Whats in it for me?

Whats in it for me? The Treaty

The Treaty is contentious in many areas of our life. Most notably in the recent dealings between Hone Harawira and The Maori Party. The questions we need to ask ourselves are quite simple: why was a treaty needed in 1840? How did it effect Maori and Pakeha relations upto 1900?

That we have a the treaty is generally well known, although I dare say that while everyone in the country is aware of the treaty few are really familiar either with the treaty itself or why one was needed.

It has unfortunately fallen into disrepute, mainly through the machinations of vested interests, both Pakeha and Maori. Some people want the Treaty forgotten, using arguments about its relevance and its necessity.

Most of these people have little understanding of the historical basis for the 1840 decisions, nor do they understand the language used in the treaty which is the foundation of claims and counterclaims made today. Hopefully over the last week you have gained a greater appreciation of the Treaty debate.

For our purposes we are concerned with why a Britain and Maori sought an accommodation. The Treaty required both parties to be willing to take part, however what was offered or expected did not always mesh.

Britain as we discussed in class sought to legitimise their relationship with the Maori. They were concerned over the possible settlement of the country by private companies like the New Zealand Company led by Wakefield. Clashes between Settlers and Maori could be disastrous if there were no military presence.

The "Tory" arrived in Whanganui-a-Tara (Port Nicholson) shortly before Hobson arrived in the Bay of Islands. This coincidence panicked both parties. The Company wanted to acquire as much land as possible before a colony was announced. They hoped to forestall any limitations that might be created should the Government place a moratorium on land sales.

For his part Hobson wanted to legitimise his position and to stop both the Company or anyone else for that matter from infringing on British sovereignty in New Zealand. Thus his apparent haste at writing, translating and negotiating the Treaty at Waitangi.

These are excerpts from "Waitangi: What really happened" which showed on TVNZ on Waitangi Day 2011 and is available On Demand Here

Besides the Company there were also the possible arrival of the French or Americans. French settlers were rumoured to be headed for Akaroa on Banks peninsula. This may explain his decision to claim the South Island on the basis of discovery (by Cook) rather than by negotiation. It would have taken to long to travel to the South Island. Surprisingly the treaty was still taken south to the Ngai Tahu who signed at three sites.

From our work in class you will be aware of the various points of view expressed at the meeting on the 5th February. Its seems to have been equally weighted for and against with the matter evenly balanced. Kawiti had argued against it as he distrusted the Missionaries until some important chiefs like Waka Nene spoke in favour of it.

The language of the treaty is extremely important especially in the Maori version. Kawanatanga means governorship, Rangatiratanga means sovereignty.

Consider your textbooks. They belong to the school who has Rangatiratanga over them. You are looking after them, you have Kawanatanga.

Claudia Orange has made the point that the first article should have used the term 'Mana', but Williams who helped translate it knew Chiefs would never have agreed to this.

The Treaty is explained(ish)

Maori claims through the 19th and into the 20th century against the treaty are all based on the second article which assures Maori of their ownership of their lands, fisheries, taonga etc.

The “fourth article” at Pompalliers prompting assured religious freedom, much to the consternation of the CMS/WMS who had hoped for an extension of the State religion status accorded to the Anglican church in Britain.

Several Missionaries spoke at the meeting. All extolled the virtues and advantages a treaty would bring Maori. As we mentioned in class the idea of a covenant between the Queen and Maori was presented, reinforced by Maori understanding of the Bible where covenants were sacred agreements made between Man and God. Maori (apart from Kawiti) had few reasons to disbelieve or question the motives of the Missionary(s).

The treaty was then copied and sent to the south. However Orange has made the point that other chiefs who signed often did so on the basis that the Hui at Waitangi having already thrashed out the pros and cons of signing and that if Nga Puhi thought it a good idea then they to should sign.

Maori protocols said that a Hui of any standing would thrash out all of the arguments for and against the proposition. A traditional Hui would have continued until everyone had reached agreement. Traders and Missionaries who carried the Treaty around the country may well have exploited this belief, encouraging other chiefs to sign the document.Britain soon decided that the 500 Maori who signed the treaty represented enough of a sample to announce annexation of the whole country. Again this shows the lack of awareness of the makeup of Maori society and the tribal nature of their culture.

Stephen and the Queen.

This is a hypothetical discussion between James Stephen and Queen Victoria.



Stephen emphasises the Humanitarian and Geo-Political reasons for having a Treaty while also summarising why Maori are also keen on an agreement as well.

Of course such a discussion would never have taken place, Victoria was a constitutional monarch. Colonial activities were to mundane for her to be consulted.

Earth Hour Lantern

Make a Lantern for Earth Hour

A foot in the door: GB & NZ in the 1830's.

In 1831 the missionary William Yate persuaded 13 northern chiefs to sign the “Letter to King William.” This petition sought British protection from the French. It seemed that the good Mister Yate used the arrival of the French ship ‘la Favourite’ to stir up the Chiefs into believing that France was about to annexe New Zealand and would take the opportunity to take revenge for the murder of Marion du Fresne some 40 years earlier… (..the sons of Marion"..) as it turns out the French ship was simply continuing their tradition of scientific research and left without doing much at all.

What is interesting is that by recognising the letter Britain (a reply is an official recognition) gave some semblance of recognition of the country itself. Combined with the terrible events surrounding the Elizabeth affair it was enough to encourage the Colonial office under Stephen to look at some way of controlling the behaviour of British citizens in the islands.

Sending a Resident would help to alleviate the situation. Instructions sent to the Governor in Sydney were relayed with the expectation that he would provide a suitable candidate. By all accounts James Busby was an irritating twit. He seems to have continually sought higher office within the administration of the Governor and did not seem to realise how annoying he was.

The new position of resident allowed the Governor to fulfill the Colonial office instructions and to rid himself of a pest at the same time. Unfortunately he disliked Busby so much he refused to provide him with all of the things necessary for the job. A ship, troops were denied him, he even had to plead for the house he needed to live in. Busby had plans for a 500 pound house drawn up, the Governor reduced it to 250 pounds. The problem of course was that while Port Jackson had to provide the Resident they were unwilling to pay for him – there were no taxes to be collected in New Zealand.

A Resident is just about the lowest position available in Diplomatic circles. It ranks below Consul and Ambassador. A resident has few powers and would not normally do more than represent his countries views to his hosts. By appointing Busby however this appears to be a tacit recognition of New Zealand as a sovereign nation. Interfering in local affairs was definitely NOTone of his tasks.

Busby was expected to do little except keep the peace. Without any formal backup he failed miserably. Thus, the unkind name given to him of “Man’o’war without guns’. He was left in the position of writing letters to anyone who would listen. But he was not entirely witless and recognised the need for an ensign that would allow New Zealand built ships to be registered and allowed to trade with Sydney without being confiscated. At least one locally made ship was confiscated when it arrived in Sydney.

The Flag chosen in 1834 was negotiated by Busby and a number of Northern Chiefs. Its design was one of three presented to them. When it was gazetted by the Admiralty it again reinforced the view of New Zealand as an independent state. (it also happens to be the P & O shipping lines flag)

The following year Busby again exceeded his authority and negotiated with 35 Northern chiefs and created the Declaration of Independence. This was also sent to Great Britain and again it was recognised by the Government when the flag was gazetted by the Navy.

In the meantime Baron De Theirry had arrived in the North causing a mild panic amongst some, apart from Busby who sent off a number of wild letters to the Governor and the Colonial office concerning an imminent takeover by the ‘King’ of New Zealand. Luckily for Busby the Nga Puhi of the Hokianga were less than impressed with the Frenchman’s claims to 40,000 acres (sold to him in 1820 by Hika) and allowed him only a few hundred. His French settlers promptly rioted and left. Poor old De Theirry ended his days as a piano teacher in Auckland.

There was also growing French interest in Akaroa and Busby continued to bombard the Colonial Office with letters of potential annexation in the south. Not only were the French a colonial threat but the large numbers of American whalers and the appointment of an American Consul (Clendon) was also a matter of concern. According to Busby NZ or part of it was in danger of becoming French or American.

Kai Tangata

There has been some debate recently about Maori and the concept of Kai Tangata, some historians have questioned the entire idea of Maori rituals associated with cannibalism. Paul Moon has written about this and received some criticism in the Listener for it. Was it an occasional highly ritualised part of their tikanga or something which was widely practised? Personally I can't go past the huge amount of literature that supports the practise. I also wonder whether there isn't a certain amount of (revisionism) rewriting history to suit a particular viewpoint about Maori....

In WTL Travers "Stirring Times of Te Rauparaha" (1872)

• Leaving naught at Mauinena and Makioa but the inhabitants bones, having flesh and tendons adhered, which even his dogs had not required, Hongi pursued his course.

• ...for more than a thousand victims lay dead in the trench and the magnitude of the feast that followed may, be imagined from the fact.... many hundred native ovens were discovered ... while numberless human bones lay scattered around.(Ngati Whatua at Mokoia Pa, Panmure)
  

• Some conception of the numbers killed and eaten ... Mr. Raven ....collected many cartloads of their bones and buried them in a mound on the side of the main road... (Ngai Tahu at Kaiapoi)
  

Then later in Michael King's "New Zealanders at War"...

• A small canoe with the dead bodies first approached the shore: the war canoe and those taken in fight, about 40 in all, lay at a short distance. Shortly after, a party of Young Men landed to perform the war-dance and song usual on their return from fighting: they yelled and jumped and brandished their weapons, and threw up human heads in the air in a shocking manner; but this was but a prelude ...
  
  An awful pause and silence ensued. At length the canoes moved slowly and came into contact with the shore; when the widow of Tettee and other women rushed down upon the beach in a frenzy of rage, and beat in pieces the carved work at the head of the canoes with a pole: they then got into a canoe and pulled out several prisoners-of war into the water and beat them to death: except one boy who swam away and got into another canoe. The frantic widow then proceeded to another canoe and dragged out a woman prisoner into the water and beat out her brains with a club with which they pound fern root. We retired from this distressing scene.

And

• ... the party who took the pa stayed in it, keeping all the women they could, and killed all the men. The children under 3 years they cut their heads and arms off and cooked the trunk, taking the inside out and then beating it up to a pulp which, he said, was the best food to eat with roi [fern root]. The women they ran sharp sticks through their feet to prevent their escape.... They ate the women when the men were eaten, and that after they had them to wife.

Cmap (See Map) on Musket Wars

Ron Crosby on Muskets and Maori

Most New Zealanders know something of Hongi Hika, the great Ngapuhi leader, and of Te Rauparaha of Ngati Toa. They stand out as the respective scourges of the North and South Islands. But they were just two of a host of equally strong, equally capable leaders who quite properly deserved the appellation of General. Names like:

• Te Wherowhero and Tukorehu of Waikato;
• Pomare, Te Wera and Te Morenga of Ngapuhi (Northland);
• Te Rohu and Tuterangianini of Ngati Maru (Thames);
• Te Heuheu of Ngati Tuwharetoa (Taupo);
• Te Waharoa of Ngati Haua (Matamata);
• Murupaenga and Apihai Te Kawau of Ngati Whatua (Kaipara),

and many others, were dreaded or respected throughout wide areas of both islands. Others, such as Hikairo of Te Arawa (Rotorua); Te Pareihe of Ngati Kahungunu (Hawke's Bay); Te Matakatea (Taranaki), and Tuhawaiki and Taiaroa of Ngai Tahu in the South Island, appeared time and again as extraordinarily courageous and resourceful defenders of their respective rohe, or territory. In turn, as they acquired more muskets they were to prove their versatility in attack.

...by and large warfare in Maoridom before the musket was much more limited to inter-hapu clashes of a localised nature. All iwi and hapu were equally armed with the same rakau Maori, or Maori weapons of war: it was usually too dangerous to contemplate longdistance raiding, as such taua were likely to be outnumbered and destroyed.

In contrast, the campaigns of the Musket Wars, because of the superiority the musket provided, were prodigious in numerous respects:

• Their duration, sometimes lasting twelve to eighteen months
• Their physical length and difficulty, always involving huge distances by foot or waka (war canoe) in hostile and physically demanding country.
• Their brutality and ruthlessness, often resulting in the depopulation of large swathes of the country through which they passed, with the remnant survivors living in slavery or fear.
• Their frequency, each summer often seeing up to ten major campaigns in various parts of the country with sometimes two, three or four campaigns occurring at once.

While there was one major factor which gradually brought the Musket Wars to an end, there were a range of others that, particularly in the closing stages of the wars, combined fortuitously to hasten that end.

The first and primary factor was the spread of muskets throughout the country. Whereas in 1818 Ngapuhi could campaign with impunity with relatively small numbers, creating havoc throughout the North Island, by 1826 they were facing foes who were equally well-armed. From then on their victories were few and hard earned. Defeats were often encountered, and in human terms the cost of campaigning became too great.

A more direct factor in bringing the wars to an end was the sudden arrival of large numbers of European settlers at the end of the 1830s. Europeans began to buy significant areas of land, particularly in places that had been temporarily abandoned by iwi during the Musket Wars, and they immediately started to settle in large numbers. Once that occurred Maori rangatira knew they had to deal with a major new political force, and that the musket alone would be unlikely to prevail against the firepower to which the Europeans had recourse.

Another important factor in the cessation of hostilities was the gradual conversion of many Maori to Christianity and its message of peace, later in the 1830s. The influence of Christianity on the rangatira involved in the early years of the Musket Wars was very small, certainly during the major raids of the 1820s. The missionaries' influence in reducing the impact of the musket at that time could only be described as minimal or nil, and indeed some of the early missionaries such as Thomas Kendall were actively involved in trading muskets with Ngapuhi.

An additional factor which had a localised effect on the ability of some iwi to pursue their war aims was the onset of disease in the form of measles, influenza and other illnesses such as tuberculosis. In some areas European diseases caused great mortality, with more severe effects even than the musket. There is little doubt that in 1835, for example, a major clash between Ngai Tahu and Ngati Toa was prevented in large part by a measles epidemic suffered by Ngai Tahu.

But the final factor in bringing the Musket Wars to an end was the Treaty of Waitangi. Whatever arguments existed then and now as to what Maori thought it meant, the treaty was regarded in a general sense by both Maori and European settlers as imposing a system of order that would protect against raiding.

A Musket Wars Timeline

This is an interactive timeline at timetoast

A Taranaki Trip Taster

One place we will visit on our trip is Puke Ariki in New Plymouth.

You say Potatoe I say Potato

(The original post resulted in this string of comments and replies from me.)

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 (Matthew Wright) 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 fueled 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 actually 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!)

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 in 1808 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 Hika 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. Subsequent Ngapuhi defeats in the mid-1820’s seem to prove that once armed with muskets other Iwi could adequately defend themselves against the dreaded Ngapuhi.

Te Rauparaha’s rampage against the Ngai 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 1830 Elizabeth affair would of course add to British worries about european impact upon 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?). Of course by then he had moved into Stage 3 and was armed with hundreds of muskets.

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 common source of food.

Some taua in the 1820's were enormous. Ngapuhi boasted of parties of several thousand, with each Toa armed with several (up to 10) muskets.

Tribes that lacked guns suffered horrendous losses. The massacre of 3000 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.

Remnants of 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 simply 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. This change saw a movement to areas allowing the guarding of valuable resources like flax. Rather than storing food it was often traded leaving little surplus for winter storage. Living to close to swamps and imminent starvation saw death rates soar.

The ripple effect of acquiring and using guns, 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 (Eat Relatives War) 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 the Moriori 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 the savagery of this event.

CMaps - Missionaries >> Treaty

Click on this image to see a larger version.

Start at Missionaries and follow the trail....

The Influence of Missionaries

The Missionaries helped to open up New Zealand. Their presence tended to make it easier for other Europeans to interact with Maori. In general we are of course referring to the CMS under Samuel Marsden's direction. It is his drive and determination that see the first Mission opened at Rangihoua and further stations opened at Kerikeri and Paihia. His first choice of Kendall as leader is an initial weakness, although he could not have forseen the death of Ruatara and the subsequent patronage of Hongi Hika. Sending Henry Williams to replace Kendall is inspired and perhaps a reflection that Marsden recognised his earlier mistake.The Missionaries learn and translate Maori into a written language. They introduce literacy to a large number of the Maori. Literacy allows the teaching of religion.

Hika's belief that Christianity was 'a religion worthy only of slaves', meant that many slaves were educated and when the opportunity was offered converted. It was this that allowed many freed slaves to return to their Iwi as missionaries in their own right. Many returned to area's that European Missionaries would not arrive in until years later. Not only do the CMS introduce education and religion they helped to expand agriculture. The first plough was used by the CMS.CMS activities under Kendall are insipid and achieve little except to confirm the weakness of their religion to Hika. Under Williams it is revitalised and becomes more dynamic.

Building the 'Herald' increases their reach and takes them out from beneath Hikas control, although it seems that Hikas power and influence was on the wane by the latter part of the 1820's.(New 2008) The sudden increase in conversions from 1829 can be seen as a reaction to war weariness, 20,000 dead and perhaps another 30,000 displaced/replaced was a massive blow to Maori self belief as was the persistent losses to disease.

Maori synthesis of their old Atua and newer Christian versions also eased the move to Christianity. Hika's death in 1828 certainly removed a major obstacle and made the transition easier. The CMS will try to take credit for the end of the Musket wars although most Historians will discount this claim. It is of course the trip that Kendall takes with Waikato and Hika that will jump start the Musket wars in 1821. Their ability to stop warring Maori from fighting is rarely tested, despite several images that suggest otherwise.

When Maori do take up Christianity it is not always as intended. While the CMS are Christian it is often the Old Testament that attracts them. Christianity was all about Christ the God of forgiveness etc., while the Old Testament God was Jehovah the God of retribution and revenge. When synthesised with their old Atua this God made more sense. We will look at this in more detail when we cover the various Prophets that emerged.The Missionaries reports of the activities at Kororareka will lead to the expansion of the British Government into New Zealand with the arrival of Busby. We will also discover the influence they will have over the Treaty negotiations at Waitangi.

The Missionaries: Spreading the word

Wherever Europeans settled, whether by conquest or otherwise. they took their culture with them. A mainstay of their culture or identity was religion. The Spaniards, Portuguese and French took Catholicism. The British took Protestantism more specifically Anglicanism. By the early 19th century the British were ascendant and were certain that God was on their side. In fact everything pointed to them being the most advanced civilisation that had ever developed.

They wanted to bring the wonders of the civilisation to the backward and needy natives. This would also wanted to expand the Empire, making Britain even greater… richer, more powerful… (No wonder everyone else seemed to dislike them, They probably thought Hubris was an English word).

The Missionaries who followed the explorers wanted to save the souls of the heathen. It was in their destiny to expand the empire, it was also their destiny to spread the word of God.

Samuel Marsden led the (Anglican) Church Missionary Society (CMS) in Sydney. He had a tough reputation and was known as the ‘Flogging Parson”. He lived in Parramatta and had become wealthy on the landholdings he had acquired. He developed a strong bond with many of the Maori who visited Port Jackson, especially Ruatara who spent some time recuperating in his care.Ruatara was an important chief amongst the Nga Puhi of the Bay of Islands. He hoped to encourage Marsden into bringing Missionaries to his people. However it was not just the word of God that the hoped for.

Marsden seemed to greatly admire the Maori as a people suited to accepting Christianity.Preliminary ideas of setting up a mission were put on hold by the burning of the Boyd in Whangaroa harbour. By 1814 Marsden felt more comfortable with the proposal.It was his hoped that the Missionaries could civilise the Maori. They would first show them the advantages that a civilised culture could offer them. Once this was accepted then they would readily accept the religion that was central to that culture. This explained the inclusion of King and Hall, a rope maker and carpenter. They were accompanied by their families, a sign that they wanted to establish a permanent presence. It was hoped that the families would also keep the missionaries away from the excesses and temptations of Kororareka. I guess 2 out of 3 isn’t to bad.
Civilise then convert.

It seemed simple. The first Mission station was set up on the northern side of the Bay of Islands in an area under the control of Ruatara and his hapu. The site was Rangihoua.Ruatara died soon afterwards. His place as protector was taken by Hongi Hika. Soon the Mission moved to Kerikeri and Paihia, close enough to see Kororareka, not so close it could be contaminated by the Whalers antics.

Hika wanted the Missionaries for what they could give him. He never converted to Christianity. Although Marsden came to New Zealand he never stayed. Leadership of the Mission fell to Thomas Kendall who never really fired as a leader. He lacked the ability to inspire and was unable to shake the shadow cast by Hika. Belich describes Kendall as Hika’s vassal.

Maori were disappointed by the Missionaries. They wanted traders who could provide a steady stream of material especially muskets. When Kendall followed Marsden’s direction not to trade in Muskets their mana really diminished.

From a letter to Kendall from Marsden, 1819

"I found that you had fallen into that accursed traffic with muskets and powder again, notwithstanding all the resolutions that had been passed against it when I was with you in August last. When I considered that the missionaries were furnishing the instruments of death to these poor savages by supplying them with muskets and powder, I could not but feel the greatest indignation at such a thought. The argument generally urged has been that neither timber nor pork could be bought from the natives without muskets and powder. This I do not credit."

It was not uncommon for their settlements to be ransacked by passing by Maori from other Nga Puhi hapu. Physical threats were made but rarely carried out, the Missionaries were never equals in their eyes.

Belich: Making Peoples on Missionaries

God also came to New Zealand through Australia. By 1808, missions founded in Tonga, Tahiti and the Marquesas had all collapsed. Pacific evangelism was revived by the Anglican Chaplain of New South Wales, Samuel Marsden, 'the Saint Augustine of New Zealand'. Frustrated by the Pacific failures and by his efforts among Australian convicts and Aboriginals, he turned with hope and relief to the Maori. Marsden and allies such as John Nicholas, author in 1817 of the first major book on New Zealand, tirelessly argued that Maori were the perfect prospects for conversion - despite their reputation for aggressiveness and cannibalism, and the almost total absence of converts until 1830. Confidence in Maori convertibility was not restricted to rhetoric. The Church Missionary Society (CMS) gave prospective missionaries to New Zealand two years' training, as against three for India. Trainee missionaries practised on Catholic Irish in London, only to be threatened with red-hot pokers and bricks through church windows."

Marsden set up the first mission station at Rangihoua, in the Bay of Islands in 1814, and supervised operations from his base at Parramatta, near Sydney, until his death in 1838. The CMS had established three stations at the Bay of Islands by 1823, when Henry Williams, an able and energetic ex-naval officer, if somewhat narrower in outlook than Marsden, took up the local leadership. The same year, the CMS was joined by the Wesleyan Missionary Society, whose Reverend Samuel Leigh established a station at Whangaroa. This station was abandoned in 1827, but the Wesleyans were re-established at Hokianga the following year, and between 1830 and 1836 were led by the choleric and colourful William White. The CMS and the WMS formed an uneasy cartel, with the former as senior partner, and the latter allocated the western coast. Neither mission broke out of Northland until 1833, but the number of stations exploded in the mid-1830s. In 1839, CMS missionaries and their families numbered 169; WMS 37 .By 1845, the WMS had a dozen small stations, and the CMS two dozen, some large, unevenly spread across the country. The Anglican-Methodist alliance was seldom comfortable, but both were united in their dislike of Catholics - they would rather the Maori stayed pagan than become Papist. The first Roman Catholic mission station was established in 1838, by Bishop Jean Baptiste Pompallier. Catholicism came late but fast, backed by the new Marist organisation in France and, at first, by substantial funds. By 1844, it had brought 41 French missionaries to New Zealand and established a dozen mission stations.

It is often as difficult to empathise across times as it is across cultures. From some modern perspectives, the evangelicals are hard to like. They dressed like crows; seemed joyless, humourless and sometimes hypocritical; they embalmed the evidence poor historians need to read in tedious preaching, in which the love of God was often dwarfed by the fear of sin. Marsden forbade his daughter to read novels, and showed a certain lack of human sympathy. 'Mrs. Hill is very low spirited and a few days ago she cut her throat - and has not been able to swallow anything since.' He provided a curious reference for a New South Wales boy named William Evans: I do not know him - if he had been bad I should have known him."' In Australia, he was known as the 'Flogging Parson', for good reason. He faced repeated accusations of corruption - of using his official position, the moral high ground of evangelism and his privileged access to the New Zealand trade to feather Parramatta. He did make a lot of money - £30,000 to be precise - and despite the indignant denials of subsequent biographers, it is tempting to see fire in the smoke. But he also spent a great deal of his own money on the New Zealand mission, as well as two years of his own time, and seven voyages at great personal cost - he was always extremely seasick. It is difficult not to admire him and his fellows. The New Zealand missionaries, men and women, spent their lives on the psychological equivalent of a fearsomely alien planet for something else's sake. They buried their children, braced their shoulders and served their God. Perhaps it was years in purgatory in this world exchanged for years off purgatory in the next, but the mean-spirited can find self-interest in every altruism.

Satan surrounded the early missionaries in the form of naked Maori bodies. Marianne Williams spent her first night in New Zealand thinking of them. 'The tall muscular forms of the New Zealanders flitted before my mind's eye, whenever I endeavoured to sleep. ` Missionary women are not known to have succumbed to temptation, but some of their menfolk did. They included William White, William Colenso, Charles Creed and Thomas Kendall, and in at least the last case sex was not the only temptation. As on other islands and beaches of the Pacific, fear of sin competed with the seductions of sinlessness, and it was not always dear which would convert which. The 'apparent sublimity' of Maori religious ideas, wrote Kendall in 1822, has 'almost completely turned me from a Christian to a Heathen'. This battle also raged in the soul of the CMS missionary William Yate. His influential book on New Zealand, published in 1835, portrayed Maori as 'neither too ignorant nor too savage to be made the subjects of the saving and sanctifying influence of the gospel', but as pretty ignorant and savage all the same. Maori mothers fed their infants pebbles to harden their hearts. thought 'it is not true that Maori mothers eat their own children. This is too horrible even for them. 'Poor Mr Yate' was subsequently sacked for alleged sexual relations with between 50 and 100 young Maori males. The Catholics maintained their chastity or their secrets, but the British missions always struggled against reverse conversion. Children and single men were considered especially vulnerable to Maoriness. Marsden reproved Kendall for leaving his eight children to visit England 'at an Age when they in a very special manner require the Eye of the Parent, to prevent them from mingling amongst the Heathens and learning their ways' As early as 1811, he wrote: 'Never upon any Account send a single man out. But some went.

We should not deride the missionaries' efforts, or sneer too hard at their self-defined failures, but we should equally avoid accepting their account of their own impact, which claimed the wholesale religious conversion and partial 'civilisation' of Maori by the 1840s. Even when their interpretation of results is not accepted, they are still often portrayed as the main agents of contact, largely because they dominated the written record. In 1990, an academic biographer claimed that Marsden 'transformed the Maori economy and laid the foundations of New Zealand agriculture'. that he at least greatly hastened a Maori religious conversion, and that the British intervention that saved New Zealand from 'anarchy' was 'in large measure due to the apostolic labours of Samuel Marsden" Marsden was important, but this overstates the case. Missiology and hagiography are still too closely related.

Making Peoples

James Belich

Pp 134-137

The Third Kind of New Zealander

It should be remembered that until the 1830's the term New Zealander was attached to the indigenous people of New Zealand. The term Maori did not become popular until then. Only about then did Maori themselve use the term as a collective name for themselves although they remained tribal in their first identity. Those (mainly) Europeans who chose to live amongst and with Maori did not fit neatly into one camp or the other and thus created a new category, the third type of New Zealander.

There is a wonderful term for people who pass through a place as a temporary resident. It is Sojourner. I wish I'd known this when I lived in London, it sounds so much better than...actually I don't know what we called ourselves, we were just Kiwis on our OE. Sojourner sounds so much cooler.

This is an interesting group mainly because so little evidence was left behind by them. Known as Pakeha-Maori or Intermediaries or Go-Betweens they bridged the gap between Maori and visiting Europeans. Few were literate and so most of the records about them are written by others. Most of these records are written by Missionaries and often reflect the bias these writers held about such men (and women). Their writing is filled with references to uncouth behaviour, undesirables filled with vice and their thoroughly bad influence on Maori. There were no compliments, only complaints.

Recognising that their writing contains bias is an important historical skill. Being able to describe and explain the biased references is useful for the end of year exam. Knowing why they held these views is also important.Missionaries wanted to be the sole filters of European (British) culture and civilisation. Having someone else interpret the culture for Maori in ways that might inhibit their own activities was not something they liked. Few of the 'Intermediaries' were religious or church goers, in fact most would have had a pretty poor view of Missionaries and religion. Many of the Pakeha Maori were former convicts and possibly a number would have been Irish and Catholic. Their view of the Anglican Church would have been even lower and the (CMS) Missionary would have represented everything their disliked about the establishment.

Many would have had experience of the CMS from Sydney and few would have viewed Marsden with any great favour. They apparently often counselled Maori against the Missionaries.Possibly another reason was simply their horror at the thought of White Men 'going native' and abandoning the (superior?) european civilisation for the degenerate and permissive life amongst the natives.The Pakeha Maori themselves were a disparate group. the first of them fled their ship in 1799 and there were many different types of Pakeha Maori who followed in the next 70-80 years. The last Pakeha Maori of the traditional type was possibly Kimble Bent who fought with Titokowaru.

Some were escaped convicts, some were unhappy seamen, others were traders or adventurers. Your hand out notes (see pages 22-27) describe the many types of Pakeha Maori, and need little explanation here.What is important is to recognise that Maori only accepted Pakeha into their society on their own terms and the Pakeha had to be worth something to them, whether as a 'pet' or as a respected tohunga. If the Pakeha wasn't worth anything then they would be rejected or eaten. Several seamen who fled their ships were hunted down and returned because local Maori could not risk the loss of trading opportunities.

On the other hand a Pakeha suitably absorbed into the Hapu could be especially useful in translating with other Pakeha. Dicky Barretts help in the sale of Wellington being a poor example, as he spoke a pidgin Maori that failed to adequately explain their loss of land. There were also Pakeha Maori who lived on the periphery of their local Iwi like Tapsel or Guard.It seems in many respects that the Intermediaries impact has been downplayed. The Missionaries can be blamed for that. F EManing is one of the few Pakeha Maori who did leave a written record. But his later antipathy toward Maori may colour his vews.

Read TREVOR BENTLEYS "PAKEHA MAORI" available in the school library.