all parts banks and reefs stretch far out to sea. There are, however, a few small openings, through which a brig may enter; but it is absolutely necessary to have an Arafura pilot on board.
Among the chief villages on Vorkay, are Old and New Affara, Longa, Uri and Goor, before the last of which lies a great pearl bank. The natives informed me that it was exhausted, and that they had not fished it for two years; but this was probably a mis-statement, which they were induced to make owing to the difficulties attending the fishery. They said that they only obtained from it large mother-ofpearl shells for the Chinese market, and that they did not find pearls inside them. The true pearl oyster is small, with a thin shell.
The pearl fishery is carried on in the following manner. The trader makes an agreement with the Arafuras for so much a hundred, paying an advance of a certain quantity of arrack, cloth, &c. When the price is agreed on the fisher goes to the bank, and dives for the oysters, which are mostly small and black, in from twenty-four to thirty feet water, selecting the best he can find. The diving is attended with much difficulty and danger, as, from the time he remains under water, the blood often bursts from the nose and mouth of the diver, while he is also liable to be destroyed by the numerous sharks which are to be found there.
The chiefs informed me, that in the time of the (Dutch) East India Company, the pearl fishery was carried on by their order;[28] but when the Arafuras found themselves becoming more and more independent of the Christians, and the chiefs were no longer incited by our Government to carry it on, it was very naturally discontinued, as the labour attending it is much greater than that of the trepang fishery. Small quantities of pearls are still obtained in shallow water for the Bughis traders, but these are of little value, and are chiefly disposed of to the Chinese, who use them as an ingredient in some of their medicines.
On one occasion we met with a prahu from the Kabroor Islands (at the east side of the Arrus), the people in which were superior in appearance to the trepang fishers of Vorkay. They had clearer skins than the latter, and their hair, which was also much finer, was very neatly dressed, and adorned with beads. Their weapons, and the ornaments of their prahus, displayed great taste. The strangers, who called themselves Arafuras of Borassi, had abundance of food with them, together with several hunting dogs.
During the year previous to my visit, when the Governor-General Baron Van Der Capellen visited the Moluccas, he sent two schooners of war, the Daphne and Pollux to the Arrus, to enquire into the condition of the people. The arrival of M. A.J. Bik, who was at the head of this expedition, had given rise to a hope among the natives that the Government would take an interest in their affairs, so that my visit naturally excited much joy among them. They welcomed us in the most friendly manner, kissed our hands, and expressed the greatest joy when I informed them of the object of my visit, and of the purpose of our Government to take them again under their protection. The frank and kind manner in which men and women, heathens as well as Christians, came forth to meet us, was truly striking and impressive, the more from these innocent people being, unlike many others of the Indian races, entirely free from dissimulation. Even the children crowded around to kiss us.
On the afternoon of my arrival I went on shore accompanied by M. Kam and several other gentlemen, to the village of Wanla, which is erected on a point of limestone rock, about thirty feet above the level
of the sea. It contains only ten or twelve poor and small houses; but the stone church, which also overhangs the sea, was in very good condition. Wanla is a dependence of Duryella, the capital of Wama, but is under the immediate control of an Orang Tua.
In several places we saw prahus hauled up on the beach, which are hired to the traders during the time they remain among the islands. In the interior we saw a number of sago trees, the pith of which constituted the chief food of the natives. The ground, generally, is by no means fertile, and in many parts is overgrown with underwood, there being but few spots calculated for the cultivation of rice.
On Sunday, the 28th of August, I set out for Duryella, our road, which lay along the beach, being almost impassable from the number of trees which had been thrown up by the sea during the westerly monsoon. If the inhabitants were rather more industrious they would cut a road through the beautiful forest which runs down close to the sea. Among the trees which lined the shore I recognized the kanari, the katapan laut, the tutun, the yamplon, [29] the casuarina, and the bua-raja, the last of which bears much resemblance to the Javanese fern or pohon paku, the leaves having a beautiful green colour; the fruit, when dried and pounded fine, is often used instead of flour in the composition of pastry.
After an hour's walking we arrived at Duryella, where we were received with much solemnity under a salute of lelahs. The village, which is well built and kept in very good order, forms nearly a square. On the beach opposite, a stage was erected on a high tree, on which several lelahs were mounted; this was formerly used for their protection, when the inhabitants were at war with the people of Wadia; but since peace had been made between them by M. Bik, the fortification had been allowed to fall into disrepair
The house of the Orang Kaya, Jacob Barend, in which we were received, answered also for a fort. It was erected on high piles of iron-wood, and consisted of several rooms, in which the numerous family of the Orang Kaya took up their residence. The remainder of the houses, which formed the village, were smaller, but constructed after the same manner; and the neat little church was kept in good
order The schoolmaster, who resided here, appeared to do his best in instructing his fellow Christians. These teachers, who also perform divine service, are usually young natives of Amboyna, who, after having undergone a course of instruction, are sent among the neighbouring islands without salaries, and being therefore dependent on the natives for support, they are sometimes, from want of the protection of the Government, in very necessitous circumstances. The hope of being relieved and settled at Amboyna, after having been employed as missionaries a few years, renders them very willing to undertake this office, which would otherwise be a truly great sacrifice on their part, as none can feel greater reluctance to leave their homes for a long period than the inhabitants of the Indian Archipelago in general.
M. Bik, on fixing two Amboynese teachers here, whom he brought with him, promised them a salary, and also to supply them now and then with necessaries, as occasion might offer. I therefore considered it my duty to advance them some money and clothes, while at the same time I suggested to the inhabitants that they ought regularly to contribute something to the support of these useful men. The teachers pride themselves on their descent as Amboynese, and are uncommonly neat in their dress. I never saw one otherwise than well clad, wearing a three-cornered hat, a black coat of cloth or cotton, small-clothes of the same materials, with shoes, and black silk or cotton stockings. The teacher at Wokan was married to the daughter of the Orang Kaya, and was as much respected as he was esteemed. Their usual employment consists in instructing the children in reading and writing the Malay language (Roman letters, not the Arabic characters, being used), and in initiating them in the rudiments of the Reformed Religion. They rarely, however, acquire a full insight into the last, as the young people are forced to leave school at an early period, that they may assist their parents in their avocations. He also performs divine service every Sunday, during which he reads passages from the Bible, and the community under his direction sing psalms in the Malayan tongue,[30] the service being usually closed with a discourse on the precepts and duties of Christianity.
We tarried a considerable time at the residence of the Orang Kaya, where a number of people had assembled, among whom were the chiefs of the neighbouring villages, who had come to welcome us and pay their respects. This afforded me a good opportunity of breaking to them the object of my visit; and as I wished to make as much impression on their minds as possible, I arranged that a general meeting should be held on Wokan on the 29th of August, when the business might be entered into more fully. M. Kam, also, to the great satisfaction of the Christians, held a long communication with them on religious subjects, and about fifty of the natives were baptized on the occasion. After this ceremony had been completed, amid the greatest attention and propriety of conduct, we amused ourselves in examining the gardens in the vicinity, the people appearing to be much pleased at our visiting their dwellings.
Early on the following morning I despatched two of the boats, with a portion of my party, to Wokan, and at eight o'clock, by which time a large number of prahus had collected around the brig, I also departed in a third boat, accompanied by M. Dielwaart, under a salute from our guns. The large number of prahus, with which the chiefs accompanied us, presented a very imposing appearance. As we approached Wokan, a salvo was fired from a one-pounder gun, which we had in the boat, and on stepping ashore we were received with military honours by the twenty-eight armed European seamen who had preceded us, which, doubtless, made a proper impression on the Orang Kayas who awaited us on the beach.
We now proceeded to the fort, from which shots were occasionally fired, while the people welcomed us with loud shouts of joy. Especial homage was paid to M. Kam, who subsequently arrived from Wama, as soon as he had stepped on shore; the schoolmaster, and a number of young men and women assembled around him, and commenced the twenty-fifth psalm, singing which they accompanied him until he arrived among us. They then placed themselves respectfully behind the clergyman, and after the psalm was finished they rested awhile, and prepared to commence another; but as I wished to finish my affairs as soon as possible, and at the same time was desirous of avoiding giving offence to the Mohammedan chiefs
who were present, I requested them to defer it to another occasion. The Christian inhabitants of these parts take great delight in singing psalms, and they practice much: they know many of them by heart. Their respect for the Bible is also very great, and they preserve the portions of scriptures, which they formerly received, with as much care as if they were costly jewels. This betokens a strong inclination and capacity on their part to increase their acquaintance with our religion, and this trait in their character may, with a little attention, be made a powerful instrument in improving their condition.
FOOTNOTES:
[28] The pearls obtained were chiefly sent to Japan. Ed.
[29] This large tree bears a yellow nut, which, when stripped of its husk and pounded, is mixed up with cotton and simmered over the fire in an iron pan, until it becomes an oily pap. Strips of cocoa-nut leaves, or small sticks of bamboo, are steeped in this, and thus formed into flambeaux, which give a clear light and are used by the islanders instead of candles.
[30] Our useful countryman, G H Werndly, cannot be sufficiently praised for his Malayan translation of the Old and New Testament, and also of several psalms, which he has rendered into Malayan verse
CHAPTER XII.
THE ARRU ISLANDS.
Gathering of the People at Wokan.—Religious Exercises of the People.—Their singular Mode of Dress.—The Church.—The Fort.—State of Christianity on Wokan.— Dobbo, an important Trading Place.—Commercial Advantages that may be gained there.—Valuable Fishery. —The Pilandok.—Ludicrous alarm of the Arafuras.
O the following morning I informed the assembled chiefs of Wokan of the object of my mission to those parts, namely, to take the inhabitants under the protection of the Dutch Government; to renew the mutual friendship which formerly existed between them;[31] to incite them to carry on more trade, especially with Banda and Amboyna; to confirm the chiefs in their authority; and to promote the welfare and prosperity of these islands and their inhabitants.
After the meeting had been broken up, our party, together with the chiefs of the villages, were invited to dinner by the daughters of the Upper Orang Kaya. The table was spread with a number of well cooked dishes. The wine which I had brought for the entertainment of the chiefs, with the arrack for those of lesser rank, added not a little to the festivity. I remarked on this occasion, that three Orang Kayas, after having drunk a tolerable quantum of wine, finished a bottle of arrack without either of them showing any signs of inebriety. An unsparing use of spirituous liquors may be considered as the greatest vice of the inhabitants of the Arrus, both Christians and Arafuras. The traders bring here large quantities of arrack, together with an inferior kind of aniseed, on which they obtain a very large profit. The natives themselves distil a spirit from sago and rice.
After dinner the people were busily employed in arraying themselves in their best clothes, to attend divine service. Coats and breeches, probably the manufacture of the previous century, were brought to
light out of their chests, and from the smoke of their fires, where they had been hung up to preserve them from insects. Among the presents given to the chiefs by M. Bik the previous year, were several pieces of black cloth, which the former had made up with their own hands into coats, &c., after the model of the old-fashioned smoked clothes above-mentioned, using coarse white thread in the construction. The remnants of the cloth had been made up into head-dresses in the form of night-caps. I set the ship's tailor to work altering their coats, to the no small delight of the chiefs.
The church, situated on the south side of the village, is a handsome and strong stone building, and although the doors and windows are wanting, it is otherwise kept carefully in order. On each side of the entrance are benches and reading desks for the men, while a number of old-fashioned carved chairs, certainly a century and a half old, were placed in the centre for the women. Here and there gravestones might be perceived, the inscriptions on which had become illegible. Their dead are not now interred in or near the church, but are deposited in an enclosed cemetery, some distance to the north-east of the fort. The tomb-stones here are ornamented in different ways, and it is a strong proof of the good disposition of these people, that the tombs of the officers of the late East India Company, who have died here, are kept in as good order as those of their own chiefs and forefathers.
Early on the following morning, the 30th of August, I was requested by the natives to allow M. Kam to hold another religious meeting on this day, that a number more of them might have an opportunity of being married and christened. I willingly gave my consent, and promised to be present with my European fellow-voyagers.
On the previous day I had remarked, that the pulpit was ornamented by a curtain formed of a piece of silk. By way of giving the congregation an agreeable surprise, I caused the teacher to suspend in its place a large covering of fine silk, ornamented with the arms of the King of the Netherlands. The sight of this, on their entering the church, had a great effect on the people, who loudly expressed their thanks for this attention; so that I became convinced that this present of the Government could not have been put to a better use.
During the morning several of the seamen asked my permission to attend the church, that they might become baptismal witnesses to some of the natives who had requested their services; this I willingly allowed, cautioning them however to maintain the strictest propriety of conduct. On entering the church, where a large congregation was assembled, we found chairs and benches prepared for our accommodation. The Upper Orang Kaya and his wife requested me to stand godfather to their daughter, who was to be christened Diderika Hendrika; indeed, nearly all the congregation underwent this ceremony, even people who had attained the age of forty years. Among those who were united in matrimony, were many couples who had already lived, for a long period, in a state of wedlock; in fact, several cases occurred in which parents and children were married at the same time. On only one occasion was there any confusion, and this was caused by a ludicrous accident happening to the dress of a young bridegroom, who had arrayed himself for the ceremony in some old, worn-out, and smoke-dried clothes, which, above all, were too small for him. This was too much for any gravity to endure, and the young ladies especially could not restrain their merriment; but a friendly hand tendered the unlucky youth a sarong, in which he would gladly have enveloped himself entirely to conceal his confusion. To add to the solemnity of the occasion, several German flutes had been brought to accompany the psalms, the natives, especially the women, being extremely fond of the music of this instrument. At the request of M. Kam, my Amboynese piper attended to play second; but although the poor youth did all he could with hands and feet, he was unable to keep in tune, so that we were soon obliged to put a stop to the disconcerto.
The ceremony was extremely long, but the attention shown by the audience was truly exemplary; indeed, in the mother country I have seen a congregation asleep from weariness at a much shorter service, so that in this respect our countrymen and countrywomen may learn an example from the simple inhabitants of the Arru Islands. Even after the service they assembled at the house of the teacher, and sang several more psalms; the newly married couples being also ceremoniously congratulated on the joyful occasion.
While they were thus employed, I took the opportunity of paying a visit to the ruins of the fort.
This fort, which is now in state of great dilapidation—patches of a wall, which was once three feet thick and twenty feet high, alone remaining—formed a square, with bastions at the corners; but of the latter nothing was now visible, some posts having been erected in their place, on which several lelahs were mounted. The house of the Orang Kaya, which stands in the centre, is the only part in good repair. The natives were very desirous of having a Dutch garrison again among them, in which case they would willingly set to work and put the fort into complete order.
Several of the Mohammedans, who had been driven out of the village, formerly resided a little to the northward; but these have now put themselves under the rule of the Christians, with whom they live on good terms.
I passed the afternoon in settling the affairs of the natives, the chiefs of the neighbouring villages being present. Bernard Herman was appointed as Upper Orang Kaya, with the promise of a goldenknobbed baton. The chiefs of Wadia betrayed considerable jealousy, and requested me to do them the same honour I had conferred on the people of Wokan; I therefore promised that I would visit their head village with the brig, at which they appeared to be well contented, and departed for their homes to make ready for our reception. Among the Government presents which I gave to the Orang Kaya were two Dutch flags, on which they set a high value; in addition to which I left in his hands some trifles for the Arafuras of the islands at the back of the group.
At the conclusion of these ceremonies I sent both boats on board the brig, the remainder of our party intending to stop the night at the house of the Orang Kaya. During our stay the seamen occupied a house which had been prepared for their reception, where they were abundantly supplied with provisions.
To the northward of the chief village of Wokan there are several small villages, the most important of which, Samau, is inhabited by Mohammedans, who are under the control of the people of the
capital. The chiefs of the western islands extend their authority over the Arafuras, each chief having several villages under his rule, the inhabitants of which paid a willing obedience to their governors while they were supported by our Government, who, for this purpose, had only about ten European or Amboynese soldiers on the islands, the serjeant of the party being the commanding officer. The Arafuras then considered themselves obliged to give an account of all their actions to the Christian chiefs, to whom they also delivered up a portion of the profits of their trade. These heathens, in general, are much desirous of becoming converts to Christianity, and willingly allow their children to be instructed in its tenets; but for many years since there have been no teachers, much less missionaries or clergymen among them. Our religion has therefore retrograded, while Islamism, of which there are many priests here, has advanced considerably. This is much to be regretted; for, as I have already stated, a similarity in religious belief forms our strongest bond of union with the people of these countries. The Arafuras prefer Christianity to Mohammedanism, so that were proper measures taken much might be done, especially as they are better in their disposition than the heathen inhabitants of the islands we had previously visited.
Leaving Wokan on the 31st, I next visited Dobbo, a village situated on a spit of sand five hundred yards long, extending from the northeast side of Wama, and reducing the channel between the latter island and Wokan to about a mile. This spit affords shelter to the trading vessels, which anchor to the eastward or to the westward of it, according to the monsoon, and fourteen or fifteen sheds are erected upon it, under which they can be hauled up and repaired. It is very difficult to enter the harbour without a pilot, as steep reefs, dry at low water, extend a considerable distance from Wama and Wokan, forming a narrow and crooked channel, with a depth of eight, nine, and ten fathoms. The reefs, which are always visible in fine weather, extend farther from Wokan than from Wama, so that the channel lies nearest to the south shore. In the early part of the west monsoon several brigs from Sourabaya (Java), a number of paduakans from Macassar (Celebes), together with many other vessels from different places, among which are many small craft
from the Ki Islands and Goram, visit this harbour, the greater part of which are hauled up on the beach during their stay, and covered over with sheds of atap. The traders, with the assistance of the natives, erect houses wherein they reside and deposit their goods, the guns belonging to their vessel being planted around it. The traders remain here until the month of June, Dobbo, during their stay, having the appearance of a very populous place. The traders, immediately on their arrival, hire vessels from the inhabitants, which they send with a portion of their crew to the more distant islands, to purchase trepang, edible birds'-nests, and mother-of-pearl shell. The trade is conducted with great regularity, and if differences now and then occur, they are always put an end to by the mediation of the Orang Kaya. The commanders of the trading vessels pay a certain quantity of arrack and cloth as anchorage dues and ground rent, and although the amount paid by each is small, the number of traders is so great as to render this an important source of income to the inhabitants. Soon after the departure of the traders Dobbo is abandoned for the season, the old houses being burnt by the natives that they may have to build new ones the following year, and thus increase their gains.
This spit offers a good situation for the erection of a small fort, the wells upon it supplying good fresh water, while the high beach is open on both sides to the sea-breeze. According to the universal testimony of the natives, this spot is very healthy, and although the sea is disturbed by the number of vessels, it affords abundance of fish. A party sent here from the brig to fish with the seine, obtained at three hauls, a sufficient quantity of kakap (a sort of cod), and other delicate fish, to half fill the boat.
As nothing is to be feared from the natives, I feel convinced that were a fort to be erected on this spot it would soon become a very prosperous trading place. At present the natives do not settle here in great numbers, as the foreign traders do not like them to reside among them. As soon as the traders have departed the people give themselves up to idleness, and only commence collecting produce a short time previous to their return. Neither do the foreign traders now like to settle on the islands, perhaps because they do not place
