Focus on ability of Maori to make peace, not to kill
In 1840 the ahika¯roa (long burning fires) of native sovereignty were still burning in Taranaki.
Despite the ravages of The Musket Wars (Nga¯ Pakanga o te Pu¯, 1818-1834) the narrative of an empty land is a myth. Unfortunately I’ve read far too many articles and letters in this newspaper where the Musket Wars are used to support the paternalistic argument that Ma¯ori needed saving from themselves. Which is a large part of the reason I decided to start writing this column.
In August I wrote about the Land Wars and the government’s announcement of a possible commemoration day. According to a letter by Mr Bruce Moon of Nelson, ‘‘Dennis Nga¯whare overstates his case and is wrong in several respects’’.
When I was asked to contribute a column to the Taranaki Daily News, I agreed on the condition that I could write about tribal history and tikanga (cultural practices) from a Taranaki Tu¯turu perspective.
As a scholar, historian and a kaiako (teacher) I reckon I know a few things about Taranaki tribal history. Fortunately I also have a column to respond to critics whom I strongly disagree with.
The Musket Wars saw multiple ope taua¯ (war parties) invading the Taranaki region, mass movement of refugees and unprecedented death and destruction. War generally does that. If we look at Syria, we witness the seemingly endless cycle of violence that humanity perpetuates upon itself.
Perhaps the first major engagement of the Musket Wars in Taranaki was at Tataraimaka Pa¯ (south of Oakura), the stronghold of Nga¯ Mahanga and Taranaki Tu¯turu.
Nga¯ti Toa, Nga¯ti Whatua and Nga¯ Puhi had tricked their way into the heart of the rohe and attacked the pa¯. Those of Nga¯ Mahanga present who didn’t die were taken as slaves to Kawhia, Kaipara and Hokianga.
Between 1818 and 1831 there were multiple incursions by northern iwi, and many defeats of the Taranaki tribes. The fall of Pukerangiora Pa¯ in 1831 to Waikato iwi was perhaps the most brutal of the battles and in the devastating aftermath are stories to make the heart weep.
Regrettably some correspondents use Pukerangiora as justification for the inherent savagery of Ma¯ori. But consider that during the same period in Europe the continent was racked by the Napoleonic Wars, the Portuguese Civil War, the French July Revolution and ongoing conflict between the Russian and Ottoman empires.
If we base judgement on the worth of a people on their capability for violence, then Ma¯ori are certainly overwhelmed by the competence of Europeans in the nineteenth century. Perhaps instead of focusing on the art of killing we consider instead the ability to make peace.
In 1833-1834, Waikato and Potatau Te Wherowhero invaded Taranaki again. At Te Namu (Opunake) and Orangituapeka (Kapuni) the Waikato war party were defeated under the leadership of Te Matakatea and Ngatairakaunui (Taranaki iwi) and Titokowaru senior (Nga¯ Ruahine iwi).
According to Te Ka¯hui Kararehe (in S. Percy Smith, 1910) Te Wherowhero declared, ‘‘This is my final peacemaking; I have ended – ended for ever; and shall return at once and not come back. Your lands remain with you on account of your prowess. Were I to fight again after this my arm would be broken under the shining sun.’’ This statement refutes the claim that Taranaki sovereignty was extinguished by Waikato. This peace has stood unbroken since 1834.
In 1839-1840 early Europeans only noted a few people at Ngamotu, but then just because they didn’t see people doesn’t mean they weren’t there. While many refugees had fled to the Wellington region to seek shelter for their wha¯nau, people and hapu¯ had been left in Taranaki to keep the fires burning and thereby retain mana whenua (ownership).
A good historian should visit the places he writes about and learn the history from the descendants. I have walked in Tataraimaka and Pukerangiora, respecting the mauri (energy) of those places while acknowledging the many who died there.
It offends me when these wa¯hi tapu are abused, whether by written word or act of vandalism. When individuals wield history like a weapon to support the ideology of marginalisation of indigenous realities the informed have a responsibility to speak out.
At the end of the day history is only a viewpoint, and although my opinions are informed by my research, I have also listened to my elders. Is what I write the truth of history, or merely a perspective? Ultimately who knows because the only witness still standing is the maunga (mountain).