Editorial #3 - The effects of Colonialism

The Ngai Tahu Research Centre will share results of a five year research programme on the impact of colonisation on Maori through a series of lectures next week at the University of Canterbury. He Kokonga Whare is an attempt to document the high rates of trauma Maori people experience and correlated it with a range of health and social problems, from heart disease to imprisonment. Each of the Roadshow Lectures explores a different topic related to the themes of trauma and healing, including: Maori traditional approaches to trauma; alienation from land; imprisonment; and sexual violence.

"Colonialism - the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it, settling in it, and exploiting it economically."

Colonialism is also direct immigration but on a larger scale. It included Melanesian, Polynesian and then European arrivals to these shores. Considering in each case they were not the first, there is no difference - unless you do not believe that the Polynesian was first here, as many non-political quiet living Maori believe.

It is true that many Maori did suffer trauma when a new set of immigrants entered New Zealand. In the very early days Maori were killed by Pakeha and Pakeha were killed by Maori and I'm not even referring to the military, I am meaning ordinary skirmishes and most of those of ignorance of customs - on both sides. In regard to government, it is true there is much to be addressed however Maori equally benefited from that colonialism (apart from Nga Puhi's ability to trade muskets from the European and kill Maori up and down the country, and we wont mention what they traded -but we will leave that for another time) but it depends in which period you examine as to the perceived benefit or perceived trauma. It is true that new races introduce new diseases and that too affect those that were here before when the Pacific migrations began. While sexual crimes against Maori increased, in the modern day is is equally the other way around. At least infanticide is no longer practiced although now legally one can abort so Europeans seem little different really. But all of that is aimed at what happens after Europeans arrived.

Yet not much has been said about before Europeans arrived. About the trauma of utu and Maori tribes taking lands off other tribes by intimidation or bloodshed. Let us not forget that Maori had 'pa' long before Europeans arrived, long before...What did they need defensive pa for exactly? Were they at war with each other for hundreds of years? Surely not?

But now to the main point of this article. Could the University of Canterbury please do a study on the traumatic effects of Kai Tahu received after being forced out of the Wairarapa, and then the trauma they caused after moving from the North Island to claim the South Island by bloodshed and assimilation thereby wiping out at least two established tribes/nations? Yes it happened, and yes it is well recorded but not often taught.

Let us make it clear for those that have never considered this...Ngai Tahu (originally Kai Tahu when up north) were immigrants into the South Island long before they themselves experienced the same thing from newer immigrants from the other side of the world. What hypocrisy to examine of someone else what they themselves did to others not 150 years before Europeans arrived...!

Ngai Tahi will talk about imprisonment, and they are right, many were. But what about the slaves and the cannibalism of Kati Mamoe and Waitaha and other before them? Oh, was that not meant to come up? Sorry, but every time someone talks about colonialists I will mention Maori killing Maori and taking each others lands going right back to those here before they arrived - until they finally admit what they mean is not 'colonialists' (for they were that themselves), but white people.

We have had some write into us, or stated on our Facebook link (and it is all on record), that Maori forgave Maori for those atrocities committed. Did they really? That raises two questions. Firstly, when and where and how is that recorded or assumed because we know Maori oral tradition is strong. Secondly, if they can forgive each other for taking lands, killing, cannibalism and slavery, why not those of white skin for taking lands and imprisonment - after all, Europeans didn't eat anyone? That statement should not offend Maori as it was just a way of life. Cannibalism was a heinous act against human dignity in death. It was the ultimate insult intended to hurt you in the afterlife.

'Colonialism' is a generic term whereby you can carefully lump it into 'government' rather than be seen to attack colour, and the government have money to make things better. But in effect, to mention the word colonialism is to refer to one thing that is different to what Maori did to Maori - the colour of ones skin! This thereby shows that the truth in the statements that are more likely racist in reality. Racism is a word used of the Nazi's and was coined by Leon Trotsky in 1927 to browbeat all dissenters of the communist ideology. Interesting aye! It has nothing to do with racial colour and everything to do with stopping a different opinion to the one you hold.

This editorial has a purpose to show that 'Maori colonialism' existed too and we simply suggest that all part-Maori are same inside (ie, as good or as bad) as anyone else in the world - regardless of skin colour. For man is both good and bad in any location on this planet. Take the Sioux in South Dakata. They had their lands taken too, yet the Sioux came from Wisconsin and themselves took the land off other native Americans before the white man came. What they took - they eventually lost and it is not to say that much Indian land was taken but that the Sioux plead innocence of the practice. But they took land because they could, they needed new lands, were stronger and more numerous. Does that sound familiar? Then there is the Cherokee, they complained about the white man taking their lands. Interestingly they forget that their own legends talk of a race of tall white giants in the land when they arrived and the years it took until the Cherokee finally killed them all and took their lands over. Yes, the Cherokee did to the white giants what the white man did to them (except compelte extermination). I smell hypocrasy everywherre.

Now I will be accused of all sorts of things for this article and that is acceptable and reasonable for we can agree to disagree on all sorts of things, and opinions can be right or wrong. Hopefully I have raised some questions and made some consider things they otherwise may not have. On the other hand I admit I need to be more sympathetic myself while realizing that what has happened can not be changed. An apology cannot change the past, nor can money and the constant demand for such only reinforces my intent to refer back to the those that took land off others, killed, ate and enslaved others, long before the first European ship ever left port.

It took Ngai Tahu 5 years to put together this program to show the effects of a new white race enforcing their dominance and the effects on those here before them. But what effects of those before Ngai Tahu? No one ever assk and it is most often written as 'assimilation' rather than warfare, killing, cannibalism and enslavement. Yes, once Kati Mamoe were 'brow beaten' and physically and physiologically defeated, they were assimilated. be careful of the interpretation of the timing of the words provided in official journals.

In early 2016 Maori may be finally proved the immigrants themselves and we will question why a certain race is now extinct (although we think the answer is obvious). Who will speak for them if it is normal to dwell on the past? So with equal consistency tangatawhenua16 will.

This is about the 'tall ones', it was always about the 'tall ones', and it will always be about the 'tall ones'. But we aren't there quite yet.

Not yet!