#JohnKeyHistory

Written By: - Date published: 12:47 pm, November 20th, 2014 - 99 comments
Categories: john key, twitter - Tags: ,

Twitter today is finding its own way to express exasperation with John Key declaring that Aotearoa was peacefully settled.

Apparently the New Zealand Wars were just another Rugby analogy to John Key.

Parihaka was a Herbs song.  Gate Pa? Well he probably hasn’t heard of it.

But – despite the fact that those whose ancestors died in a not-very-peaceful settlement process might find John Key’s comments no joke – the whole #JohnKeyHistory stream has got quite amusing…

JohnKeyHistory

99 comments on “#JohnKeyHistory ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. weka 1
    20 November 2014 at 1:05 pm

    “When we talk about the treaty and sovereignty and all those matters, you take a step back and say well what was really happening. In my view New Zealand was one of the very few countries in the world that were settled peacefully. Maori probably acknowledge that settlers had a place to play and bought with them a lot of skills and a lot of capital ” he says.

    Not to worry #johnkeyhistory, for every historian you cite Key can find one who tells his side of the story. It’s all about perspective, right? Relax.

    Honestly, that paragraph is chock full of things that can be unpacked.

    Peacefully?

    Probably?

    Settled? (which time Pākehā John?)

    a lot of capital?

    my view? 🙄

    • Tracey 1.1
      20 November 2014 at 1:08 pm

      John Key is comfortable that the thousands that died at the hands of british soldiers died peacefully.

      This is a version of history that Key and many of his supporters are comforted by.

    • Tracey 1.2
      20 November 2014 at 1:14 pm

      Its all about the money for key. He only speaks one langugage and knows only one thing, money.

    • adam 1.3
      20 November 2014 at 1:59 pm

      What Weka leaving aside of the length of these wars?

      1845 to 1919 a very short series of wars indeed.

      The end of history, what a wonderful for people like John Key – means they can spout any old bullshit.

      By Key’s analysis – the genocide in Tasmania was peaceful settlement – it only happened once.

  2. Tracey 2
    20 November 2014 at 1:06 pm

    speechless…

    I wish Key were…

    Immediate response from Key’s partner the Maori Party?

  3. vto 3
    20 November 2014 at 1:20 pm

    what an embarrassment the Prime Minister is ….

    He has a primary school child’s understanding of pretty much everything except money

    • Tracey 3.1
      20 November 2014 at 1:28 pm

      I am not so sure. It maybe a lower level than primary. That his understanding flows only to the financial aspect…

  4. emergency mike 4
    20 November 2014 at 1:20 pm

    “Mr Key told Northland’s Te Hiku Radio that he hopes the tribunal’s Te Paparahi o Te Raki report won’t slow progress towards a settlement, because the north needs the money for economic development.”

    That’s the quote that sums up Key for me. Translation: certain people better stfu about certain things and think about the money I might or might not give them.

  5. ghostwhowalksnz 5
    20 November 2014 at 1:38 pm

    From the bulk of the european ‘settlers’ he was right!
    The distant gunfire was just a minor problem.

    • weka 5.1
      20 November 2014 at 2:04 pm

      How nice of NZ’s Prime Minister to define the country’s history in terms of some of the people. People who benefited from the violence I might add.

    • Tracey 5.2
      20 November 2014 at 2:07 pm

      He doesnt normally endorse minority views, what with them not havin a mandate

  6. shorts 6
    20 November 2014 at 2:02 pm

    you don’t need to know history to sell out a country, just take a quick glance at the balance sheet and asset register should be enough

  7. RedLogix 7
    20 November 2014 at 2:04 pm

    Still the New Zealand Wars were a relative footnote to the Musket Wars that preceded them.

    • weka 7.1
      20 November 2014 at 2:57 pm

      Didn’t quite follow that Red, can you expand/clarify?

      • RedLogix 7.1.1
        20 November 2014 at 3:39 pm

        If I recall Michael King correctly, some 40% of Maori were killed between 1800 and 1835 in Musket Wars – one of the most extraordinary genocides of the era. Leaving out that context for the Treaty leads to bad readings of history.

        Maori had just gone through the local equivalent of say WW1 and WW2 combined – several times over. Their long isolation from the wider world (yes I know they were not isolated from Polynesia) was over. And the majority of non-Maori in the country prior to 1840 were in fact American whalers, sealers and prostitutes. And a rag-bag collection of almost lawless bastards generally on the lam from other places that had kicked them out.

        Dangerous times.

        The modern idea that the Treaty was some kind of sneaky scam foisted on the Iwi by an entirely unscrupulous pack of land greedy colonists does not explain how or why so many Chiefs were willing to sign it.

        It is true that the Crown representatives believed that they were signing a document in which the Maori chiefs and their peoples would become citizens and subjects of the British Empire (the super power of the era) – and gain the same legal protection of their rights and property as any other citizen. The subtext of this to colonial mind would have been a surrender of sovereignty to the Crown in return for these rights.

        It is also true to say that the Iwi Chiefs believed they were signing something more in the nature of a peace -treaty with the arriving colonials. It was obvious to them that in the wake of the Musket Wars and what they already knew of Europe – that more warfare was the path to total extinction. Yet at this very early point in the relationship between Maori and the Crown – it is certain that the men who were signing this Treaty did not conceive it as a surrender of their rights and responsibilities as leaders and chiefs of their peoples.

        In that sense the Treaty could be thought of as the deal of the century – irregardless of the almost inevitable misapprehensions of both parties. And recall that Maori men were the first indigenous peoples anywhere to gain a franchise – before even women in this country. But at it’s core remained this fatal misunderstanding over sovereignty. This is not so surprising – our brightest minds continue to wrestle with this issue even today.

        Of course John Key is specifically wrong to omit reference to the NZ Wars and their violence. But he is correct in the wider sense – that while to our modern eyes the process of colonisation in NZ fell well short of a just and peaceable process – in the context of the era (and this I argue is what matters) it was relatively peaceful.

        • marty mars 7.1.1.1
          20 November 2014 at 4:20 pm

          There is a lot in your comment that i disagree with.

          The musket certainly changed many things including the nature of warfare and there was plenty of killing with them – it was not by chance that they were introduced to Aotearoa – they served a purpose for the colonisers – much easier for the natives to kill other natives – less messy for others. And sure Māori used the new weapons to exact revenge and further their own tribal interests against other Māori but that couldn’t have happened without the introduction of the weapons in the first place. That is the key imo – the weapons were like christianity, land stealers, and eventually legislation, in that they were an integral part of the process and intent of colonisation itself.

          “It is true that the Crown representatives believed that they were signing a document in which the Maori chiefs and their peoples would become citizens and subjects of the British Empire (the super power of the era) – and gain the same legal protection of their rights and property as any other citizen.”

          I don’t think that is true at all.

          The ‘deal of the century’ was one-sided and rigged to offer advantages to one side at the deliberate expense of the other – that is a ‘deal of the century’ all right but only to the side which received the advantages. And guess what, those advantages still reign even after all this time.

          Rangatira would never have signed away their mana, ever. It really is as simple as that.

          Your last paragraph is really just an elongated paraphrase of what key said and is just as wrong imo.

          • RedLogix 7.1.1.1.1
            20 November 2014 at 7:47 pm

            That is the key imo – the weapons were like christianity, land stealers, and eventually legislation, in that they were an integral part of the process and intent of colonisation itself.

            Given that the Musket War started around 1800 – some 40 years before there were any significant numbers of colonisers here – I struggle to make any sense of that marty.

            There was never going to be some magical force field bubble around Aoteoroa that would somehow keep the rest of the world out. One way or another there were going to be consequences – and to paint all those as the evil plotz of nasty white men – is a weak interpretation of a much more complex picture.

            My point is – you cannot make sense of the Treaty without reference to the Musket Wars. No more than it makes sense to talk about the establishment of the United Nations without mention of WW1&2.

            that is a ‘deal of the century’ all right but only to the side which received the advantages.

            I agree it was an uneven agreement – like for instance signing the TPP would be for New Zealand – but again it’s weak to suggest there were no advantages.

            There were both push and pull reasons to signing the Treaty. The push reasons were bundled up in the 40 years of genocide they had just inflicted on themselves, and the totally uncontrolled, lawless arrival of people on boats from all over the place. The pull reasons were equally strong – they became the first indigenous people to have their legal existence established anywhere in the world. It gave them legal and commercial access to the immense trading world of the British Empire – or at least to a degree.

            Of course it turned out uneven. This is what happens when a weaker power made a deal with a much stronger one in those times. But to paint it as completely one-sided is not really supported by history either. We would not be sitting here typing this out if it had been.

            Rangatira would never have signed away their mana, ever.

            That’s more or less what I said. Each side signed with a quite different understanding of how that mana was to be upheld. The Crown signed with the understanding that Maori would become part of the British Empire, and would gain mana from doing so.

            The chiefs signed with the underlying expectation they were cutting a deal between peers – and that each iwi could retain it’s own separate and sovereign territories and existing mana.

            Reduced to this – the two views are fundamentally incompatible – they cannot be reconciled.

            • karol 7.1.1.1.1.1
              20 November 2014 at 8:28 pm

              That’s more or less what I said. Each side signed with a quite different understanding of how that mana was to be upheld. The Crown signed with the understanding that Maori would become part of the British Empire, and would gain mana from doing so.

              The Iwi chiefs signed the Maori (original) version of the Treaty, which makes reference to retaining their sovereignty (as defined in their language at the time). The English translation gives more control to the Crown – and seems like a deliberate mis-representation.

              • RedLogix …
                20 November 2014 at 8:47 pm

                Fair enough. Whether that difference arose from the malice of the Crown representatives of the day – or simply that each side was approaching the matter with a different world view is pretty hard to decode all this time later.

                However it is almost certain that given the high degree of confusion around the exact meanings of the words being used in the Treaty, and all their quite complex nuances, neither side really understood properly what was being signed up to. In modern terms it was all a bit of a balls up – but I’d argue that both sides were probably doing their best given the circumstances of the day.

                It’s our legacy for better or for worse. History is never a nice, tidy intellectually consistent and pleasing bundle. The question is, how do we reconcile all these conflicting interpretations now?

                • weka …
                  20 November 2014 at 10:26 pm

                  “However it is almost certain that given the high degree of confusion around the exact meanings of the words being used in the Treaty, and all their quite complex nuances, neither side really understood properly what was being signed up to.”

                  hmmm, I think that one needs some backing up. While I think it’s true that there were large cultural gulfs, I’d like to see the rationale for the idea that the people working for the Crown had such a poor understanding of te reo and what the wording meant to Māori.

                  I also think it’s inconceivable that there weren’t men of Key and Slater’s calibre here during the musket wars or during the treaty signing process.

                  btw, I think you are putting words in people’s mouths. I can’t see anyone painting a picture of all the white men were evil apart from you 🙂

                    • RedLogix …
                      21 November 2014 at 12:25 am

                      Which is well known – The Treaty hastily drawn up and hastily translated with very little consultation.

                      Of course the English and Maori versions differ. Given the cultural gulfs and completely different world views it would be extraordinary if they did not. We’re still tossing around the finer points today.

                      But as a nation both the locals and colonisers proceeded on its flawed and conflicted basis. Now what do you want to do about it?

                    • weka …
                      21 November 2014 at 12:56 am

                      You missed the bit about the son helping who had grown up speaking te reo.

                    • RedLogix …
                      21 November 2014 at 1:23 am

                      I don’t know that this helps much. Sure he may have been fluent in everyday speech – but how many 21 year olds have much grasp of the nuances of politics even these days?

                      We just don’t know much about Edwards exact contribution. And certainly it was a hasty – literally overnight – job. Compare this with the years it will take dozens of mature, highly trained and capable people to reform and restate the New Zealand constitution.

                      Alternatively if you argue that Hobson was well advised and that he knew perfectly well the translations were incompatible – then it was indeed a scam drawn up in bad faith. But that doesn’t take you very far either – for all intents and purposes it makes the document null and void. The Crown could argue that it cannot be bound by a Treaty that was essentially a fraud and walk away from it. No-one would support that conclusion.

                      That’s my point. The Treaty was a document scrabbled together to meet the needs of the moment. To expect it to carry the weight of all our modern expectations invites problems.

                      We know all this. We all agree there is a fundamental conflict at the heart of the Treaty. The people who drew it up and signed it blundered their way into it – largely in good faith. But they have all long since passed away as has much of their view of the world.

                      It’s now getting on towards 200 years later. Now what? Now what do you want to see happen? Sincere question.

                    • weka …
                      21 November 2014 at 1:45 am

                      All I’m saying is that I doubt that the Brits had inadequate access to te reo to understand the differences between the two versions.

                      “The people who drew it up and signed it blundered their way into it – largely in good faith”

                      Can you tell me where you get the largely in good faith bit from?

                    • RedLogix …
                      21 November 2014 at 1:50 am

                      Well as I said above – the only logical alternative is to say that they drew it up in bad faith. That they deliberately worded it deceptively. That is the phrase you have used.

                      And that would make it a fraud with bad intent. A scam.

                    • weka …
                      21 November 2014 at 3:25 am

                      “Alternatively if you argue that Hobson was well advised and that he knew perfectly well the translations were incompatible – then it was indeed a scam drawn up in bad faith. But that doesn’t take you very far either – for all intents and purposes it makes the document null and void. The Crown could argue that it cannot be bound by a Treaty that was essentially a fraud and walk away from it. No-one would support that conclusion.”

                      Plenty of Māori have said that the treaty is a fraud, so perhaps we should ask them.

                      The more conventional approach is to work with the reo version.

                      “It’s now getting on towards 200 years later. Now what? Now what do you want to see happen? Sincere question.”

                      Ideally, Māori should have the opportunity to have their sovereignty reinstated in real terms (this serves Pākehā too IMO). In reality the approaching crises of PO/AGW/GFC mean that we have little political leeway and less time. Probably best case scenario is to keep supporting treaty claims and working through issues as they arise and using that to both remedy injustices (to the limited extent that will be possible) and move NZ to a decolonised state.

                    • RedLogix …
                      21 November 2014 at 4:00 am

                      Ok so let’s go with the idea that Treaty was a bad faith scam. Or at best a blunder made by good people who thought they were doing the right thing – but were not.

                      I realise the conventional solution is to go with the te reo version which clearly establishes that Maori never signed away their mana and sovereignty.

                      Of course this means entire New Zealand state is based on a fraud and has zero legitimacy. Excellent we can now tell John Key his government is null and void and get on with setting up several dozen independent real Maori sovereign iwi states in it’s place.

                      There is of course no such thing as a pan-Maori state. The iwi is paramount – there being about 15 prominent ones I’d think it it would work out about right. More new states than this would be unwieldy I’d think.

                      All colonial land theft title becomes null and void and reverts to the Rangatira in person. All colonist imposed laws would suspended and I suppose all the prosecutions obtained on them can be rescinded as well. I’m not very familiar with traditional Maori law but I’m told it was very complex and sophisticated – no doubt it will take a fair bit of work to tell everyone about the finer nuances of how it applies in the modern world.

                      As for the visitors – Maori are well known as very generous hosts and as long as they pay the rent I’m sure they will be allowed to stay.

                      I’m only half taking the piss here of course. Back in the 80’s when Maori separatism was in plainer view I had all of these things told to me personally and more. (I’ve spent more time on various marae than you probably think.)

                      Or did you have something else in mind? Because I’m thinking if you want ‘sovereignty reinstated in real terms’ it would be good to be able to explain what it means in practise very clearly. Vague handwaving about a ‘de-colonised state’ is going to provoke a lot of questions I would expect.

                  • weka …
                    21 November 2014 at 3:18 am

                    Where have I used that phrase?

                    I don’t think that is the only other way to see it. It’s like saying that all of National are either evil or good. I think there is a third category of people who believe they are doing good or valuable things, but aren’t. And of those people there are the willfully ignorant. And then there are the ones who will work in their own best interests.

                    It just doesn’t seem real to me to say that all the Brits involved were good people with the best of intentions for Māori.

                • Tracey …
                  21 November 2014 at 8:23 am

                  Agree, and there is some evidence that there was no ill intention BUT you also need to look, as does Mr Key at the Westminster law of contra proferentum. It is not some traditional cultural thing that Maori rely upon to support the Maori version of the Treaty but a VERY English legal principle.

                  It seems no one on this side wants to discuss this, well marty mars and I had one exchange in a post about all this, everyone else carried on their red herrings in wilful ignorance of this pivotal ENGLISH LEGAL principle.

                  When a document is in different languages, the meaning will be construed AGAINST the drafter because they had the opportunity to make it crystal clear

            • marty mars 7.1.1.1.1.2
              20 November 2014 at 9:23 pm

              never the twain shall meet…

              muskets were part of the vanguard of colonisation even if those who sold them weren’t conscious of that – not a conspiracy just a (for one side) happy coincidence that occurred

              when the treaty was signed Māori were still strongly in control of most of the country

              Rangatira didn’t sign the treaty because of deaths due to muskets

              the treaty was not signed by the crown to enhance the mana of Māori

              I don’t think your ‘push’ and ‘pull’ reasons are correct – to me that is historical revisionism. Although, “the totally uncontrolled, lawless arrival of people on boats from all over the place” was certainly a reason – many Rangatira expected the treaty to enforce laws upon those people as well as support the mana of Rangatira and Māori

              not completely one-sided but overwhelmingly one-sided as the evidence today shows

              notwithstanding all of that we do agree that the expectations were fundamentally incompatible

              • RedLogix …
                20 November 2014 at 9:49 pm

                Not so far apart marty. Not so far.

                As I said earlier – there was no magical force-field bubble keeping the wider world away from Maori. Technology, disease and people arriving were always going to happen and have bad consequences – there is no need to invoke malice or conspiracy to explain much of our history.

                Nor can the immediately prior genocide of 40% of their population be dismissed as having no bearing in any leaders calculus. Unless you want to portray them as an especially brutal and callous minded bunch.

                My point is – by 1840 the outside world had already impacted the Maori severely, and they were well aware of the potential for even greater changes about to arrive. What else would motivate so many Rangatira who just years earlier had been blood enemies to sit down in the one place and negotiate with an outside power which on the ground possessed almost zero military capability?

                Getting that many Maori to agree to anything has likely never occurred either before or since. It was a remarkable moment and surely it’s another sort of revisionism to simply dismiss the historic context and complex motivations for it.

                To portray the Treaty as just another scam by devious white bastards devalues and demeans it. We might as well tear it up.

                Or we could accept it for what it was – a flawed yet vital foundation for a nation. Yes it is conflicted, confusing and contentious. But is ours.

                • marty mars …
                  20 November 2014 at 10:22 pm

                  “Nor can the immediately prior genocide of 40% of their population be dismissed as having no bearing in any leaders calculus. Unless you want to portray them as an especially brutal and callous minded bunch.”

                  I’m going to bed now but your overuse of the word genocide and your either/or dichotomous view as outlined in the quoted bit above says to me that imo you don’t really understand the viewpoint, worldview, motivations and belief systems of Rangatira – which is fair enough – i just wish you’d think on that. What you think you know isn’t what is known, it’s just what you think you know. Kia kaha.

                  • RedLogix …
                    21 November 2014 at 1:47 am

                    Is it any better if I call it a ‘mass slaughter’?

                    Maybe the Rangatira did indeed consider the mass slaughter of the Musket Wars a perfectly normal feature of life they were keen to see more of.

                    Or from my readings I understand it was a terrible catalyst that was to transform the outlook of many. The ideas around utu and mana in eating your enemy, and many other aspects of the old ways were discredited and many chiefs were were actively looking for alternatives.

                    Much like the wider world did in the aftermath of WW2.

                • weka …
                  20 November 2014 at 10:27 pm

                  “To portray the Treaty as just another scam by devious white bastards devalues and demeans it.”

                  Can you please point to who is doing that?

        • Tracey 7.1.1.2
          20 November 2014 at 4:23 pm

          The duplicity was big after the treaty, but there was a plan prior. The New Zealand Company, the big corporate of the day benefitted majorly. The site below gives a great overview.

          http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/new-zealands-19th-century-wars/introduction

          The folowing timeline is useful when you keep in mind the distinction between Maori attachment to land being connected to a sense of self, history, guardianship and subsistence as opposed to the nz govt and nz company seeing it as a vehicle to reward voters (the former) and make money (later).

          Legislative Violations of the Treaty of Waitangi
          The first 150 years

          1840
          Maori owned 66,400,000 acres of land

          1841
          Land Claims Ordinance stated that lands not actually occupied or used by the Maori belonged to the Crown. This contradicted Article 2 of the Treaty

          1844
          Governor Fitzroy dropped the pre-emption clause in Article 2 of the Treaty and allowed private sales to take place.

          1846
          Governor Grey abolished the Protectorate Department, which had the responsibility of protecting Maori rights, and gave the New Zealand Company the exclusive right of pre-emption.

          1852
          Maori ownership of land reduced to 34,000,000 acres.
          In the 12 years since 1840 almost half of the Maori owned land had been lost.

          1852
          Constitution Act:
          Saw the establishment of Provincial Government. Only males over 21 who had individual title to property of a certain value were entitled to vote. Very few Maori males were able to do so.

          1859
          Te Ati Awa Chief Teira sold the Governor land at Waiata without seeking the agreement of the other chiefs who had an interest in the land, especially the Senior Chief Wiremu Kingi. This was a breach of the Treaty’s land guarantee.

          1860
          Maori Owned Land reduced to 21,4000,000 acres

          1862
          Native Lands Act:
          Designed to break down Maori communal ownership of land. A land court was set up to individualise title. An ammendment to the act meant that Maori owners could sell to anyone. This breached the pre-emption clause in Article 2.

          1863
          Governor Grey invades the Waikato region.
          Suppression of Rebellion Act:
          No right to trial before imprisonment. Its intention was to punish “certain aboriginal tribes of the colony” for rebelling against the Crown.

          New Zealand Settlement Act:
          Over three million acres of Maori land was confiscated to pay for the war.

          1864
          Native Reserves Act:
          All remaining land reserved for Maori use was put under settler control.

          1865
          Native Land Court
          Designed to determine ownership. Maori owners had to spend many months in town waiting to have their cases heard. If they did not show up they lost the right to the land. This caused many of them to build up huge debts and they had to sell a lot of their land to pay for them. Maori owners had to pay for any surveying work that had to be done. Many Maori owners sold land rather than go through the humiliating experience of the Land Court sitting.

          1866
          Between 1865 and 1875, 10 million acres of land was lost by Maori

          Oyster Fisheries Act:
          Prevented Maori from fishing commercially. Maori commercial fishing enterprises at the time went broke and they had to sell land to meet their debts.

          1867
          Maori Representation Act:
          Four Maori seats in Parliament erstablished. A response to Pakeha fear that Maori who by now had a majority under the property qualification clause of the 1852 Constitution Act in a number of electorates could gain a majority in Government.

          1867
          The Native Schools Act:
          Was passed extending the parameters of the 1858 Act. These schools would assist in the process of assimilation.

          1869
          A new Maori version of the Treaty was requested by the Government. “Kawanatanga” in Article 1 is replaced by “nga mana Katoa o te Rangatiratanga”.

          1871
          A Government stipulation that instruction in Native Schools had to be in English.

          1877
          The Treaty is declared a nullity by Judge Prendergast in the Bishop of Wellington v Wi Parata case. Legislation was introduced to allow direct purchase of Maori land. This was another breach of Article 2,

          1879
          An amendment by Grey of the Native Land Act made it easier for small farmers to get Maori land. The Government sabotaged the Commission that was set up to investigate land confiscation in Taranaki.

          1879
          Peace Preservation Bill:
          One year’s hard labour for Maori people who refused to leave their abodes.

          1880
          Maori Prisoners’ Act:
          200 Maori arrested in Taranaki for preventing the surveying of confiscated land. Kept in prison for an indefinite period without trial.

          1880
          West Coast Settlement Act:
          Any Maori in Taranaki could be arrested without a warrant and jailed for two years with hard labour if they built anything or in any way hindered the surveying or property.

          1881
          Native Reserves Act:
          The control of Maori reserves is taken over by the Public Trustee.

          1881
          2500 troops invade Parihaka and Te Whiti the prophet is arrested.

          1886
          Native Lands Administration Act:
          Rejected the traditional right of communal ownership. Maori land was given over to small groups of trustees who had the right under this act to sell it.

          1886
          Te Whiti was re-arrested (under the West Coast Preservation Act of 1881) without warrant, charge or trial and jailed for three months.

          1887
          Native Land Act:
          Large scale direct purchase of Maori land. Bastion Point, Auckland appropriated for defence purposes.

          1891
          Maori Land stood at 11,079,486 Acres

          1892
          The Native Department was abolished.

          1893
          Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act:
          Designed to speed up the purchase of Maori Land.

          1894
          Advances to Settlers Act:
          Low interest loans made available to white settlers to buy land from the Government.
          Native Land Court Act:
          Names on the Certificate of Title were deemed trustees or beneficial owners.
          Validation of Invalid Land Sales Act:
          Any Pakeha misdealings concerning Maori land were legitimised.

          1894
          Maori Land Settlement Act:
          Maori land was put under the control of Land Councils. There was no Maori representation. The settler population had increased and so had their desire for land.

          1897
          92 Maori in Taranaki were arrested for ploughing land in protest of Public Trustee control of their lands.

          1903
          An act re-affirms Judge Prendergast’s 1877 ruling that the Treaty is a nullity.

          1905
          The abolition of Native Councils (they had slowed down the Government’s land purchases).

          1905-8
          There were amendments to the Native Land Act which forced further sales of Maori land.

          1908
          Tohunga Suppression Act:
          Penalties were imposed on tohunga (experts in Maori medicine and Maori spirituality).

          1909
          Native Land Act:**
          Maori could no longer use the whangai system for adopting children. The Act was to prevent the adoption by Maori of Pakeha children.

          1911
          Maori land now amounted to 7,137,205 acres

          1918
          Maori servicemen who returned after WWI were not eligible for the benefits of the Rehabilitation Scheme. The scheme was only available to Pakeha servicemen.

          1920
          Maori land reduced to 4,787,686 acres

          1923
          Wiremu Tahopotiki Ratana was snubbed when he took Treaty grievances to King George.

          1932
          Ratana M.I.’s present petition with 30,000 signatures calling for ratification of the Treaty. It was ignored. Maori received half the unemployment benefit given to the Pakeha. A single Maori received 7s 6d and a Pakeha 15s.

          1939
          Maori land reduced to 4,028,903 acres.

          1953
          Maori Affairs Act:
          If Maori land was not occupied or being used then it was declared “waste land” and taken by the Government.

          1953
          Town and Country Planning Act:
          Prevented Maori from building on their land. This forced many Maori to move from rural areas to the cities.

          1960
          The Hunn Report:
          Jack Hunn, a top-ranking civil servant, recommended a stepping up of the assimilation process.

          1967
          Maori Affairs Amendment Act:
          Maori trustee had the right to ask individuals to sell their interest to the Government. Land owned by fewer than four Maori people had to be put under one title.

          1967
          Rating Act:
          Maori freehold land subject to rates.

          1975
          Maori land reduced to 3,000,000 acres

          1986
          The Crown created a property right with the introduction of a fisheries quota system. A breach of Article 2.

          1990
          Maori Fisheries Act:
          Re-definition of an important part of Article 2, which guarantees Maori “full exclusive possession of the Lands and Estates, Forest, Fisheries”. By 31st October 1992 Maori are granted 10% of the fishing quota. The Government has re-defined full as 10%. A further breach of the Treaty agreement.

          **Correction: replaces 1909 Native Health Act , the original incorrect citation.

          NOTE: The above information was sourced from Nga Tangata Cosmos, now offline.

          • RedLogix 7.1.1.2.1
            20 November 2014 at 8:24 pm

            An excellent summary Tracey.

            And at almost each point the underlying issue is quite plain – that Maori and the Crown had a quite different model of land ownership.

            The Crown model says that it is the ultimate owner of all land – and that individuals or companies are granted title (fee simple or leasehold) which grants them the right to occupy. In signing the Treaty the Crown assumed this role as the sole arbiter, issuer and enforcer of title.

            Maori of course had a quite different model – that land was occupied collectively by iwi based on their ability to defend it by force of arms or treaty. Summertime was the war party season – no individual could hope to defend any patch of land on their own. It could only be held onto by collective force of arms – or by complex webs of marriage and negotiation with your neighbors.

            The Musket Wars of course bent this model badly. The signing of the Treaty and the arrival of large numbers of colonials working under completely different ownership assumptions broke it completely. This is a common story all over the planet. It’s still going on – say Tibet for instance.

            What I am interested in is how you think this narrative should have played out – and what do you think should happen to get to an outcome you think is fair and just?

            • Tracey 7.1.1.2.1.1
              21 November 2014 at 8:35 am

              I have answered you above. When you have a discussion like this one without a thorough discussion of contra proferentum you are effectively arguing without a platform.

              The VERY thing that happened was provided for by ENGLISH LAW.

              As for today. I think every politician who speaks about the Treaty MUST be tested first that they have actual knowledge and understanding, both legal and cultural. The modern “scam” for want of another word is to treatise that this is all just cultural differences and times have changed.

              So ,back to my politicians who want to speak of the Treaty. NO more do they speak of the contested clauses as outlined in English. No more. By all means challenge the meaning of the Maori clauses BUT not so as to construe them to mean what the english says if they two meet the criteria of contra proferentum.

              Your assertion that the musket wars were somehow largely disconnected fromt he Treaty or more specifically the British colonists is a liuttle disingenuous.

              Yes the brits had experience before of conquering, killing and finding it astonishing that the conquered were troublesome thereafter. My understanding is that some wanted to avoid a repeat. This also points to an interpretation of the Treaty which is less about removing sovereignty (as happens when conquered) but finding another way to achieve an equitable arrangement (cue Maori interpretation of contested clauses).

              politicians have an obligation to educate. They need to stop fuelling the rubbish that gets spoken about the treaty to feed the general desire of many non Maori in this country to turn their back on a legitimate agreement cos they have changed their mind and dont need it now.

              Look at he outcry by many at the thought of nationalisation… the yowls and screeches of derision and ridicule… yet Mr Key seems to glibly gloss over the agreement that forms the foundation of his position today. Why? Because liek the New ZEland Company and other profiteers they overrode the desires of those genuinely interested in implementing the Treaty and sharing power with maori and NOT taking their land.

              This was not about cultural differences it was about groups of white settlers looking to make a buck for the least outlay they could.

              So, we stop saying it is irrelevant today. We stop saying it was a nothing. We stop doing exactly what some did from 1820 to today…

            • Tracey 7.1.1.2.1.2
              21 November 2014 at 8:39 am

              Looks like a plan to me RedL. One that I contend did not start with a fumbled drafting of the Treaty but before.

          • GregJ 7.1.1.2.2
            20 November 2014 at 8:56 pm

            Key’s just ignorant.

            Between 1840-1865 New Zealand had 14 British Regiments serving at various times – anything from 1000 Regular Soldiers up to a peak of 10,000 in 1863-1865. In 1847 they decided to maintain at least 2000 (approx 2 Regular Foot Regiments + Artillery, Sappers, Miners and Engineers).

            In comparison Australia from the period 1810-1870 had 24 Regiments deployed.

            A map of military engagements 1845-1872 in the North Island.

            By the end of 1865, the Imperial forces in NZ totalled about 10,000 men, consisting of the 12th, 14th, 18th, 40th, 43rd, 50th, 57th, 65th, 68th, and 70th Regiments, two batteries of Field Artillery, and Royal Engineers and Military Train. Cameron’s forces in the invasion of the Waikato peaked at about 14,000 (included some local forces). As a point of comparison during the Crimean War (the major conflict of the period) the British deployed 30,000 in Raglan’s Army into the Crimea. Numbers at the Battle of Balaclava (4,500), Battle of Inkerman (7,500 out of an Anglo-French force of 15,700), and the biggest deployment was at the Battle of Alma (27,000).

            The amount of Imperial troops being committed to NZ was of great concern to London and lead to the NZ Government policy of self reliance from 1865 on using local militia, armed constabulary and Maori auxiliaries.

            Peaceful my f*%king arse!

            • Murray Rawshark 7.1.1.2.2.1
              21 November 2014 at 2:32 am

              I accept that he’s ignorant, but I can’t get my head around how it could happen. He decided he would become PM while he was still in his mother’s womb, but never bothered to learn anything about the country he wanted to rule? How the fuck did we end up with this moran? FJK

  8. Sabine 8
    20 November 2014 at 2:17 pm

    hmm m, no BM and friends around. oh….poor things.

    maybe Dear Leader should watch this
    http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/the-new-zealand-wars-1998/series

    the man is clearly a mal baise

    • North 8.1
      21 November 2014 at 7:23 am

      “Richie Not History, Richie Not History, Richie Not History !!!”

      With damn near every successive utterance the gauche prick reflects more and more the caricature of the Richie McCaw obssessive on the Mastercard TV ad.

      “Richieee……..I won the Mastercard prize again……..the missus ‘s packed your bag………walking walking walking………where’s the stuff about US Richie……..gimme your pen !”

      A random and oftentimes confused fluctuation of the personas of an adult prime minister albeit over-portentously reading prepared lines, and a new-century Boys’ Own pre-pubescent. Oh God……..wincing embarrassment.

  9. Heather 9
    20 November 2014 at 2:20 pm

    His silly, stupid and uninformed comments have no bounds. He is an embarassment both in New Zealand and on the international stage. I am frankly shocked with his comments.

  10. Dont worry. Be happy 10
    20 November 2014 at 2:27 pm

    How can a Government with this wilfull blindness to our history be trusted to settle the injustices which remain? Sure this is Key as a buffoon and a bully, familiar roles for him, but it is also framing the arguement and priming the population in a cynical way. If you deny the horror of conquest and colonisation then you can deny the need to make amends. Easy. Money man through and through. Off key.

  11. Tracey 11
    20 November 2014 at 3:35 pm

    this is what happens with a PM who uses valuable time reading slaters site instead of trivial things like NZ history

  12. fisiani 12
    20 November 2014 at 3:54 pm

    Yet another diatribe about John Key. Talk about barking at parked cars. Does it make posters feel manly to use words like blindness,buffoon, bully, silly , stupid, uninformed when speaking about the Prime Minister. Go get your insults flowing. It’s sure to make you feel righteous. Seriously get a life off the keyboard.

    • lprent 12.1
      20 November 2014 at 4:04 pm

      If he keeps displaying his near complete ignorance of NZ History, what do you think I should call him – pathetic dunce perhaps?

      I guess that the self-satisfied in his ignorance sap simply missed a large chunk of NZ history by being out of the country at the time. But surely he managed to learn a little bit of it even in the whiteout of the south.

      It seems to me that the leader of a country should actually know something about it. What do you think? That he doesn’t need to?

      Perhaps Flavell should set up a remedial history course for him….

      • greywarshark 12.1.1
        20 November 2014 at 9:34 pm

        I understand USA have quite a rigorous questionnaire about their history for new immigrants wanting to stay. Perhaps we should devise one for our parliamentarians and those working in politics at any level. So we know they have an understanding of the important factors that are involved in any thinking and decision making.

      • CnrJoe 12.1.2
        21 November 2014 at 2:29 pm

        Here’s the thing for me. Keys voters like his stance. They like his take on things. They are uncomfortable with histories truths, have no knowledge or care for any of it. I hazard that alot of them are more recent immigrants? – and generally folk that are reinventing themselves….. aspirational in ambition and not arsed with other peoples problems and any part they may play in this and that themselves.

    • Tracey 12.2
      20 November 2014 at 4:07 pm

      Yes fizzi, I want o feel manly

      🙄

    • McFlock 12.3
      20 November 2014 at 4:13 pm

      “Barking at parked cars”.
      lol. Parked? I wish.

      Wake up John Key, you’re asleep at the wheel.

      • Tracey 12.3.1
        20 November 2014 at 4:16 pm

        Parked cars?!? Slyland is a car park attendant in downtown wellington

        • McFlock 12.3.1.1
          20 November 2014 at 4:21 pm

          Really? On a side note, apparently the city of wellington was named after the All Black captain who led a spectacular tour of Europe a couple of centuries back. They concentrated on a strong defense in Spain and Portugal, but switched to a running game with Blucher on the wing in Belgium.

    • Ross 12.4
      20 November 2014 at 6:07 pm

      I agree with you Fisiani, on this at least. There are too many comments that just launch into “Key is a bastard”. These comments are all knee-jerk and serve only to elevate Key in the collective consciousness.

      As for his take on history? He’s entitled to an opinion. History is a slippery bugger to nail down at the best of times and it pays to bear in mind it is written in winner’s pencil. Currently I would say that Maori are the winners in the writing contest.

      There are other interpretations. For example: this (looong read, but worth it). While not condoning Key’s view, it does attempt to view history in light of Maori being a living culture that was changing rapidly and adapting to the massive changes that were underway. It obviously suits those with a vested interest to portray Maori as unwitting victims to a massive conspiracy. Then, like now, there is no coordinated Them chuckling mirthlessly in lairs. And I for one have great respect for Maori and do not agree that they were as stupid as people make out in these comments.

      A true understanding of history requires us to shoehorn our twenty-first century minds into nineteenth century heads. To me, it isn’t worth it and it doesn’t matter anyway. What is important is what we have now and moving forward from there. All of us have grievances from the past. Those damn poms threw my lot off their land in Scotland not too long before they got into their shenannigans here. Big deal. Old times.

      …having arrived in Wangaroa we
      took possession of the land in accordance with our customs, and we caught the people. We caught all the
      people, not one escaped, some ran away from us, those we killed and others w
      ere killed but what of that
      it was in accordance with our custom.

      Wi Naera Pomare

      • Tracey 12.4.1
        20 November 2014 at 6:22 pm

        Hi Ross

        Which iwi/hapu are you descended from?

        Which clan? If you are talking about the clearances they run deep in the blood of many scots. A fight nearly 700 years ago is sung about at rugby matches, so lets not pretend everyone has forgotren and moved on. You will also find that scots dont have to listen to british pms teling them how peaceable they lost their lands

      • Tracey 12.4.2
        21 November 2014 at 8:38 am

        “All of us have grievances from the past. Those damn poms threw my lot off their land in Scotland not too long before they got into their shenannigans here. Big deal. Old times. ”

        My parents paternal lines are scottish, arriving here in the 1860’s.

        One got a loan, with no collateral to buy farmland in the Manawatu from the NZ Company (guess how they got it?)

        The other got a collateral free loan to start forestry mills on the west coast.

        So thats what happened to my scottish assets after they were cleared fromt he lands of Scotland… NOW what happened to maori when cleared from their land? Interest and collateral free loans anyone?

  13. fisiani 13
    20 November 2014 at 7:51 pm

    New Zealand WAS generally settled peacefully when compared with most other colonies in the 19th century. That’s historical fact. Bitching about a few exceptions is simply that..bitching. The political impotence here is certainly showing. How dare the proles elect and really like such a (insert desired insult). You guys are going to have to come up with some new lines over the next nine years. Nobody out there cares. That’s why I call it barking at parked cars. Utterly pointless.

    • felix 13.1
      20 November 2014 at 8:12 pm

      100% pure compared to other countries.

      🙄

    • vto 13.2
      20 November 2014 at 8:44 pm

      what is pointless is our prime minister

      suck up the insults fisiani, they will keep coming

      and I find it a curious and disturbing thing that so many of our fellow menwomen in aotearoa are content to acknowledge and approve a known liar and dirty dishonest politician. It speaks volumes for a chunk of our population (well about 29% of eligible voters I think it was, so not that many).

      Then again look at the Nurembirg rallies, ranting muslims in the middle east, extremist jews in Israel, tea party nutters in the US ….. All by popular voluntary choice. Just like our election eight weeks ago. Exactly the same.

      People like you fisiani don’t actually realise the context of what you say when you claim that because lots of people agree on something then it is all good. History fails you and the Nat supporters from this election. Like the f&$kwit from Fed Farmers who reckoned that voting for Key disproved all the dirt on Key – idiots on a grand scale… just like so many elsewhere today and through history.

      So yeah, suck up the insults ’cause they aint gonna stop.

      Ignoramuses.

    • Atiawa 13.3
      20 November 2014 at 9:36 pm

      The English had plenty of practice at violent colonization prior to their settlement of this country. They probably had had enough of the spoils of conquering far away places and their conscience may have been a tad “pricked” by the time the call went out to Westminster and the Colonial office for assistance, especially from one as distant as NZ. By the time they decided to colonize NZ they were keen to show themselves as civilized people, albeit superior to the noble savage that their intrepid citizenry had befriended and relied upon for acceptance and sustenance.
      One wonders if they would have been as peaceful in the earlier years of the 19th century. Post 1840 occurrences suggest not.

      • Tracey 13.3.1
        21 November 2014 at 8:50 am

        Teh Crown had discovered that conquest left the natives troublesome and there is evidence they were trying a different way. It appears they thought the Treaty would give them this opportunity. Then, as today however, politicians were affected by the profiteers and the NZ Company piled the pressure on, convinced the Crown to set up Westminister Government and then proceed to enact all the laws I refer to above. Sound familiar?

    • GregJ 13.4
      20 November 2014 at 10:34 pm

      You must be joking! British Settler Colonization in the 19th Century was by far the most aggressive of any of the European Powers and New Zealand just about the most aggressive of any of the British colonization efforts throughout the Empire – facing fierce and sustained Maori military resistance for the best part of 35 years and on-going passive, legal, & social resistance right up to the First World War. It is probably the longest period of sustained resistance to British Colonial efforts in the 19th Century.

      British Settler Colonization didn’t just seek economic exploitation of resources as most other European colonization did in the 19th Century – it sought total social, demographic, cultural, religious and economic hegemony on the back of military power. The British were the exemplars of aggressive 19th century capitalist exploitation/expansion. Colonization of NZ was one of the most ruthless and violent examples of that expansion.

      You need to read a lot more about NZ and British 19th Century history.

      • McFlock 13.4.1
        20 November 2014 at 10:48 pm

        I’ll raise your assertion with the Belgian Congo. Or Brazil.

        The thing is that NZ colonisation/invasion wasn’t particularly notable, and most colonised areas from any area had exceptionally long term resistance movements and confrontations (in some cases going back centuries). They just tend not to be particularly well documented in English, for some reason.

        Generally goes “brave white man goes somewhere, meets locals, gets on well, next lot of brave white men treat locals like shit, locals kill some of those brave white men, colonial power gets outraged and sends overwhelming force, locals annihilated/subjugated (possibly after a glorious defeat of brave white men and further reinforcements), next lot of brave white men pretend they’re the first ones there, another brave white man goes farther into that somewhere, process repeats”.

        • weka 13.4.1.1
          20 November 2014 at 11:05 pm

          Yep and by the time the Brits got here they were sick of all that so they used other methods instead (ones honed elsewhere mind).

        • GregJ 13.4.1.2
          20 November 2014 at 11:15 pm

          I’m not for a moment denying other colonial resistance existed or underplaying the Belgian atrocities in the Congo – one of the worst examples of Colonial violence – but the Congo wasn’t settled as such by the Belgians – hence why I used “Settler Colonization” as opposed to “Economic Colonization”.

          However fisiani was saying NZ was “generally peaceful” compared to other settlement in the 19th Century – and it wasn’t – the Colonial Office records record that NZ was a significant military headache to the British Imperial authorities for nearly 30 years to that point that by 1865 effectively the NZ Colonial Government was told to handle the issue itself by raising its own forces and Imperial troops were progressively withdrawn in the late 1860s & early 1870s.

          The worst aspects of Brazilian colonization effectively happened in the 17th and 18th century rather than the 19th.

          • McFlock 13.4.1.2.1
            21 November 2014 at 12:24 am

            Some other areas were more peaceful than NZ, some were more violent. But I reckon turning it into some sort of argument about a league table of colonial/settler-colonial oppression is a happy fallback position for fizz-bo and his ilk.

            The colonisation of NZ sure as shit wasn’t peaceful by any measure. Arguing whether a car-bomb is better or worse than a drone strike is not really a reasonable thread to follow when the pm said the neighbourhood was nice and peaceful, so I’ll bow out of this one 🙂

            • RedLogix 13.4.1.2.1.1
              21 November 2014 at 12:43 am

              Characteristing it as 30 years of full on warfare is not correct either. The worst of it is concentrated in a relatively few years in the early 1860’s.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Wars

              At the peak of hostilities in the 1860s, 18,000 British troops, supported by artillery, cavalry and local militia, battled about 4000 Māori warriors[5] in what became a gross imbalance of manpower and weaponry.[6] Although outnumbered, the Māori were able to withstand their enemy with techniques that included anti-artillery bunkers and the use of carefully placed pa, or fortified villages, that allowed them to block their enemy advance and often inflict heavy losses, yet quickly abandon their positions without significant loss. Guerilla-style tactics were used by both sides in later campaigns, often fought in dense bush. Over the course of the Taranaki and Waikato campaigns the lives of about 1800 Māori and 800 Europeans were lost[2] and total Māori losses over the course of all the wars may have exceeded 2100.

              Compare with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket_Wars:

              At least 20,000 people died in these conflicts. In addition another 30,000 were enslaved or forced to migrate, according to Crosby, using the data of noted New Zealand demographer Ian Poole. This figure may have been as high as 80,000.[26] Ballara points out it was common even in traditional times for a defeated hapū to flee their best land temporarily for up to two years but they usually returned when utu was satisfied and peace returned.

              Crosby says over half of all iwi suffered major population loss through battle casualties, cannibalism, or enslavement (for instance, the Moriori in the Chatham Islands). A few iwi, for example Ngati Tumatakokiri in Nelson and Ngati Ira in Wellington were exterminated.[27] In addition there were over 40 major migrations forced on iwi by conflict. Lands between Whangarei and Auckland isthmus was uninhabited in 1840 and to European eyes ownerless.

              Yes – John Key is guilty of re-writing history when he neglects to mention the New Zealand wars alright.

              • GregJ …
                21 November 2014 at 5:00 am

                I didn’t characterize it as “full on warfare” – I deliberately used the term “resistance” – a combination of insurgency, battles, military campaigns, passive resistance, local violence. However one result of this was the continuing need for Imperial Forces of at least 2,000 to be stationed in the country.

                And comparing the New Zealand Wars with the Musket Wars is a pointless comparison. The point being that colonial settlement in NZ wasn’t “peaceful”. You might as well have compared it to the War of the Roses.

                • RedLogix …
                  21 November 2014 at 5:18 am

                  a combination of insurgency, battles, military campaigns, passive resistance, local violence.

                  Fair enough – but on first reading that was not the impression you conveyed. And all up this 35 years of sustained resistance resulted in about a total of 3000 casualties for both sides- that’s barely an average of 85 deaths per year.

                  A lot of places in the world at the time would have called that full on peace by comparison.

                  Nor can the Musket Wars be expunged from the story – they were of course the first and by far the biggest impact of the wider world on Maori and one of course conducted almost entirely by their own agency.

                  Michael King placed the death toll at around 40% of the Maori population and at least 10 times greater (probably more) than those of the NZ Wars. It makes as much sense to try and understand say the Korean War, with no reference to WW2 and it’s aftermath.

            • GregJ 13.4.1.2.1.2
              21 November 2014 at 4:01 am

              I’d agree an ongoing “league table” argument is rather pointless – but fizzy (and also Key) were making comparative remarks about how peaceful settlement was – and it clearly wasn’t!

              I think it does highlight a rather ingrained belief in many people in NZ that, although there were “injustices”, colonial settlement in NZ was relatively benign – and that it most certainly wasn’t.

              P.S. Also the notion that the British were somehow the “good guys” of European colonialism. Again something that is historically dubious.

              • RedLogix …
                21 November 2014 at 4:28 am

                How would you define ‘benign’? In the context of the times.

                Here we have a New Zealand War (which is largely a series of small skirmishes and confrontations – with most of the action confined to several years in the Waikato & Taranaki) that has a total death toll of about 2100 Maori and 800 European.

                Relative to what else happened during that period – by death toll alone it barely rates as a war.

                The word ‘benign’ is of course a value judgement and by definition is a subjective thing every individual will perceive differently. The single biggest mistake most people make is to insist that their value judgements, from their modern perspectives – are at all useful when trying to understand the actions of people 100’s of years in the past.

                It really doesn’t work that way.

                • GregJ …
                  21 November 2014 at 4:50 am

                  Read the original historical material, look at the list Tracey has made up-thread – get a feeling for how “benign” it was to Maori. The short answer is it wasn’t.

                  • RedLogix …
                    21 November 2014 at 4:54 am

                    Quoting from the Wikipedia link above:

                    The third to last battle of the Musket Wars was a few months before the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. A taua (war party) from the Te Awamutu area attacked and slaughtered Arawa people (Rotorua area) and brought back 60 basket-loads of human flesh to eat.[3]

                    So if this is an example of contemporary Maori values I’d argue strongly that colonisation might have been pleasantly ‘benign’ by comparison.

                    • weka …
                      21 November 2014 at 8:57 am

                      Did you just argue that because the Brits weren’t eating Māori, Māori weren’t violently colonised?

      • Forsher 13.4.2
        20 November 2014 at 11:51 pm

        Settlement of New Zealand is interesting. In some sense it is typical of 19th Century British colonialism… private entities initiate events and then the government steps in for whatever reasons.

        Up until 1840, colonisation was very decentralised. That is, Europeans arrived in what amounts to dribs and drabs and had to fit into established patterns. However, as you get closer to 1840 there are more and more Europeans around and a pattern starts to develop. It is not a pattern that many like (for a host of reasons). Additionally, there was the impending arrival of larger numbers of settlers. It is also my understanding that the Declaration of Independence complicated the assessment. The point is that people could tell that the old patterns were changing and it was felt that something like a treaty was needed.

        The Treaty of Waitangi was the result. As a treaty it’s not the world’s best example of how to make one. It was hastily translated… everyone knows this… and possibly not by the best people to do it. However, the Treaty itself was also hastily discussed and composed. The short time between its first draft and signed version is probably indicative of none of the people around having had an accurate assessment of its later meaning. If they had, I think they’d have talked about it some more… but again, the Treaty itself is really still part of a disjointed pattern of colonisation. We all know the end result.

        Between the 1840s and the 1870s we can really talk about a non-peaceful period of settlement. However, it is perhaps better understood in terms of a colonial government wanting more. Certainly, George Grey had to orchestrate things to obtain the forces he desired to invade the Waikato region (i.e. cross the aukati), and later conflicts were more reliant on settler derived forces than imperial soldiers. Which brings us to that point, even in this period the colonisation of New Zealand is reasonably decentralised. Whitehall didn’t orchestrate the official response to the likes Pai Marire, that was the settler govt.

        But what was it all about? Mostly it was trying to create the sort of ideal that an industrialising and increasingly crowded Britain talked a lot about, but wasn’t really available to the vast majority of Britons. For many British settlers particularly non-English ones, coming to New Zealand was part of seeking a better life. This was very problematic. To my mind, the phrase “An Englishman’s home is his castle,” embodies a fundamental attitude of a British desire for land and to own land. The Treaty of Waitangi, obviously, set up some rules about this that, in combination with differing Maori attitudes towards land, were going to cause problems. Furthermore, I am given to understand that land sales were one of the colonial govt.’s core sources of revenue… but, regardless, clear authority made settler desires easier and (I guess) the colonial govt. believed that it was given this authority by the Treaty.

        So, were settlers after “total social, demographic, cultural, religious and economic hegemony”? No, I don’t think they were. I think that these features are an inevitable outcome of what they were after though, which was a lifestyle based on ownership of land. You can certainly phrase it to make them look like pure, unadulterated evil but that’s just irresponsible. You could, fundamentally, say that conflict in New Zealand’s settlement derived from two key sources. Firstly, the core resource of land. Secondly, a quest for authority. These were intertwined.

        As to why NZ was settled as opposed to extracted? Simply put, suitable climatic conditions and non-obvious resources plus apparently heaps of space. Disease and continuations of traditional Maori conflict (i.e. the Musket Wars*) also made it possible. It had all the appeal that the heat of India or the diseases of Africa simply didn’t have.

        *Speaking of the Musket Wars. Trade of muskets was an extension of trade more generally. The wars may have been enabled by European actions but they were a consequence of Maori agency… something many histories of New Zealand (whether Victorian style or revisionist) often forget.

        • RedLogix 13.4.2.1
          21 November 2014 at 1:08 am

          Thank you.

          Too much of New Zealand history has been selectively distorted by people with agendas.

          The only way to make any sense of it is to look broadly at the historic and cultural contexts of both Maori and European settlers – and their very remarkable interactions. In that light the narrative has a lot more wrinkles than the ones we usually seem to get told.

          It’s a story with some dark moments alright – but equally I would suggest there is a fair bit we can be proud of too.

          • GregJ 13.4.2.1.1
            21 November 2014 at 4:31 am

            You don’t have to wait to be told – look at the source documentation, read the diaries, letters, newspapers of the time, listen to the oral traditions passed down by settlers and Maori, read the Maori Land Court documentation. Of course it is complex and multi-layered.

            However Key is doing exactly what you are arguing against – simplifying a complex historical process for his own particular agenda – and actually saying something which is demonstrably false.

            There are many achievements of my family as German settlers to NZ in the 1870s I’m proud off but it doesn’t mean I’m blind to the historiographical context in which those achievements are made.

            • RedLogix 13.4.2.1.1.1
              21 November 2014 at 4:50 am

              Well yes.

              I’ve watched Maori separatists selectively focus on every bad impact that the colonisation process incurred. And tell us what a terrible thing it all was. Naturally because it reinforces their agenda to re-establish real Iwi sovereignty. Quite understandable.

              And today John Key follows in a long tradition of Pakeha’s who selectively ignore all those bad impacts and blithely focus on all the benign benefits of colonisation and how it brought Maori out of the Stone Age. And this is understandable because it justifies our current society and especially the relative privilege they enjoy within it.

              There is an element of truth to both these contrasting perceptions – yet both do our real history a grave disservice and because of their selectivity both are false.

              As long as we cling obsessively to one agenda or the other we will remain blind to our real stories – and unable to learn from them. They are much more interesting than propaganda.

    • weka 13.5
      20 November 2014 at 10:36 pm

      “New Zealand WAS generally settled peacefully when compared with most other colonies in the 19th century. That’s historical fact.”

      I think it depends on your definitions of violence and peacefulness. Bear in mind that Key didn’t say ‘less violent’, he said ‘peaceful.

      Key and you and probably RL seem to be arguing that overt physical violence was less therefore colonisation was peaceful. But I think you need to ask Māori about whether they experienced the process as violent or peaceful. Comparing degrees of violence by British standards is just another version of the colonisers getting to write history.

      What it looks like to me, in terms of effect, is that it was sufficiently violent in various ways to render the idea of peacefulness ridiculous. Not all violence is a punch in the face. Force can be applied in many ways.

  14. fisiani 14
    20 November 2014 at 8:21 pm

    don’t exaggerate 95% pure

    • RedBaronCV 14.1
      20 November 2014 at 10:45 pm

      Try the english clearances of the Maritime provinces of Canada. Much like the highland clearancesexcept the french were in the road.

    • RedBaronCV 14.2
      20 November 2014 at 11:00 pm

      I went and dug out my copy of Marianne Williams Letters from the Bay of Islands.
      Hobson arrived in the Bay of Islands as Govenor of NZ on the H.M.S Herald on 29th Jan 1840. It seems Henry Williams went aboard in the afternoon (30th jan?)and received no intimation that the government ( NSW?) were contemplating any move towards NZ.

      On the 4th of Feb at 4p.m Henry was given the Treaty (in english) to translate into Maori. It was translated with the help of his son Edward ( about 21 yrs old) who had grown up speaking maori ( and from memory William Puckey may also have helped – he was a good linguist). It had to be translated so that it could be read to the chiefs at 10.00a.m the following morning (5th) at the treaty house. It was signed on the 6th.

      Given that sort of time line there cannot have been much in the way of negotiation (if any) and it looks like it arrived pre-prepared.
      Sounds a lot like today’s corporates. We’ve just drawn up a document to discuss, here’s what we are going to talk about and this is what you are going to do. Problems with the details? Oh we can iron those out later.

  15. Dialey 15
    20 November 2014 at 8:32 pm

    Reinterpreting history is one of the chilling aspects of totalitarianism as identified by Hannah Arendt in her series of essays Crises of the Republic.
    “One of the lessons that could be learned from the totalitarian experiments and the totalitarian rulers’ frightening confidence in the power of lying – in their ability, for instance to rewrite history again and again to adapt the past to the “political line” of the present moment or to eliminate data that did not fit their ideology. Thus is a socialist economy, they would deny that unemployment existed, the unemployed simply becoming a non-person”

    • vto 15.1
      20 November 2014 at 8:46 pm

      I would bet money that Key has never read an essay Dialey

      As you say – frightening

      But its all ok because, eh, nothing like that happens in NZ. Nope. Its too nice and green here …..

      ffs

  16. Raa 16
    21 November 2014 at 7:13 am

    What worries me is that it is similar to the Israeli creation myth challenged by researchers such as Ilan Pappé
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Papp%C3%A9

    • Murray Rawshark 16.1
      21 November 2014 at 6:32 pm

      WIth the difference that Israeli Jews now obscenely claim to be the indigenous people of the area, with Palestinians being recent arrivals.

  17. Tautoko Mangō Mata 17
    21 November 2014 at 7:56 am

    “Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., “downsizing” for layoffs, “servicing the target” for bombing), in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable.” https://www.google.co.nz/?gws_rd=ssl#q=doublespeak
    John Key speaks the language of double-speak fluently. This language is the language of the corporate world.
    “Negative growth” = loss,
    “letting-go”= making redundant or firing.
    I am sad that, in this day and age, John Key seems to have very little appreciation of the real history of this country and that he has not made an effort to learn a little Māori language. As PM, he has made very little effort in this direction.

  19. Dont worry. Be happy 19
    21 November 2014 at 8:10 am

    Key’s lies about the conquest and colonisation of NZ place him and his Government are propoganda, 100% pure. No arguement.

    But why trumpet those lies? And why now?

    Do those railroading this country into the TPPA (where the NZ Company is replaced by multinational corporations) need some very, very angry Maori?

    Have the Treaty and the Waitangi Tribunal done their job too well allowing too much buy in by Pakeha and Maori and too much peaceful resolution of injustice?

    John Key and his ilk are not “parked cars”. They are dangerous, treacherous, amoral despots in the making. “The love of money is the root of all evil”

    When we turn our minds to stopping them, then Parihaka must be in our hearts.

Links to post