Historical: The Maori Wars (Maori vs Pakeha)
This, and the following article on 21st July, have nothing to do with our purpose of finding the rumoured tall skeletons lying in a cave in Waikato - as you know we are attempting to reveal that there was a race here long before Polynesian arrived and not of Polynesian descent. However, there is so much in the news about injustice toward the Maori by European, (most of it true), that I wanted to explore the two largest wars that occurred in this country in a factual informational context and then give an opinion on them from a point of view where I gain nothing from having that view. Don't panic, it's just us looking at recorded war data, recorded causes and recorded deaths. Some will agree or disagree with many statements made within these two posts. But no one can disagree with the historical facts however you wish to interpret them.
Maori Land Wars
When Europeans first arrived there were a few skirmishes due to misunderstanding by the Europeans of the protocols of the people here. There was what you would these days call ‘murder’ occurring on both sides, from fear, or simple misunderstanding. A lot of reactions to events were based around cultural interpretation at the time. And yes, Europeans had a culture.
The year 1642 was where it began with the European - the massacre of the those onboard the 'Boyd' being the most prominent (we have an article on the 'Boyd' much later in the year). Whalers killed many Maori in 'revenge' for one individual being flogged aboard the Boyd, proving that the ‘utu’ of the Maori is not new in concept in the world. Keep in mind that killing was already occurring in inter-tribal warfare long before the European got here. When the first few settlers arrived and the population was 2000, Maori were still around 70,000.
Europeans needed the help of Maori to survive as the early arrivals struggled – just as the early arrivals from Polynesia did as evidenced at Wairau. If it wasn’t for the tangata whenua (already living here), the Polynesian immigrants would have done it much harder.
In the early 1800’s intermarriage occurred out of necessity and connection for trading as for anything else (as it was in the 1300’s when Polynesians encountered the few already here, some of which were Melanesian arrivals around 900-1100AD, and some who were here many hundreds of years longer). Many Maori wanted to change their lifestyles and culture, desiring what the Europeans brought, wore and used. Generally speaking the relationship between European and the various tribes they encountered was a good one, and Maori embraced the new ways. There were a few Maori that hated the change the white man brought with him and there were a few Europeans that didn’t like Maori, but as we have today, that percentage is quite small.
If any of the Europeans were racist, they were culturally racist rather than genetically racist as the first permanent arrivals (being missionaries) believed all people were one, based on their Christian beliefs. It was an attempt to change their ‘culture’, deeming their own more important, that caused the problems. (This is much the case today – cultural misunderstanding is deemed as genetic racism, and while that is the case with a few, it is not of the majority). But Maori also chose to adopt much of which flew in the face of their culture. They chose to embrace it - the clothing, the tools, the language, the religion – none of it was forced upon them. It was only in the schools in the late 1800’s where the cultural things were openly discouraged and that is a black mark in NZ's history.
It was the rapid growth of the Pakeha population, through immigration, that was the spark to demographic marginalisation of Maori – but it was always dependant on the alienation of Maori land. By 1860, 65% of land had legitimately passed out of Maori ownership. During the Maori wars in the 1860’s however, vast tracts of land was confiscated through legislation, and continued right up until 1960. The only legitimate claim Maori have for land is one made as a direct result of what was taken during the land wars. In summary the wars were sparked by...
The contest for land with settlers and Māori holding such different views on the value and use of land.
Settler impact and the introduction of their communities, laws, economics, social and political customs that were foreign to Māori.
The impact on Māori of the Crown’s policy of ‘amalgamating’ Māori into the new Pākehā political systems.
These days, most of Maori descent talk about the Maori Wars with a passion. And so they should. It unites Maori against the Crown, (whites) in a way that is incredibly strong, and maybe it should. But did Maori not also confiscate land off other tribes, those that were here before them as well as those that came with them? Ngai Tahu lost their traditional lands to another tribe, but they don’t want those lands back because what they conquered off others gave them far more land. It must be understood that the treaty applied to lands owned by Maori only when the European got here, not before. Maori do not seem interested in what they lost to other tribes before the European got here. But why is that? Is it because the loss was culturally instigated rather than racially instigated?
And the cause of these wars between the Crown and various tribes? It was over land - land settled by Pakeha. This land around the time of the wars was mostly empty. But why was it mostly empty? Well, that brings us to the Musket Wars and that means we first have to look back to some previous history....
The Musket Wars (a slight deviation)
During the Musket Wars of the 1810s-1830s, thousands of Māori various tribes fled from their traditional lands when opposing tribes attacked them. This unintentionally opened large areas of uninhabited land to potential Pākehā (European) settlement. The European probably assumed various tribes had abandoned the land, (without understanding spiritual connection to piece of land), so they occupied many areas that were largely unoccupied. This was all while one individual (Hone Heke), from one tribe (NgaPuhi) took his warriors all over the country, on a what can only be described as a murderous rampage. NgaPuhi even cooked some of their 'enemies' to sustain them on their journey. If this is new to you, you need to understand that at the time this was a fairly common cultural practice toward an enemy, right up until about 1840.
Few of Maori descent talk about the injustice of the musket wars, (a war fought between tribes from 1807-1945), except to point out where the muskets came from. But muskets don’t kill people; they are only tools people use to kill people. Patu’s don’t kill people either; only when they are in the hand of one intent on killing.
Whilst acknowledging the injustices by European against Maori in the wars between 1843-1869, it is clearly wrong to vilify one race while ignoring the atrocities of one’s own race. It can be argued that peace will never be found within Maoridom while they ignore the moral injustice with one hand while pointing the finger at another with the other hand. Some have said “it has all been forgiven”. Murder, cannibalism, slavery... all forgiven? For what? How? When? With what recompense? The fact is that it hasn’t been forgotten just moved aside while there is a race they can unite against. When you are against something even previous enemies unite against the new foe. That's nothing new and we are not suggesting it’s wrong - after all, the Native Americans that were once at war with each other, did the same thing on three battlefields against American troops. A tribe can decide it will forgive and forget the same thing done by their own race while not choosing to forgive and forget a white race. That too is their right. However, there is a spiritual principle here. Maybe until Maori acknowledge the atrocities and land grabs that occurred and openly forgive, then the door cannot be opened.
Even now in Northland, various iwi cannot agree on how to look after a long strip of beach handed over in a treaty settlement. This shows that iwi still can't agree, even when European involvement is withdrawn. Take the white meddlers out and iwi revert back to the old disagreements it seems. Maybe that is a bit generalized, but that is what it appears to show. Once again, your cultural background and your observation of another culture's handling of an issue affects how you see things. That works both ways.
And what when we finally produce evidence by way of physical skeletal proof, along with DNA profiling and carbon dating, that Maori were not the first? Until a public acknowledgement is made and they apologise to those before, there can be no moving forward – ever! But to ignore all of those two things while burning fiercely against the Pakeha – that can be also described as racism, there is no other explanation as Maori are not innocent of wrongdoings either.
While our task continues, we have asked many questions and posed many theories on certain subjects from an interest point of view. They are our views or questions. Many Maori openly attack us, and others, when they do not like the subjects that are raised. They use the term 'racist' in regard to a view they do not agree with. Yet when certain Maori raise something which you disagree with, you are still labelled as a racist for disagreeing. That one-sided behaviour and attitude holds no mana. No mana. It is quite childish as well as hypocritical. It is in itself racist. However, no one is perfect whether they be European or Maori, Polynesian or French, South African or Zulu. We are all racist in our own way, all guilty of crimes against ourselves and others, and all of it is redeemable.
It is good for Maori to point out the injustices committed against them for they did occur and they should be corrected. But to have an air of superiority as if nothing happened within their own race (that was not noble or just), within the preceding three decades is downright embarrassing. To accuse anyone (let alone another race) of one thing while having done it yourself all in the precious covering of a 'cultural means of cleansing....' Hate is what UTU is, - revenge at the very nicest explanation.
The violence of the musket wars brought devastation for many tribes, with some wiped out as the vanquished were killed, enslaved or eaten. Those that could fled. Lands were laid bare. Tribal boundaries were completely redrawn as large swathes of territory were conquered and evacuated. Those changes greatly complicated later dealings with European settlers wishing to gain land. This was a complication caused entirely by the musket wars because other tribes claimed prior rights to the land. See the following link to a post for a true and somewhat amusing explanation (to Europeans) of the complications of selling land that had several claims upon it. http://tangatawhenua16.wixsite.com/the-first-ones-blog/single-post/2016/2/6/Sidestep-The-tradition-of-land-ownership
Back to the Maori Land Wars - (A bit more depth...)
So back to the land wars. In 1840, Europeans bought one desirable depopulated area. It is now called Auckland and it was purchased or a tiny amount. Please note that it was unpopulated due to Hongi wiping out most of the Maori population. Those left alive had fled long ago and had not returned, even after Hongi had left. Auckland was for all intents and purposes - abandoned. The purchase of this area sowed the seeds of interracial conflict.
Wait - Did we say purchase? Yes. Who sold it to the European? Yes, it was Maori. Anyway, Ngāpuhi led by Hōne Heke, felt betrayed when trade slumped after the colonial government quit the Bay of Islands for Auckland in 1845.
Wait - Did we say trade? As in money? income? Yes! So, now understanding commerce from European point of view, Heke and Te Ruki Kawiti (an expert at designing modern pā capable of resisting artillery bombardment) launched a campaign that threatened British control in the north. Yet, in spite of that, other Ngāpuhi allied themselves with the government, and the conflict fizzled out. Can you see the internal conflict based around a legitimate purchase?
In 1843, 4 Maori and 22 Europeans were killed when an armed party of New Zealand Company settlers clashed with Ngāti Toa over the ownership of land in the Wairau Valley near Blenheim. The new governor, Robert Fitzroy, maintained that Māori had been provoked by the unreasonable actions of the Europeans and took no further action. So yes, Europeans were provoking for the purpose of obtaining land. They wrongly felt superior and the governor saw that and took no action against Maori as Europeans would have normally done regardless of who started it.
Then there was fighting in Whanganui and Wellington in 1846, but fighting died away when other iwi backed the economically viable Pakeha. So, you can see from that that there was already division in ideals between iwi over land and/or commerce. Even Maori could not all agree what side to be on. Perspective is an interesting thing.
By 1858 there were more Europeans than Māori in Aotearoa. As new settlements grew, the pressure on Māori land increased. It was this pressure that tipped the edge. In 1858 the Waikato leader Pōtatau Te Wherowhero was selected as the first Māori King. A primary aim of the Māori King movement (or Kīngitanga) was to unite tribes against selling land. It MUST be pointed out that most land acquisition came from Maori willingly selling land, even if that willingness was against the advice of other Maori. It’s when there was opposition to what was 'anticipated' would be a sale, that the government wrongly stepped in when anger rose from the various iwi.
In 1860 Māori still held the greatest majority of the North Island, and many hapū had taken up commercial farming to supply the settlers. Acquiring Māori land – especially land that Pākehā chose to see as unoccupied ‘waste land’ – was now a key policy of the Crown.
Many settlers and politicians were concerned about this development and believed this challenge to the British Crown should be met. An opportunity to do so occurred when a minor Te Āti Awa chief Te Teira Mānuka offered land at Waitara in north Taranaki to the Governor Thomas Gore Browne. Resistance to this sale from another, more senior Te Āti Awa chief, Wiremu Kīngi, led to the outbreak of the Taranaki War in 1860.
So let us point this important fact out... One minor chief offered land to the British, and another senior chief opposed that sale. That conflict was first within Maoridom. Yes, The British should have stood back and let Maori sort it out amongst themselves first. But settlers with capital were getting frustrated at not being able to buy land they saw and interpreted as abandoned and permanently vacant.
When the Kingitanga movement rose, the government attempted to force the Waikato tribes to pledge allegiance to the Crown in light of the treaty of Waitangi which they saw as not being honoured - as signed. Of course, Maori do not see what they signed as the same thing. Misunderstanding due to a rushed process to usurp the French resulted in much misunderstanding.
Constabulary in appropriate bush attire
The Land Wars Timeline
There were eight acknowledged New Zealand Wars campaign periods. Most histories of the New Zealand Wars do not include the Musket Wars of 1807-1845 because they were Maori against Maori and therefore not seem to be as confrontational, important, or offensive to Maori. With each ‘war’; we note (in brackets) who it was that began each conflict by firing or attacking first. The wars were not all one sided. Maori won two and European won 6. In the end though, Maori lost out on all fronts.
Wairau ‘Massacre’ (European settlers)
17 June 1843 Europeans marched on Maori land they understood had been sold. Shots were fired yet Ngati Toa killed many more Europeans than the Europeans killed Maori. (4 Maori - 22 Europeans dead - This was NZ's Little Bighorn battle)
The Northern War (Maori)
11 March 1845 Hone Heke Pokai attacks Kororareka
8 May 1845 British Army attacks Puketutu
30 June–1st July 1845 British repulsed at Ohaeawai
11 January 1846 Ruapekapeka Pa falls
Wellington – Whanganui (Maori)
16 May 1846 Ngāti Toa attack Boulcott’s Farm
19 May 1847 Whanganui raided by up-river Māori
19 July 1847 Māori attack St John’s Wood
North Taranaki (British troops)
17 March 1860 British fire on Te Kohia Pā
28 March 1860 Māori defend Waireka Pā
27 June 1860 British under fire at Puketekauere
6 Nov 1860 Māori shelled by British at Mahoetahi
23 January 1861 Te Ātiawa midnight attack on No 3 Redoubt
17 March 1861 Truce signed at Te Arei Pā
The Waikato Invasion (British Troops)
12 – 17 July 1863 British cross Managatawhiri Stream and skirmish at Koheroa
22 July – 14 September 1863 Skirmishes at Kirikiri, Pokeno, and Pukekohe East
30 October 1863 Meremere Pā is shelled
20 November 1863 The British Army attacks Rangiriri
8 December 1863 Troops enter Ngāruawāhia
21 February 1864 Surprise British attack on Rangiaowhia
31 March – 2 April 1864 Battle of Orakau
Tauranga War (British Troops)
29 April 1864 Battle of Gate Pā
21 June 1864 Battle of Te Ranga
Central and Southern Taranaki (Maori)
6 April 1864 British attacked by Maori at Te Ahu Ahu
30 April 1864 Māori attack Sentry Hill
14 May 1864 Battle of Moutoa Island amongst Māori
24-25 January 1865 Māori attack Nukumaru
14 January – 2 October 1866 Skirmishing in central Taranaki
12 July 1868 Titokowaru’ attacks Turuturu Mokai Redoubt
7 September 1868 Ill-fated attack on Te Ngutu O Te Manu
7 November 1868 Constabulary repulsed at Moturoa
2 February 1869 Māori slip away from Tauranga Ika
East Coast Wars (Maori)
2 March 1865 Killing of the missionary Reverend Carl Völkner in Ōpōtiki
10 June 1865 Skirmish between Maori against Hau Hau at Mangaone
8 September – 4 October 1866 Hau Hau conflicts throughout Hawkes Bay
1 February – 1 September April 1867 Skirmishing in Waioeka Gorge, Tauranga and Opotiki.
20 July – 8 August 1868 Surprise attack at Paparatu
9 November 1868 Te Kooti attacks Matawhero
1 January – 5 January 1869 Siege of Ngatapa
1 March – 12 April 1869 Fighting at Ohiwa, Te Poronu, Rauporoa and Mohaka
6 May – 14 May 1869 Te Kooti pursued through Urewera’s
7 June 1869 Constabulary ambushed at Opepe
3 October 1869 Battle of Te Porere – ‘Te Kooti’s Last Stand’
14 February 1872 The final encounter fought at Mangaone
Parihaka – 1881
This is the only passive resistance ever recorded. Many were arrested without trial and sent to Dunedin for up to 18 years. This is the worst case of Crown abuse on record. They were unarmed, there was no resistance, there was no trial, they received enforced labour and long sentences, far away from home. That could only be deemed as sadistic abuse by the British.
Armed constabulary at Parihaka
Back to the preceeding 'Musket Wars'
The musket killed less Maori than introduced diseases did. But as disease is not a weapon, nor holds any racial intent, we will ignore the deaths occurring which numbered 100,000 and were tragic enough. Introduced diseases were a scourge everywhere in the world.
The musket wars were not over land, they were not over colour, they were not due to any perceived threat, they were not over anything but revenge (utu) - and for what purpose? Europeans intentions were selfish, greedy and dishonest, and all because of land. But what persuaded NgaPuhi that they had the superior moral high ground to go out and murder 60,000 Maori up and down the country, as far down as Mataura in Southland? Yes, they got down that far. What pursued NgaPuhi to murder those of their own Polynesian roots?
In our quest, we aim (if you did not realise already) to bring to light evidence of a race that existed here before the Polynesian migrations occurred. By that we mean physical evidence, not just some hypotheses. As some Maori claim they already know of them and some Maori claim they never existed, what will be the outcome to lose tangata whenua status, to lose the claim of first, to lose the mana due to hiding the truth, to lose the moral high-ground when talking about extermination when atrocities within Maoridom occured long before the European arrived.
The next post goes into much more detail about the these wars (before the Maori Wars). These are called the musket wars and were inter-tribal revenge wars. They occured before any war with the Crown and are akin to the wars between the Hutu and Tutsi in Africa in 1993. Some may be offended at that comparison, yet it is an accurate illustration of what the Musket Wars were, and is an almost unspoken indictment of the brutality of iwi upon iwi.
If there are any adjustment to figures of deaths and action that you deem incorrect and can be altered to be accurate (source required), please let us know.
