New Zealander's Stole their Land!!

[Ishmael]

Horrible 19th Century Astrocities Commited by New Zealand aglo settlers!

What's In A Name?

The 'New Zealand Wars' are known by various names.

Several generations ago, the New Zealand Wars were generally known as the Maori Wars. This name originated from the 19th century British practice of naming their wars after their foe eg the Zulu Wars, or the Indian Mutiny or the Maori Wars. Keith Sinclair used this term in the title of his important 1957 book, The Origins of the Maori Wars. However, 'the Maori Wars' is no longer in favour and is seldom used. Historians like John Pocock have argued that the term is divisive - it sets up a 'them and us' situation. The name also hints at Maori responsibility for the wars.

In the 1970s, the name the Land Wars became popular for awhile, and was used by some historians like Keith Sorrenson. This name emphasised conflict over land as the primary cause of war. Generally speaking, this is the name (and the view) that Maori people prefer (Professor Sorrenson is Maori, from Ngati Pukenga). Nga Pakanga Whenua O Mua, which is used in the title of this website, means 'the wars fought over the land many years ago' (the Land Wars). This is a term you will hear used amongst Maori elders in north Taranaki, for example, where war actually took place. However, Maori elsewhere may well use different names, especially Maori who did not face the British Army or the later Armed Constabulary.

Another Maori name often used is Nga Pakanga Nu Nui O Aotearoa, or 'the great wars of Aotearoa' (the New Zealand Wars). This name appears on a small number of monuments to the wars. And a recent publication on Maori sources issued by the National Archives in Wellington refers to the wars simply as Nga Pakanga O Aotearoa.


Maori Rifle Pits, Te Arei Pa, Waitara
In the 1980s or so, the Anglo-Maori Wars emerged. Alan Ward first used this name in an important essay which raised questions as to causes of the wars. The name won general acceptance, especially amongst historians like Keith Sinclair (who had earlier preferred 'The Maori Wars'). This new name (and Ward) emphasised that the wars were in reality a conflict between New Zealand's two peoples, Maori and new settlers from Britain.

Another name, the Colonial New Zealand Wars is also used, especially by Tim Ryan and Bill Parham in the title of their lavishly illustrated and well written book. From time to time, some historians have suggested another name, the New Zealand Civil Wars. This name suggests that the wars were in fact a civil war (much in the American sense) fought between Maori and new European settlers/the Crown.

The notion of a 'New Zealand Civil War' hasn't really taken off in New Zealand. Some historians like John Pocock have argued that Maori society was too fragmented and did not represent a 'single polity'. Rather, small autonomous (and divided) tribes waged war against the singular Crown. So the argument goes; and fair enough, but it isn't entirely convincing because Maori people, if not united on the ground, did see themselves as representing a united interest - defence of land and te tino rangatiratanga (sovereignty).

Also, the comparison often made between New Zealand's wars and the American Civil War isn't really adequate - it is better to compare our wars to those waged against Native American people.

Just on the question of 'civil wars', some historians have recently suggested that the New Zealand Wars were in fact civil wars fought between Maori, with settlers and the Crown almost relegated to the role of mere bystanders.

It is true that the later 1860s were dominated by significant kupapa ('friendly') Maori involvement, fighting against 'rebellious' Maori. But the Crown interest was always at the core of the otherwise significant involvement of kupapa Maori. Similarly, the British Army used few Maori to wage their campaigns. And, it was the British Army that 'won' the wars for the Crown, without the help of Maori. Therefore, one could argue that it is a litle disingenuous to suggest that the New Zealand wars were really wars fought between Maori tribes.

So, what should we call these wars?

The overwhelming favourite name used these days is undoubtedly the New Zealand Wars. This fairly old name has been much popularised by James Belich who is the most prominent historian of these wars. Belich used the term in the title of his important 1985 book of course; and he justified its use towards the end of that significant and challenging narrative. The name was also used earlier by James Cowan, when he published his two volume narrative of war on the edges of empire in the early 1920s.

Most historians and writers do choose their preferred name carefully. Preferred names suggest a certain personal view as to issues like causes, participants, the progress and importance of particular conflicts, and outcomes. Others use names like the 'New Zealand Wars' for the most part uncritically.

You might be wondering, why are there so many names? (and there are more). Some detailed discussion on this issue - and that of giving names to history - will be posted shortly into the Studies and Research section of this site.

I am shocked and ashamed!

How far will New Zealand Anglos go to oppress the indigenous people of New Zealand!?

http://www.newzealandwars.co.nz/index.html

[Ishmael]

New Zealand butcher:

[Ishmael]

A shoking history!

In the 1860s, New Zealand was thrust into an unofficial civil war, when Maori unrest at the heavy-handed land-grabbing of the settlers and European government boiled over. The Maori Land Wars (as they are now known) were a lot like the United States' Civil War, in that many battles were lost by the eventual winning side despite numerical and often positional advantage. Unlike the US Civil War, though, the Maori were never given credit for their use of trench warfare, and British losses were ascribed to incompetent generals with no mention made of the tactics or ingenuity of the Maori. Most of the Maori wars were fought in the North Island, and resulted in considerable land losses when the British finally won.

http://prometheus.frii.com/~jenine/tb/mil.bob/nz.html

[Rubia Warren]

I am shocked to my foundation. I can't believe it.

[Socrates]

A sickly white liberal (to use the term of one of NZ's prominent Maori politicians, Winston Peters) like KiwiMac would probably agree with this stuff, and perform some pathetic navel-gazing gut wrenching! But part of the problem was the 19th C evolutionary belief that darker skinned people were less evolved, so it would be incredible that the Maoris could think of brilliant battle tactics.

[kiwimac]

Actually Dear Boy,

The maori fought the Pakeha both settlers and military to a standstill and that was against a better-armed, more up-to-date enemy. (for the military had guns and few maori did.)

As more Maori got guns their tactics changed and the use of the fortified pa changed to take artillery, guns etc into account.

As for oppressing the Maori, yes, it did happen but the maori had one great advantage over the natives in America and Australia, they were warriors used to fighting from fortified positions. So the kinds of massacres which happened in the US and Australia did not occur here.

Am I a "sickly white liberal", I dunno, more of a moderate really but I do know one thing, if you want any "street cred" in NZ you never quote Winston Peters!

(And unlike you Socrates, I actually know him)!

Kiwimac

[Solly]

Buffalo Soldier

[Ishmael]

03-08-2003 @ 09:45 AM
Solly:

Buffalo Soldier

Are you trying to turn this into yet another word association thread?

[Solly]

No, just remembering the old maxim, one finger forward, three back.

Remember smallpox blankets?

I don't think Americans have anything right to use shock!horror!probe! tactics about this issue considering your own track record with Amerindians and Africans; any more than Britain can, since we transported thousands of people to the colonies for stealing a sheep, and were part and parcel of the slave trade too.

What is news, is what said countries are doing about it now, re the generational effects of what they did in the past. Do Americans still lunch Africans, or stop Amerinds getting proper jobs and healthcare? Are Maoris still oppressed?

Which country shall we move onto next? I am sure there are plenty with shameful pasts and skeletons in the cupboard. Let's do Spain for instance, and it's treatment of the Aztecs.

And why do I get the feeling this was a targetted report, not merely something you feel passionately about yourself, Cal.

[kiwimac]

Solly,

Yeah its probably all those "anti-american" posts I do. As if being opposed to a war makes you anti-american!

Kiwimac

[$cirisme]

Solly doesn't live in America.

[kiwimac]

Cirisme,

Read my post. I DID NOT suggest that Solly was American, I was agreeing with his synopsis of the rationale behind calvinist's posts and commenting that merely opposing a very stupid war does not make me anti-american. Or is this not simple enough for you?

Kiwimac

[Socrates]

• Am I a "sickly white liberal", I dunno, more of a moderate really but I do know one thing, if you want any "street cred" in NZ you never quote Winston Peters!

This is only according to sickly white liberals. He evidently has a massive following judging by his successes at your polls for 20 years or so.

And I was complimenting the Maori battle tactics, but it was only comparatively recently that they were recognized, by James Belich in particular. But this was long underestimated because of evolutionary notions of white superiority.