Maori land ownership is difficult to quantify but conquest and occupancy gave Ngatitoa rights over the land. Ngati Mutunga transferred that land to other hapu when they left the Hutt for the Chathams. Ngatitoa retained its Rangatiratanga. When this land was 'sold' to settlers Te Rangiaheata expected recompense as required by tikanga, but initially received nothing. When problems developed between Settlers and Maori in the area he travelled north to support their (and his own) claims.
He supported the fighting in the Hutt, even when he did recieve some comprensation, but found he was battling not only Grey but also some of his own Iwi who resented his presence and his interference. Greys fait accompli against Te Rauparaha diminished Ngatitoa mana and ability to fight. Grey then forced almost all Maori out of the Wellington area despite an agreement to allow retention of gardens and sacred grounds. With little support and facing Redcoats not Settlers, Rangihaeta was forced out of area and into Porirua. Building a fighting Pa away from the coast to negate the British gunboats only slowed the ineveitable and Rangihaeta was forced to abandon his claims in the region. Grey appeared to be beating the Maori and was feted by Settlers.
Te Mamaku had supported Rangihaeta and withdrew back to his Iwi near Petre (Wanganui) when Wellington was lost. He raised some problems for settlers resulting in the killing of a settler family. Local Maori were angry at his interference and the possibility that they might loose 'their' Pakeha. They chased down the murderers and handed them over to the Settler administration. Te Mamaku fought the Army at St Johns Wood near Wanganui in an indecisive battle but abandoned his campaign bcaause of a lack of support. Like Rangihaeta he also retired into the hinterland. Grey chose to retain his new found reputation by not chasing either into the interior.
Posts
Ngati Toa made conquest of the Wellington harbour region using muskets traded. The locals had no chance. This was all very new when land was traded with settlers being less than 20 years after. Hardly traditional owners.
ReplyDeleteThe rightful owners of Wellington who would have been there in 1940 but for the white man's guns. were slaughted and driven to the Wairarapa where they were persued and the slaughter continued.
Youngsters today need a clearer perspective than a glorified view presented by some local interests.
The Mana Whenua of Wellington are the Rangitane / Kuhungnu / Ngati Ira. Testimony to this has been spoken by Ralph Love.
The adoption of the rights of indigenous people will allow claim against the Ngati Toa and their looting friends. The use of white mens' guns by Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga also sway the merciless slaughter of the Chattams in 1935. Knowledge of the Chattams from White exploration guided the raiding tribes with European killing tools and vessels. This as for Wellington was not a traditional conquest so the rules of such do not apply.
Tikanga had no guns or sailing ships.
Any honour was lost with the hundreds of lives of peaceful people. A stain on the mana of the Taranaki tribes.
I am sorry the brevity of the post meant I started in the 1850's without reference to earlier times. It is true that Ngati Toa are not the true Mana Whenua for Whangabui a Tara... but had been weakened by the Amiowhenua in the 1820's leaving them open to subjugation by the invasion in the 1830's by Ngati Toa. I would disagree only that you somehow blames Pakeha for both the use of guns and invasion of the Chathams. I would contend that the use of guns was purely a Maori initiative and that was their agency in this change that saw widespread death and dislocation.
ReplyDeleteHenry,you make some fairly bold statements about "manawhenua" status in response to Crikyd's observations. So, I wish to pose some questions for you and your blog readers to reflect upon:
ReplyDeleteCan you tell us what you mean by "true manawhenua" status when siding with crikeyd? What is your definition of "manawhenua?" Is this an old concept or relative new (e.g. a colonial construct)? Who has the power to define "manawhenua" status for whom today and what does this tell us about the nature of power relationships in Wellington and wider NZ society? What si your role in consolidating that power-relationship via blog entries like the one concerned? (those who name the world own the world?)
Thank you for your comment Ricard. The term Mana Whenua is a reasonably recent term and I have interpreted it as meaning "those who have mana over the land". In european terms this might be taken to mean the 'owners' whilst in Maori terms it may mean those who controlled the land. That may not be its true meaning and it may be interpreted differently by others.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, Ngati Toa took possession and control of Wellington from Ngati Ira etc. during the Heke led by Te Rauapraha in the 1820's. This would entitle them to feel they have mana over the area. In my original blog I was interested in the 1840's when Ngati Toa and Te Atiawa were contesting control of the area with Governor Grey and the NZ company. At that time Ahi Kaa would still be in place and I suppose remnants of these original inhabitants would maintain that Ahi Kaa had/has never been extinguished.
I cannot claim to be an authority on the local region, its tribes and their histories... I hope that I can put the facts as I know them, to extend the classroom learning of my students. I hope I have not overly influenced students of my school or any other into confusion over who is the 'rightful' owner of mana whenua.
Thanks for your response Henry. I agree with your analysis of manawhenua being a recent concept and one that is highly problematic as a result.
ReplyDeleteMoreover,I think you've found yourself caught between rival claimant groupings and this can be a very uncomfortable (if not dangerous) cultural space for a teacher and/or relative"outsider", to find themselves in.
By appeasing one claimant grouping like this, you immediately set yourself up in opposition to Ngati Toarangatira and their allies. For example, you stated that ... "It is true that Ngati Toa are not the true Mana Whenua for Whangabui a Tara..."
By doing this have you not positioned yourself within an inter-tribal conflict?... Does this not pose problems in terms of what generations of students have already been fed about Te Rauparaha and his allies?
Are you relying on oral or written data to support your stance? How have you acquired the right/privilege to determine (for your students) what constitutes "true manawhenua" status?
Would you feel confident making such a statement in front of members of the Ngati Toa runanga? What if a Ngati Toa student was a member of your class would you feel comfortable making such a statement in front of his/her whanau?
Likewise, I wish to prompt more discussion about those players involved in the musket wars fought in the Port Nicholson Block area and elsewhere: Were they really a "purely" Maori phenomenon?
Consider this: Jacky Marmon, a famous "Pakeha Maori"; was an active participant in many Ngapuhi campaigns: supprting Hongi Hika among other rangatira (for his own purely Pakeha reasons).
Likewise,Pakeha whalers/traders were active participants and beneficiaries of the so-called 'musket wars" fought by Ngati Toa and their allies in the Southern North Island (Te Ika a Maui)and the South Island (Te Waipounamu).
The classic example being the role of Captain Stewartin the brig Elizabeth affair. As a result of the kidnapping of Te Maiharanui onboard the brig Elizabeth: a portion of his heart was allegedly offered to,and eaten by, a "Pakeha friend (called 'Smith') at Kapiti.
According to Marmon, this 'Smith' was in turn later killed by Ngai Tahu at a whaling station in the upper South Island. There were other Pakeha toa who suffered similar fates in these conflicts.
So, what I'm proposing is that, your students may benefit from critically exploring the identities and roles of "Pakeha Maori" who came into the Wellington region alongside their Ngati Toa and Taranaki whanui relatives.
The "musket wars" were not always a 'purely" Maori phenomenon = there were other "non-Maori" players who, in turn, had their own imperatives to encourage and and benefit from "inter" and "intra" tribal warfare.
Thank you for your comments Richard. They are proving to be challenging and to me. I agree that my original reply to Crikeyd were probably ill advised or at least too short to make the point I wanted to.
ReplyDeleteAccording to my understanding of Maori kaupapa, Ngati Toa do indeed have a claim over the Wellington area based upon their conquest of the area. Other tribes who had occupied and controlled Whanganui a tara and would consider their claims to the area to be just as valid based upon that occupation and subsequent Ahi Kaa.
My teaching is based primarily upon reading of a wide variety of materials from as many sources as i can muster, with the recent addition of NZETC and Papers Past being a welcome addition to more primary based information. We have also struck up a relationship with local Iwi which we hope to assist in bringing local history into the classroom. Of course this in itself can be problematic as which iwi do you choose to work with..?
I would not presume to make a definitive statement about who has mana whenua in Wellington as I am not a member of any of these Hapu or Iwi (I am Whakatohea).
It is precisely this issue of land 'ownership' which forms the basis of many of our discussions in class regarding both the Musket wars period, the Wars of the 1860's and the Land Court.
Thank you again Richard, the information about Smith (whom I did not know about) will be extremely useful. I have usually referred to Barrett and Love as being involved in the musket wars so this information will help to expand upon that idea...
I have in the past spent some time teaching about Pakeha Maori, one of the more interesting groups of Europeans. A lack of resources that are sympathetic to them is a problem. Time and the rigours of NCEA have seen this topic somewhat reduced over the last few years.
Kia ora Henry
ReplyDeleteYou're quite right, teaching local history is a really "tricky business and I am grateful to those teachers, like you, who aren't running away from the so-called slippery" issues. It is really healthy for teachers/students to recognize that there are contested claims in their area and to explore these different perspectives through different cultural lens etc.
The Port Nicholson Block will continue to remain a contested cultural landscape. I hope our discussion has prompted some new pathways to explore. It was Marmon who mentioned Smith eating a portion of Te Maiharanui's heart at Kapiti. Apparently, Marmon met crew members from the brig Elizabeth - who were participants in the "Elizabeth Affair". Barratt and Love were Pakeha attached to Te Atiawa, but there were also others like Joe Robinson at Waiwhetu and numerous Pakeha Maori allied to Ngati Toa.
To make things even more complex/interesting, it pays for teachers to be mindful of the internal divisions within local tribal groupings during the so-called land sale to the NZ Company and afterwards (1840s-present day).
Keep up your good work Henry, I offer my thoughts/questions purely to help you explore issues further.
Nga mihi nui
The claims you make in this blog show how little you have actually read regarding this area. I suggest that you start by reading The Waitangi Tribunal's report on the Port Nicholson Block before you make the outrageous statements about the history in Te Whanganui a Tara.
ReplyDeleteI am frightened to think that I considered sending my children to a school where their history and whakapapa would be undermined by the limited understanding of teachers such as you.
Kia ora Henry,
ReplyDeleteGiven you've mentioned me in your response to "Anonymous" above, I feel I should clarify my stance in relation to his/her concerns.
As much as I want to encourage local history teachers to grapple with local iwi narratives, I do support the thrust of what "Anonymous" wrote (8 May). Moreover, I was disappointed with your response; especially when you wrote:
"As much as I would like to read everything I simply do not have the time .... so I tend to limit myself to those which are of personal interest to me, I am Whakatohea after all. I am sorry you have based your childs future on a single entry by a single teacher at a school."
The problem is that you must make the time available because you are a teacher and therefore employed by a Crown entity (Wellington High School). You are, thus, required to adhere to ethical/legal guidelines such as the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Education Act 1989) & the Tātaiako cultural competencies for teachers of Māori learners.
I'd strongly recommend you read the tangata whenuatanga competencies in this document (see the url link below) and consider the implications of your response to "Anonymous":
http://www.minedu.govt.nz/~/media/MinEdu/Files/TheMinistry/EducationInitiatives/Tataiako/TataiakoWEB.pdf
Whether you are Whakatohea or Pākehā is irrelevant. The issue is that your comments about manawhenua claims remain problematic and this will impact upon how local whānau, hapū and iwi view you and the school that employs you.
By siding with "crikeyd" you inevitably positioned yourself (and potentially your school/students)as taking sides in an ongoing political debate without considering all perspectives or the major work of a Court of Inquiry. This stance would, understandably, deter some prospective whānau from sending their rangatahi to your school as is the case with "Anonymous".
As head of History you are a school leader and you do represent Wellington High School in a public space (online). Why wouldn't prospective students (and their parents), who whakapapa to the iwi you've commented about, not be upset?
So, Please reconsider 'how' you gather and present local iwi histories of place to your students and the wider public.
Ngā mihi nui ki a koe
Richard Manning
I have removed my initial response to Anonymous. There is much to be said about NOT writing when tired or angry. See the comment from Richard about my which will follow. I deserved the ticking off.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response Anonymous. However if you have an issue with my comments it would be helpful if you could tell me what exactly these might be. I have not read all of the Tribunal report of the Port Nicholson so if there is an error I apologise. I am happy to correct wherever I can verify the facts as true. The information in this blog is as accurate as I can verify at the time of writing and I accept that sometimes my research can be faulty. On the other hand if I continue to believe that what I have said is true I will leave it alone. I am also happy to engage in a conversation about the blog if that will help clear up a point of difference.
Thanks for the reminder Richard. I deserved the telling off. My reply was written in haste, late at night when I should have waited and given a more considered response. Anon's comment it seemed was based on the original blog entry without reference to our comments that followed. This of course is a guess as Anon. left no clue as to what they were upset about.
ReplyDeleteAs to the need to become as fully informed as possible. There is a huge gap between what is desirable and what is realistic. It is almost impossible to read everything that is available. This course is enormous. It covers the social, economic and political development of our country between 1800 and 1900 and I teach several other year level classes which also make considerable demands upon my time. Teachers of our local or national history do have a duty to be as well informed as possible. I do the best I can.
Kia ora Henry
ReplyDeleteI take my hat off to you for the tone etc of your latest posting.
I appreciate that you wrote your response to "Anonymous" in haste and that you've reconsidered your initial stance etc. As a former secondary school teacher of history/social studies I've been in that busy space, too.
My advice is "slow down". I think teachers of history are busy and they need to accept that it's impossible to become "fully informed" about the complexities of the Port Nicholson Block claims (let alone the wider history of colonization of Aotearoa). But, I/we can become better informed!!
For me, I find it helpful to accept that there are conflicting local tribal narratives and that I don't need to come to a point of being "fully informed" or possess the truth. It's impossible. Think of local history as consisting of multiple layers of narratives that are shaped by topography, flora & fauna etc that can be both complimentary and contradictory.
These layers and layers of local history & whakapapa = remind us of the absurdity of the old-fashioned grand narrative NZ histories we've taught to our history students over the years. Whakapapa takes us to a very different worldview than the ethnocentric/anthropocentric historical thinking of so-called 'traditional' historians and national curriculum documents etc.
So, what I'd recommend to teachers of history and social studies is a form of "slow pedagogy" that allows teachers/students and their communities to localize the focus of NZ history courses and to develop mutually-beneficial relationships with those communities.
Such research does not have to arrive at a conclusive outcome/solution and is entirely consistent with the sorts of ethical requirements expected of university students and professional historians working in the Treaty sector or kaupapa Māori settings(i.e. let's give students authentic cross-cultural research tasks in their local communities/ecologies of place).
So, "slow down". Take/make time to have a coffee in a cafe/sleep in on a Sunday morning etc etc and gradually read through the Tribunal report/executive report in manageable bites. You will find it a very rewarding journey.
I respect your desire to do the right thing and I hope these ideas, above, may help you in the future.
Ngā mihi nui ki a koe.
- Richard Manning