Editorial #6: Colonialism
Modern Colonies
This post and the previous one on racism have nothing to do with our dig...until we reveal what we find. They are just our opinions and observations based on what we see. You do not have to agree with them at all.
This topic of colonialism is being spoken of a lot this year and we hinted on it a few weeks ago. Colonialism is a topic worth discussing...but all aspects of it, not just one side. Colonialsim is something that has occurred and did affect various races and peoples for many thousands of years. Did you know that it's only in the last three to four hundred years that it was those with white skin that were the perpetrators - that was during the age of discovery, mainly by ships. Before then it was a whole range of cultures and races that undertook what we now term as 'colonialism'. The Sumarians, Medes, Persians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Chinese, and Ottomans all colonized various areas during the hight of their empires.
Keep in mind, if we find what we expect to find, it will mean that Polynesians are colonialists as well. Think about that one carefully...if we find what we expect to find, discussions and facts on who is and who isn't a 'colonialist' on these islands will change. But it is good or bad?
Colonialism always changes the existing inhabitants. There has never ever been a case of neutral impact. The results of claiming anew area of land another people live in is either good or bad - mostly bad. However, few consider that the negative or positive effect of Colonialism depends entirely on the desires of the occupant. In New Zealand, the Maori initially welcomed the European, they saw an opportunity to trade (capitalism) and to pay back their enemies with the use of new weapons (revenge as in Nga Puhi's use of the musket on other maori tribes – and devastating revenge is only possible if you get these superior weapons before your enemy does.)
In the early years from 1790 - 1840 Maori changed their way of life of their own volition. No one forced them to do anything, no one could. They chose to wear European clothes (often to their detriment). They chose to abandon traditional methods of making tools and fishing gear because they perceived iron as superior. Maori even helped struggling Europeans and some of these early settlers were saved from starvation because of local Maori. In other areas Europeans were hated and murdered. This depended on the location and the tribe. Up until 1840 Maori out-numbered Europeans and the Europeans were totally dependant on Maori to both protect and feed them. As for the de-population of Maori, that was a primary and direct combination of the (1) Musket Wars and (2) European diseases - ie, (1) intentional deaths of Maori by Maori using traded European weapons, and (2) unintentional deaths of Maori via European contact. Combined they both decimated the population by about 40% up until 1839. Diseases have wiped out countless millions indigenous populations worldwide since the 1400's. These native populations had no natural defence and none of the explorers had any idea what caused the deaths until it was too late.
Only when the treaty was signed and consistent immigraton was in place, did the European population finally exceed that of Maori. Physical numbers allow change to occur without too much opposition. Yet this is no different to the what the tribes surrounding Ngai Tahu in the North Island did, who forced this tribe out of their traditional lands near Gisborne in the late 16th century due to warfare. When Ngai Tahu arrived in the south island and became stronger, they then displaced, absorbed and killed off some of the Kati Mamoe; who had done the same to those already there before them... Same story, same skin colour. Consequently, when Europeans outnumbered Maori, the same thing happened again. It's just a cycle that has been going on for thousands of years on this planet.
No one ever expects Maori to abandon the way of life they are used to in the 21st Century and return back to traditional means. They use a language they always had but can now write it down - they couldn't do that before, they didn't need to then, oral stories were all they required. Te Reo is now enjoying a surge of popularity which is excellent. In the modern world, things are different. Maori drive cars, impossible without Europeans. They ride horses, impossible without the Europeans, they hunt with firearms, live in manufactured houses, have running water and sewerage, buy packaged food, they drink alcohol, they have electricity, they communicate on mobile devices, take overseas trips in planes, can keep food chilled – all things that have developed out of the European connection. That's not to say there is no real benefit to the success of a society with those things; it's just progress, like it or lump it. The old way of living did not need these things.
If NZ had been discovered by Europeans in 2020, Maori would still be living the same way, with the same designs, the same tools and weapon shapes and materials (this was disputed by one somewhat ignorant girl on FB once, who was imphatic Maori would have developed metallurgy by now on their own!) Tribal areas would have changed as local wars continued. Land would have been taken from others and maybe another tribe would have displaced Ngai Tahu by now? But Europeans arrived 250 years ago, not now, and things were what they were and are what they are. And it is true the European brought both good and bad, initially; diseases killed a huge percentage of Maori who had no natural defences against them.
Let's now get the correct definaition of colonialism...
Colonialism is defined as:- "the position and subjugation of a country by another foreign country, which deals with the establishment of political, economic and cultural domination".
Colonialism is a practice of domination, which involves the subjugation of one people to another. - Stanford Encylcopedia
The practice of establishing and extending control over other peoples or territories - Collins Dictionary
The policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another area, occupying it and exploiting it economically. - Oxford Dictionary
Colonialism did occur here, and Maori did suffer from it. But colonialism brings both good and bad things to a location. In most cases the bad typically outweighs the good. However, once we prove the tall skeletons in our cave are of a race here unrelated to Polynesians and that here were long before they arrived, this may change the use of the word of exclusive 'colonialism'. If Polynesians were not here first, the discussion will have to change as to who else the word 'colonialism' may apply to? It will be a tough debate for NZ if what we expect to find is as we expect it to be.
While the strong warrior-like Polynesians migrating here were not here on (behalf) of another country, they essentially subjugated and imposed political, spiritual and cultural domination to the few Melanesian's and the small numbers of Tangata Whenua (those here before the Melanesian) that lived all around the coasts. These peoples are all noted in Maori traditions and legends. Eventually they were wiped out (maybe by introduced Polynesian diseases? We will never know) and the few that remained interbred and the race disappeared that way. You can defeat a race slowly by inter-breeding it out either knowingly or accidentally. That happened to the Melanesian traits and it also happened to the Mori-Ori within a very short space of time...102 years to be precise. So, what about Colonialism? - yeah, it's happened here before the French or British ever arrived. Ngai Tahu did it to the Mamoe and the displaced Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama did it to the MoriOri. And there were others all noted in oral (and now written), Maori history. Colonialism is not dependant on race or a people of a different colour. It can be, but is you think it is exclusive to 'racism' you are sadly mistaken. Colonialism is a process issue, not a racial issue. But one can make it a racial issue, and most do and we understand why they do.
The above is not said in any way to discount the terrible effect that European 'colonialism' has had on Maori after 1840. Any new influx of people from different lands, with difference cultures, will eventually change the fabric of a nation - even as current immigration is doing to NZ in 2019. Maori have been changed by 'colonialism' and that is a fact. I don't think anyone genuinely denies it, nor would want to ever deny it. In fact, we at tangatawhenua16 want to again remind people of the fact that it did occur. What many Maori do not realise is that the new wave of immigration since 1980 has changed the culture of the country once again, and by default, those identifying as Maori, yet again.
However, we must point out that it has been done before - on a smaller scale and over a much longer time frame by the ancestors of those bemoaning 'colonialism' now. We can use the USA example of the Sioux in North Dakota suffering after their lands were taken from them by the US government - the same lands the Sioux took from other tribes when they migrated west from Wisconsin to escape the push from others being forced West from the colonialism from Europe. Is that new to you? Did you not know that? It's very true. Yes, they moved west because of a push by white settlers but as a result they took lands of other tribes of the same racial similarities. So the Sioux only seem to talk about what they lost, not what they took. They both gained and lost due to 'colonialism'. Oh, it's gets better.......there are legends among Native Americans of their ancestors moving into the plains in [ancient days] and finding giants there; white haired 8' giants! Whether that story is true or not is not the point. What is important is that their legends say they slaughtered the giants and took their land from them! Can you see the cruel irony? Can you see the forgotton hypocrisy? It's just that a thousand years fades the memory a little! People say the same of Israel and other people groups. Europeans took land of Africans, now Africans they are taking it back, in some cases just as violently. Nothing is ever static for long.
When we are finally known (because we will produce the evidence of the real tangata whenua), we will face the public openly and bring these things to their knowledge. Not for any other reason other than truth is truth, and those attempting to cover it for political gain need exposing. You can fool the public over time with clever words and constant phraseology in the media. The Nazi's proved that it works very well when you simply kill the opposition arguments by accusing those opposing your words as being ('bad people with a strange agenda...') and then you flood the media with your own agenda or even better - control the media. This is not new. It's happening right now but so slowly many fail to notice. So did the Germans in the 1930's.
Our problem at tangatawhenua16 is that we cannot yet prove Maori were not here first in a conclusive way the public will accept - not yet! That is coming. We do have the physical evidence that is obvious enough... all we have is the time frame needed to petrify a bone that is from someone between 7'11" - 8'2" depending on their gender. These people could have been here 'before' the massive Taupo eruption of 180AD?
All our other 'suggestive' evidence is based on artifacts that do not belong here but are often explained away by the 'experts'. But you cannot explain away 8' skeletons, DNA and carbon dating. It turns out many large skeletons have been found and destroyed. There is a case as recent as 2008 with two people yet to be named who are complicit in the cover-up. We have the witnesses and their statements to it. Our story will eventually be the biggest in the world and the fact they will be 8'+, and therefore touted as 'giants', will aid us in revealing the truth; should they be in there. And when we find them we won't be telling you straight away either. Everything we report is delayed; every dig, every find. We might already be in for all you know. Maybe that's why what we write seems so full of confidence?
A thriving Maori culture was alive and well when Europeans arrived here, but it was not the exact same culture that was here 1200-1500 years earlier. It had changed when the first few Polynesians arrived and changed again due to the arrival of new races and cultures. Then after European sealers, whalers and missionaries arrived, it began to change again. Then when the political aspect of British rule gained a hold in the 1840's it changed again. It changed a little after WW1, but after WW2 it changed again. It changed in the 1970's with significant political gain. It is changing again with new immigration particularly with the large number of Asian residents. Even Islamic immigrants are demanding we change some things in our accepted New Zealand culture as it offends them. Sorry, but that is a fact. The country is slowly being changed once more as the 'culture' of NZ in the 1970's is very different to the Kiwi 'culture' of 2019. (in this regard I'm not even referring to race, just adaptation due to global influence that comes in without having to check in with customs - and yes... I mean the media control of what we hear or dont hear!)
The Polynesian 'colonialism' that occurred 800 years ago brought both good and bad with it. Did it bring infanticide or was that already here? Did it bring cannibalism, or was that already here? Did it bring slavery or what was already here? Did it bring unique carving styles or were they already here? Did it bring the knowledge of where Pounamu was and how to carve it, or was that already here? No one knows for sure. None of these things can be shown to have been brought or accepted with any certainty but it defined the 'culture' of Aotearoa (not the original name -http://tangatawhenua16.wixsite.com/the-first-ones-blog/single-post/2017/05/28/Sidestep-Ancient-names-for-NZ?fbclid=IwAR120soi8C6bj-2O9xOBA411Todhe39PpOI17xr61DzTzJWgFcvjys9ekLM), that existed when the 'white gods of the sea arrived' that had been prophesied long ago; the Pakepakehā (the white gods of the ocean).
Some talk of the 'curse of colonialism'. Yet the negative or positive effect of colonialism depends on the desires of the occupant. Initially Maori saw great benefits in trading what 'they wanted' with things the 'Europeans wanted'. They absolutely adored iron, nails and red cloth and traded them for food and artifacts. They easily abandoned carved stone impliments or weapons for an iron ones which they regarded (at the time), of having infinately greater value. At that time those simple things were regarded as very valuable to the Maori. Weapons of stone weren't taonga as they rightly are now, they were just tools, nothing more (except the sacred ones). There was no ripping off anyone - it was simply a trade of goods that one wanted from the other, agreed, accepted and seen as good. Yes some things were stolen and stealing occured on both sides...yes, both sides. To look back now and say they were ripped off is plain ignorance. European and Maori got on very well, mixing within communities and eventually schools. It wasn't until the government got involved after 1840 that things deteriorated. Not Europeans as a group...but Government, gain, money, power while looking after their own - but in the same way Maori have power, political parties, and taxpayer money to look after their own, and in the same way strong tribes dominated weaker ones. Everything is the same, just the skin colour changed.
The real curse of colonialism is calling it a 'curse' as a way to blame a group of people from 150-250 years ago for the current modern woes of Maori. If you live in the past - you cannot move forward in any positive way into the future. Righting wrongs? Can we then discuss Hongi's (Nga Puhi) murderous rampages? Can we discuss Maori having slaves? Can we discuss the Mori-Ori incident? "Oh but that was just the past, part of our old culture", I hear some Maori saying. Exactly! That is our point! And the Europeans had a culture of their own back there also, and it needs to be left back there as well. Recently, even the Mori-Ori slaughter by Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama is twisted to being the fault of Europeans. That's excusism. Guns don't kill people folks - people with guns with an intent to kill people, kill people. And by the way, they killed Moriori with the Mere and Patu or iron axes, not the musket. It was the two tribes of Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama (from the Taranaki region, but who came from Wellington after being forced out of Taranaki by... other Maori...), that invaded the Chathams and killed the pacifist Mori-Ori. In regard to Hongi of the Ngai Puhi tribes bloody rampages.......when Europeans reached Auckland, it was almost devoid of human life after Hongi had passed through several times. Maori murdering Maori, and in large numbers.
"But the 'Colonialists..."
When I hear that come up to every argument, I see that this is all just made a race issue, not a colonial one. If we cannot talk about the bad things Maori did in relation to today's accepted standards, then we cannot fairly talk about the bad things the European did in relation to today's accepted standards. There cannot be a double standard, for that would be blatant racism in action would it not? But there is a double standard and it's based around colour. It's racism, and it's definately not casual. It has to stop.
Colonialism in a different form is happening right now, yet Maori are so ingrained in events of 200 years ago many refuse to see the change happening in their own young people. Violence! So, you are born Maori and so have the right to violence? We are in 2018 not 1725! Don't want to be in prison? Then don't commit a crime. (yes we agree the courts are biased - but don't commit the crime and you won't be in court in the first place.) Those same crimes are not accepted in Maori culture either! And drugs? These are sold by Maori gangs to Maori people for what? - money! Maori are killing Maori better than anything the Colonial government ever did. And that is a fact!
I have only recently spoken to a lovely elderly Tainui lady who agreed that the problem with Maori youth today has nothing to do with colonialism of 150+ years ago. 'That's just a lame excuse for ignorant people' she says. (Yes, someone of dominant Maori blood said that!) The problem, she says, has 'everything' to do with families not standing up and taking responsibility for their own lives and those of their children. The probem is fatherlessness and irresponsibility. You cannot claim ignorance for every human being knows what is right and what is not. That was not a white person saying that, it was a beautiful and wise Maori lady from the Tainui tribe.
She is 100% correct. Family breakdown forced upon everybody in NZ from destructive liberal thinking, is the new 'colonialism'. It seeps in and changes values and long-standing culture in order to introduce a new one. Want an example? How many Maori are born to single mothers? How many homes have fathers in them? How many Maori could say they had a good father figure in their life? That once occurred (100+ years ago) as family was one of the strengths of all the Pacific nations. What changed that it's now accepted as 'normal'? It's ingrained in pakeha families too by the way.
But most don't believe that to be the case, so the 'new colonialism' is just a culture of blame and gain. Who can we blame for where we are, and what can we gain from that blame? Stop it.
You want the perfect example of why we believe we are right in what we say? Ok, let's take a young Vietnamese man who comes here with very little English and one suitcase, no money, no job and no clear future. He's not 'white' and he's not 'privileged'. Yet he sees things differently as he sees this country as a land of opportunity. He takes no charity and blames no one for his position. He's Asian (a minority) but he doesn't use that as a crutch. Instead he begins to build with what is here and succeeds...so well that he is likely hated by some who think he is some 'rich foreign prick', yet he started here with less than most Maori...he didn't even get welfare..........! His position was his alone and he is now a millionaire. He couldn't speak English, so he learned, he had no money, so he worked and saved. He had no career so he studied and found one. He had no house so he saved and traded. He did what anyone who chooses to do the same can do. To be honest, I'm lazier that that Vietnamese guy and yet I think he deserves what he has got. Don Ha is yet another example. So is Danny Ing, who was in the news on 31st October of this year.
Want another? We know of a family who have a number of part-Maori living with them. One comes from a family with gang affiliations. Some family connections are dysfunctional. He came to the house as invited by one of the occupants. He brought nothing with him as he had nothing. He now has 2 vehicles worth $37000, a well paying job with responsibilities, money in the bank, he travels overseas, is clever with what he does, he is very knowledgeable, has a bright future...and he lives with a Pakeha family who don't have past issues to blame upon ones past self belief, status or possible future. Oh, and he's not 21 yet! What was the difference? He doesn't blame anyone for where he was and he undertook a new outlook on life with people who could help him see it...yes, descendants of 'colonialists'. There's both good and bad in colonialism!
Colonialism? Yes, there was once, but if someone blames their current position as stemming from it when there are the examples in the two paragraphs above, you are probaly less than you were meant to be - and it's likely all of your choosing and no one else's. This statement has absolutley nothing to do with your skin colour and if you make it that then you are creating the issue. And if you still say it isn't your fault you are where you are, you might be right if you can sympathise with many struggling white families who are in the same position but don't, and cant, blame colonialism, yet are not in a good position either. Why are they like that? Answer that question and a whole new world opens up because those people also suffer from blamism, but this is aimed at the government, the rich, or anything else that makes them feel justified to stay where they are. If anything it's family related. The problem is running from generation to generation unchecked until finally someone decides to change the picture. And enter that Vietnamese man...
Colonialism is not why anyone of Maori descent is where they are individually. That argument got shot to pieces by the likes of Don Ha, Danny Ing and many other non-European immigrants from as far away as Africa and Iran, who came here with nothing and succeeded in what they saw as a land full of opportunity. That statement really has nothing to do with race and if you intend to make it into one - you are in danger of revealing yourself to be racist. Stop it.
We are all of the same species and we when we bleed, and we still all have the same red colour of blood but not always the same attitude toward life and our individual responsibility within it.
