How do I describe this man - Wilfrid Barbrooke Grubb, who lived over one hundred years ago, who travelled, lived and worked in a part of South America that would later become the home of my people (and me, of course), who was celebrated by his contemporaries as one of the foremost missionaries and explorers of his time, but who, through my eyes and the lens of the 21 century has caused much harm for spreading and imposing his (supremacist, arrogant, self-righteous, Eurocentric) world view to a foreign culture at a time when it was perceived to be so admirable to do so. How do I tackle the history of colonialism? Do I condemn everything he did or do I see him as a 'child of his time'? What about the people he changed forever, the Enxet of the Southern Chaco? (More about the Enxet in a separate post). How does decolonization work? How do I need to look at this history with decolonization in mind? I'll use this blog post to share some of the texts I've read and to process their contents with a personal commentary. This post is not intended to be a formal analysis.
I heard the name Wilfrid Barbrooke Grubb for the first time when Laura from the SDCELAR called me over skype to introduce the artist residency to me. "No, I didn't know of him." When I shared the good news about having been offered such an exciting artist residency with my mom (who still lives in the Chaco), she knew of Barbrooke Grubb, the Anglican missionary in the South, and immediately found some books about him on Dad's bookshelves. I miss not having access to Dad's extensive library about everything related to the history in the Chaco, or his equally extensive knowledge. Dad passed away in 2014 and I so miss not being able to I talk to him about everything related to this project. I chat with two of my uncles who also live in Winnipeg. Both know of Barbrooke Grubb and one has a photocopy of a book about Grubb (from my Dad, it seems), but we're in a complete lockdown and he lives in a care home, so no chance of getting in there any time soon. Uncle Wilhelm used to work as a Mennonite missionary among the Northern Enlhet, until he was let go by the church for being to open minded or sympathetic about the indigenous culture. He still often speaks about his work in Paraguay and after 30 years in Canada he is still quite fluent in Enlhet. I need to pick his brain some more.
My initial search online doesn't result in too much information about Barbrooke Grubb, but I decide to order a book written by him called An Unknown People in an Unknown Land; I believe it is a third edition from 1925. Two pages into the introduction by editor H. T Morrey Jones I already feel great discomfort at the language being used to introduce "the full account here given of primitive life and customs, Indian mythology, superstitions, and witchcraft, with all their attendant barbarities, (which) will convey some idea of the difficulties encountered in the attempt to form such a people into a civilized community and a Christian church" (Barbrooke Grubb viii). He adds that "(t)he opening up of a large and practically unknown country, which has been an indirect result of the Mission, will seem important to those who watch with serious interest the gradual reclamation of the earth's waste places." This last sentence strikes me, since I've previously been greatly interested in the colonial settler view that a place was empty, or needed taming and made productive, all notions speaking to a colonial world view. Reading on, the book reads more like an outdated adventure novel: "At night on the Chaco bank (of the Paraguay river) may be seen the half-naked forms of Indians as they move to and fro in the flickering light of their camp-fires which but dimly illuminate their rude shelters, standing in a clearing in the dark forest which forms a background. The painted faces and plumed heads of these savages enhance the weirdness of the scene. The sounds which greet the ear are equally barbarous. A low droning chant may be heard accompanied by the rattle of gourds, and broken only too often by a shrill cry of pain when a child, perhaps, has been cruelly murdered, and the women's voices are raised in lamentation." (Grubb 17). While Barbrooke Grubb realizes soon after meeting "the Indians" that many of the rumours he's heard and his preconceptions are false, the tone of his narrative remains uncomfortably cringeworthy to my ears, as he continues that "the best (attitude) to adopt in dealing with such a people (was) to assume at all times and under all circumstances superiority and authority, for Indians only respect the strong...On arriving at a village, I insisted, as far as possible, upon all the people ministering to my personal comfort. I ordered one to prepare my resting-place, another to make a fire, a third to bring me water, and another to pull of my knee-boots. When the heat was great or the flies troublesome, I made two sit by me with fans. When on foot, and having to cross a swampy patch, I made one of them carry me across - in fact, I avoided doing anything myself that I could persuade them to do for me" (Grubb 27 & 28). At the time of writing the book, Barbrooke Grubb was aware of how he was perceived by the indigenous hosts: "I afterwards learnt from the Indians that my high-handed behaviour, which, if shown by one of their own people, not only would have been considered insufferably rude, but would have been strongly resented, had filled them with surprise (...). Instead of threatening a native, I took it for granted that he would obey me" (Grubb 33 & 34). (I am interested in the subtext of this narrative, which implies resistance from the indigenous point of view.) I could go on, but these text samples are sufficient of an example of the tone of the book. I later realize that the book has been heavily edited by Morrey Jones to create more appeal to the readership since the South American Missionary Society relied on generating its own funding of its projects abroad, so the narrative appears to have been embellished, "to entertain, promote, and inspire" (Crago 4). I feel quite unsettled by Barbrook Grubb's narrative - the attitude and tone bother me a lot. I feel an anger and a helplessness inside as I read and it keeps turning in my head for days. How do we look at figures of the past that used to be venerated for their actions, but today appear so problematic through the change of awareness about the harm their actions have caused? I find this self-celebratory first person narrative quite tiring to read (knowing that it was written as promotional material of the missionary's work doesn't help much) and I need to find some more objective information about Barbrooke Grubb. Who was he? What motivated him to go to Paraguay? Adventure stories aside, how did he view the Enxet?
I have read two interesting articles about Barbrooke Grubb written by Morgan Crago from Boston University. "W. Barbrooke Grubb - Missionary Explorer and Anglican Layman" gives a concise biographical overview and critique of Barbrooke Grubb's life and work in Paraguay. The second article, "The Evangelism or Social Action Question - A View from Late 19th Century Paraguay" analysis the work of the missionary with Barbrooke Grubb serving as a case study about the purpose of mission work. For more details I recommend you follow the links to read the articles. I'll just briefly summarize some biographical information here to serve as a framework to place Barbrooke Grubb in time and history.
Who was he? A brief biography. Wilfrid Barbrooke Grubb (1865-1930) was born near Edinburgh in Scotland. In 1884, when he was nineteen years old, he applied to work for the South American Missionary Society (SAMS). When he was about twenty-one years old, the Society sent him to a mission base in the Falkland Islands to serve as lay catechist. In 1889, the SAMS sent Barbrooke Grubb to Paraguay to follow up on some early mission work started by other SAMS members. He was twenty-three when he arrived in Paraguay. Barbrooke Grubb spent years traversing parts of the Paraguayan Chaco, exploring the land, establishing contacts with indigenous groups in the Chaco and at times helping government surveyors. He maintained "cordial connections with the Paraguayan government, who (...) named him 'Pacificator of the Indians.'" He started several mission stations in the Enxet territory, with the main station being Makthlawaiya.
I can't find much information about Barbrooke Grubb "The Collector". There is chapter VII in An Unknown People in an Unknown Land that describes indigenous artefacts in a fair amount of detail regarding the materials and their purpose. I find this chapter very interesting to read, since it helps me make sense of many of the objects in the Museum's collection. However, it does not answer my question as to how the objects were obtained. Were they gifts or were they traded for? What was traded? What were they valued at by their creators? What was Barbrooke Grubb's connection to the British Museum, i.e. how did the artefacts end up with the British Museum? Did he collect them out of an anthropological interest, to show them at home as exotic souvenirs or as gifts to friends, to preserve a dying culture for posterity? What was the intention of the collection? What is the purpose or function of the collection today?
Barbrooke Grubb was not a collector in the first place, so how did he see his role as missionary? I base much of my information here on Morgan Crago's analysis of "Uncovering the 'real' Barbrooke Grubb" where she already has sifted through missionary literature to establish a picture. Again, I am interested in the point of view of narrative, this time that of a critical scholar, who analyses the narrative established by an organization, the SAMS, about its own work. Barbrooke Grubb saw himself as protector of "the Indians." He "believed that the onset of Western civilization in South America was inescapable, and that it was the missionary's task to make sure this inevitable process unfolded morally, peacefully, and (as he believed) fairly (Crago 5). As part of this transition he saw it not only necessary to convert the people to Christianity, but to convert their life styles as well - the native peoples would have to settle in villages and adopt a sedentary lifestyle. "He thought it equally important to 'civilize' the people so they could 'profitably occupy and develop [their] native land" (Crago 5). To prevent the possible extermination of indigenous populations by governments, "he thought the missionary's appropriate task was to re-shape the indigenous people into populations attractive to the state" (Crago 6), meaning to train them to become willing workers so they could "take their proper place in this world" (SAMS 24, 87). Crago observes, that "in a Magazine article of 1908, (Grubb) described how the mission was encouraging indigenous women to have several children", which appears to underly the purpose of establishing "a numerous, trained and willing population of workers, with whom to develop the lands" (SAMS 42, 167). "If Europeans would come in to raise cattle (the best industry suited to this region [...]), indigenous people could be hired as laborers. [...] Grubb continued promoting European and North American immigration for ranching." (Crago 7). Barbrooke Grubb believed that parts of South America were suitable for European settlement, but much of the continent was "so situated climatically that only races adapted to the tropics can ever satisfactorily form the laboring class necessary for the development of these potentially rich regions" (Grubb, "The Paraguayan Chaco and Its Possible Future," 167). In short, Barbrooke Grubb saw his role in preparing the Enxet for the arrival of European settlers, so that the encounter of the two cultures may be peaceful (for the Europeans) and that the indigenous people would be 'civilized' labourers for the newcomers. Clearly, Barbrooke Grubb's mission was entirely shaped by a capitalist point of departure. In his mind he saw himself as friend and benefactor of the indigenous people. In the eye of his (European) contemporaries, he was a hero. He believed he was preparing the Enxet for an inevitable future and preventing much harm from being done at the hands of others (government and entrepreneurs). However, I cannot find evidence that Barbrooke Grubb was truly interested in understanding their culture to find value in it. He came with the purpose to change, taking on the roll of explorer, missionary, and developer, and he did so in a very paternalistic way. Even today I notice that most people I know (and many organizations) are stuck in the "paradigm that views Indigenous Peoples as the object of protection rather than the subjects of rights" (Indigenous World 2020: Paraguay, May 11, 2020). Is it sufficient today to say that Barbrooke Grubb's intentions were generally well meaning (and perhaps the situation of the Enxet would have been considerably worst if someone else had come along), or do we need to categorically condemn a mindset that is so deeply situated within colonialism itself?
I think I need to stop writing here. I feel frustration and helplessness at so much misguided world changing "do-gooder" attitude, especially since not much has changed in the settler attitudes of today in the Chaco. I could go on and on attempting to get to know Barbrooke Grubb better, but I feel I'm getting tangled in writing rather than focusing on the art response. I also think, as an artist my written response to these readings is quite emotional rather than purely rational, but I'm ok with that. I'm also spending too much time trying to get a picture of one European man, rather than getting to know the Enxet better.
Other interesting text sources I have read over the course of the past few weeks that talk about Barbrooke Grubb and/or the Enxet are by Alejandro Martínez (interesting observations about subtext in Eurocentric narratives that imply resistence), Dr. Stephen Kidd, and Dr. Walter Regehr. Primary sources I read are the South American Missionary Society Magazine, available in online archives. Barbrooke Grubb published articles regularly there.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Update: February 23, 2021
Re: purchase of collection items.
In the documents provided by the research team is a letter from Seymour Hawtrey which states that he purchased certain objects - a weapon, a feather manta (cape), and a dozen feather ornaments - from the Chamacoco. He writes that "the actual cost to me was $250 Paraguayan paper - or about £4.0.0 at Bahia Negra on the Alto Paraguay. (...) If you care to have them at £5.0.0 (?), after instruction, I will forward them to you." I'm not quite sure if he is asking £5 since there is an ink stain on the number. In today's money value, he would have paid about £500 for the objects, if I interpret all the sums correctly. This partially answers my question about whether the objects were purchased, traded for, or given as gifts, but obviously this letter refers only to a few objects in the collection.
Image Credit: Trustees of the British Museum.
