Colonialism by Deferral: Samoa Under the Tridominium, 1889–1899
ISBN: 978-1-78714-655-6, eISBN: 978-1-78714-654-9
Publication date: 20 December 2017
Abstract
This chapter explores the making of the colonial state in Samoa in the 1890s. The Samoan case offers new insights into the workings of the colonial state precisely because nowhere else were Euro-American colonial projects as intertwined with and dependent on local support. In an unprecedented experiment in colonial rule, German, British, and American officials shared control over the Samoan islands from 1889 to 1899. This so-called tridominium, I argue, served as a colonial strategy of deferral for Euro-American officials anxious to diffuse escalating conflict over the distant islands. Contrary to plan, ongoing tensions among German, British, and American interests allowed Samoans to maintain considerable political and economic autonomy. The main reason for the ultimate failure of the tridominium for Euro-American policy-makers lay in the uneven and incomplete exercise of colonial power over Samoans. Limitations in geography, people, and finance made the tridominium a weak colonial state. In addition, the lack of resources the respective metropolitan governments devoted to the distant archipelago in the South Pacific increased the relative influence of Samoan leaders and of the growing number of Samoans who joined the administration. Samoa in the 1890s serves as an important reminder that colonial rule was rarely clear-cut and never complete.
Keywords
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to the participants of the workshop “Reanalyzing the Colonial State: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives” at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, in August 2016 for their helpful comments. Many thanks also to Julian Go and the anonymous reviewers for PPST. Last but never least, much love to Joy Sun for final edits.
Citation
Droessler, H. (2017), "Colonialism by Deferral: Samoa Under the Tridominium, 1889–1899", Rethinking the Colonial State (Political Power and Social Theory, Vol. 33), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 203-224. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0198-871920170000033009
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2017 Emerald Publishing Limited