Papua New Guinea
|This article is source material
Colin Richardson (Conculture 27805, Feb 21, 2007):
Given 1949 for independence as a starting point for historical divergence (*here* independence being 1975), makes for an interesting search. Not many Papuan politicians known *here* in that time frame, and some of *here* politicians would in any case disappear (e.g. Sir Michael Somare - since his home area of the Sepik River would fall *there* in the Japanese territory (Admiral Yamamoto Land). Also, *there* Papua includes a large part of *here* West Irian/West Papua, excludes the Bismarck Islands, and clearly is lacking the German influence in *here* New Guinea. A nice challenge!
Daniel Hicken (Conculture 27812, Feb 22, 2007):
Since you're here, why don't you go ahead and give us a nice resume of your ideas for IB? Or Questions? We love questions, as Quentin can attest!
Colin (Conculture 27829, Feb 24, 2007):
Thanks for the comment Daniel - I may expand a little further on it sometime soon. I already posted basic idea for a part of IB I would like to work on - Papua. I grew up there, and have worked there since, speak the 2 main linguae francae, Hiri Motu and Tok Pisin. See my comments in message 22805 (22 Feb). In IB Papua Tok Pisin would probably not exist - it was introduced by the Germans *here*, and in IB they appear to have had no presence in the region. The divergence thus starts at least as early as 1883 - and intensifies in 1949 with Kingsland granting independence to Papua (*here* indep was 1975). The Dutch presence *here* seems largely missing *there* (per the map referred to), and there is a Japanese presence in the NW. Kingsland Papua then is much larger that is Australian Papua *here*, extending into parts of *here* West Papua, and including a large part of *here* German New Guinea.
I am curious as to any QSS impact on the status of the Bismarck islands (New Britain, New Ireland, Manus, Bougainville) and the Solomon Islands (all *here*). In the map referred to (http://ib.frath.net/w/images/0/08/WorldMap2001.png), these islands do not seem to be part of Papua, but are coloured as if part of Australasia - but I can find no reference to them in any Australasia-related article in IB. Any comments anyone? Same problem with the Japanese portion as shown on the map - Admiral Yamamoto Land. Ditto the Maluku, Mazahapit and Bornei-Philipinas enclaves indicated on the map - nothing found in IB text except the "Australasia and the Pacific" Archive ideas, some of which are not taken up in other parts of the Pacific. Anyone know of any work done in this area?
This would imply that the linguistic situation that prevailed in *here* Papua from the colonial impact (the adoption of Motu as an intertribal language for administration) would extend to the whole of the *there* territory - a totally different situation cf *here*, and one that would have modified the form of the pidginised Motu (Police or Hiri Motu).
I'm not clear in studying IB to what extent *here* real persons can validly by included *there*. Is there a rule on persons still living being included *there*, especially when they are known to be present *here* before the divergence point?
Padraic Brown (Conculture 27837, Feb 26, 2007)
We often end up with real persons (from *here*) ending up *there* as well. Sometimes they turn out quite different, sometimes they are similar. For example, ...
...If you have some Papuan characters in mind, feel free to either expand on what you know about them, or feel free to make a composite character if you want to. Certainly, you are free to give these people different names.
Roger Mills ([http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conculture/message/27840 Conculture 27840), Feb 27, 2007):
I don't know the history of Tok Pisin, but didn't it originate mainly from sailors/traders in the China trade? then spread wherever Engl. ships, or others with polyglot crews, ventured?
Andrew Smith (Conculture 27843, Feb 28, 2007)
I don't have information on Tok Pisin, but my dictionary on Bislama says that it did originate from the China trade, most of the development happened on the Queensland plantations. It had little prestige until after WWII when greater mobility allowed it to expand as a vernacular language.
Apparently what language will emerge in the area depends on who controls trade and education.
Colin (Conculture 27846, Feb 28, 2007):
Not according to works I have read. A useful summary is in Wikipedia under Tok Pisin article. Pidgins have developed anywhere there is a need for simple communication between two language groups, esp for trade. The English-Chinese pidgin was simply one of the earlier ones. A Portuguese pidgin has influence many others - sailors would seem to spread common phrases or words around. But most developed where they were, and depending on the dominant foreign language. There is no evidence I have seen in *here* PNG that there is any traceable Chinese influence in Tok Pisin. There is German influence, and local languages, besides English, but it was already developing before the Germans were removed.
Some suggest that *here* Tok Pisin, Solomons Pijin, and Vanuatu Bislama developed from the "blackbirder" situation in Queensland, and was taken back to the islands by returning labourers. For Solomons and Vanuatu, this may well be. But PNG was not a major source of Blackbirded labourers; the Germans would not have looked lightly on Australians barging into their waters, and inveigling their people onto ships! And while Queensland/Britain controlled Papua (sth), there is no evidence that any "kanaka" pidgin impacted there - rather "Police Motu" was the norm. Since *there* the German influence is nil, and their early (*here*) stronghold New Britain is Australasian anyway, it is an interesting point as to whether Pidgin/Pisin penetrated significantly into Papua.
I take the concept from *here* that the 1st Lt-Governor, Sir William MacGregor (A Scot! - fits with *there* Kingsland!!) found an existing pidgin language, a simplified form of the tribal language Motu, and adopted it, with modifications, as the intertribal language for Papua, to be used for administration, especially the new locally recruited police (hence the old name Police Motu). *There*, the same would apply, but would have a much larger influence, not being countered by a parallel or opposing influence from the northern side.
*Here*, Hiri Motu has had at first a parallel development with Tok Pisin (NG Pidgin), and then a decline as the more populous Pisin-speaking areas predominated. But initially Hiri (Police) Motu spread to almost all the Australian territory of Papua, from Daru to Popondetta and Samarai. I grew up in that environment, and learned Hiri Motu as a child - and continued to study it. Today, Hiri Motu is still around, still official, but losing ground to Pidgin.
*There*, I propose a Kingsland admin under Sir William MacGregor (1883-?), in which with no German presence, and a much freer hand, the influence of Hiri Motu continued to spread and develop, becoming a major unifying factor in Papua, especially after Independence in 1949. I am working on translating the countries of IB-world into Motu, not just a transcription, and would like to develop a history where this would be a strong feature. MacGregor is followed by another Scot, Sir Hubert Murray who expands the same. The influence of Motu (already used in tribal trading - the Hiri - to the Gulf region of Papua (*here* and *there*), accelerates development as it never did *here*. With hundred of tribes and language groups in Papua, such is necessary.
From there I foresee a structure of government which takes into account that in most of Papua (*here* PNG), tribal government is by a council of elders, by concensus ("the Melanesian Way" so often referred to in PNG *here*), not an authoritarian chief system as in much of Polynesia and Fiji (*here*). Papua (independent) would have a parliament elected by popular vote but with candidates likely to be voted on tribal lines, and a regional elders house of policy and review. Still working on the concepts.
Contact with the putative Chinese NW would have been minimal for long - perhaps it could be that the beginnings of contact were a triggering factor for Australasia's war with China? Or perhaps China was planning expansion into Papua - perhaps did occupy some parts as part of the Great Oriental War? Austronesian participation in expelling them from the island might then give a rational for Japan and the others receiving parts of the former Chinese territory...
Input would be welcome!
Marc Pasquin (Conculture 28098, Apr 24, 2007)
I think they [Solomon Islands] were put there [Australasia] by default, there is no QSS on their exact status as far as I know.
Daniel (Conculture 28142, May 9, 2007)
Definitely sloppy map-making, I should say. That map-maker should be drug out and shot.
Haven't seen this discussion on Conculture, but saw it now so one reply would be with regards to what is now Admiral Yamamoto Land - it was previously Chinese New Guinea, a Chinese territory (as China in IB was more powerful). This can probably be considered QSS, it is mentioned in Fiji article also as a place of Brooke's trading. After the Second Great War the territory was awarded to Japan but events after that probably are not strong QSS. Before I drew the World map there were various conflicting pieces of information / thoughts on this region and I have tried to incorporate them. Abdul-aziz 15:47, 4 March 2008 (PST)