Persistent propaganda following the confiscation of Waikato land by the Crown

Full thread:

Following the confiscation (raupatu) of 1.2 million acres of Waikato land by the Crown following their unjust war, proponents began persistent propaganda to overstate, and at times invent Waikato tribes own historical raupatu of land.

The cleansing of Waikato tribes, from their land and systematic destruction of civilian towns and agriculture was of course inexcusably an act of colonisation by any standards of the day.

An example of this is in the Waikato war with Ngati Toa. Crown agents promoted the lie that following the war, Waikato had confiscated all of Ngati Toa and Ngati Raarua land from sth Kawhia to Huikomako stream just south of Waikawau.

In reality, after the war Maniapoto chief Hari Maruru had sort out Ngati Toa / Rarua chiefs and put them back on their lands to maintain their mana whenua.

Taharoa was the only area where this didn’t occur so after 30 years of waiting, Ngati Mahuta – a Waikato tribe, moved there to officially occupy the land. Also, in the Land Court this is the only area claimed along that whole coastline as taken by raupatu.

Under the tikanga of raupatu, land was rarely ever permanently confiscated. In this instance the majority of the tribes with Te Rauparaha, moved south. Those that stayed or eventually came back were able to reestablish their mana whenua. And we still hold it today.

Today Ngati Raarua, Ngati Toa and Maniapoto hapu all hold interests in our coastline from Harihari South to Huikomako. These interests are shared due to intermarriage but they are derived from Raarua and Ngati Toa.

When the Crown confiscated land though, it was total and often mass confiscation.

It was used purely as a way to mass acquire land and resources. Therefore just armed robbery and murder, obviously completely a breach of the treaty. All that land needs to be bought back by the Crown and given back.

But this I believe is the reason for overstating and at times inventing raupatu. False equivalence to write the history books the way they wanted it.

 

73 Comments

  1. The Consultant

     /  January 3, 2019

    Under the tikanga of raupatu, land was rarely ever permanently confiscated.

    When the Crown confiscated land though, it was total and often mass confiscation.

    Ho hum! Same message I’ve been hearing since the 1980’s:
    Maori culture good.
    Euro culture bad.

    It’s almost as if there’s been no Treaty of Waitangi claims process in all this time, as if Maori tribes have not had land returned to their ownership or compensation paid (never enough of course). That all happened under European laws, which increasingly incorporated the Treaty of Waitangi, vague and flawed a land contract as it is.

    Not to mention having countless numbers of Pakeha praising traditional Maori society and cursing the imported European mores, with their thousands of years of incremental, trail-and-error improvements upon their own violent and bloody tribal histories.

    But that’s not good enough for this character, who is determined to push the rather old European 19th century theme of The Noble Savage having institutionalised systems that were morally and ethically superior – in this case “raupatu” – to “so called Civilisation”. That includes making the terms “Savage and “Civilisation” themselves verbotten terms.

    I look forward to seeing “raupatu” legally codified so we can see for ourselves just how superior it was and is to the usual global practice of tribes, which was to attack and destroy other tribes, killing the men or enslaving them, taking the woman, and taking the land as well. True in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas.

    But apparently not here.

    Oh – and the #WhitePower slur is a sure sign that this person is projecting their own inner race hatred onto Whites, and doing so in order to make people sit down, shut up, and not argue with him. Also a classic theme of the last forty years in NZ.

  2. The Consultant

     /  January 3, 2019

    The rest of his Twitter feed is exactly what you’d expect:

    Rangi Kemara
    How Britain stole $45 trillion from India – aljazeera.com

    @telesurenglish
    On January 1st, 1959, the Rebel army led by #FidelCastro overthrew Batista’s dictatorship. #Cuba

    Marama Davidson MP
    ‏Why we shouldn’t be surprised at anything Murica. Founded on white supremacy.

    People Against Prisons Aotearoa
    Prisons exist to maintain racial, class and migration-based inequalities in society. To end these inequalities, prisons must be abolished.

    Rangi Kemara
    ‏Dear Countries of Europe: You and your satellite colonies have been pillaging the Middle East and continent of Africa for an eon. Your wealth isn’t from your savy business acumen, it’s from stealing their resources and forcing their labour. You owe them EVERYTHING.

    @nonplasticmaori
    1769 was an Invasion NOT arrival.

    Rangi Kemara
    ‏Captain Cook
    Pakeha History: [d] iscoverer (Tasman is [D] iscoverer)
    Maori History: At worst, murderer, at best, burglar – home invader who committed aggravated robbery
    See we’re all the same….aye

    Rangi Kemara
    The colonised mind.

    ‏luzy 🇯🇲 🇹🇩 🇬🇧 Retweeted liʻi
    It is a rock. Everyone appreciates shit differently. All land is sacred. All land was colonized at one point. If it weren’t for colonization we wouldn’t exist. If u wanna be sovereign then stop complaining on Twitter & go build yourself a house and stop shopping at sack n save.

    And on and on and on and …..

    • Corky

       /  January 3, 2019

      This clown is a comedy act. Maori who think like him but aren’t on social so their footprints are minimised aren’t comedy acts. They are nasty vicious people. They are just waiting for an opportunity that sooner or later will appear.

  3. Gerrit

     /  January 3, 2019

    Absolutely no chance the crown will buy (or confiscate) the land and give it back to the Maori tribes.

    Not going to happen, ever.

    Interestingly no mention of the musket wars by Rangi Kemara that allowed Waikato Maori to confiscate the land south and eastwards.

    “Waikato, led by Te Wherowhero, then attacked Ngāti Toa in Taranaki. In 1824 Waikato and Ngāti Tūwharetoa defeated Ngāti Kahungunu at Napier, and in 1826 Waikato invaded Taranaki, forcing some groups to move south. Waikato attacked Taranaki tribes again in the early 1830s.

    Waikato ended the wars successfully. They defended their lands against northern invaders, and expelled other tribes.”

    https://teara.govt.nz/en/musket-wars/page-2

    To win the argument that the crown today needs to re-confiscate the land and give it back to the various Maori tribes means that the Waikato tribes had to have set a precedent in history by allowing conquered tribes back onto the disputed territories.

    • The Consultant

       /  January 3, 2019

      … means that the Waikato tribes had to have set a precedent in history by allowing conquered tribes back onto the disputed territories.

      That’s the very point he’s arguing against, in two ways. First by saying that Whites are using this argument as an excuse for their own rape and pillage against Maori. Second by claiming, or at least implying, that “raupatu” was and is a superior system for sorting out land disputes between “tribes”:

      Under the tikanga of raupatu, land was rarely ever permanently confiscated

      In reality, after the war Maniapoto chief Hari Maruru had sort out Ngati Toa / Rarua chiefs and put them back on their lands to maintain their mana whenua.

      Unlike the Evil White Colonisers and their legal systems. No law courts. No lawyers. No judges. No governments passing laws. No Police. No Prisons. Maori were able to produce a more just and ethical system of civilisation without all those things.

      • kluelis

         /  January 3, 2019

        The theory put forward by some European is that Maori should not complain because it has always been dog eat dog in New Zealand. So today European should not complain that some Asians have come in and taken Kiwi jobs and made house ownership more difficult for Kiwis. As you say dog eat dog. Be consistent.

        • Pink David

           /  January 3, 2019

          Perhaps they should simply be far more cautious about who they let in eh?

        • Gerrit

           /  January 3, 2019

          Who is complaining of foreign immigration? I guess the next spin from you will be that the immigration levels are high so as to dilutes Maori voting powers even further.

          Soon there will be more Asians (Indian, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc.) than Maori in New Zealand.

          Another Tauiwi ploy to fit your conspiracy theories?

          • kluelis

             /  January 3, 2019

            No I welcome Asian immigration. Lets have another 20 million Asians in ten years so they will rule NZ and give European raped fisheries as compensation.

  4. Duker

     /  January 3, 2019

    Rangi Kemara ?
    best remembered for this unforgettable quote after the Urewera raids
    ‘”Four of us were found guilty of being in possession of pakeha rifles while harbouring Maori thoughts.’
    Kemara is more of a ‘dads army’ type.

  5. kluelis

     /  January 3, 2019

    The nearly 40 year Treaty claims process has meant that 99% of Maori have not benefited from the land/forests/sea/ sea bed/ lakes/ rivers resources compensation process.
    Vast amounts of money were siphoned off by lawyers, researches
    adjudicators travel and expenses of hearings .
    90% went to white Kiwi employees.
    The 10% of Maori employees or consultants were often from the elite classes
    vis- a- vis Shane Jones who became incredibly rich.
    Settlements when they came were given to Iwi boards
    again almost always administered by the elite in Maoridom.
    Many of the IWI investments went into expensive businesses requiring
    equipment buildings and plant manufactured by European Kiwis or imported.
    Very little trickled down to the majority of Maori.
    What the majority of Maori have experienced is 40 years of Maori claims bashing
    by the right wing despite the fact that 90% of the money required
    by the process actually ended up in white New Zealanders bank accounts.
    So Maori lost twice
    1. The majority receiving virtually nothing and
    2. Being politically bashed for 40 years by the right wing media
    and right wing political parties.
    White European were the winners.
    Most Maori suffered a painful loss.
    For Maori it would have been better if there had been no settlement process at all.

    • Pink David

       /  January 3, 2019

      My god, white people getting money! There should be a law or something….

    • Gerrit

       /  January 3, 2019

      “Very little trickled down to the majority of Maori.”

      And that is the white man’s fault? How?

      “Many of the IWI investments went into expensive businesses requiring
      equipment buildings and plant manufactured by European Kiwis or imported.”

      And that is the white man’s fault? How?

      If Tauiwi had interfered with Maori self determination to dispense with the treaty settlement money in any way, there would have been an equal uproar to your ascertion.

      • kluelis

         /  January 3, 2019

        “Very little trickled down to the majority of Maori.”
        And that is the white man’s fault? How?
        As I said vast resources went into administration 90% of which was pocket by European administrators.

        • Gerrit

           /  January 3, 2019

          Got a link to some writings to backup your assertions. Otherwise it is more of Woa is me, those Tuaiwi robbed us blind, ill sit here and moan with much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

          The money was given to Maori to do with as they saw fit. If that meant Maori employing Tauiwi to help them, that is not a fault of Tauiwi.

          • kluelis

             /  January 3, 2019

            Got a link to prove otherwise?

            • Gerrit

               /  January 3, 2019

              Sounds like a Robert Guyton reply. Make an unfounded assertion and when questioned for proof, turn it around with a need for the questioner to provide the proof it is not so.

              What you are basically saying is that you told a fib, cant provide proof it is true and demand the questioner provides proof the fib is false.

              Sorry Robert, might work in the deep south but not here in the winter less north.

              You are still a fibber.

            • kluelis

               /  January 3, 2019

              Nope everything I quoted is fact. You have no proof so you are wrong as all your other unfounded rantings are. Absolute drivel is all your good for. And you know it son.

            • Gerrit

               /  January 4, 2019

              The voices in your head are just your imagination. If they were facts you would back them up with second and third party references.

              If in possession off proof one was right, the easiest way is to present your assertions is with corroborating evidence.

              Something you cannot produce, or more likely, are unwilling to even try and produce.

              Easier to sit, Robert Guyton style, on the sideline and fling the “I’m right, now proof me wrong” arrows.

              Epic Fail

            • kluelis

               /  January 4, 2019

              @Gerrit[deleted, just refer to people by the names the comment under – PG]. Admit it you are beat. Stop being a crybaby,a wimp; a sook a howly bag You are pathetic son. Just read my posts and learn.

      • kluelis

         /  January 3, 2019

        Maori were given rights to fisheries most of which had been raped by the Japanese Russians and Koreans for decades. And just as Maori received allocation the Government brought in massive quota cuts.

        • Gerrit

           /  January 3, 2019

          More rubbish on the rape of Maori fishing quotas.

          Maori are selling their quotas, it is not being raped from their possession.

          “But tribal leadership is largely silent on how deep-sea fishing, once touted as an economic saviour for Maori, now depends on Asian and Ukrainian foreign charter vessels, many of which are little more than high sea sweatshops.

          One leading operator had admitted Maori fishing would close down without the boats, which iwi sell quota to, with the operators shipping the catch to China for processing.”

          http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/4975596/Iwi-blamed-for-state-of-fishery

          Why are iwi selling their quota.

          “Tainui’s Raukura Moana Fisheries uses ageing Ukrainian boats while Ngai Tahu no longer engages directly in deepwater fishing. Ngati Porou Seafoods in Gisborne has no boats and uses foreign vessels, including, at one stage, the ill-fated Korean Oyang 70, which sank with the loss of six lives last August.

          Some iwi using the boats could be doing so unwittingly, since quota arrangements can go through various brokers.

          Under treaty settlements Maori now control 37% of the fishing quota. Maori formed the pan-tribal Aotearoa Fisheries Limited, made up of a 50% shareholding in Sealord Fisheries, plus ownership of four other companies. Maori own half of Sealord, the rest held by Nissui, a major shareholder in Japan’s Antarctic whaling fleet.

          Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples said it “would not be appropriate for the government to interfere in iwi decision-making”.”

          • kluelis

             /  January 3, 2019

            Yes the Japanese Russians and Koreans did rape the fisheries using the illegal bottom trawling for decades. So Maori received non viable fisheries which the Government placed even stricter quotas meaning they were only usable by 3rd world countries with third world rust buckets would try to scrape a living from. Like selling leaky homes or earth quake damaged houses in Christchurch.
            Basically Maori inherited a totally fucked fishery which European had profited from for decades previously. Smart deal or cynical sale. You decide.
            All NZ water be they sea river streams and lakes are now polluted and virtually useless economically just when Maori have regained access. Once more sly dealing by Pakeha returning raped water ways. You must be happy.

            • Gezza

               /  January 3, 2019

              One 1ewes at 6 last night it was claimed 70% of NZ’s rivers are swimmable and that the quality of our waterways is the most important priority for 82% of NZers, followed by child povidy at 80% and I forget what came after that.

            • Gezza

               /  January 3, 2019

              The pollution of lakes and river is the top concern for Kiwis at the start of 2019.

              A new poll commissioned by Fish and Game shows it to be a burning issue for 82 per cent of New Zealanders – up 7 per cent on last year.

              Other concerns like the cost of living, the health system, child poverty and housing lagged behind.

              “We know It’s been a big issue – last year it was issue No. 3 at the election,” Martin Taylor of Fish and Game tells 1 NEWS. “It’s just going up in the Kiwis’ estimation.

              See embedded Video clip.
              https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/new-zealanders-most-concerned-pollution-lakes-and-rivers-poll-finds

              Not sure that Fish and Game exactly qualifies to give an unbiased survey of the major concerns of most Kiwis.

  6. sorethumb

     /  January 3, 2019

    Does anyone have any faith in our historians being either working for Waitangi Tribunal or some lefty university? Paul Moon’s o.k.

    • PartisanZ

       /  January 3, 2019

      I dare say according to you so are Mike Butler, John Ansell and Allan Titford … Great historians one and all over at NZCPR, Hobson’s Pledge and the like … eh?

      • sorethumb

         /  January 3, 2019

        Mike Butler seems o.k.

        • kluelis

           /  January 4, 2019

          The entire value of Treaty settlements over the past quarter of a century would cover super payments for two months.

    • Corky

       /  January 3, 2019

      Hell, no. Revisionist historians mostly. Its a laugh watching them being interviewed and how they gently chide Maori when there’s no way to spin an issue in Maoris favour.

      I watched one try to explain why large tracts of Taranaki remained uninhabited for long periods of time. The truth was Ngapuhi slaughtered them. Many fled to the South Island.

  7. kluelis

     /  January 3, 2019

    @Gezza One 1ewes at 6 last night it was claimed 70% of NZ’s rivers are swimmable .
    “Claimed” After decades of chemicals being sprayed on the land I would never go swimming again in any NZ water way. With 3rd world economies pumping everything into the Oceans for at least the next 100 years the sea is never going to be safe.

    • Gezza

       /  January 3, 2019

      Where do you go swimming these days?

      • kluelis

         /  January 4, 2019

        No where. Just stand under the shower.

        • Corky

           /  January 4, 2019

          For a chlorine blast. Lucky you don’t believe in water having a memory, otherwise you would wonder whether it was tenable to drink.

          • kluelis

             /  January 4, 2019

            @Corky.Are you drunk again Corks?

            • Corky

               /  January 4, 2019

              What do you mean..I was just pointing out the obvious? Standing under the shower may be worse than swimming given all the chemicals and drugs in our mains water.

              Now if you filter your water and think it’s now fine, that’s good. But if you believe in water having a memory than you know it isn’t unless that memory is deleted and a neutral state reinstated. That of course will be of no concern to you. Hence my comments.

              No I’m not drunk… just a explorer.

              https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/drugs-in-our-drinking-water#1

          • Gezza

             /  January 4, 2019

            tenable or potable?

            • kluelis

               /  January 4, 2019

              @Gezza .Yeah Corks has been [deleted, don’t suggest substance abuse – PG] Chlorine blasts, water having memory? Tenable? Its not a poetry class Corks 🙂 🙂 🙂

  8. PartisanZ

     /  January 3, 2019

    “They did it first!!! They had their musket wars!!” is hardly a defense against the Pakeha invasion of Waikato and subsequent confiscations … outside of a kindergarten …

    Check out Britain’s ‘prior convictions’ … from the 1800s alone … TWELVE wars before or including 1840 … some of them quite BIG wars!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_British_Army_1800%E2%80%931899

    Likewise, “The musket wars had nothing to do with us! Not with us Pakeha. It was all between them” is pre-kindergarten emotional displacement and infantile reverse blaming … the stuff of thwarting stage …

    Yeah Right … Nothing to do with us … except for the fucken muskets & ammunition, the gunpowder and militarism … and the enviable phenomenon of Monarchy …

    • Gezza

       /  January 3, 2019

      Why did they want the muskets?

      • kluelis

         /  January 4, 2019

        Shoot possums 🙂

        • Pickled Possum

           /  January 4, 2019

          Oiiii!! Possums came to nz 1837 Humans had guns in those days to shoot other humans.

          • kluelis

             /  January 4, 2019

            @Pickled Possum. Oiiiiii. Yeah but what does more damage possums or humans.? I forgot Possums came from Aussie. so altogether Aussie Aussie Aussie oi oi oi.

    • Corky

       /  January 4, 2019

      Easy on, Parti. What you may not understand is the British government had to be petitioned
      many times by early Europeans to become involved with New Zealand governance. They had no interest in this backwater, contrary to the accepted belief Britain couldn’t wait to add NZ to their conquests.

      • kluelis

         /  January 4, 2019

        Meanwhile the people in England were living in abject poverty. What happened to charity begins at home?

        • Corky

           /  January 4, 2019

          Some people. And such a claim must be kept in context for the times.

        • Pink David

           /  January 4, 2019

          “Meanwhile the people in England were living in abject poverty.”

          At that time the people in England were the wealthiest human to have ever lived.

          • kluelis

             /  January 4, 2019

            @Pink David. In England in the 19C wealth was concentrated in the hands of no more than 2% of the population. 97% of the English were no better off than the Russian peasants. 97% were living in slums throwing their sh#t into the streets. Working in horrific sweat shops or 9 year olds doing 16 hours down mines. As late as 1937 the majority of the English were still living in horrible Victorian terraced housing slums. If life was so good why did so many emigrate?
            Need to take off those rose tinted glasses and smell the coffee or if in Victorian England smell the sh#t

            • PartisanZ

               /  January 4, 2019

              Pink David believes shipping ‘convicts’ to Botany Bay in chains for stealing a loaf of bread was the beginning of “the trickle-down effect” …

      • PartisanZ

         /  January 4, 2019

        @Corky – “Easy on Parti … blah, blah, blah … They [the British government] had no interest in this backwater, contrary to the accepted belief Britain couldn’t wait to add NZ to their conquests.”

        Pathetic attempt at “false equivalence revisionism” …

        Utterly irrelevant if we are talking about the Waikato Wars or indeed any of the Land Wars, which all happened AFTER Britain had declared her interest in “this backwater” by signing a Treaty with hapu iwi Maori …

        • Corky

           /  January 4, 2019

          ”Easy on Parti … blah, blah, blah …”

          You’re a vicious customer when riled ,Parti.

          However, you get a pass this time because there’s a question needing an honest answer down below.

    • kluelis

       /  January 4, 2019

      It is true that the arrival of the European to Aotea was an invasion. As they say the winners write history so of course the European victors after the invasion have coined European arrival as “settlement” and “colonization”. Killing the locals and stealing their land is called “civilization”. Abel Tasman “discovered” New Zealand…..except locals had discovered Aotea hundreds of years before. Same in Australia the white invadwes said the land was not populated so it was their’s for the taking. The black creatures walking on their hind legs were clearly not people they were a strange animal so could not be considered human and so had no claim to the land in fact they should be killed because well just because

      • Griff.

         /  January 4, 2019

        Killing the locals and stealing their land is called “civilization”.

        Number dead in inter tribal wars 1800 to 1835.
        25,000 to 50,000.
        Number dead both sides in the land wars 1840 to 1900.
        2,000.

        Who killed who again?

        • PartisanZ

           /  January 4, 2019

          Exactly the “false equivalence” Kemara is talking about …

  9. kluelis

     /  January 4, 2019

    @Griff. Numbers killed tribal wars 1523 – 1837 = 1,759. Official figure.
    Numbers killed in wars in England. 1523-1837 = 2,634,921. official figures.
    1641 -1867. European killed in war. in NZ. = 2,056. Official figure.
    Maori dead, war+ Pakeha diseases 1806 1890 = 60,494 Official figure.

  10. PartisanZ

     /  January 4, 2019

    How to make this really clear …?

    In pre-legalization days, if someone murdered a prostitute, the alleged murderer’s defense team couldn’t go to Court and argue, “But she was a prostitute Your Honour … She was a criminal … Look at all the crimes on her rap sheet … ”

    What comes next? “She deserved it”?

    • PartisanZ

       /  January 4, 2019

      That strong implication of “What comes next?” is the thing that defines NZCPR, Hobson’s Pledge and the *shitty* remainder [which shall go unnamed] as ‘anti-Maori race fear-and-hatred’ groups …

      • Gezza

         /  January 4, 2019

        I’ll ask again. Why did Ngapuhi want those muskets?

        • PartisanZ

           /  January 4, 2019

          Ah Gezza … your question is almost irrelevant … It points towards rather than asserts “false equivalence” …

          Who knows? Many may have wanted muskets primarily for hunting? Most may have seen their acquisition as a self-defence issue?

          Why did Europeans or anyone else want muskets? They could have stuck with bows & arrows, Right? Or slingshots? Or spears?

          You’ve avoided the point of my comment. What’s next? “They deserved it” …?

          • Gezza

             /  January 4, 2019

            Ah Gezza … your question is almost irrelevant … It points towards rather than asserts “false equivalence” …

            They wanted them in quantity so they could use them to conquer, colonise and enslave other nearby Maori nations, PZ. Nobody made them want to do that. They didn’t get the idea off Europeans because Europeans hadn’t enslaved them. There’s no false equivalence here. It’s straight out equivalence. They were doing what we human apes collectively do and have done for millenia.

            I don’t buy your attempts to blame the musket wars on Europeans. If Ngapuhi didn’t want to buy arms to conquer other tribes there wouldn’t have been a market for such quantities. That’s all.

            You’ve avoided the point of my comment. What’s next? “They deserved it” …?

            No, Maori didn’t deserve what happened next; it set off a round of musket wars between Northern tribes and displaced many. Some of those tribes then went on to commit other invasions & war crimes.

            And many Maori didn’t. And Maori didn’t deserve to subsequently have their land confiscated and cheated by settler governments. And these things are now being redressed through the Waitangi Tribunal and Treaty Settlement process. There will no doubt be issues that arise during these settlements where iwi and hapu iwi will have to sort out among themselves how they deal with land first nicked off other iwi.

            That’s all. People dredging up the wrongs of the past among Maori and blaming them all on Pakeha culture & history are just as blinkered as Pakeha blaming all Maori current ills on Maori culture & history.

            I hardly pay much attention to either these days. I’d rather focus on our achieving the best kind of future we can have together and support the Maori cultural & economic renaissance & the goodwill of those parties who have reached settlements and accepted Crown apologies.

            • PartisanZ

               /  January 4, 2019

              I’m not blaming the musket wars on Europeans. I’m saying Europeans influenced Maori significantly … in all sorts of ways … farming, industry, finance, single-rule of ‘Kingship’ …. including providing the means to make their formerly ‘skirmish’ hand-to-hand combat into deadly, lethal ‘warfare’ …

              But that’s not the point, hence it IS false equivalence … The musket wars is simply NOT THE POINT …

              The Grey-Whittaker-Russell inspired Waikato War was an invasion of the Kingitanga’s sovereign territory, pure and simple, a despicable betrayal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and a criminal act of war …

              “What was New Zealand to be? A Maori nation from which the Pakeha interlopers had been expelled? A nation with two flags – Queen Victoria’s and King Tawhaio’s – under which Maori and Pakeha communities peacefully pursued parallel paths of economic and social development? Or a Pakeha New Zealand, over which but one flag fluttered and a single Crown held sway?

              The tragedy of 1863 was that the middle course, the course that might have led to a truly bicultural nation, was eliminated.”

              – Chris Trotter ‘No Left Turn’ pgs 47-48

            • Gezza

               /  January 4, 2019

              What was the answer to be? We’ll never know the answer to that. Could two systems have run together? Were tikanga and kaupapa a universal code applying to all. Would individual iwi have continued to battle each other with weapons happily purchased off Europeans?

              …including providing the means to make their formerly ‘skirmish’ hand-to-hand combat into deadly, lethal ‘warfare’ …
              You’re romanticising, PZ. Pushing the line it was all pretty harmless when Maori attacked each other like there was some kind of schoolboy boxing code.

              Some local Kapiti history for you to read sometime.
              At the conclusion of the battle, the Ngāti Raukawa captives were escorted to various pā sites of Te Āti Awa. The consequences were horrific. 55 Ngāti Raukawa captives were escorted to Kenakena and Te Uruhi pā sites. It was there that the Puketapu and Otaraua chief Te Manutoheroa exclaimed:

              “If you had come during daylight and fought like men, this would not have happened!”

              The 55 captives were all executed. Accounts state that “It was like the breaking of calabashes”. However, the Te Āti Awa did not treat the deceased in the traditional fashion. The bodies were buried in a mass grave, but were afforded a Christian burial and acknowledged with military honours. Other Ngāti Raukawa captives were taken to other Te Āti Awa sites for imprisonment. Kaitoenga pā site, further inland of Arapawaiti and across from the vicinity of Ngāhuruhuru cultivation ground, was established by the Otaraua hapū and kept Ngāti Raukawa captives there until peace had been reached between Te Āti Awa and Ngāti Raukawa. The name, ‘Kaitoenga’, is representative of the manner in which the captives were held. The captives were considered to be ‘Scrap Food’, and were taunted as such. However, cannibalism did not take place as the shift from old practices and Christian influences began to take effect. Taewapirau, a Ngāti Kura communal area, and Upoko-te-Kaia, a Ngāti Mutunga pā site, have names that reflect the severity of the battle.
              http://teatiawakikapiti.co.nz/iwi-history/

              What happened, happened. 200 years ago. Now we have to deal with how things are today as best we all can and slagging each other off for historical wrongs as though current descendants are still to blame is wrong, whoever does it.

            • PartisanZ

               /  January 4, 2019

              Oh FFS Gezza … You’re talking about Te Kuititanga in 1839 … That’s AFTER Pakeha had provided the means to make formerly ‘skirmish’ battle into deadly, lethal warfare …

              You’ve proved my point exactly … So … Thanks … I guess …

            • Gezza

               /  January 4, 2019

              The 55 captives were all executed. Accounts state that “It was like the breaking of calabashes”

              Oh FFS yourself. That wasn’t something they learned off bloody Europeans. They did some awful bloody things to each other before and after Europeans arrived. Stop santising one bloody culture because you feel like a misfit in another.

            • PartisanZ

               /  January 4, 2019

              “Oh FFS Gezza” isn’t playing the man IMHO … just an impassioned response … but “stop sanitizing one culture because you feel like a misfit in another” certainly is ad hominem … A comment worthy of Corky …

              Don’t fucken tell me how I feel.

              “Tribal history is largely a story of intertribal warfare [I agree, hence I’m not “sanitizing” it] and, at the time at which written history begins, the whole aspect of warfare was about to be changed by the introduction of firearms and new methods of fighting. It is probable that in earlier times intertribal encounters were less serious affairs and that the number of fatalities was not very high. Moreover, the odds were more even in that combat was hand to hand; missiles were not greatly used and were not very effective.”

              In case you didn’t catch that it says, ” … changed by the introduction of firearms and new methods of fighting” …

              https://teara.govt.nz/en/1966/maori-tribal-history

              I suppose you could say you are addressing the topic, which is the confiscation of Waikato land by the Crown following the unjust war the Crown instigated and subsequent persistent “false equivalence” propaganda … by yourself continuing with the false equivalence propaganda …

            • Gezza

               /  January 4, 2019

              @ PZ
              I’m saying the whole “false equivalence” argument has got nothing to do with settling grievances in a manner that is appropriate TODAY, and doing so in the manner Kemara is suggesting isn’t going to happen because that’d never work. We need to work out what compromises are feasible & Kemara is a fringe activist dredging up history as it was, not as it is seen today.

              One only has to go onto Wikipedia to read far more accurate and balanced histories than those of the times he’s referring to. Nobody in their right mind denies history was biased towards a settler government viewpoint but it no longer is.

              History has moved on and is still being written to redress these grievances. Banging on about the past is unhelpful and divisive. Settlements include agreed & accepted apologies which acknowledge these wrongs & usually pledge a new beginning of relationships with the crown. Kemara probably never will.

              Don’t fucken tell me how I feel.
              There’s no need to me to. You constantly tell us. Tell me, what there is about Pakeha culture you actually like & agree with? I can’t recall you ever mentioning anything.

            • Corky

               /  January 4, 2019

              ‘There’s no need for me to. You constantly tell us. Tell me, what there is about Pakeha culture you actually like & agree with? I can’t recall you ever mentioning anything.”

              That’s the reason I blatantly take a biased view in favour of Pakeha during debates like this because the other view accepts no middle ground for reasonable debate.

            • PartisanZ

               /  January 4, 2019

              Gezza & Corky, you are now both playing the “any dissatisfaction implies complete renunciation” card … which is an oft used Rightie tactic and *CROC of Utter BullShit* …

              In a discussion about Waikato confiscations and persistent false equivalence propaganda I’m not required to state or explain to either of you the things I like about Pakeha culture … which happens to be PLENTY …

              Yesterday I got in my Pakeha car and drove down the Pakeha road to the Pakeha shop to buy a Pakeha newspaper and a Pakeha ice-block from the Pakeha freezer … and I enjoyed every minute of it …

              I didn’t, however, go for a swim in the [arguably] Maori whanga which has been horribly polluted by Pakeha methods of farming and forestry …

            • Gezza

               /  January 4, 2019

              You’re just at it again, proving my point – turning a farming practice into a racist slur. Don’t hand me that crock of shit, PZ. It’s not Pakeha methods of farming and forestry. It’s just the current methods of farming and forestry being practiced by farmers, including some Maori farmers or foresters, that are the problem.

              And both Pakeha and Maori farmers need to address that – and many are.

            • PartisanZ

               /  January 4, 2019

              Wow … If that’s a racist slur I dunno what planet you come from …

              It’s a racial comment … like Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a racial agreement … but not an inherently racist one. The farming and forestry methods we collectively follow are fundamentally those introduced and promulgated by Pakeha …

              Maori who don’t follow these practices are sometimes accused of sitting on “unproductive land” … which may be tending more towards a racist slur?

            • Gezza

               /  January 4, 2019

              Piffle, PZ.

              What’s a Pakeha car and how does it differ from a Maori car?
              What’s a Pakeha shop and how does it differ from a Maori shop?
              What are Pakeha ice creams and freezers and how do they differ from Maori ice creams and freezers?

              When you have got your head around the difference between things like buildings, and consumer farming methods, & consumer products manufactured, purchased and consumed by people the world over, of a myriad of ethnicities and races and nations – and culture

              can you then tell me, what there is about Pakeha (i.e. Western European) culture you actually like & agree with?

              I mean, instead of diverting off again into failing to sell anyone the idea that ordinary products of modern society like these are Pakeha culture – when they are owned by many Maori and which is utter bloody bollocks. Take your time. You may need to think about this one.

        • Pickled Possum

           /  January 4, 2019

          Ngapuhi wanted guns to rain terror over the east coast tribes that kicked them out of the bay of plenty and up to takou bay. Puhi was a mischief and lead his iwi up the creek without a hoe.