Wednesday 18 March 2009

Revenge is a dish best served cold

It seems such a pity that this time period is almost ignored or downplayed in many of our older history’s. As you will have found reading through the Handout it was a period of real drama, tragedy, ruthlessness and heroism. The timeline doesn’t really do this event justice – I blamed the lack of space but also a full chronology would have been unnecessarily complex and confusing for our purposes.

First lets look at traditional Maori warfare. It usually meant fighting between closely related Hapu. These Hapu sometimes joined together to fight as an Iwi against their wider relations that bordered their lands. Rarely did they venture beyond this, although they might in order to support their (related) neighbours against other (unrelated) Iwi. Apart form anything else they could not carry enough food to sustain a long campaign.(it makes better sense on the whiteboard). The musket and the potato changed this, allowing taua like te Amiowhenua in 1819 and 1822 to be away for almost 18 months.

The wars have also been called the ‘Potato’ wars based on the idea that it was the growing of the humble spud which allowed Maori to supply large enough quantities to trade for the Musket.

It could be called the UTU wars. Hongi sought revenge for “The Feast of Seagulls’ at Moremonui (1808) and the capture and sale of his kinswomen by the Venus in 1806. It seems that his fostering of relations with the Missionaries and trip to England was fuelled by the desire to acquire some of the “thousand, thousand muskets’ kept in the Tower (of London).
It also meant that when the gifts he received fell short of what he needed he was happy to sell Baron de Theirry 40,000 acres of land at the Hokianga. (Hongi of course came from the Bay of Islands). Accounts of what he did with the suit of armour vary from one story to the next, but he did keep part of it which helped him in at least one encounter but did not stop a musket ball from eventually killing him after fighting with his kin in 1828.

Together with Te Morenga, in 1818 he fell upon the Whanau-a-Apanui and Ngati Porou for the killing and eating of their kin. He claimed to have laid waste to 500 kainga and pa in the time he was away. Hongi waited 17 years to seek final vengeance against the Ngati Whatua driving the remnants into the Waikato. This was to allay the deaths of his brothers and sister – especially in the way she died. (the yucky uterus story!)

(New 2008) Its interesting to note that Hika waited so long to exact revenge. Utu was incredibly important and the loss of brothers and the awful death of his sister left a lasting desire for revenge in Hika. This did not stop him from allowing Ngati Whatua to accompany the Ngapuhi on te Amiowhenua. This seems to be because in 1818 the two Taua had only 50 muskets, luckily the Iwi they faced had none. It seems that Belich's THREE stages is important here. Hika was in the first stage in 1818, having some guns. He needed to find more guns in order to reach stage 2 thus his trip to London to find those 'thousand thousand guns'. Reaching stage 2 before anyone else really sparked the arms race that would typify the 1820's and 1830's.


Even the Waikato waited 30 years to inflict utu on the Ngati Toa when they forced them to flee from Kawhia. Later Ngapuhi rampages were possibly to keep the Iwi he had decimated from regrouping and attacking him in turn. It also allowed Hongi to capture more slaves for his gardens and ovens. It didn’t do any harm to his reputation or mana either. Defeats in the mid-1820’s seem to prove that once armed with muskets other Iwi could adequately defend themselves against the Ngapuhi.
Te Rauparaha’s rampage against the Nagi Tahu appears to have been as much a grab for the riches of Pounamu, but it was also in revenge for the death of a Ngati Toa chief at Kaiapoi . His capture of a Ngai Tahu chief who was subsequently tortured and killed (including the drinking of blood and eating of eyes). The use of the Elizabeth would of course add to British worries about New Zealand.

It also becomes complex when you try to figure out who fought who for what reasons. Complexity can be seen in the fact that despite harbouring a need for utu Hongi allowed Ngati Whatua to join the Amiowhenua expedition only to turn on them later when it suited him (Revenge a dish best served cold?).

We need to consider to the effects of the musket, most Historians seem to agree that the Musket did not increase the Maori propensity for war, it just made the effects worse. (Ballara) The potato allowed Maori to trade for guns, as well as giving them a more reliable and transportable food supply – carried on the backs of slaves who themselves were a source of food.
Tribes that lacked guns suffered horrendous losses. The massacre of Arawa at Mokoia island is just one example. Thousands of slaves were taken and used in the production of even more potatoes (and moko mokai) for trade. Tribes were reduced in number, eradicated or displaced. Large areas of the country were depopulated or left wastelands.
Iwi like the Ngati Whatua were forced to live with their Waikato kin while they waited ‘for the coast to clear.’ Others like the Ngati Toa abandoned their lands altogether to move to Kapiti, attacking many Iwi along the way.

As each tribe suffered attacks and loss they then began to seek Europeans, either Missionaries or Traders who could supply guns. They changed their lifestyle and economy to acquire the one thing that could protect them. The ripple effect moved from north to south, mainly from Ngapuhi down. Ngai Tahu in the deep south had whalers/sealers who supplied them with guns, which severely weakened northern Ngai Tahu and left them vulnerable to the Ngati Toa.
Other tribes went offshore to use their muskets. Ngati Mutunga attacks on the Chathams and the enslavement and destruction of their culture is hard to fathom or explain, especially from today’s perspective. Perhaps warriors who fought so readily simply despised a people who would not resist them. Utu would not explain this event.

5 comments:

  1. interesting to note that a supply of guns was to be held aboard the first english navy vessels, to be traded with the natives they meet.

    "And whereas it is Our Royal Intention that Measures should be taken in addition to those which are specified in the Article of these Our Instructions, for
    obtaining Supplies of Live Stock, and having in consequence of such Intention, caused a Quantity of Arms and other Articles of Merchandise to be provided, and sent out in the Ships under your Convoy, in order to barter with the Natives either on the Territory of New South Wales, or the Islands adjacent in those Seas, "

    this communication was dated 25 April 1787.

    a clear sign of who were the first to officially trade guns with maori. it begs the question, " who were these guns sold to and why."

    what effect did this introduction have on the maori? it enabled one side to be able to lay waste to traditional enemies. i suspect it was a good way for the english to lesson the number of potential maori resistors to the impending take over by england, some 60 years later.

    Adam Rangiaho

    ReplyDelete
  2. Its not a surprise that British ships carried guns as trade items. They were by this time a common item traded in the Americas. I suspect from your tone that you are suggesting a deliberate decision which resulted in the dreaded 'Musket' wars, which weakened Maori allowing the Treaty in 1840. However at least one historian has found that the musket did not change Maori warfare but made its effects much worse. I have discussed two ideas with my classes, Fatal Impact and Maori Agency. Fatal Impact says Maori were simple victims of circumstance ahd their ineveitable decline was a result of meeting a superior civilisation. I am no great supporter of this thesis. The other idea, to which I have some emotional attachment is that Maori were agents of their own fates. They exploited Europeans as much as they were exploited. (Also known as 'Dual Agency') Warfare was endemic and Maori simply exploited the new tool to its greated advantage. As tribal people they were only interested in their own interests and not in any overarching 'Maori' interest. If their defeated enemies then suffered further from european exploitation then all the better.

    ReplyDelete
  3. " I suspect from your tone that you are suggesting a deliberate decision which resulted in the dreaded 'Musket' wars,"

    yes, that's exactly what i am suggesting. however, I also suggest that maori warfare was not as brutal and or frequent as pakeha history books have stated.
    when the pakeha say war and fighting, they do not say that a "war" used to be nothing more than a fight between the two best taiaha experts, or, death blows were seldom used.
    this idea of savagery and constant warring is a constructed form of propaganda from both sides.
    pakeha to say we were nothing but warring savages, and the maori to say we will eat you if you trespass, stay away!!!

    it is naive to think that the english did not know the effects of introducing guns to stoneage natives. at the time of their discovering the polynesian islands, through to the early/mid 1800's, the pakeha were engaging in all sorts of battles with various native groups of the world, inc american indians, zulu, native australians, maori, hawaians, etc....i call this period the real first world war. it was white vs brown and black. the white had guns and the browns had sticks. pakeha never did anything without planning and orders from above, nor were they dumb.


    every aspect of the english colonization was planned well in advance. i find it very hard to believe that they did not know what would happen if you introduced guns to stoneage natives.
    they knew that there would be massive panic and an arms race. they also new that it would take a toll on the "savage" and "warlike" race. even today you can hear pakeha say things like, we should just put them on an island and let them kill eachother (when talking about the gang problems)

    if you discover a "warlike" race at the end of the earth, who have already killed europeans, (tasmans crew) do you think it wise to ORDER that they are to be given guns? they were bad enough without the guns(accorning to pakeha), but all of a sudden the english want to make them even more savage by arming them?

    it does not sound like a logical thing to do, if you wanted to settle the place, you would not make the natives even more dangerous than they already were.

    then you read further in those instructions from the 1700's, you see, not only did they want to arm the natives, but they also ordered any vessel not constructed in england or her european neighbors, to be destroyed. that meant if the english saw a twin hulled native maori ship trying to run to rarotonga or tahiti, it was sunk. again i ask the question,

    "why?"

    to stop natives fleeing the bloodshed? to ensure the most damage to maoridom from the armed native marrauding from nga puhi to kawhia, and from kawhia to the south island. hindsight tell us that pomare and te rauparaha did the damage and were rewarded. esp te rauparaha who was awarded top of the south island as spoils of war.

    when the orders are studied and compared to similar orders and outcomes from across the world at that time, a very clear picture emerges. maori were victims to the war machine of the english. musket wars, and land wars were all instigated and fueled by pakeha interests. you dont even have to go that far back to see it happening again in mpdern history. you just need to look at iraq, osama bin laden and every other nation at war with the usa who were once armed and trained by the yanks to kill and soften the enemy before the main antagonizers ( the USA ) move in to mop up.

    why? to get the resources, oil, trade routes, profit, selling arms to both sides.

    these tactics are as old as the hills, yet they still work perfectly well in this modern time. it is a tactic tried and tested before, it's used because it works. its always worked.

    its a little harder to spin the propaganda with the internet always on the spot now, and stories open and available from both sides.

    nice talking with you fellas

    adam rangiaho

    ReplyDelete
  4. Utu is used in the wrong context, and is inapropriate suggestion that the writter does more research on Maori Custoamy concepts as utu does not translate into revenge.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you, and indeed you are correct that utu does not mean simply revenge but is more a term for reciprocity.
    In my classroom this definition is used constantly. However in the context of this entry, Hongi waited 14 years to inflict his utu upon the Ngati Whatua. In that period he even allowed Ngati Whatua to accompany him on the first Amiowhenua (1818) while biding his time. Eventually he had his revenge for the loss in 1808 of his brothers and sister.

    ReplyDelete