What do you think?
Rate this book
A History of the Pacific Islands
A History of the Pacific Islands traces the human history of nearly one-third of the globe over a 50,000 year span. This is history on a grand scale, taking the islands of Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia from prehistoric culture to the present day through a skillful interpretation of scholarship in the field. Fischer's familiarity with work in archaeology and anthropology as well as in history enriches the text, making this a book with wide appeal for students and general readers.
336 pages, Paperback
First published August 12, 2002
11 people are currently reading
119 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
October 16, 2017
The first part of this book was superb! It gave me a great overview of how Austronesians spread out from Taiwan, throughout SEA and into Oceania, and slowly colonized the Pacific islands. It uses archaeological, linguistic and genetic evidence to create a convincing account of their movements, mixings and development; and I got a fairly good impression of their cultures. It could have been a little more structured; some facts are repeated several times, others in the wrong order. But it is quite straightforward and objective, and doesn't shy away from controversial topics, such as native racism and destruction of the environment. I got almost exactly what I wanted here, and might almost have given the book five stars had it continued like this.
Unfortunately, the moment Europeans enter the picture the author turns into a rabid anti-imperialist. Now, there are many good reasons to oppose imperialism in the context of Europeans in the Pacific, but his strongly held convictions concerning imperialism, capitalism, globalism and the US makes the rest of the book a quite subjective treatment of history.
He starts off by assuming that all his readers take it for granted that all Europeans that ever went to the Pacific only created horrible atrocities. He writes about whalers that used natives on their ships, traders that traded arms and alcohol to the natives, and both groups creating settlements that "festered with deserters, escapees, arms traders, taverns, prostitutes and every other vice the West could import." This is supposed to confirm our preconceived picture of drunken, violent and uncultured Europeans destroying everything in their path. He then contrasts this with the missionaries who, lo and behold, were not always like this! "Yet missionaries counterbalanced the harm of the whalers, traders and publicans..."
Wait, what harm? Seriously, after indirectly disparaging the whalers and the traders over dozens of pages, the author still has not informed me what specific damage they actually did. Sure, selling alcohol can cause problems anywhere, but they appear to be voluntary transactions, and any harm it causes must be at least equally blamed on the natives. Prostitution is also not the most venerable occupation ever but ... come on! What specific things did the whalers do that were evil and caused harm? The fact is that most of the harm was caused by the introduction of disease and new ideas, both of which broke down the fabric of society. Both were carried by missionaries and whalers alike, and neither intended to destroy the cultures they visited -- and yet both groups did, in their own way. And perhaps the whalers were on average worse -- I'm sure they did horrible acts of violence from time to time, and perhaps this outweighs the missionary's destruction of native religion and culture. But the author doesn't quantify or even try to describe this, instead relying on the reader's preconceived notion of evil European capitalists trying to destroy all other societies through the sale of cheap alcohol and arms. He thinks he doesn't have to describe it, because we will agree with him when he talks about "traders" that are "avaricious" and whose only motive is "profit". Of course they must be evil and only cause destruction! They are motivated by profit!
And this motif continues throughout the rest of the book, and gets more and more unbearable. Almost every time the Europeans do something less that pristine, the details are left out and the incident described with sarcasm and quotation marks to signal how critical the author is of global capitalism and the WTO or whatever. There are some exceptions: As with the missionaries above, the author sometimes decides to be a contrarian to his perceived liberal audience, by pointing out that WOW, sometimes the Europeans do something that isn't completely motivated by greed and evil! And this is better than nothing, but the whole process is so counterproductive. Even when he lands on the Europeans' side, it is a moralistic exercise, with little emphasis on objective historic facts. I'm more interested in the details that led the author to his moral stance, rather than how the natives were "denied a decent status in the urbanize Pacific", whatever that means.
The author keeps using loaded words to imply his moral stance, without giving us the factual information. We are told the natives were "lured" or 'recruited' (with quotation marks) into service on the ships, but we are never told what this means. How many were forced? How many were literally lied to? What did this entail? Perhaps nobody knows, but then the author should state as much, instead of just assuming that of course, all Europeans only ever used coercive means to gain laborers, why wouldn't they? They were capitalists! French Caldoches in New Caledonia are "killed" by native Kanaks; in retaliation, the Kanaks are then "massacred" and "shot in cold blood" by the Caldoches. I think I know why the author describes the two events with such different terms, but I want him to at least make a case why this is an accurate description of events, fit for a history book.
The last part of the book concerns more recent events and politics, and is close to appalling. The author spends 10 pages implying that Britain, France and the US destroyed vast swathes of native land and caused massive disease and suffering through nuclear tests without the consent of the natives. I say "imply", because although the author uses terms such as "pulverized villages", "devastating" and "significant contamination", he does not actually state outright how much land was destroyed, how long it was rendered unlivable, and how many cancer cases can be connected to the blasts. This kind of ambiguous language bothers me, so I looked up the facts myself, and concluded that Britain and France caused virtually zero short- and long-term damage, while the US caused some mid-term damage to the land (not the people) which likely legitimately surprised them, and caused them to hand out huge amounts of money and resources in compensation. I'm not an expert in this and my conclusion may not be the most accurate, but it is completely compatible with the version given in the book, absent the morally loaded language. Either the author should properly argue his case for using this language, or at least mention other possible versions of events. As far as I can tell, this part of the book is 100% politically motivated.
In the last few pages, the presentation becomes surreal for a moderately objective observer. China's "co-operative utilitarianism" which "seeks the greatest good for the greatest number" is presented as a potential savior of the Pacific from America, who "refuses to change its adversarial ethos" of "competitive pragmatism". After bemoaning America's handing out of hundreds of millions of dollars as aid to their Pacific possessions as just another way of controlling the people there, Russia is now praised for "providing tens of millions of dollars of aid to small, impoverished nations", while China is "dynamically engaging Pacific Islands with hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid in exchange for natural resources" (umm.... do you mean "trade"?). Terms such as "neocolonialism", "neo-tribal capitalism" and even a currently "Feudal Pacific" are thrown about, and again the readers are expected to absorb these conclusions uncritically. Any mention of "capitalism" and "globalization" is expected to make us nod ruefully and mumble "yep, anytime the US touches something it goes straight to hell. If only nominally socialist countries could get powerful enough to fix everything!" And so these conclusions are not questioned, and we don't get the actual factual detail for which we bought the history book in the first place. OF COURSE free markets only cause more suffering and exploitation; why explore what might have happened if free markets were not introduced, and what other alternatives there were?
The farce reaches a climax when the author comes to the subject of global warming, one of the litmus tests for whether someone actually has a scientific mindset. He claims that "Climate change is one of the Pacific Islands' greatest challenges" because it causes "greater tectonic activity along coasts" and "more violent earthquakes and tsunamis". There have indeed been scientists that have suggested this, but it is among the most speculative consequences of global warming that exist. Expansion of water and melting of ice will undoubtedly change the patterns of earthquakes, but to claim that there will certainly be more of them near the specific area of the Pacific Islands, and that these will certainly be more violent than they are now, as actual scientific facts, is just plain falsehood. This is almost pure speculation. And again, I know why the author writes this. It's because he identifies with the political left, and the political left puts a strong emphasis on the dangers and destructive consequences of global warming, and of globalism and capitalism and the US and all the other things I have mentioned above that the author spins into his narrative. And perhaps all of this even turns out to be true; but he needs to either argue strongly for his positions with scientific facts, or point out that his positions are highly controversial, and that lots of intelligent people could give really convincing accounts that completely contradict his. I could rewrite his account of global warming, using the same arguments as he does, but coming to the exact opposite conclusion. This means that neither of our accounts include interesting information. That's a problem.
In conclusion, I really cannot recommend the last two thirds of this book (chapter 3～); and the last third (chapter 7～) not at all. If you are a committed leftist, you will probably nod happily along the way, but you will not actually learn as many historical lessons as you should; rather, you will reinforce your current memeplex. If you are a committed rightist, or committed to the objective and unpolitical study of history, you will cringe more and more strongly, until you throw the book away in frustration at the end. But the first third of the book is great! I wish it was just a tiny bit more structured, but if you want a good account of the pre-contact Pacific, I heartily recommend this book. The first third of it.
Unfortunately, the moment Europeans enter the picture the author turns into a rabid anti-imperialist. Now, there are many good reasons to oppose imperialism in the context of Europeans in the Pacific, but his strongly held convictions concerning imperialism, capitalism, globalism and the US makes the rest of the book a quite subjective treatment of history.
He starts off by assuming that all his readers take it for granted that all Europeans that ever went to the Pacific only created horrible atrocities. He writes about whalers that used natives on their ships, traders that traded arms and alcohol to the natives, and both groups creating settlements that "festered with deserters, escapees, arms traders, taverns, prostitutes and every other vice the West could import." This is supposed to confirm our preconceived picture of drunken, violent and uncultured Europeans destroying everything in their path. He then contrasts this with the missionaries who, lo and behold, were not always like this! "Yet missionaries counterbalanced the harm of the whalers, traders and publicans..."
Wait, what harm? Seriously, after indirectly disparaging the whalers and the traders over dozens of pages, the author still has not informed me what specific damage they actually did. Sure, selling alcohol can cause problems anywhere, but they appear to be voluntary transactions, and any harm it causes must be at least equally blamed on the natives. Prostitution is also not the most venerable occupation ever but ... come on! What specific things did the whalers do that were evil and caused harm? The fact is that most of the harm was caused by the introduction of disease and new ideas, both of which broke down the fabric of society. Both were carried by missionaries and whalers alike, and neither intended to destroy the cultures they visited -- and yet both groups did, in their own way. And perhaps the whalers were on average worse -- I'm sure they did horrible acts of violence from time to time, and perhaps this outweighs the missionary's destruction of native religion and culture. But the author doesn't quantify or even try to describe this, instead relying on the reader's preconceived notion of evil European capitalists trying to destroy all other societies through the sale of cheap alcohol and arms. He thinks he doesn't have to describe it, because we will agree with him when he talks about "traders" that are "avaricious" and whose only motive is "profit". Of course they must be evil and only cause destruction! They are motivated by profit!
And this motif continues throughout the rest of the book, and gets more and more unbearable. Almost every time the Europeans do something less that pristine, the details are left out and the incident described with sarcasm and quotation marks to signal how critical the author is of global capitalism and the WTO or whatever. There are some exceptions: As with the missionaries above, the author sometimes decides to be a contrarian to his perceived liberal audience, by pointing out that WOW, sometimes the Europeans do something that isn't completely motivated by greed and evil! And this is better than nothing, but the whole process is so counterproductive. Even when he lands on the Europeans' side, it is a moralistic exercise, with little emphasis on objective historic facts. I'm more interested in the details that led the author to his moral stance, rather than how the natives were "denied a decent status in the urbanize Pacific", whatever that means.
The author keeps using loaded words to imply his moral stance, without giving us the factual information. We are told the natives were "lured" or 'recruited' (with quotation marks) into service on the ships, but we are never told what this means. How many were forced? How many were literally lied to? What did this entail? Perhaps nobody knows, but then the author should state as much, instead of just assuming that of course, all Europeans only ever used coercive means to gain laborers, why wouldn't they? They were capitalists! French Caldoches in New Caledonia are "killed" by native Kanaks; in retaliation, the Kanaks are then "massacred" and "shot in cold blood" by the Caldoches. I think I know why the author describes the two events with such different terms, but I want him to at least make a case why this is an accurate description of events, fit for a history book.
The last part of the book concerns more recent events and politics, and is close to appalling. The author spends 10 pages implying that Britain, France and the US destroyed vast swathes of native land and caused massive disease and suffering through nuclear tests without the consent of the natives. I say "imply", because although the author uses terms such as "pulverized villages", "devastating" and "significant contamination", he does not actually state outright how much land was destroyed, how long it was rendered unlivable, and how many cancer cases can be connected to the blasts. This kind of ambiguous language bothers me, so I looked up the facts myself, and concluded that Britain and France caused virtually zero short- and long-term damage, while the US caused some mid-term damage to the land (not the people) which likely legitimately surprised them, and caused them to hand out huge amounts of money and resources in compensation. I'm not an expert in this and my conclusion may not be the most accurate, but it is completely compatible with the version given in the book, absent the morally loaded language. Either the author should properly argue his case for using this language, or at least mention other possible versions of events. As far as I can tell, this part of the book is 100% politically motivated.
In the last few pages, the presentation becomes surreal for a moderately objective observer. China's "co-operative utilitarianism" which "seeks the greatest good for the greatest number" is presented as a potential savior of the Pacific from America, who "refuses to change its adversarial ethos" of "competitive pragmatism". After bemoaning America's handing out of hundreds of millions of dollars as aid to their Pacific possessions as just another way of controlling the people there, Russia is now praised for "providing tens of millions of dollars of aid to small, impoverished nations", while China is "dynamically engaging Pacific Islands with hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid in exchange for natural resources" (umm.... do you mean "trade"?). Terms such as "neocolonialism", "neo-tribal capitalism" and even a currently "Feudal Pacific" are thrown about, and again the readers are expected to absorb these conclusions uncritically. Any mention of "capitalism" and "globalization" is expected to make us nod ruefully and mumble "yep, anytime the US touches something it goes straight to hell. If only nominally socialist countries could get powerful enough to fix everything!" And so these conclusions are not questioned, and we don't get the actual factual detail for which we bought the history book in the first place. OF COURSE free markets only cause more suffering and exploitation; why explore what might have happened if free markets were not introduced, and what other alternatives there were?
The farce reaches a climax when the author comes to the subject of global warming, one of the litmus tests for whether someone actually has a scientific mindset. He claims that "Climate change is one of the Pacific Islands' greatest challenges" because it causes "greater tectonic activity along coasts" and "more violent earthquakes and tsunamis". There have indeed been scientists that have suggested this, but it is among the most speculative consequences of global warming that exist. Expansion of water and melting of ice will undoubtedly change the patterns of earthquakes, but to claim that there will certainly be more of them near the specific area of the Pacific Islands, and that these will certainly be more violent than they are now, as actual scientific facts, is just plain falsehood. This is almost pure speculation. And again, I know why the author writes this. It's because he identifies with the political left, and the political left puts a strong emphasis on the dangers and destructive consequences of global warming, and of globalism and capitalism and the US and all the other things I have mentioned above that the author spins into his narrative. And perhaps all of this even turns out to be true; but he needs to either argue strongly for his positions with scientific facts, or point out that his positions are highly controversial, and that lots of intelligent people could give really convincing accounts that completely contradict his. I could rewrite his account of global warming, using the same arguments as he does, but coming to the exact opposite conclusion. This means that neither of our accounts include interesting information. That's a problem.
In conclusion, I really cannot recommend the last two thirds of this book (chapter 3～); and the last third (chapter 7～) not at all. If you are a committed leftist, you will probably nod happily along the way, but you will not actually learn as many historical lessons as you should; rather, you will reinforce your current memeplex. If you are a committed rightist, or committed to the objective and unpolitical study of history, you will cringe more and more strongly, until you throw the book away in frustration at the end. But the first third of the book is great! I wish it was just a tiny bit more structured, but if you want a good account of the pre-contact Pacific, I heartily recommend this book. The first third of it.
May 23, 2017
It's a pretty good general history of the Pacific Islands, which includes Hawai'i, New Zealand, New Guinea as well as the usual suspects (Tahiti, Tonga, Samoa, Easter Island).
October 5, 2024
I think that this might be the most synthetic book possible on a subject that covers such a huge area and period of time (from prehistory to modern times). It really gives a nice overview on the topic for the novice and does not require any prior knowledge on the subject. It is a bit difficult to remember all the details that are mentioned, especially in the most recent periods, but I think that it is a good reference book.
The writing is ok: for instance it is difficult to tell 50 years of History for a bunch of islands in a few pages without making it feel like a list of events, and the author manages that quite well.
The first half of the book is simply great. My concern about this book, however, lies on the unbalanced perspective on the colonial powers: the author considers that the French have never done anything right, whereas the British and other Commonwealth powers are presented in a much more flattering light. For instance, blackbirding is not even called by its name, only mentioned in two lines and almost presented as a holiday for the islanders, instead of a substitute to slavery... As a novice to the subject, I can't judge the accuracy of those depictions, but it got me extremely suspicious.
Yet, I really recommend this book, as it is the best short book on the subject that I have been able to find.
#This review was originally published on Amazon.
The writing is ok: for instance it is difficult to tell 50 years of History for a bunch of islands in a few pages without making it feel like a list of events, and the author manages that quite well.
The first half of the book is simply great. My concern about this book, however, lies on the unbalanced perspective on the colonial powers: the author considers that the French have never done anything right, whereas the British and other Commonwealth powers are presented in a much more flattering light. For instance, blackbirding is not even called by its name, only mentioned in two lines and almost presented as a holiday for the islanders, instead of a substitute to slavery... As a novice to the subject, I can't judge the accuracy of those depictions, but it got me extremely suspicious.
Yet, I really recommend this book, as it is the best short book on the subject that I have been able to find.
#This review was originally published on Amazon.
April 12, 2020
Good first half, not so good second one. But at least the book is quite comprehensive so I'd recommend as an introductory text to the Pacific Islands' history
April 24, 2024
2.5 star because this book is a very good overview of the history of the pacific islands however I cannot get past the writing style
December 21, 2019
It's informative in the first 2 chapters, but I found some inconsistencies that caused me to question how much research he really did. For example p. 98 says the Hawaiian sandalwood trade ended early because of the poor quality of the wood. A quick search on Google shows multiple sources (including one of his own) that says quality of the wood wasn't the issue. It was trees being cut down and sold faster than they could grow, in addition to costs being driven down by sources for other species of sandalwood.
His writing style also bugs me. Hard to explain, but something about his writing just seems really off.
It's a good start if you know nothing about Pacific Island history, but I recommend doing your own research after.
His writing style also bugs me. Hard to explain, but something about his writing just seems really off.
It's a good start if you know nothing about Pacific Island history, but I recommend doing your own research after.
September 17, 2011
Got about a third of the way through this before it was due back a the library. It is well written and very comprehensive. Lots of good info. I think I will check it out again at some point in the future to finish it.
April 3, 2012
Earnest, plodding, rather dull, but also annoyingly modish. And the author's claim to have deciphered the odd script found on Easter Island doesn't seem to hold water. But for all that, it tells you the story of Polynesia reasonably well - you'll at least have an outline you can fill in elsewhere.
November 7, 2008
Fischer has composed an excellent treatment of the region's history.
October 10, 2012
From beginning to end, Fischer has taken the reader/researcher from the First Islanders to the New Pacific in a way that keeps you engaged and informed.
February 25, 2023
Nothing spectacular but a solid history of the Pacific Islands.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews