Mike Moore has an op-ed in the Herald today:
Except for the past 18 months, this has been the most successful decade in economic history.
Also worthy of note was this intro to Paul Holmes’ column on Hone Harawira:
If a European Member of Parliament had railed against Maori motherf*****s raping the country through the centuries, the reaction would have been volcanic, not only in the Maori community but across the Pakeha community as well.
Setting aside Harawira’s use of foul language, the fact remains that Europeans did spend several centuries exploiting Maori (although I struggle to see how that justifies Harawira’s junket to Paris); Holmes’ counterfactual would make sense if Maori had spent several centuries exploiting Pakeha, but that never actually happened. It’s a bit weird that one of the country’s top journalists doesn’t know this though.
So, Mrs Lincoln, other than that how was the theatre?
Comment by Carol — November 17, 2009 @ 8:24 am
A review to Stalin: Except for the past 18 months, collectivization has been the most successful reforms in economic history.
Comment by Pat — November 17, 2009 @ 8:48 am
Well, Paul Holmes referred to the country, and there is an argument that Maori were not exactly kind to the New Zealand ecosystem in the years before James Cook turned up and discovered them. (There’s been quite a lot of research done into silt levels in rivers increasing as Maori got into deforestation.)
Just ask a moa!
Comment by Thomas Beagle — November 17, 2009 @ 8:59 am
Except for the past 18 months, Bernie Madoff’s investment scheme was one of the most successful in economic history.
Comment by Repton — November 17, 2009 @ 9:11 am
Except for the last 18 months, the last 18 months have been great for the All Blacks.
Comment by david c — November 17, 2009 @ 9:13 am
Several centuries?
How does one and (roughly) a half equal several centuries?
Please don’t just make stuff up about history because you don’t actually know anything about it.
Comment by Sean — November 17, 2009 @ 9:19 am
Paul Homes needs to be reminded at every opportunity that he called Kofi Annan a “Cheeky Darkie”, not once but twice on Radio. He should only be taken seriously when writing puff peices about RW politicians, otherwise his opinion is void.
Comment by andy — November 17, 2009 @ 9:43 am
you take that back
Comment by Graeme Edgeler — November 17, 2009 @ 10:08 am
“Several centuries? How does one and (roughly) a half equal several centuries? Please don’t just make stuff up about history because you don’t actually know anything about it.”
Cook arrived in New Zealand in 1769, and there was a further seventy years of fairly regular European contact before 1840 – so Europeans have been here for (at very least) 240 years, or 2.4 centuries, within a reasonable definition of “several”.
Although I suspect you’ll differ on whether this was 2.4 centuries of pure exploitation or not overall I’ll take Danyl’s historical knowledge over yours, thanks.
Comment by Sam Finnemore — November 17, 2009 @ 10:22 am
there is an argument that Maori were not exactly kind to the New Zealand ecosystem in the years before James Cook turned up and discovered them. (There’s been quite a lot of research done into silt levels in rivers increasing as Maori got into deforestation.)
I guess it’s only a matter of time before someone in ACT is justifying their junkets on the basis that Maori increased silt levels . . .
Comment by danylmc — November 17, 2009 @ 10:35 am
Calling Paul Holmes “one of the country’s top journalists” is a bit rich. Paul Holmes is an irritating drama major and talkshow host with a penchant for self-aggrandisation.
Comment by failbro — November 17, 2009 @ 11:10 am
Sure Sam, you can prefer Danyl’s comment, just like some people accept Gavin Menzie’s claims that the Chinese discovered New Zealand*. But here is the evidence for my position..
Firstly, Pakeha were peripheral to the events in New Zealand up until the signing of the Treaty. If you are trying to extend the influence of Pakeha colonisation back into the Musket Wars and beyond, you are really on very thin ice.
There was trade, notable flax for musketry, but at no point were any of the major players in New Zealand Pakeha before 1840. The decisions made, the actions taken in New Zealand were by Maori for Maori aims: the various Maori groups traded what they had for what they wanted, and used it the way they wished.
To postulate otherwise would be to say before 1840 individuals such as Hongi Hika, Te Rauparaha and Te Wherowhero were acting under Pakeha instruction. The opposite is demonstratively the case, a major example being the 1830 sailing of the ‘Elizabeth’ to Akaroa harbour. Captian Stewart was the skipper, but Te Rauparaha chartered the vessel for his own purposes.
Secondly, two and a half centuries aren’t several centuries; it’s a couple of centuries.
*And in doing so the Chinese introduced both Kumara and Sea-Otters to the country in the process – apparently, according to Menzie. Gavin Menzie “1421: the year China discovered the world” (2002) pages 173 and 398.
Comment by Sean — November 17, 2009 @ 11:18 am
Why would Members of the European Parliament have any view on Maori issues at all?
I’m still loving how the former member of the Waitangi Tribunal that sent Harawira an email saying he “was as bad as all these white mofos” is regaled a hero for exposing how Harawira claimed that white mofos were bad.
Comment by garethw — November 17, 2009 @ 11:20 am
two and a half centuries aren’t several centuries; it’s a couple of centuries.
This really is the crux of your argument here, it’s correct but also too trivial to engage with other than to note that I said ’several’ but meant ‘couple’.
Comment by danylmc — November 17, 2009 @ 11:33 am
Sean,
Firstly, Pakeha were peripheral to the events in New Zealand up until the signing of the Treaty. If you are trying to extend the influence of Pakeha colonisation back into the Musket Wars and beyond, you are really on very thin ice.
Do I really need to point out the smoking gun which makes this statement complete bollocks?
L
Comment by Lew — November 17, 2009 @ 11:46 am
Sure you have to point at the smoking gun Lew, that is why you put it in bold.
Muskets weren’t part of a Pakeha colonial policy prior to 1840. They were trade goods bartered for by Maori to further there own aims, used within the context their own society. Pakeha were looking for profit, nothing more, and seldom travelled beyond the immediate trading points into the interior of the Islands prior to the Treaty. Therefore, colonisation does not start with musket for flax trading.
Thanks Danyl, but it is not the crux of my argument. My argument is that to claim that contact does not automatically mean colonisation, the colonisation process does not start immediately. It requires a level of premeditative thought. the Dutch made contact with New Zealand, as did the French, and the Russians. But it was really the decision to include New Zealand into Britain’s sphere of influence that triggered colonisation.
Comment by Sean — November 17, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
The reason Mikaere isn’t in trouble is partly because “mofos” is less offensive than the MF-bomb, mostly because nobody cares about him, but also because he was referring to a fairly specific bunch of mofos. The context suggests Harawira was applying mofos to a pretty broad group of white people.
If Harawira wanted to be a hero, the conversation should’ve been:
Mikaere: “They say this cat Rodney Hide is a bad mother…”
Harawira: “Shut your mouth!”
Mikaere: “But I’m talking about Rodney!”
Harawira: “Then we can dig it.”
(Isaac Hayes: had a pretty good decade except for the past 18 months.)
Comment by bradluen — November 17, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
@Sean
Could the selling of muskets to the locals so they could kill each other be seen to have benefited Pakeha, thus being a form of stealth colonisation. Saying they were trade goods make them sound like begnin widgets that as an after though some sneaky bugger found they could kill people.
Comment by andy — November 17, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
It has been a wonderful couple of decades if you and me and him:
Comment by Clunking Fist — November 17, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
ask. Damn it.
Comment by Clunking Fist — November 17, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
“The reason Mikaere isn’t in trouble is partly because “mofos” is less offensive than the MF-bomb, mostly because nobody cares about him, but also because he was referring to a fairly specific bunch of mofos”
Agree with you, but you’ve gotta admit the first point is pretty semantic and in many ways the last one is worse than a generic statement. So it boils down to “he’s not a politician that we can go after”, i.e. nobody cares about him.
Comment by garethw — November 17, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
“Could the selling of muskets to the locals so they could kill each other be seen to have benefited Pakeha, thus being a form of stealth colonisation.”
It could of Andy, if it was a conscious thing, like supplying measles riddled blankets to Native American to kill proportion of the population. In this case though, the muskets were traded to Maori in exchange for flax because Australia was short on local workable fibres, and it was cheaper than going to India for them.
The Pakeha trading were doing it for the money they would get for their goods in Australia. Settling here was not a widely accepted option. To many in this period, New Zealand simply did not look like a great place to settle. Too wild.
Comment by Sean — November 17, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
Sean,
Trade can be a form of colonisation, regardless of the intent behind it. Chagnon’s exploita among the Ya̧nomamö are canon reference for this. It’s certainly much too glib to call a ’start date’ of 1840 — for one thing, the United Tribes of NZ declaration of 1835 was manufactured by Busby for largely his own — expressly colonial — purposes to establish a client proto-state friendly toward the Crown in an otherwise hostile nation.
Anyway, this is all irrelevant: you’re quibbling about a couple of dcades either way. It’s petty, and should be beneath debate.
L
Comment by Lew — November 17, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
This really is the crux of your argument here, it’s correct but also too trivial to engage with other than to note that I said ’several’ but meant ‘couple’.
No no Danyl, the entire point of your post about Paul Holmes is completely destroyed and undermined by the semantic decision as to several v couple. I mean, exploiting an indigenous race for 170 years is totally, absolutely different to doing it for 305 years.
Comment by garethw — November 17, 2009 @ 1:09 pm
I said ’several’ but meant ‘couple’.
And that’s the crux of it really. You have no idea what your writing.
Comment by MrTipsNZ — November 17, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
MrTipsNZ,
You have no idea what your writing.
Dear Mr Tips, it seems you lost a word there somewhere, leaving us on tenterhooks as to your meaning. He has no idea what his writing what?
If you’re going to quibble, at least do so competently. Sean at least managed that.
L
Comment by Lew — November 17, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
Thanks Lew, but I wasn’t quibbling over a couple of decades when I started, it was over centuries. And I’m not arguing that New Zealand was not colonised Garethw, or any moral aspect to the process, I’m just putting a frame on the time period.
Trade can be a form of colonisation no doubt, but I think it is false to suggest that trade is invariably linked colonisation. Colonisation needs trade, but trade does not need colonisation. If you look at British trade with the States of India, or China, you have patterns of permenant stations being formed supported by treaties and military force for use against the local population and foreign competitors. Trade and Colonisation.
In early 19th Century New Zealand the experience is different. For the first three decades of 19th Century the trade patterns was: ship arrives, captain does deal, loads hold with cargo, leaves. That’s just trade.
Those few Pakeha-Maori that settled in New Zealand in this period largely had nothing to go back to anywhere in the British Empire let alone the Australian colonies. So really, they were becoming Maori. As for the Missionaries, well until the 1830s they didn’t make much ground in conversions in New Zealand, their influence was low.
Comment by Sean — November 17, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
@Thomas Beagle,
“…there is an argument that Maori were not exactly kind to the New Zealand ecosystem in the years before James Cook turned up and discovered them. (There’s been quite a lot of research done into silt levels in rivers increasing as Maori got into deforestation.)”
I think it is fairly well established that Maori had a significant impact on NZ’s various ecosystems – they could hardly have done otherwise, given the (virtual) absence of mammalian life prior to the first waka’s arrival! See, for instance, http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/human-effects-on-the-environment/1
That said, it’s important not to exchange one myth (that of the “noble savage” Maori leaving no footprint on nature) for another (that of the rapacious hunter/burner “raping” the land with gay abandon). Maori had “several” centuries more than European settlers to acclimatize to NZ’s conditions/build up what we’d now call a “sustainablility ethos” around natural resources – hence customary rules on food gathering/land use/etc that settler culture trampled over out of ignorance/beliefs about cultural superiority/etc. This doesn’t make Maori “better” or “more worthy” as a people – it’s just that they have a deeper cultural kite to dig into on this matter. Indeed, you can see a lot of current issues NZ as a country is having to wrangle with (how to regulate water use/how to deal with greenhouse gasses/how to minimise dairy effluent/etc) as being a modern day variant of the problems Maori had to face (and responded to through various ethical/practical means) prior to colonisation.
Comment by Andrew Geddis — November 17, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
Thank you for your compliment Lew. As you see, I have quibbled on.
Comment by Sean — November 17, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
Sean, I think you’re drawing artificial and somewhat self-serving distinctions as to types of colonialism here, but I understand your position well enough.
L
Comment by Lew — November 17, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
Wow, what a discussion this one turned into; colonisation, how long Pakeha has exploited Maori and all.
Thanks Sean I enjoyed your comments.
For what it is worth “Setting aside Harawira’s use of foul language” Hariwira expressed the sentiment that he need not consider criticism for currently living Pakeha because currently living Pakeha is somehow to blame for historic injustice.
The response to Hariwira in this blog and elsewhere is “fair enough, we cannot argue with the historical facts” and supported by comments like “Europeans did spend several centuries exploiting Maori”.
But Hariwira is not arguing historical fact he is arguing the point that current living people is to some extent responsible for the action of people living decades and centuries past. And this responsibility for historic events gives rise to some debt being owed. It is this debt due him that is his justification for his actions.
I find the very idea of this view of a debt owing interesting since we cannot go back and re-write history and it therefore becomes an un-payable debt. No matter what you do it will always remain true that Europeans who lived in NZ took land of Maori who lived in NZ.
Pakeha seem almost eager to accept personal responsibility for the actions of just some other European that lived in some whaling station some centuries ago.
Interesting…
Comment by cj_nza — November 17, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
Thanks for that Lew, I of course don’t see these distinctions as artificial.
It would be artificial to clump events that occurred in the 1810s and 1820s (for example) with what happened in the 1860s and 1870s and declare everything was inevitable from day one. The grand flow of history argument.
Comment by Sean — November 17, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
@ Sean
“In early 19th Century New Zealand the experience is different. For the first three decades of 19th Century the trade patterns was: ship arrives, captain does deal, loads hold with cargo, leaves. That’s just trade.”
Let’s accept that the patterns of European/indigenous peoples contact in early 19th Century NZ and India/China were different in the way you describe. That my be interesting as a matter of historical divergence or comparison. But to what extent does it change moral responsibility/alter the question of “exploitation” (which is, after all, what Danyl was talking about … an evaluative and not descriptive criteria)? After all, does it matter that the European captains and their backers who dumped a bunch of guns into a society that had developed highly ritualised forms of warfare, thereby vastly increasing the kill-rate of such activity and undermining the balance of power between rival hapu, then sailed off into the wild blue yonder instead of setting up permanent camp? Or is the rationale “it was just trade” really sufficient to justify those effects? Yes, Maori wanted guns, but I’m sure Iran would love to buy nuclear weapons – and I don’t think a “willing seller/willing buyer” model would excuse such a transaction.
Put another way – the difference you appear to be pointing to is one of intent. In the case of India/China, European colonisation intended to alter the indigenous society in various ways. In the case of NZ, there was no such intent behind the activities of European traders (but there was reckless disregard for the consequences of their actions). Even if this difference is true, does it matter?
Comment by Andrew Geddis — November 17, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
And that’s the crux of it really. You have no idea what your writing.
You have no idea what you’re writing. I.e. you are.
Comment by George Darroch — November 17, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
Danyl this is just tailor made for the Dimpost:
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/drinking-liberally-phil-goff-on-the-sixth-labour-govt/
Comment by Pat — November 17, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
Andrew, thanks for fleshing out the argument I couldn’t make time for.
L
Comment by Lew — November 17, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
“Put another way – the difference you appear to be pointing to is one of intent. In the case of India/China, European colonisation intended to alter the indigenous society in various ways. In the case of NZ, there was no such intent behind the activities of European traders (but there was reckless disregard for the consequences of their actions). Even if this difference is true, does it matter?”
Kind of Andrew, because I feel there is need of a point where colonisation is defined, the existence of trade alone isn’t it.
I agree that the Musket Wars were a horrendous series of events, which had an underestimated and misunderstood impact on the country. I also agree that the traders were not acting in a moral way when delivering muskets, and services in exchange for cargo. Some acted against their nation’s laws. But Maori conducted the trade with whatever Pakeha trader would do it, nationality of the trader was not a factor, and they did so to meet their own aims. This is not necessarily colonisation.
Cook first navigated the New Zealand coast in 1769, there was no real drive to bring New Zealand into the empire until the 1830s, yet New Zealand was colonised by the British. To compare to Samoa, the British knew where that was also from the 18th Century, had missionaries there from the 1830s, but happily agreed for two other powers to occupy the Islands in 1899. Trade and missionaries do not in themselves equal colonisation: intent is the deciding issue.
Comment by Sean — November 17, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
FFS. By 1840 the English had given up colonising and had no interest in NZ. Maori, who have been exploiting the white man for centuries, were pushing for a deal with the English for some decades prior to 1840. In one of my old history books I have a list of 13 chiefs who wrote to the king as far back as 1820 seeking protection from the tribe of Marion (du Fresne, a French captain). The Maori did well from trading with all and sundry who ventured to these shores but were scared of the French. This is one of the main reasons we have a treaty. There are many examples of land being sold many times over for a good price each time. The Maori name for Mt Egmont was Haupapa. Maori medecine consisted of two remedies…… prayer and starvation, until the English botanists (like Joseph Banks) turned up. Etc, etc, etc. All this rewriting of history really gets up my nose.
Comment by johnbt — November 17, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
Johnbt,
In one of my old history books …
All this rewriting of history really gets up my nose.
I suggest you stop reading it, then, because it doesn’t seem to be doing you any good at all.
L
Comment by Lew — November 17, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
@Sean,
“This is not necessarily colonisation.”
Again, what we mean by “colonisation” may be different, depending upon the context in which we are using the term. As a matter of verifiable “historical fact” (‘tho I’m sure such terms make you shudder), we may ask whether or not the UK government (or other nations) had the desire/had the intention to bring “New Zealand” into the Empire as a colony in the early 19th Century, or whether it was content to turn a relatively blind eye to what its citizens were doing as traders in this country. That is an entirely valid use of the term “colonisation” as historical process, as compared to other processes/relationships that took place at that time.
However, Hone Harawira et al would probably argue that such matters of historical comparison aren’t that interesting or relevant in terms of what THEY mean by “colonisation”. Instead, they would say the relevant metric is what effect did the contact between Europeans and Maori have on Maori society … be it in the form of “traders” taking advantage of an inter-hapu arms race to profit, or land-agents seeking cheap land, or the Crown seeking to supress by law Maori customary beliefs. That may be “historically false” as an analysis, but it is what he’s interested in with respect to the relative position of Maori today.
All that said, I happen to think Harawira’s “white mofos raping our lands” simplicifications are all a bit reminiscent of Reg from Life of Brian: “But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?”
Comment by Andrew Geddis — November 17, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
It is difficult to date colonisation in NZ because it happened at different times in different places and by very different ways. The Missionairies in the Bay of Islands, The New Zealand Company in Wellington, The French at Akaroa. The British government
in Auckland.
Colonisation is not about trade, it’s about power and the imposition of an ideology.
Comment by Adhominem — November 17, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
Adhominem,
It is difficult to date colonisation in NZ because it happened at different times in different places and by very different ways.
Right on. Colonisation in NZ occurred at the iwi and hapū level — not coincidentally, the same means by which trade interaction took place.
Talking about “the Māori” is itself a colonial imposition — the term in collective reference to people is an invention of the Rev. Williams.
Colonisation is not about trade, it’s about power and the imposition of an ideology.
Because trade is ideologically neutral and has nothing to do with power, right?
L
Comment by Lew — November 17, 2009 @ 7:12 pm
@ Lew: I’ll have to think about that one. Especially when the trade involves guns.
Comment by Adhominem — November 17, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
Hey Andrew
Very thoughtful points, well made. I certainly haven’t said that introduction of the musket did not have a major negative impact on Maori. I’m just wary of anything being a seen as a process of history. It is a very sweeping concept that history has a process. It tends to suggest that you can view the past from the present and link events divided by decades as all being part of the one process. Where as the people at the time made their decisions for their reasons, not seeing themselves as part of a chain linked to the future.
In my experience, understanding the past with 20/20 hindsight can lead to strange conclusions. Inferring from results is dangerous, that’s way I set my bar at intent. I accept I’m rather alone in this.
Hello Lew
Can I answer that one Lew? Trade can be uneven, and bad for the buyer, and still not be related to enforcing of political power. The 19th Century Opium trade to China was detrimental to China, and it is seen as a form of colonisation. Colombian cocaine trade with the U.S. is detrimental to the U.S., and it isn’t seen as colonisation. But what is the difference? Extremely small numbers of Europeans settled in China to make revenue flow from China to themselves, extremely small numbers of Colombians making revenue flow from the US to themselves. The point of difference is that the States of the traders ultimately supported the 19th Century trade. The Colombian cocaine dealers don’t look to the Colombia’s support to enforce their product on the U.S.
Trade isn’t neutral sure, but it isn’t always colonialism.
Comment by Sean — November 18, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
Because trade is ideologically neutral and has nothing to do with power, right?
Technically; yes.
After all, you cannot actually force someone to trade with you per se – certainly not in an NZ early-european-settler context where, incidentally, the inhabitant Maori tribes would have been the ones with the ‘power’ – there has to be a percieved benefit to both sides.
Of course, the percieved benefit only has to be relative to alternative possible outcomes. Trading as loss-minimisation (eg; the ‘protected’ party in racketeering) is a legitimate trade strategy, but again that requires ‘power’.
Comment by Phil — November 18, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
What a civilised disagreement this has been.
Phil and Sean, the first part of my question was about ideological neutrality. Trade comes with ideological baggage, expressed through trade customs and norms. Property rights are not neutral; they have cultural valence. The negotiative process of is much more of a cultural undertaking than the simple exchange of value many (mostly objectivists, bless ‘em) would have you believe. This is why we employ diplomats (specialists in cross-cultural negotiation) in trade negotiations. Case in point with respect to Aotearoa is the treatment of land, misunderstandings around the trade value of which will persist until long after the current lifetime.
As to the question of power; Phil, your argument assumes simple bilateral trade, when in fact trade was more frequently a network of which a given settler group was only one node. Trade (especially in military hardware) is always political, because it alters power relations among different participants of the network, and in the case in point trade was conducted selectively with a view to establishing alliances and client-patron relationships of different kinds, and went hand-in-hand with other diplomatic and cultural forms of engagement such as intermarriage. Again: read about Chagnon’s control of the supply of machetes and other steel goods among the Ya̧nomamö.
European involvement in existing indigenous trade and diplomatic networks can be colonialist, and in Aotearoa they were for two broad reasons: because the power rapidly shifted from which group had muskets to which had the best relationships with the sources of muskets; and because the resulting chaos of the Musket Wars, and the weakening of the pre-existent diplomatic networks and alliances made NZ more vulnerable than it might otherwise have been to outright colonialism by military means. In fact, Hobson and others took very careful advantage of these factors in the eventual colonisation of NZ.
L
Comment by Lew — November 18, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
[...] many around here (based on this kind of logic), but plenty of folks are mightily peeved by Hone’s words, and his direct attack on Goff [...]
Pingback by Conspiracies and race-cards « Life and Politics — November 20, 2009 @ 10:19 pm