Talk:Waitara, New Zealand

Image permission

Permission for the two images on this page has been sent to the m:OTRS system. Grimhim 05:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Industry

I have reduced the size of this section a little, deleting some of the detail of Maori disadvantage, but retaining the overall significance of the loss of the meat works.

I'm not quite sure of the relevance of the material about the pollution of the reef, however: when were these Waitangi Tribunal hearings held and do these concerns still exist? I assume that it was recognised that though the works in general were good for the town, the pollution wasn't, but I'm a bit confused about the timing of the action against the pollution. If the hearings were held prior to the closure of the meat works, this section would be better treated more briefly and inserted higher, so it's dealt with before discussion on the closure.Grimhim 12:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oakura Massacre

Hi Blacky. This is what the killing of the soldiers at Oakura was called at the time ie a massacre. The killings took place at a time of peace when atruce was in force. They started with a Maori ambush.I believe only 1 or 2 soldiers survived so I think massacre is the correct term. Im not sure if prisoners were killed after being captured, as at the Wairau massacre, but this would be consistent with contemporary Maori tikanga. In combat the ratio of killed to wounded is about 3:1.There were no wounded in this ambush suggesting strongly that the wounded were killed. Ive not put that in the article as its speculation,with no hard facts,though more than likely. At the place where the massacre took place the road was on the beach. In those early days it was very common for roads to be on beaches-especially along the Taranaki coast. For Maori, the beaches were natural highways and the most commonly used "roads" in New Zealand. Roads as we know them today were almost non existent.See NZETC Oakura massacre,P 230.Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The term "massacre" is one you alone have created. It is an emotional, loaded term and a subjective one as well. "I think" is never a good basis on which to base an encyclopedia. Here is what the best sources say:

• Chapter 4 of the Waitangi Tribunal's Taranaki Report - Kaupapa Tuatahi uses the terms "assault" and "attack" and the authors comment, "The ambush, it will be noted, was against soldiers on Maori land. It could be said, in Maori terms, that the soldiers were in error, for they were caught where they should not have been, and that their trespass was a provocation. Indeed, it is likely that Maori saw the trespass on Maori land as more significant than the resumption of Omata. Even before the war, Maori had become acutely conscious of the need to maintain boundaries where Europeans were concerned, and to enforce recognition of their ownership, they had imposed a toll on Europeans crossing the area."
• Tony Sole's Ngati Ruanui (pg 245) calls it an ambush. No mention of massacre.
• New Zealand History Online[1] calls it an ambush and a killing. No mention of massacre.
• James Cowan (chapter 25) [2] calls it an ambush and a shooting. He says one dead officer was robbed of a chain, a watch and a ring. No mention of massacre. No mention of soldiers being killed after being captured. If your reference to "NZETC Oakura massacre,P 230" is to the Cowan book, you have misread it; the footnote is not about the Oakura ambush.
• James Belich (pg 119-120) calls it an ambush and a killing. No mention of massacre.

I have therefore again removed the word "massacre".

Cowan describes with some clarity the location of the ambush as being on a coastal track. It was not on a beach, which is a sandy expanse upon which waves roll in. I have again removed the word "beach." Please stop imposing your own speculations and interpretations on this article. BlackCab (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Blacbcob you are right! It wasn't a massacre in the source I used (but see below-Herald) -it was a slaughter.You are wrong about the beach though!"The road lay for considerable distance along the BEACH" and "an ambush was set up ON THE BEACH".Is there any real difference between a massacre and a slaughter ? Not much, if you are the person being killed. Who cares if the waves rolled in or not?? Note you have ignored the fact that a truce was in place,no matter where it took place . You dont just slaughter people from ambush because they walk on a beach even if you do "own" it. This is a brutal act of war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC) The New Herald refers to the event as a "barbarous massacre"Issue 869,27 Aug 1866.

There is nothing to be gained from the use of the terms "slaughter" or "massacre". They were ambushed, shot and killed. What is your aim by the use of these words? BlackCab (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have read the article you refer to the NZ Herald at this link. Are you seriously suggesting this one-sided piece of self-serving editorial propaganda, written by a European colonist for the entertainment of other European colonists, is an acceptable source for describing an act of war between colonists and Maori three years earlier? If this is the best you can come up with, you're getting pretty desperate. Just drop it. BlackCab (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Independent of the language we use, we should be moving the bulk of this historical content to First Taranaki War, New Zealand Wars, New Zealand land confiscations, etc. and only including relatively brief summaries on Waitara, New Zealand. The current historical sections are far too long for the rest of the content. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

There is certainly a place in the article for Waitara's history, but I agree it needs to be cut back in size. I'll do it soon. BlackCab (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I've cut out material that isn't directly relevant to Waitara. The history of war and confiscation is an important part of NZ history and Waitara figures prominently in the story of the land wars, so it should be covered well here. What remains now is not undue emphasis. BlackCab (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, thanks it's certainly better than it was. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Wiremu Kingi

An anonymous IP editor with a long history of agenda-pushing continues to add the mis-spelled phrase "after along absence" to the sentence that states that in 1848 Wiremu Kingi, who opposed the sale of land in the Waitara area, returned to the district from Waikanae to retake possession of the land. The phrase, being so vague, is meaningless, and it also has no obvious relevance, unless the editor is trying to make some obscure point, which I could only guess at. BlackCab (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Wiremu Kingi sold the land 1839

One of the puzzles of this article is that it fails to acknowledge a major historical fact. Maori sold vast areas of Taranaki to the Wakefields in 1839 for a planed settlement. Waitara was a small part of the area sold. Taranaki Maori were very keen to sell as the had been conquered by a long series of Waikato invasions. A large ammount of money was paid for the land. A deed of sale was drawn up and signed. The chief heading the sellers was one Wiremu Kingi,the same man who years later claimed Waitara as his. 115.188.178.77 (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The Waitangi Tribunal's Taranaki Report devoted much space to discussions on the validity of the Taranaki sales to the New Zealand Company and issues of whether the land had been abandoned or not. It discusses what appears to be a misunderstanding of the concept of land sales. William Wakefield could not speak Maori and relied on the trader Dicky Barrett, who acted as the agent for the Taranaki sales, as his translator: Barrett was later proven to have a very deficient grasp of Maori language, which would have added to the confusion. Additionally, the title deeds were written in legalistic language, starting with "Be it therefore known to all men, that the chiefs, whose names are signed to this deed, or instrument, have this day sold or parted with all our right, title and interest ..." The problems with the land sales were immense.

Patricia Burns (Fatal Success, pg 203) also notes that Wiremu Kingi signed the deed that purports to sell the whole of Taranaki plus more besides, but made no secret of his intention to return home. She quotes a note from Wakefield in which he wrote that the former posessors of Taranaki were very anxious for him to buy that area so that they could return home without fear of the Waikato tribes that had conquered and displaced them. Wakefield clearly had no intention of allowing Maori to return to the land he was buying in order to onsell to white settlers. BlackCab (TALK) 09:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Your comments are interesting but somewhat distorted. Barrett was the only person available at the time who spoke both Maori and English. He had been living with Maori and trading with them for 11 years. Moon has pointed out that Barrett's translations were very brief and cut out most of the legalise that Maori had no hope of understanding. Maori relied on what was said rather than what was written, their's was an almost entirely oral world. He was facilitating a willing buyer/ willing seller contract and he did it very well. Remember his Maori wife was the daughter of a chief from Kingi's tribe. Given this is one of the first land sales, Barrett and young Wakefield did a very good job. The key point is Wiremu Kingi was a willing seller. By 1839 Maori were very familiar with the ideas of buying and selling-they had been doing it through Barrett was a decade . As you say Kingi was keen to depart the area to avoid the bloodthirsty Waikato. The fact that they can "return home later" is irrelevant, Wakefield was still the buyer and the owner. Maori knew very well that you cant sell something and then take it back later! The last sentence is correct. In addition (a separate point) the Taranaki land and especially the Waitara land had been abandoned for years. Te Rauparaha abandoned his Ngati Toa Waikato land in 1821 -it was no longer his and it was divided up among other Waikato tribes. The only reason that Kingi could safely return to Waitara many years later was that the government had bought Waikato's (really Te Wherowhero's)interest. Te Wherowhero had vowed to slaughter them all if they tried to return -I think his words were "Taranaki are my slaves". This means that not only did the settlers own their land but the government had bought the overriding "sovereign"interest to the entire region. It is specially telling that when Kingi finally came face to face with government officials he refused point blank to confirm that the small parcel of land under question in Waitara was his. All he said was "he would kill anyone who tried to sell it". In other words he would resort to extreme violence ie kill the actual owner to demonstrate his mana or authority. The only reason the govt waffled was to avoid blood shed. The Treaty of Waitangi tribunal information is so distorted by the tribunals "rules" and by the highly partial POV of the chairman of the time (as opposed to NZ laws) that they cannot be taken seriously by historians. In addition: many of the Ngatiawa who did "return home later" were later AGAIN paid by the government-hundreds were paid a koha in recognition of their individual ownership of a parcel of land. Individual family and hapu accepted government payments which were not passed on to any "paramount" chief. 115.188.178.77 (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Michael King described Barrett's grasp of Maori language as "pidgin-Maori'; Angela Caughey's book on Dicky Barrett describes (p.134) Barrett's attempts to "stumble" through a translation of EJ Wakefield's very wordy sale deed, and both Caughey and Patricia Burns detail the Spain Land Commission's discovery that his translation of Maori produced wording that told the Maori vendors nothing at all. His translation of the deed at the Land Commission hearing produced words that were wildly at variance with the contract. In any case I can't at this stage find evidence that Barrett was on hand in Queen Charlotte Sound when Kingi signed the Taranaki deed on 8 November 1839. Just what he and the others understood of the deed is uncertain; but Burns' comment that he wanted to use the sale as a means to enable him to retake the land suggests a flawed understanding of the consequences of the sale. BlackCab (TALK) 09:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Kingi not at war after 1861??

Although the treaty tribunal "found" that this Taranaki warlord was not at war after 1861 clearly they were in error as it is well known that Kingi was involved in warlike acts with Rewi Maniapoto in early 1863-attacking and burning a government trade school,stealing a printing press and threatening to kidnap settler's wives and children around Te Awamutu. Wiremu Kingi was definitely at the early stages of the battle of Rangiriri in late 1863 but ran away when the gunboats started firing and never returned to support any of the later Waikato battles. When the king fell out with Maniapoto in the King Country because he wanted their land, the king even set out for Taranaki with his "royal entourage" but had second thoughts when he found Taranaki were not laying out the welcome mat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.178.77 (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The article relies, as you're aware, on published sources, so your disagreement with the tribunal's findings and your own observations aren't terribly relevant. BlackCab (TALK) 09:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

In this case the Waitangi tribunal -as is often the case , was obviously and clearly wrong. Many historians have commented on its use of flawed information that suit its partial POV. It is very well known -I think even Belich made passing reference to Kingi being at Rangiriri.Certainly Cowan did. The magistrate and Britsh agent in Te Awamatu -Gorst sent detailed reports to Grey about what was happening in the area and later wrote a detailed account of Kingis warlike involovement with Rewi in the Waikato. That makes 4- of which 3 are contemporaries who knew Kingi was at war.The tribunal can write what it likes(and frequently does!) but that doesn't actually changed what really happened.IT is not my opinion that the 115.188.178.77 (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have the time at the moment to check out whether you're right or wrong, but the tribunal's Taranaki report obviously qualifies as a reliable source. In any case I have amended that wording to make clear that that claim is sourced to the Waitangi Tribunal. BlackCab (TALK) 12:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

For wiki the tribunal is be a reliable source? I seriously doubt that! Historians have questioned how it operates. Its own rules are partial. Its purpose is prejudiced . Its Maori chair for 12 years has written one of its main purposes was to re write history from a Maori POV. Unfortunately it is true that the tribunal is incorrectly quoted as an authoritative source. What is never said is that it is a highly politicized organization with a racist POV.115.188.178.77 (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Claudia, your condemnation of the Waitangi Tribunal seems a bit over the top. It's debatable whether the ultimatum delivered to Gorst and the destruction of his printing press—which existed only to provoke local Maori anyway by printing a newspaper—was an act of war, and nor is his presence at Rangiriri before the battle a warlike act. The tribunal's conclusions about Kingi and other matters might be debated or disputed by some historians, but it would continue to be regarded as a reliable source on NZ and Maori history. Moreover, the wording has been amended so you seem to be frothing over nothing. BlackCab (TALK) 06:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)