Sidestep: The Slaves of Aotearoa

The United Kingdom, when Aotearoa was first sighted, still allowed slavery. Slavery was a world-wide scourge on mankind. In was Denmark who first stopped slavery in its colonies in 1803, and in 1807 Britain finally outlawed the slave trade, but not the keeping of slaves. It wasn’t until 1833 that Britain abolished slavery in the empire. Most would consider the keeping of slaves to be a European or American thing practiced against coloured people. But that is far from the truth. All races over many millennia have kept slaves in some form or fashion. All races from the Native Amercian, to Maori, to the Ottomans, to the Spanish, the Arabs participated in it in varying degrees of brutality. Even now slavery still occurs in current day Asia and Europe.

It may not be widely known by the average person living here that Maori, prior to Cook arriving, already kept slaves. There was no slave trade as such, but the keeping of slaves was a common practice. In fact the practice continued right up until the 1860’s and the last of it affected the Moriori on Rēkohu who were decimated by two tribes from North Taranaki, namely Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutanga - bent on a murderous rampage for God knows what reason. The saddest part was that the Moriori were a peaceable people. Slaves kept on Aotearoa were from other conquered tribes who also were at war and kept slaves. But that which occurred on what we now call the Chatham Islands was particularly brutal and callous. It was essentially genocide. Ngati Mutanga argued before the Native Land Court in 1870 that their enslavement of Morori was traditional Māori tikanga. Traditional...? Customary...?

Another interesting note is that Moriori, who never signed the treaty, claimed financial recourse from the government - not from the tribes that slaughtered and enslaved their ancestors.

That aside, the general practice was just that – general. Exactly when it began no one is certain. But it is likely a scenario that was copied from Polynesia and began with tribes growing stronger and then dominating the weaker original inhabitants, of which little remains as few cannibalistic bones from deep umu’s have been analysed for DNA.

Slaves were even given the moko and when ready, killed and their heads sold to European traders. (See our other article 29th August 2016)

There have been books suggesting Maori were savages, but these books were written in the context of European ideas. They were not savages, they were and are an amazing complex people. The simple fact is you can’t condemn it as it was customary at the time. However, you can't ignore it and say it was anything but demeaning and in the end brutal. Hazel Petrie released a book suggesting only the musket wars made slavery brutal, but it also mentions differing opinions of how hard a life a slave would have. In the end Hazel neither condemns nor excuses the practice and it become another book of no consequence because it has no balls (excuse the reverence), even suggesting Maori stopped the practice on their own. They did not, law and religion did it. Her book reads like a half cooked meal. One commentator suggests she was paid by Maori to write it. Another suggests we read the following artcile you can read by clicking the link - http://mauistreet.blogspot.co.nz/2012/03/iwi-back-slavery-on-our-seas.html But even that is just someone’s opinion, and it is not ours, we just thought it very interesting.

Old Mihaka', the slave left behind by Te Rauparaha when retreating from Kawhia. 1919.

You can’t really call those in servitude to other tribes slaves in the same context as those taken from Africa and piled onto boast to go to work elsewhere, where those that died were simply tossed overboard on the way, where when they arrived, they were sold and became the property of the owner until death and could be treated in any way they liked. Slavery had a beginning at some point whereas here in Aoteaora... well, actually slavery had a starting point in NZ too. If they arrived here from Hawaiiki did they bring slaves? No, they did not. Slaves first came from the Tangata Whenua already here, the peaceful ones just like the Moriori who descended from interbreeding with the Tangata Whenua and the Polynesian tribes in the first 150 years. Then, as tribes grew in number, they began to war among themselves for land or offence, and the practice carried on. What is astounding is the angst between tribes over time when they were all supposed to be brethren from the same land. But they weren’t. As we have suggested before, the various tribes came from different islands at different times but they were of the one religion. Soke tribes hated each other, there was bad blood among many of them.

Before we go onto slaves directly, we wish to point out that tribal ‘Maori’ had a class system. Yes, that is correct. A class system just like in any other culture where a few privileged people were at the top and the servants were at the bottom. Here is the list...

1. Rangatira – Chiefs. Even hapu decided how important a rangatira you were compared to other hapu. A chiefs status came from birth (privilege)

2. Tohunga - priests

3. Tūtūā – the common people. All of these could count an ancestor as a rangatira. Tūtūā did not act as subservient to rangatira. In fact you would be hard pressed to find any Maori who admitted to being Tūtūā.

4. Tangata – If a hapu owed allegiance to another more powerful hapu they were expected to pay tribute to the rangitira in exchange for protection. These were tangata to the chiefs

5. Taurekareka – slaves, usually of an enemy captured in battle. A Tūtūā could marry a slave who was then free. Slaves never sought escape as to return to your tribe after being a slave was inconceivable as your mana (prestige) was lost, and the gods had abandoned you.

Servitude

Among Maori, a slave’s position depended upon the manner in which they entered captivity. If just a member of an enslaved tribe your time might be just one of tributary only. A servitude tribe would be prevented breeding and expanding by taking the best breeding girls. But a vassal-tribe may have to provide sacrifice victims for an event such as the launching of a war canoe, the opening of a great house, or the death of a chief. Yes, human sacrifice in the same manner as the Mayans. It happened here too. Generally only female slaves were kept as they were less threat and more useful as potato farmers and partners. Potatoes could be grown by slaves, as they were not subject to the tapu restrictions around kūmara growing.

The other class of slave is a prisoner of war. These suffered the most, some destined for the ovens after the battle. But apparently there was also the strange custom where if a chief (related to both sides) was winning a battle and called out the names of some he knew, if they responded they could join the tribe as guest. Yes, it got even more complicated than that like all religion where the rules only increase until it becomes impossible to function.

Some say a slave was treated well and there was no point of escape due to no one accepting him if he escaped. But most slaves were kept, worked and ended up in the ovens if they were a slave from a most hated tribe. As Maori society had a class system, there was a class system that related to slaves as well.

A slave would have no discomfort of tapu as he was now nobody in a spiritual sense, therefore he was essentially non-existent. Of course he had to refrain from breaking the personal tapu of a chief; death was probably his portion in such a case, but what he had to dread was the vengeance of the offended person, not the wrath of deities. The celestial penalty of the breach would fall upon the chief whose tapu had been broken, not on the slave, who was below divine notice. But it is interesting to note the tapu applying to all Maori thorough a series of complex religious rituals lest they lose their mana and be vulnerable to supernatural forces and be harmed or killed. Yet slaves, who had no such protection, suffered nothing from the ‘gods’, only the humans who harmed them. They never saw that reality unless the fact they were a slave proved the supernatural forces had already left them. Slavery then, was not meant just to be physical, but also psychological, emotional and spiritual.

Slaves were held in contempt. When one died there was no ceremony with the bones being scrapped, he was simply buried in a hole. Retribution could sometimes be made on another person slave rather than the person who committed the offense. There are reports of skeletons being found at the base of palisade poles at old important Pa. These were some of the slave sacrifices.

So, while part of the culture, slavery was real. No less despicable and no more prevalent than most other cultures. You cannot hold an old practice from 200 years ago on a modern people. Or can you? After all, Maori hold offences against the government for financial recompense I wonder if we should again revisit the spiritual effects slavery had and still has on the psyche of the people. That may not be necessary, but the fact slavery occurred should never be forgotten and that it was against its own people from different tribes, not a race based issue, should never be forgotten or be allowed to be hidden from the history books.

Maori never were an innocent race. No race ever has been.

Even European have been accused of enslaving Maori when they sent prisoners to work in chain gangs such as those from Parihaka, sent to Dunedin (and by the way that was an appalling abuse by the British). Whites who broke the law were also in chain gangs but not in the numbers Maori were as this was due to war. But many find it ironic for Maori to suggest Europeans were guilty of 'enslaving' Maori when Maori saw it as a cultural right! We repeat a sentence form the 2nd paragraph above... Ngati Mutanga argued before the Native Land Court in 1870 that their enslavement of Moriori was traditional Māori tikanga.

No one is worse, no one is better. It's all history, it should stay there, but never be forgotten.

MoriOri survivors