Talk:New Zealand Wars

Page One

I would prefer a more detailed and fact filled account of the lead up to the wars. In particular some detail about the whole sorry history of the wairau land purchases would be nice. Hawthorn

Hello again Hawthorn, I tend to agree with you and if no on else does it I will try and do something later, right now I dont feel qualified. So far as the Wairau massacre goes I think the best way to tackle that would be an article on the Wakefields and the New Zealand Company, their cavalier attitude towards the Tangata whenua created the situation. That was why I left out so much of the background. The First War wasn't about land at all, as much as anything it was because Hone Heke was pissed off with FitzRoy moving the capital to Auckland plus some serious stiring by the American consul. Cheers Ping 11:06 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Oh, and 210.54.126.174 - they always turn out longer than anticipated! Sort of a law of nature, I think. Possibly the same law that says if you buy three bags of cement to concrete a path, you'll have to go back to the timber yard twice more to buy extra. And you finish it three weeks after the day you promised your Significant Other it would be ready. :) Tannin

It's still coming, geting longer and longer and this is only the first war, However I know the last war, the Dog Tax War will be very short because it only lasted one afernoon. Ping aka 210.54.126.174

modern NZ history

It's going well, Ping. I know very little of modern NZ history (bar what I've learned from this page), but if I may suggest something, I think the entry could use some background, so that we can see not just what happened but why it happened. What was the attitude of the settlers in general? Were the military authorities in their offices in ... er ... wherever they had their offices ... reluctant? Gung ho? At the end of the wars (when you get to that bit), did things settle down quickly? Or were there festering resentments that went on for years/decades?

Not a violent and primitive nature

Also, I know it's an entire different subject in itself, but one of the few things I do know about the Maori is that their incessant wars with one another were not caused by a "violent and primitive nature" (as Captain Cook no doubt liked to think) but by their economic circumstances: lots of people, and very little to eat. In particular, a severe shortage of protein. When the Maori first arrived from further north, they brought the standard Polynesian "package" of crops, none of which were really suited to the relatively cold climate of NZ, especially not the South Island. To begin with, this was no problem: they were rew in number and there was any amount of animal protein to be had for the taking. But as the population grew, they wiped out the various Moa species, and a few others as well, and not having cold climate crops like (e.g) wheat or barley, ran into a severe protein shortage, making human meat highly desirable. As I said, this is a matter for a seperate article, but I think a brief mention of it should be worked in somewhere. Otherwise, it's too easy to see the Maori as just "mad savages".

Tannin 11:23 Apr 2, 2003 (UTC)

While a shortage of protein might help explain the cannabalism, I don't think for example that the musket wars were caused simply by the desire for a good feed. It would be wrong to portray the maori of the time as essentially peaceful people driven to war purely by a shortage of protein. There was an undoubted enthusiasm for war and battle within the culture, a glorification of combat which was not unique to maori and which the British of the time also shared. Which may explain why they generally got on so well - when they weren't busy killing each other that is.

Hawthorn

Thanks Tannin. Fair comment and I will think about how to do that. The Flag Pole still gets chopped down from time to time, 1974 was the last time I think. I hope the way I described the last siege ending goes some way towardds giving a better picture of the Maori. Basically it was two very different cultures that simply did not understand each other backed up by a fair degree of arrogance on both sides. I don't think protein was short for the coastal Maori as there was abundant sea food. The canabalism was largely ritual ,by eating your enemy you aquired his strengths. I suspect, although almost no one agrees with me, that the tribal wars were an important form of population control

First Maori War

I have rewrtten Maori Wars as a very brief summary, one that still needs a lot of work and expansion. The First Maori War I have redirected to stand as an article in its own right as perhaps should the accounts of the other NZ wars if and when their articles appear appear. I see this aa an ongoing projest unless someone else wants to take over Ping 08:21 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

No no. You go right ahead, Ping. You are doing great. I'll come along and do my customary copyediting thing a little later. (I'm knee deep in bird taxonomy right now.) There is no need to have the entire project finished too fast. Anytime before ... oh ... about Wednesday will be fine. :) Tannin

which wednesday of 2005 did you have in mind?Ping 09:17 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

Article name "Maori Wars", "New Zealand Wars" etc

I'm very surprised to see the Anglo-centric title of this article. It was common for the Brits to name wars after the people on the other side but those days are past. I propose changing the title to New Zealand Wars. Nurg 07:25, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK. ping 06:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

They are now in a category with the more neutral term [:Category: New Zealand land wars]]. "New Zealand wars" could be confusing for people from overseas, who might assume it was wars involving NZ. "Maori Wars" is definitely a dated name for them, though. Grutness 06:43, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm only an Aussie :-), but how about "Anglo-Maori Wars" as a suggestion, since Australasian colonials generally regraded themselves as "British" at the time? Grant65 (Talk) 16:16, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Try telling the people in this part of New Zealand that their British ancestors were "Anglo" and see how far you get! On a more serious note, why give it a name that no-one uses? There are three names by which the conflict was known: Maori wars, New Zealand Wars, and New Zealand land wars. The last of these seems the least ambiguous and most even-handed. Grutness (in the deep Scottish south).

With a redirect from Aoteroa land wars to be truly PC perhaps? ;-) Methinks the Gaelo-Kiwis do protest too much... Seriously, wouldn't "British-Maori wars" be more descriptive? Grant65 (Talk) 02:30, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

No because 1. That ignores and also serves to hide the Maori participation on both sides. In the latter wars the majority of the fighting was done by Maori fighting on behalf of themselves and the NZ Government. 2 During the Second Taranaki War the British wiithdrew and refused to participate any furhter. The latter wars involved the NZ Government as a protagonist not the British Colonial Office. ping 07:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's neither here nor there that there were Maori fighting Maori. For example, there were also Chinese people fighting for Japan in the Sino-Japanese war and, as I said before, Australasian colonials — unless they were member of minorities like Irish Catholics etc — generally saw themselves as "British" at the time. Grant65 (Talk) 14:07, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

I'll weigh in with my opinion, FWIW. If the article is to be renamed, the already familiar "New Zealand land wars" is much preferred to inventing some new name. Follows WP naming conventions of using the most familiar name. older≠wiser 15:43, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. ping 07:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This discussion fizzled out without any conclusion being reached. Does anyone have any major objection if I rename the article to "New Zealand land wars", which seems to be the most accepted name. I'll leave a redirect from "Maori Wars", and anyone can create any other redirects they wish to, within reason.-gadfium 08:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've renamed it.-gadfium 09:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

fine ping 07:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hate to restart an old argument here, but can I suggest that the word 'Land' be removed from the title. This isn't a personal thing, but James Belich and Micheal King (the two pre-eminent New Zealand historians) have both stated their belief to be that the wars should be referred to as the New Zealand wars, along with the Ringatu religion, founded by Te Kooti (one of the Maori leaders).

I agree - it is misleading to suggest that land was the sole issue (sovereignty and governance were, if not equally important, certainly major issues) - it's like saying that the American Civil War was about slavery, accurate in what it affirms but inaccurate in what it omits.

MikeRM

The problem is that two names are needed for the same series of conflicts. We need one name for use here in NZ, an appropriate PC name that is accurate without offending any one. But we also need a name that tells the rest of the world what the hell we are talking about. New Zealand Wars is bland and uninformative; New Zealand Land Wars is closer to what the conflicts were about but not wholly accurate. Similarly Maori Wars could also mean the Musket Wars but is assumed by most of the world, and many people in NZ to mean exactly these conflicts.

Ask yourself, 'what is the purpose of a title?'. If, as I believe, it is to lead people into the article then the article can be relied upon to correct any misconceptions created by the title. A title should be able to tell as many people as possible what the article is about. Not exactly what the article is about but approximately so. ping 07:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree all titles are less than ideal - to be honest associating conflicts of the 1840s with those of the 1860s seems to me inappropriate as well - but I do think the New Zealand Land Wars is misleading - land was not the central issue for many combatants in many actions. I feel if they are to be all combined in one section, New Zealand Wars is appropriate and I don't think the title would confuse strangers to the subject. After all, people are not confused about the Battle of Britain, even though it was hardly the only battle in Britian. If further qualification is needed, perhaps it could take the forms of dates or a list of the separate conflicts, rather than an overly simplistic assertion of causation. Winstonwolfe 01:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm on the side of New Zealand Wars. This is increasingly what they are called, "land" and "Maori" are misleading. Ping I understand your point of view but surely if that was the case this article should be called "Nicky Watson Naked Wars" to lead people in and then we could correct their misapprehensions in the article. Accuracy of title is important or people will be prejudiced about what the article will contain. NZ forever 03:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that "New Zealand Wars" is preferable. For instance, see the section of the NZ Electronic Text Centre's site, where they are called that, and also in the "New Zealand Wars" website [1] and in the Min of Culture and Heritage's "NZHistory" site [2], and also throughout Te Ara [3]. I could go on and on, but essentially it's clear that "The New Zealand Wars" is _the_ term in current use. Perhaps the term could be said to be "bland and uninformative", but so what? at least it's not misleading as "NZ Land Wars" is. In any case, the purpose of the title is to accurately and concisely label the article, rather than to inform - that's the purpose of the article itself. Cheers! Con

I hate to wade in on this but the total casualty figures mean the conflict(s) scarely merit the title 'war'; four decades of conflict in NZ amounted to no more than a couple of hours of a single major battle in, say, the American Civil War. It is almost worth renaming them the New Zealand Insurgencies or similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.209.123 (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. The American Civil War pales in comparison to a single theatre in the Second Sino-Japanese War, in terms of casualties. So what? The American Civil War and the NZ Wars were quite similar in terms of the proportion of the population involved in fighting, and had equally important effects on the histories of their respective countries. Also, the definition given in our war article says nothing about the size of the conflict. -- Avenue (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't even need to go that far. The forces involved in the Waikato War alone were as large as those in the Great Sioux War, with Rangiriri being a battle on the scale of Little Bighorn. So even in comparison to some famous U.S. wars, the New Zealand Wars are wars. Rwestera (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This article should be renamed "The New Zealand Wars". That's how they're referred to by the NZ Army [4] and others as mentioned a few paragraphs earlier -- TimClicks (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The army huh! Sanitises the reality a bit, doesn't it. Like, can you imagine the army admitting "most of our first wars against the New Zealanders were fought because they were trying to protect their lands from Europeans." An article about wars over land without the word "land" in the title would be half-pied indeed. Moriori (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Gate Pa

Gate Pa has had a a possible copyright infringement template put on in. Unfortunatly the article was a word for copy of this site http://history-nz.org/wars4.html. Could someone who is editing the New Zealand land wars please nock up a paragraph or two for that article to replace the copyright infringement template? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It might be best to merge the article on Gate Pa with the Tauranga Campaign. Or make it a straight forward Redirect. ping 08:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"Notorious"

The passage

There were a few Pākehā who fought for Māori; not many, but .... Perhaps the most notorious was Kimball Bent, who acted as Titokowaru's armourer and later became a noted tohunga (priest).

strikes me as very, very POV. (The other use of "notorious" seems OK to me though.) May I suggest "famous" instead? (Or even just "best known".) Petrouchka 03:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've chosen "well-known" as a neutral descriptor. --Tirana 23:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Citations

This reads a little like one of 'grandpa's tall stories' told around a fireplace, can we get some citations in, just where is this information coming from? 124.178.67.250 15:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Which bits seem implausable to you? Virtually everything that's been tagged 'sources needed' is in Belich's New Zealand Wars. I would put footnotes in myself, but I don't have a copy close to hand. --Helenalex 05:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem stems from the fact no references are given - the reader doesn't know if this is from books or written from an editors own knowledge and recollection. Anything used should at least be put in a references section, though citations are ideal. Richard001 05:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

With 19 further reading references and 7 external sources, it shouldn't be too hard to get some references. The 'citation needed' tag is being used far too excessively though, as a trivial reading of the history would indicate (ie. Belich's New Zealand Wars as Helenalex stated). This article is accurate without the excessive tags, but some references won't hurt. As I'm not an authority on NZ history, just having a passing interest I can't chase up most of these sources but I've made a start with what I could find.Nazlfrag 04:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well one problem is that Belich is not an original source but an interpretation, and a fairly tendentious one at that. Things like the supposed comparison with the bombardment on the Somme is a bit far fetched:

"One authority calculated that Gate Pa absorbed in one day a greater weight of explosives per square metre than did the German trenches in the week-long bombardment leading up to the Battle of the Somme."

This sort of point worthless without discussing the type of shells for a start (explosives of different types on the Somme, many of which didn't work because of manufacturing problems, etc etc). Best to leave that out I would have thought. It is a non-stat. You could say the same about just about any occasion when a single cannon fired on one fixed position.

http://cricketandcivilisation.blogspot.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.209.185 (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What is intended?

A recent edit left us with "early colonial land-sale deals had had a dubious basis, and the parties involved sometimes concluded sales before the signing of the Treaty". Because this particular par is about the treaty in relations to land sales, the word "early" should be earlier. But that's not my point, which is, is it intended that the second part of the sentence is trying to say some sales were rushed through to be fait accompli before the treaty signing? I'm not sure, so won't change anything before getting comment. Moriori 01:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

This article could do with a timeline - either as part of the article or as a separate article. I don't know enough about the NZ wars to be able to write such an article, but if there's anyone out there that does, it'd be very useful... Grutness...wha? 21:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

New page Battle of Battle Hill in need of first aid

Perhaps a knowledable editor here could apply some first aid to this article, or at least come with a savy assessment of whether the article should survive or not (was PRODded recently). thanks. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Timeline

A knowlegable informant would be of major use in creating a time line here (14:12, 3,April, 2010) jarram11.PS happy easter everbody jarram11--24.94.244.221 (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Article assessment

The article had been assessed as B class. I've dropped this back to C class - it can't be B class when inline citations are missing. Inline referencing should be a priority for editors interested in this subject. WP:CITE shows how it's done. And Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Assessment gives background to assessment if anybody is interested. I'm sure that with a bit of effort, this article could reach GA class. Schwede66 20:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I've dropped it back to start class now. It really needs inline citations. Given that it's such an important NZ topic, there's be lots of people who know the history well, have read some of the books given in the reference list, and could make this a rainy Sunday project. Schwede66 07:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Underway... --Lholden (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors -keep up to date with your history

Since 2005 there have been significant leaps forward in out understanding of Nz's early history.Information from the treaty office has allowed historians to more accurately report what actually happened rather than repeat many of the history myths that passed as facts.Also NZETC is a wonderful source for revealing many of the subtle points.I think it is fair to say that originally most of this article reflected the old myths that are simply not true ,though still passing as truth in some quarters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.153.162 (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Modern Maori myths

• Myth 1-Maori had all their land stolen by the government.No they didnt-about 90% including all the South Island was freely sold.In 1863 after a fair warning was given that land would be confiscated -before the war against the kingitanga started.Kingitanga were given ample opportunity to show their committment to peace but refused to swear oath of allegaince to the crown and refused to surrender weapons.
• Myth2 -The Government started the war in the Waikato.-no they didnt-Manaipopto ambushed and killed soldiers in Taranaki well after the end of the 1st Taranaki war.Maniapoto then tried to kill the missionary Gorst at Te Awamutu.Then they burnt down the staion and stole the press.THen they threatened all the other settlers that they would be killed if they stayed.
• Myth 3 The Waikato was not part of NZ.In 1840 4 chiefs the Treaty signed.Te Whero Whero who was living at Manakau didnt sign -saying he was insulted by the lack of gifts.The agents refused to bribe him.
• Myth 4 Kingitanga never threatened Auckland.Kingtanga murdered about 15 settlers on farms around the fringe of Auckland.In addition there were about 10 battles fought in Auckland such as the one at East Pukekohe.The army was forced to construct about 12 stockades in Auckland to defend the city.During one reconaissance the bush rangers found a secret hidden Kingitanga forward military base in the hills SE of Auckland designed to hold 1500 warriors.
• Myth 5 The rebels were superior fighters.No they werent.Kingitanga prefered to murder unarmed settlers.In the battle at Camerontown they relied on treatchery.At East Pukekohe they were annihilated.In the lower Waikato they were consistently outsmarted.
• Myth 6 Orakau was a kingitanga tiumph.No it wasnt -it was their death knell.They selected a terrible site too small to take all the defenders,with no water,overlooked from a hill,with very litle food or ammunition.The Ake Ake speech was not made by Rewi and only 2 hours after saying they would fight on for ever, they all ran away.
• Myth 7 The Battle at Rangiowhia was unfair because the village was neutral.2 loyal Maori guided the army past the rebels Pa so the army could capture their supply base.When called on to surrender villagers fired at the soldiers from whare which were partly built in the ground, setting fire to the dry vegetation in the huts.They continued to shoot at the soldiers.Soldiers did not set fire to the church-it was still standing many years later.The village was the main base for the Maniapoto kingitanga.
• Myth 8 Cameron was a poor General.In fact his campaign in the Waikato could not be faulted-it is a model of how to fight a maori rebel force.
• Myth 9 W Tamehana was a peaceloving man.Possibly he was but only on his terms.He wrote a series of letters to Grey in 1862-63 which were interpreted as theatening Auckland .It is interesting that he appears to have sold land to settlers at both Morrinsville and Matamata.It is clear the rebel warriors thought he was a dim wit when it came to war.

Any more myths?

Claudia Feb 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.33.244 (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)