Change in Public Attitudes (Perspectives)
To fully uncover the effect of the Invasion of New Zealand society can be seen in the change in public attitudes. New Zealanders living at the time of the Invasion would hold different attitudes towards the Invasion and the settlement itself in comparison to modern day New Zealanders of the twenty-first century. Further study can be undertaken of the attitudes and perspectives of historians to uncover the effect of the Invasion on New Zealand society.
New Zealand historians are prominent figures that lead and voice their perspectives on the Invasion through their published works. Many historians write about debates of the Invasion and of the settlement itself. These key debates combined with the perspectives of the historians reveal a change in public attitudes on a whole.
Two heavily contested and disputed debates about the Parihaka settlement concern the nature of the settlement as a model community and the nature of the techniques used as protest methods- passive or violent. Two prominent historians who argue these two debates are Kerry Bolton (The Parihaka Cult, 2012) and Hazel Riseborough (Days of Darkness, 1989). New Zealand historians who support or contradict such findings are Dick Scott (Ask that Mountain, 1975), Virginia Winder (The Plunder of Parihaka, 2003), Michael King (Penguin History of New Zealand, 2003), James Belich (Making Peoples, 1986), James Cowan and M.P.K. Sorrenson (Oxford History of New Zealand, 1981).
From a historians perspective, I will be analysing the change in perspectives over time through historical writings on these two debates. I will make informed conclusions while at the same time accepting the perspectives of other New Zealanders and historians.
Debate 1
One debate that is contested is the nature of the techniques used as protest methods- passive or violent. Bolton holds the perspective that Parihaka Maori used and advocated violence and the nature of the techniques were violent. Bolton thinks Parihaka Maori were not passively resisting the European settlers. Riseborough holds the perspective that Parihaka Maori carried out ‘very active resistance, although pacific in nature’ towards the European settlers. Riseborough does not believe the techniques used were violent.
In Chapter VII ‘Passive but Bounceable’ of The Parihaka Cult, 2012, Bolton’s focus is to identify his perspective and to argue that the protest methods used were not passive resistance. Bolton clearly identifies his perspective; such incidences indicate the belligerent nature behind the façade of passive resistance. Bolton hints that the methods of protest used were perhaps ‘hidden’ under the prophetic leadership of Te Whiti. Bolton supports this idea by arguing of the ‘comparisons made (of Te Whiti) to other modern liberal icons such as Mandela, Gandhi and Martin Luther King’. Bolton is suggesting that because other historians have compared Te Whiti to these modern icons he is now linked to these men with the idea that Te Whiti advocated for the rights of the ‘less superior’ race, in New Zealand, which were Maori. Mandela and King advocated for the civil rights of black skinned people during the 1960s in America and the 1990s in South Africa (apartheid). Black skinned people were the ‘less superior race’ in these countries and due to the leaders advocating, they became icons. Tom Brooking, The History of New Zealand, 2004, introduced this idea of the nature of techniques used at Parihaka; ‘Te Whiti counseled peace and began to use techniques of non-violent resistance long before Mahatma Gandhi did’. Ghandi pioneered the philosophy of Satyagraha, a form of non- violent civil disobedience becoming a major spiritual and political leader of his time. Ghandi was an anti-war activist and the leader of the Indian independence movement during the 1920s. Ghandi also lived in a self-sufficient community and spoke on issues in the same religious rhymtic prose as Te Whiti; “my faith is brightest in the midst of impenetratable darkness.” The significance of Brooking identifying this perspective was to elevate Te Whiti’s historical significance by comparing him to these iconic men but most especially to Gandhi.
Riseborough’s writes with a sympathetic agenda towards Maori and holds the perspective that the protest actions used by Parihaka Maori were not violent in nature, contrary to the perspective of Bolton. Riseborough believes that Maori actively undertook a passive resistance stance towards the European settlers. Riseborough argues her perspective in her book Days of Darkness, 1989. Riseborough clearly identifies her perspective; the injustice done to the Taranaki people stemmed more from a determination to force Maori to submit to European law and admit to European supremacy than from a greed for land. Riseborough has revealed to the reader that she will argue and focus on the injustices felt by Maori, therefore revealing her stance as ‘pro-Maori’. Riseborough brings about the issue of injustice which is a key aspect of the debate. From a historian’s perspective, I can conclude that Riseborough is probably more biased towards Maori. Riseborough hints that the reason Maori felt a sense of injustice was because they were forced to admit they were the ‘less superior’ race and hints at the idea of Eurocentrism and social Darwinism. Riseborough would believe that this reasoning, of Europeans, was not principled and not fair to Maori. Another historian who shares a similar perspective is M.P.K Sorrenson, author of the Maori and Pakeha chapter in the Oxford History of New Zealand, 1981. Sorrenson identifies his perspective; ‘It was a demonstration of military muscle- of the willingness of the Pakeha to use for to facilitate the colonization of the North Island’. Sorrenson takes a more militarial stance on the issue and suggests that Maori were not the violent but it was Pakeha who were violent and used force. Sorrenson also argues that the underlying motivation of Pakeha was to colonise New Zealand; in this sense specific areas of the North Island. James Cowan supports Sorrenson’s perspective; ‘there were demonstrations of military force, and many arrests were made, but the Maoris invariably contented themselves with passive resistance’. Cowan is a New Zealand historian who took a keen interest in Maori affairs and in particular spent time at Parihaka with leader Te Whiti. Cowan was sympathetic towards Maori and this can be identified in his writing. His account was recorded in Hero Stories of New Zealand, 1935. Both Sorrenson and Cowan agree that Pakeha were militarily motivated to invade Parihaka. The two authors concede that Pakeha, on a whole, held an agenda towards the dismantlement of Parihaka and it was perhaps a way to further colonise New Zealand, under European rule, and for Pakeha to inherit more land to settle.
Much historical debate has arisen over the Fencing and Ploughmen Campaigns that were undertaken by Parihaka Maori as an act of passive resistance. Many historians have contested this debate and have argued over the nature of these campaigns. Bolton’s perspective is clearly identified; Te Whiti aimed to maintain this until continual arrests became a burden on the Government. Bolton is arguing that because the government arrested Te Whiti and his men, as a consequence of their protest methods, they became a liability and nuisance to the government. Because Bolton continues to argue his perspective that the nature of the protest methods used was violent, Bolton would think that the Fencing and Ploughmen campaigns were also violent in nature. To contradict Bolton’s perspective, Scott argues that Parihaka Maori did not resist arrest. Scott clearly identifies his perspective; large squads swooped down on the ploughing parties to find them unarmed, unresisting and quite unimpressed. They went off to jail cheerfully, even gladly. Scott is therefore arguing that Parihaka Maori were not a nuisance or liability to the government and they were not violent. Scott’s perspective does not support that of Bolton. Like Scott, Riseborough opposes Bolton’s perspective on this debate. Riseborough holds the perspective; it was the settlers who threatened violence, but the Maori who were arrested. Riseborough is clearly stating that she thinks Pakeha were violent, not Maori. Riseborough reinforces her perspective where she thinks Maori were wrongly arrested and accused of violence that was instead shown by Pakeha. She continues to support her perspective; their reviled followers had many opportunities for violence on a grand scale, yet violence never did eventuate. The Maori were not fools. Riseborough is suggesting that Maori understood the government’s intentions to confiscate Maori land. Riseborough hints that the reason Maori passively resisted and did not react in violence to the government’s actions was because they knew they would be punished as a consequence. Maori did not want to catalyse imprisonment and arrests so they did not protest in a violent nature.
The historical interpretation of Te Whiti as a leader is another key debate that has been contested by historians. Historians suggest that the nature of Te Whiti’s leadership could have influenced the nature of protest actions (passive or violent) undertaken by Parihaka Maori. Bolton’s perspective on Te Whiti’s leadership was that he thought Te Whiti was a leader who masked his intentions of violence through his claims and status of a ‘prophet’ or ‘messiah’. A prophet or a messiah claims to hold spiritual or divine powers and delivers knowledge from the supernatural entity to other people. They are usually regarded to foster non-violent actions. Bolton’s perspective of this issue is clearly identified in his writing; Te Whiti’s September 1881 speech was the culmination of years of messianic and apocalyptic rhetoric, and was not out of context. Bolton makes the claim that Te Whiti’s preaching to the settlement was just rhetoric. Bolton suggests that Te Whiti did not hold the significance of a ‘prophet’ or ‘messiah’ as he thought he did and was rather a ‘con-man’. In making this claim, Bolton is trying to make the Parihaka settlement look illegitimate. From a historian’s perspective, it is interesting to note that Riseborough and Cowan acknowledge Bolton’s perspective of Te Whiti’s ‘messianic and apocalyptic rhetoric’. Cowan’s perspective on this debate is; he made strange oracular utterances that often mystified the pakeha; he was described as a fanatic and a madman, but his fine madness saved his people and the country from fearful strife. To some extent, Cowan agrees with Bolton that Te Whiti’s preaching was of a messianic agenda. However, Cowan does not agree that Te Whiti’s preaching masked his intentions for violence. Riseborough holds a similar perspective to Cowan. Riseborough’s holds the perspective; his oratory was unintelligible to the European, and to man Maori, it was credited with ridiculous and mysterious qualities. Riseborough takes a different approach to the interpretations of Te Whiti’s preaching (therefore his leadership) suggesting that due to the limited understanding of Maori at the time, perhaps his speeches were misinterpreted. Those who interpreted and translated Te Whiti’s speeches may have held personal agendas towards Te Whiti; they may have wanted to make Te Whiti look illegitimate (as Bolton’s suggests) or that they just did not understand the nature, and language, of Te Whiti’s speeches.
Historians have argued on the nature of the Parihaka Invasion itself to reveal the nature of the protest methods used. Virginia Winder, The Plunder of Parihaka, 2003, writes about the nature of the Invasion and writes with a sympathetic agenda towards Maori. Winder holds the perspective that it was the Pakeha soldiers, led by Native Minister John Bryce, who acted violently towards Maori. In Winder’s perspective, Maori reacted passively to the Invasion. Winder reinforces her perspective with diary excerpts from Swiss-born soldier Anton Fromm who fought in the Invasion of Parihaka. It is unusual, in a debate, to support your perspective with evidence from an individual who is in opposition to the issue. This however gives more dimension and adds more weight to Winder’s perspective. Winder clearly identifies her perspective; Fromm’s diary shows that the invading troops truly expected a bloody battle. They believed they would face a powerful force at Parihaka and were ready. Winder supports her perspective, that Pakeha acted violently towards Maori, with an excerpt from Fromm; ‘the troops are starting to realize there’s not going to be full-scale warfare. They are fully armed.’ The idea that the soldiers expected to be met with violence meant that they justified their own use of violence. Winder continues to support her perspective that Maori passively reacted to the Invasion, with another excerpt; ‘all surrendered without offering the slightest resistance.’ In conjunction with evidence from Fromm, Winder has also used evidence from Parihaka historian, Te Miringa Hohaia, to uncover the nature of the Invasion from a Maori perspective. Winder is contrasting the two perspectives to fully uncover the nature of the Invasion. Hohaia holds the perspective that the Invasion was planned and the soldiers were prepared to act in violence towards Maori. Hohaia identifies his perspective; ‘the soldiers systematically demolished the village and ruined the surrounding land.’ Hohaia reveals that the Invasion was planned and that the soldiers and the government were prepared for a battle and were prepared to act in violence. This reinforces the idea the Maori were not intending to act in violence towards Pakeha.
Debate 2
One debate that is contested is the nature of the settlement as a model community. Bolton holds the perspective that the settlement was not a model community. Riseborough holds the perspective that the settlement was a model community and thus a prime example of Maori livelihood in a community environment. Riseborough’s perspective identifies the modern orthodox view on the settlement. Riseborough’s perspective notably contrasts Bolton’s.
A key aspect of the debate is how Te Whiti’s leadership influenced the nature of the settlement. Bolton holds the perspective that the holding of large gatherings, at Parihaka, was for Maori to actively oppose European settlement and to conspire protest actions against the government. Bolton thinks that Te Whiti was the instigator of this ‘conspiring’. Bolton believes that Te Whiti held a negative perspective towards Pakeha and therefore he used his power to influence other Maori to hold the same perspective as himself. Bolton is also making the link that he thinks Parihaka was cult like which links to the title of his book ‘The Parihaka Cult’. Bolton clearly identifies his perspective; major feature of the frequent gatherings at Parihaka was to hear Te Whiti speak his prophetic ‘metaphors’. Bolton suggests that Te Whiti is again masking his agenda with ‘prophetic metaphors’. Bolton suggests that underlying motivations of his speeches was to conspire against the government. Bolton uses evidence from Parris to support his perspective. Parris visited Parihaka in 1881 and therefore had an insight into the nature of the settlement and the influence of Te Whiti’s leadership. Parris clearly identifies his perspective; in language which, literally interpreted, meant a declaration of war. This caused a state of alarm throughout the district, and the settlers appealed to the Government for arms and ammunition. Like Bolton, Parris believes that the language used by Te Whiti also masked his intentions for conflict. From a historian’s perspective, I can conclude that this is perhaps because Te Whiti’s speeches were misinterpreted due to the limited understanding of the Maori language at the time. Parris also says ‘literally interpreted’. Perhaps this means that those who interpreted his speeches took his speeches literally and did not take into consideration the context of the subject matter. Scott holds an opposing perspective to Bolton and Parris. Scott argues that instead of Te Whiti conspiring against Pakeha, his stance and perspectives on leading issues were plainly misunderstood. Scott clearly identifies his perspective; Te Whiti in his time was a much misunderstood man. James Belich, Making Peoples, 1996, supports the perspecitve of Scott and further suggests that it is historians who prehaps have misinterpreted Te Whiti’s speeches and gatherings. Belich holds the perspective; modern historians have tended to interpret the prophetic movements as desperate ‘revivalist’ responses to crippling impact and conquest, and as syncretic cults that merged Christianity with traditional Maori beliefs. Riseborough further expands on Belich’s perspective in suggesting that the misinterpretation of Te Whiti may be linked with the desire to destroy Te Whiti’s ‘mana’. Riseborough’s clearly identifies her perspective on the debate; Europeans were concerned about their superiority and dominance which it seemed to them, could be assured only by destroying Te Whiti’s mana. Riseborough is also hinting that modern historians, such as Bolton, continue to ‘destroy’ Te Whiti’s mana by diminishing his works at Parihaka and of the settlement itself. Riseborough is suggesting that Bolton’s perspective is perhaps making Te Whiti and the Parihaka settlement look illegitimate.
The legacy of Parihaka has remained as a central aspect of the Parihaka debate on a whole. Many historians have contested and disputed the lack of records and evidence of the Invasion, which uncovers the legacy of Parihaka to a past and modern audience. Riseborough specifically addresses this concern in Days of Darkness. In Riseborough’s perspective, she states; unfortunately many papers such as police files have simply ‘disappeared’, and the important Maori Affairs Department files known as the West Coast Papers were destroyed by fire, so a vast body of material has been lost to researchers. She continues on to write that sources such as Journals of the House of Representatives, New Zealand Parliamentary Debates and reports of the Royal Commission under Confiscated Lands Inquiry was a ‘rich source of information’ that does not exist now for modern audiences/ historians to further study. Riseborough also suggests that Pakeha and government officials may have purposely destroyed such sources to further reject a Maori perspective on the Invasion itself. Riseborough hints that such sources may have had a ‘pro-Maori’ agenda to them and acted as propaganda towards the Maori race to which Pakeha did not want to recognise. Bolton holds a perspective that contradicts that of Riseborough. Bolton suggests that in colonial times, some publications were biased against Pakeha and did advocate for the rights of Maori. Bolton clearly identifies his perspective; despite the assumption of today about supposedly anti-Maori and ‘racist’ attitudes towards the Maori in colonial times, the press even in those times was often biased against the whites as it is now. Bolton is trying to justify claims that the majority of New Zealand publications were biased towards Pakeha (whites) and reasons that publications were supposedly ‘anti-Pakeha’ just as much as they were ‘anti-Maori’.
The overall nature of the settlement is a heavily contested debate by both past and modern historians. Historians have heavily debated the nature of the community at Parihaka and some historians have focused on the hygienic conditions of the settlement. Bolton is the most prominent historian who has argued on the cleanliness of the settlement. From a historian’s perspective, it is interesting to analyse this perspective and questions arise over the validness of Bolton’s claims to the overall nature of the settlement. Bolton clearly identifies his perspective; Parihaka through much of its history was disease- ridden and filthy. Bolton’s perspective is written almost fact like. This reinforces to the reader that Bolton seriously believes that Parihaka was a ‘disease-ridden’ and filthy community and will argue his perspective in this case. Bolton continues to explain his perspective and concludes that because of the uncleanliness of the settlement, neighbouring settlers began to worry that they would become ill as well; ‘the settlers live in continual ‘unease’ as to the possibility of contagion being spread from Parihaka. During that year’s fever, ‘upward of seventy natives’ reportedly died’. The Wangnui Herald (21 October 1879) published this statistic in the article ‘Te Whiti’s People Leaving on Account of Sickness’. From a historian’s perspective, it is possible that such an article would have an agenda to unveil the ‘sickness rates’ at Parihaka to reinforce that Parihaka was not a model community. As this was a local publication, Pakeha and European settlers would read this and fear the outbreak of disease. Bolton’s perspective is supported by that of King. However, it is important to note that King does not support Bolton’s claims that specifically Parihaka was an unhygienic community. King clearly identifies his perspective; features were to be characteristic of Maori communities… they contributed to the Maori vulnerability to communicable diseases. ‘Maori housing’ in European usage was synonymous with poor housing. King reinforces that on a whole Maori settlements were vulnerable to diseases. On a whole, Maori communities were unhygienic. However King continues to contest Bolton’s views on Parihaka; once Maori leaders made the cause-and-effect connection, they fought hard to change such conditions. King suggests that Te Whiti (a ‘Maori leader’) would have recognised the vulnerability of diseases in communities and set about to prevent this at Parihaka. Sorrenson further reinforces King’s perspective and builds on the argument that Parihaka was not an unhygienic community. Sorrenson’s perspective on this debate is; those groups which shut themselves away from European contact, and more particularly from land dealing and all its repercussions, tended to be better off than those who became so involved. Even though Sorrenson’s claim is broad, he continues to state that in particular Parihaka, led by Te Whiti, was an exception and was a similar model community to that lead of the King in the King Country. This in particular contradicts Bolton’s perspective. Belich does not comment on the hygienic conditions of Parihaka but holds the perspective on the unification of the Maori people in communities/ settlements such as Parihaka. Belich uses evidence from leader Tamati Te Ito, of Kai Ngarara, to support his perspective. Ito stated; ‘we wanted to combine all the Maori people from Mokau to Patea in one body.’ The significance of this quote is that it was applicable to the stance of Te Whiti. Te Whiti wanted Maori at Parihaka to be unified as a community. Bolton also argues his perspective of Te Whiti fostering a business of prostitution for his own benefit. Bolton’s perspective is an ‘out of the ordinary’ claim to make. Bolton clearly identifies his perspective; Were they prostitutes? At least, it is a mark of Te Whiti’s seeking to profit from his own people that the women had to contribute ‘some silver’ to parade in his house. Bolton’s perspective is almost a speculation and paints Te Whiti with a negative connotation. From a historian’s perspective, I can conclude that Bolton is making a personal attack Te Whiti. Historians can therefore debate the reliability of Bolton’s claims because of this. Belich suggests that the introduction of marriage between Pakeha and Maori helped to keep the Maori race alive. Belich identifies his perspective on this; this was, and still is, mistaken for evidence of fatal impact or its successor, biological assimilation, symbolised by the frequent assertion that pure-blooded Maori have almost died out. This is Belich’s answer to Bolton’s perspective and contradicts it.
Historians have generally agreed that Parihaka was a model community. However, Bolton’s perspective is identified as the antithesis of this. From a historians’ perspective, I can make the claim that Parihaka was a model community and Te Whiti nurtured all aspects of the community to ensure his people were well treated and were not vulnerable to disease. Bolton’s perspectives make for an interesting debate. However, I do not believe in the full reliability of his claims.
Conclusion
From a historian’s perspective, I believe the nature of the techniques used by Parihaka Maori were not violent. I believe that Maori took Te Whiti’s teachings very seriously and regarded him with the upmost respect. I do know that Maori, including present day Maori, hold a deep respect for Maori elders/leaders (like Te Whiti) who are spiritual. I believe that Te Whiti did hold this spiritual ability and thus Parihaka Maori fulfilled his wish of passive resistance. I therefore believe the nature of the protest methods were passive. I reject the idea the settlement was ‘filthy’ like Bolton claimed. I think that Parihaka was a modern settlement and held ‘Pakeha like’ standards. I can support my perspective with the knowledge that Parihaka had its ‘own bakery and piped water supply and had electricity before New Plymouth.’ (http://pukeariki.com/Learning-Research/Education/Treasurelink/Tohu-Kakahi-of-Parihaka)
The perspective that I most identified with was that of Riseborough. Riseborough’s orthodox perspective held a lot of weight to it and reinforced her perspectives and arguments with reliable and in-depth sources. I also support the perspectives of Cowan. The knowledge that Cowan did understand the language due to his fluency meant that there was no room for misinterpretation in comparison to Pakeha interpreters who did not understand the language.
I do not support Bolton’s perspective. His claims did not make sense to me. I felt that, especially arguing the hygienic conditions; Bolton was personally attacking and trying to identify flaws in the settlement in anyway possible. I found it difficult to support Bolton’s perspective on this of Parihaka and deduced that he was too personally motivated to reinforce his opinion that I did not find his source reliable. Many historians did not include perspectives on the hygienic conditions of Parihaka and this shows me that it was not a significant aspect of historical writings.
After analysing historian’s perspectives, I gained a new outlook on Parihaka and on the history of Maori. My perspectives were influenced as a result. As a Pakeha, I now hold sympathy towards Maori as I now realize the (mostly) negative nature Maori were presented in.
Concluding Remarks
The debates of the historian have strengths and weaknesses to them. To the modern day reader, caution should be noted over the bias and limits some historian's debates have. It is interesting to look at the contradicting and supporting views on the Invasion. This reveals the change in public attitudes.
New Zealand historians are prominent figures that lead and voice their perspectives on the Invasion through their published works. Many historians write about debates of the Invasion and of the settlement itself. These key debates combined with the perspectives of the historians reveal a change in public attitudes on a whole.
Two heavily contested and disputed debates about the Parihaka settlement concern the nature of the settlement as a model community and the nature of the techniques used as protest methods- passive or violent. Two prominent historians who argue these two debates are Kerry Bolton (The Parihaka Cult, 2012) and Hazel Riseborough (Days of Darkness, 1989). New Zealand historians who support or contradict such findings are Dick Scott (Ask that Mountain, 1975), Virginia Winder (The Plunder of Parihaka, 2003), Michael King (Penguin History of New Zealand, 2003), James Belich (Making Peoples, 1986), James Cowan and M.P.K. Sorrenson (Oxford History of New Zealand, 1981).
From a historians perspective, I will be analysing the change in perspectives over time through historical writings on these two debates. I will make informed conclusions while at the same time accepting the perspectives of other New Zealanders and historians.
Debate 1
One debate that is contested is the nature of the techniques used as protest methods- passive or violent. Bolton holds the perspective that Parihaka Maori used and advocated violence and the nature of the techniques were violent. Bolton thinks Parihaka Maori were not passively resisting the European settlers. Riseborough holds the perspective that Parihaka Maori carried out ‘very active resistance, although pacific in nature’ towards the European settlers. Riseborough does not believe the techniques used were violent.
In Chapter VII ‘Passive but Bounceable’ of The Parihaka Cult, 2012, Bolton’s focus is to identify his perspective and to argue that the protest methods used were not passive resistance. Bolton clearly identifies his perspective; such incidences indicate the belligerent nature behind the façade of passive resistance. Bolton hints that the methods of protest used were perhaps ‘hidden’ under the prophetic leadership of Te Whiti. Bolton supports this idea by arguing of the ‘comparisons made (of Te Whiti) to other modern liberal icons such as Mandela, Gandhi and Martin Luther King’. Bolton is suggesting that because other historians have compared Te Whiti to these modern icons he is now linked to these men with the idea that Te Whiti advocated for the rights of the ‘less superior’ race, in New Zealand, which were Maori. Mandela and King advocated for the civil rights of black skinned people during the 1960s in America and the 1990s in South Africa (apartheid). Black skinned people were the ‘less superior race’ in these countries and due to the leaders advocating, they became icons. Tom Brooking, The History of New Zealand, 2004, introduced this idea of the nature of techniques used at Parihaka; ‘Te Whiti counseled peace and began to use techniques of non-violent resistance long before Mahatma Gandhi did’. Ghandi pioneered the philosophy of Satyagraha, a form of non- violent civil disobedience becoming a major spiritual and political leader of his time. Ghandi was an anti-war activist and the leader of the Indian independence movement during the 1920s. Ghandi also lived in a self-sufficient community and spoke on issues in the same religious rhymtic prose as Te Whiti; “my faith is brightest in the midst of impenetratable darkness.” The significance of Brooking identifying this perspective was to elevate Te Whiti’s historical significance by comparing him to these iconic men but most especially to Gandhi.
Riseborough’s writes with a sympathetic agenda towards Maori and holds the perspective that the protest actions used by Parihaka Maori were not violent in nature, contrary to the perspective of Bolton. Riseborough believes that Maori actively undertook a passive resistance stance towards the European settlers. Riseborough argues her perspective in her book Days of Darkness, 1989. Riseborough clearly identifies her perspective; the injustice done to the Taranaki people stemmed more from a determination to force Maori to submit to European law and admit to European supremacy than from a greed for land. Riseborough has revealed to the reader that she will argue and focus on the injustices felt by Maori, therefore revealing her stance as ‘pro-Maori’. Riseborough brings about the issue of injustice which is a key aspect of the debate. From a historian’s perspective, I can conclude that Riseborough is probably more biased towards Maori. Riseborough hints that the reason Maori felt a sense of injustice was because they were forced to admit they were the ‘less superior’ race and hints at the idea of Eurocentrism and social Darwinism. Riseborough would believe that this reasoning, of Europeans, was not principled and not fair to Maori. Another historian who shares a similar perspective is M.P.K Sorrenson, author of the Maori and Pakeha chapter in the Oxford History of New Zealand, 1981. Sorrenson identifies his perspective; ‘It was a demonstration of military muscle- of the willingness of the Pakeha to use for to facilitate the colonization of the North Island’. Sorrenson takes a more militarial stance on the issue and suggests that Maori were not the violent but it was Pakeha who were violent and used force. Sorrenson also argues that the underlying motivation of Pakeha was to colonise New Zealand; in this sense specific areas of the North Island. James Cowan supports Sorrenson’s perspective; ‘there were demonstrations of military force, and many arrests were made, but the Maoris invariably contented themselves with passive resistance’. Cowan is a New Zealand historian who took a keen interest in Maori affairs and in particular spent time at Parihaka with leader Te Whiti. Cowan was sympathetic towards Maori and this can be identified in his writing. His account was recorded in Hero Stories of New Zealand, 1935. Both Sorrenson and Cowan agree that Pakeha were militarily motivated to invade Parihaka. The two authors concede that Pakeha, on a whole, held an agenda towards the dismantlement of Parihaka and it was perhaps a way to further colonise New Zealand, under European rule, and for Pakeha to inherit more land to settle.
Much historical debate has arisen over the Fencing and Ploughmen Campaigns that were undertaken by Parihaka Maori as an act of passive resistance. Many historians have contested this debate and have argued over the nature of these campaigns. Bolton’s perspective is clearly identified; Te Whiti aimed to maintain this until continual arrests became a burden on the Government. Bolton is arguing that because the government arrested Te Whiti and his men, as a consequence of their protest methods, they became a liability and nuisance to the government. Because Bolton continues to argue his perspective that the nature of the protest methods used was violent, Bolton would think that the Fencing and Ploughmen campaigns were also violent in nature. To contradict Bolton’s perspective, Scott argues that Parihaka Maori did not resist arrest. Scott clearly identifies his perspective; large squads swooped down on the ploughing parties to find them unarmed, unresisting and quite unimpressed. They went off to jail cheerfully, even gladly. Scott is therefore arguing that Parihaka Maori were not a nuisance or liability to the government and they were not violent. Scott’s perspective does not support that of Bolton. Like Scott, Riseborough opposes Bolton’s perspective on this debate. Riseborough holds the perspective; it was the settlers who threatened violence, but the Maori who were arrested. Riseborough is clearly stating that she thinks Pakeha were violent, not Maori. Riseborough reinforces her perspective where she thinks Maori were wrongly arrested and accused of violence that was instead shown by Pakeha. She continues to support her perspective; their reviled followers had many opportunities for violence on a grand scale, yet violence never did eventuate. The Maori were not fools. Riseborough is suggesting that Maori understood the government’s intentions to confiscate Maori land. Riseborough hints that the reason Maori passively resisted and did not react in violence to the government’s actions was because they knew they would be punished as a consequence. Maori did not want to catalyse imprisonment and arrests so they did not protest in a violent nature.
The historical interpretation of Te Whiti as a leader is another key debate that has been contested by historians. Historians suggest that the nature of Te Whiti’s leadership could have influenced the nature of protest actions (passive or violent) undertaken by Parihaka Maori. Bolton’s perspective on Te Whiti’s leadership was that he thought Te Whiti was a leader who masked his intentions of violence through his claims and status of a ‘prophet’ or ‘messiah’. A prophet or a messiah claims to hold spiritual or divine powers and delivers knowledge from the supernatural entity to other people. They are usually regarded to foster non-violent actions. Bolton’s perspective of this issue is clearly identified in his writing; Te Whiti’s September 1881 speech was the culmination of years of messianic and apocalyptic rhetoric, and was not out of context. Bolton makes the claim that Te Whiti’s preaching to the settlement was just rhetoric. Bolton suggests that Te Whiti did not hold the significance of a ‘prophet’ or ‘messiah’ as he thought he did and was rather a ‘con-man’. In making this claim, Bolton is trying to make the Parihaka settlement look illegitimate. From a historian’s perspective, it is interesting to note that Riseborough and Cowan acknowledge Bolton’s perspective of Te Whiti’s ‘messianic and apocalyptic rhetoric’. Cowan’s perspective on this debate is; he made strange oracular utterances that often mystified the pakeha; he was described as a fanatic and a madman, but his fine madness saved his people and the country from fearful strife. To some extent, Cowan agrees with Bolton that Te Whiti’s preaching was of a messianic agenda. However, Cowan does not agree that Te Whiti’s preaching masked his intentions for violence. Riseborough holds a similar perspective to Cowan. Riseborough’s holds the perspective; his oratory was unintelligible to the European, and to man Maori, it was credited with ridiculous and mysterious qualities. Riseborough takes a different approach to the interpretations of Te Whiti’s preaching (therefore his leadership) suggesting that due to the limited understanding of Maori at the time, perhaps his speeches were misinterpreted. Those who interpreted and translated Te Whiti’s speeches may have held personal agendas towards Te Whiti; they may have wanted to make Te Whiti look illegitimate (as Bolton’s suggests) or that they just did not understand the nature, and language, of Te Whiti’s speeches.
Historians have argued on the nature of the Parihaka Invasion itself to reveal the nature of the protest methods used. Virginia Winder, The Plunder of Parihaka, 2003, writes about the nature of the Invasion and writes with a sympathetic agenda towards Maori. Winder holds the perspective that it was the Pakeha soldiers, led by Native Minister John Bryce, who acted violently towards Maori. In Winder’s perspective, Maori reacted passively to the Invasion. Winder reinforces her perspective with diary excerpts from Swiss-born soldier Anton Fromm who fought in the Invasion of Parihaka. It is unusual, in a debate, to support your perspective with evidence from an individual who is in opposition to the issue. This however gives more dimension and adds more weight to Winder’s perspective. Winder clearly identifies her perspective; Fromm’s diary shows that the invading troops truly expected a bloody battle. They believed they would face a powerful force at Parihaka and were ready. Winder supports her perspective, that Pakeha acted violently towards Maori, with an excerpt from Fromm; ‘the troops are starting to realize there’s not going to be full-scale warfare. They are fully armed.’ The idea that the soldiers expected to be met with violence meant that they justified their own use of violence. Winder continues to support her perspective that Maori passively reacted to the Invasion, with another excerpt; ‘all surrendered without offering the slightest resistance.’ In conjunction with evidence from Fromm, Winder has also used evidence from Parihaka historian, Te Miringa Hohaia, to uncover the nature of the Invasion from a Maori perspective. Winder is contrasting the two perspectives to fully uncover the nature of the Invasion. Hohaia holds the perspective that the Invasion was planned and the soldiers were prepared to act in violence towards Maori. Hohaia identifies his perspective; ‘the soldiers systematically demolished the village and ruined the surrounding land.’ Hohaia reveals that the Invasion was planned and that the soldiers and the government were prepared for a battle and were prepared to act in violence. This reinforces the idea the Maori were not intending to act in violence towards Pakeha.
Debate 2
One debate that is contested is the nature of the settlement as a model community. Bolton holds the perspective that the settlement was not a model community. Riseborough holds the perspective that the settlement was a model community and thus a prime example of Maori livelihood in a community environment. Riseborough’s perspective identifies the modern orthodox view on the settlement. Riseborough’s perspective notably contrasts Bolton’s.
A key aspect of the debate is how Te Whiti’s leadership influenced the nature of the settlement. Bolton holds the perspective that the holding of large gatherings, at Parihaka, was for Maori to actively oppose European settlement and to conspire protest actions against the government. Bolton thinks that Te Whiti was the instigator of this ‘conspiring’. Bolton believes that Te Whiti held a negative perspective towards Pakeha and therefore he used his power to influence other Maori to hold the same perspective as himself. Bolton is also making the link that he thinks Parihaka was cult like which links to the title of his book ‘The Parihaka Cult’. Bolton clearly identifies his perspective; major feature of the frequent gatherings at Parihaka was to hear Te Whiti speak his prophetic ‘metaphors’. Bolton suggests that Te Whiti is again masking his agenda with ‘prophetic metaphors’. Bolton suggests that underlying motivations of his speeches was to conspire against the government. Bolton uses evidence from Parris to support his perspective. Parris visited Parihaka in 1881 and therefore had an insight into the nature of the settlement and the influence of Te Whiti’s leadership. Parris clearly identifies his perspective; in language which, literally interpreted, meant a declaration of war. This caused a state of alarm throughout the district, and the settlers appealed to the Government for arms and ammunition. Like Bolton, Parris believes that the language used by Te Whiti also masked his intentions for conflict. From a historian’s perspective, I can conclude that this is perhaps because Te Whiti’s speeches were misinterpreted due to the limited understanding of the Maori language at the time. Parris also says ‘literally interpreted’. Perhaps this means that those who interpreted his speeches took his speeches literally and did not take into consideration the context of the subject matter. Scott holds an opposing perspective to Bolton and Parris. Scott argues that instead of Te Whiti conspiring against Pakeha, his stance and perspectives on leading issues were plainly misunderstood. Scott clearly identifies his perspective; Te Whiti in his time was a much misunderstood man. James Belich, Making Peoples, 1996, supports the perspecitve of Scott and further suggests that it is historians who prehaps have misinterpreted Te Whiti’s speeches and gatherings. Belich holds the perspective; modern historians have tended to interpret the prophetic movements as desperate ‘revivalist’ responses to crippling impact and conquest, and as syncretic cults that merged Christianity with traditional Maori beliefs. Riseborough further expands on Belich’s perspective in suggesting that the misinterpretation of Te Whiti may be linked with the desire to destroy Te Whiti’s ‘mana’. Riseborough’s clearly identifies her perspective on the debate; Europeans were concerned about their superiority and dominance which it seemed to them, could be assured only by destroying Te Whiti’s mana. Riseborough is also hinting that modern historians, such as Bolton, continue to ‘destroy’ Te Whiti’s mana by diminishing his works at Parihaka and of the settlement itself. Riseborough is suggesting that Bolton’s perspective is perhaps making Te Whiti and the Parihaka settlement look illegitimate.
The legacy of Parihaka has remained as a central aspect of the Parihaka debate on a whole. Many historians have contested and disputed the lack of records and evidence of the Invasion, which uncovers the legacy of Parihaka to a past and modern audience. Riseborough specifically addresses this concern in Days of Darkness. In Riseborough’s perspective, she states; unfortunately many papers such as police files have simply ‘disappeared’, and the important Maori Affairs Department files known as the West Coast Papers were destroyed by fire, so a vast body of material has been lost to researchers. She continues on to write that sources such as Journals of the House of Representatives, New Zealand Parliamentary Debates and reports of the Royal Commission under Confiscated Lands Inquiry was a ‘rich source of information’ that does not exist now for modern audiences/ historians to further study. Riseborough also suggests that Pakeha and government officials may have purposely destroyed such sources to further reject a Maori perspective on the Invasion itself. Riseborough hints that such sources may have had a ‘pro-Maori’ agenda to them and acted as propaganda towards the Maori race to which Pakeha did not want to recognise. Bolton holds a perspective that contradicts that of Riseborough. Bolton suggests that in colonial times, some publications were biased against Pakeha and did advocate for the rights of Maori. Bolton clearly identifies his perspective; despite the assumption of today about supposedly anti-Maori and ‘racist’ attitudes towards the Maori in colonial times, the press even in those times was often biased against the whites as it is now. Bolton is trying to justify claims that the majority of New Zealand publications were biased towards Pakeha (whites) and reasons that publications were supposedly ‘anti-Pakeha’ just as much as they were ‘anti-Maori’.
The overall nature of the settlement is a heavily contested debate by both past and modern historians. Historians have heavily debated the nature of the community at Parihaka and some historians have focused on the hygienic conditions of the settlement. Bolton is the most prominent historian who has argued on the cleanliness of the settlement. From a historian’s perspective, it is interesting to analyse this perspective and questions arise over the validness of Bolton’s claims to the overall nature of the settlement. Bolton clearly identifies his perspective; Parihaka through much of its history was disease- ridden and filthy. Bolton’s perspective is written almost fact like. This reinforces to the reader that Bolton seriously believes that Parihaka was a ‘disease-ridden’ and filthy community and will argue his perspective in this case. Bolton continues to explain his perspective and concludes that because of the uncleanliness of the settlement, neighbouring settlers began to worry that they would become ill as well; ‘the settlers live in continual ‘unease’ as to the possibility of contagion being spread from Parihaka. During that year’s fever, ‘upward of seventy natives’ reportedly died’. The Wangnui Herald (21 October 1879) published this statistic in the article ‘Te Whiti’s People Leaving on Account of Sickness’. From a historian’s perspective, it is possible that such an article would have an agenda to unveil the ‘sickness rates’ at Parihaka to reinforce that Parihaka was not a model community. As this was a local publication, Pakeha and European settlers would read this and fear the outbreak of disease. Bolton’s perspective is supported by that of King. However, it is important to note that King does not support Bolton’s claims that specifically Parihaka was an unhygienic community. King clearly identifies his perspective; features were to be characteristic of Maori communities… they contributed to the Maori vulnerability to communicable diseases. ‘Maori housing’ in European usage was synonymous with poor housing. King reinforces that on a whole Maori settlements were vulnerable to diseases. On a whole, Maori communities were unhygienic. However King continues to contest Bolton’s views on Parihaka; once Maori leaders made the cause-and-effect connection, they fought hard to change such conditions. King suggests that Te Whiti (a ‘Maori leader’) would have recognised the vulnerability of diseases in communities and set about to prevent this at Parihaka. Sorrenson further reinforces King’s perspective and builds on the argument that Parihaka was not an unhygienic community. Sorrenson’s perspective on this debate is; those groups which shut themselves away from European contact, and more particularly from land dealing and all its repercussions, tended to be better off than those who became so involved. Even though Sorrenson’s claim is broad, he continues to state that in particular Parihaka, led by Te Whiti, was an exception and was a similar model community to that lead of the King in the King Country. This in particular contradicts Bolton’s perspective. Belich does not comment on the hygienic conditions of Parihaka but holds the perspective on the unification of the Maori people in communities/ settlements such as Parihaka. Belich uses evidence from leader Tamati Te Ito, of Kai Ngarara, to support his perspective. Ito stated; ‘we wanted to combine all the Maori people from Mokau to Patea in one body.’ The significance of this quote is that it was applicable to the stance of Te Whiti. Te Whiti wanted Maori at Parihaka to be unified as a community. Bolton also argues his perspective of Te Whiti fostering a business of prostitution for his own benefit. Bolton’s perspective is an ‘out of the ordinary’ claim to make. Bolton clearly identifies his perspective; Were they prostitutes? At least, it is a mark of Te Whiti’s seeking to profit from his own people that the women had to contribute ‘some silver’ to parade in his house. Bolton’s perspective is almost a speculation and paints Te Whiti with a negative connotation. From a historian’s perspective, I can conclude that Bolton is making a personal attack Te Whiti. Historians can therefore debate the reliability of Bolton’s claims because of this. Belich suggests that the introduction of marriage between Pakeha and Maori helped to keep the Maori race alive. Belich identifies his perspective on this; this was, and still is, mistaken for evidence of fatal impact or its successor, biological assimilation, symbolised by the frequent assertion that pure-blooded Maori have almost died out. This is Belich’s answer to Bolton’s perspective and contradicts it.
Historians have generally agreed that Parihaka was a model community. However, Bolton’s perspective is identified as the antithesis of this. From a historians’ perspective, I can make the claim that Parihaka was a model community and Te Whiti nurtured all aspects of the community to ensure his people were well treated and were not vulnerable to disease. Bolton’s perspectives make for an interesting debate. However, I do not believe in the full reliability of his claims.
Conclusion
From a historian’s perspective, I believe the nature of the techniques used by Parihaka Maori were not violent. I believe that Maori took Te Whiti’s teachings very seriously and regarded him with the upmost respect. I do know that Maori, including present day Maori, hold a deep respect for Maori elders/leaders (like Te Whiti) who are spiritual. I believe that Te Whiti did hold this spiritual ability and thus Parihaka Maori fulfilled his wish of passive resistance. I therefore believe the nature of the protest methods were passive. I reject the idea the settlement was ‘filthy’ like Bolton claimed. I think that Parihaka was a modern settlement and held ‘Pakeha like’ standards. I can support my perspective with the knowledge that Parihaka had its ‘own bakery and piped water supply and had electricity before New Plymouth.’ (http://pukeariki.com/Learning-Research/Education/Treasurelink/Tohu-Kakahi-of-Parihaka)
The perspective that I most identified with was that of Riseborough. Riseborough’s orthodox perspective held a lot of weight to it and reinforced her perspectives and arguments with reliable and in-depth sources. I also support the perspectives of Cowan. The knowledge that Cowan did understand the language due to his fluency meant that there was no room for misinterpretation in comparison to Pakeha interpreters who did not understand the language.
I do not support Bolton’s perspective. His claims did not make sense to me. I felt that, especially arguing the hygienic conditions; Bolton was personally attacking and trying to identify flaws in the settlement in anyway possible. I found it difficult to support Bolton’s perspective on this of Parihaka and deduced that he was too personally motivated to reinforce his opinion that I did not find his source reliable. Many historians did not include perspectives on the hygienic conditions of Parihaka and this shows me that it was not a significant aspect of historical writings.
After analysing historian’s perspectives, I gained a new outlook on Parihaka and on the history of Maori. My perspectives were influenced as a result. As a Pakeha, I now hold sympathy towards Maori as I now realize the (mostly) negative nature Maori were presented in.
Concluding Remarks
The debates of the historian have strengths and weaknesses to them. To the modern day reader, caution should be noted over the bias and limits some historian's debates have. It is interesting to look at the contradicting and supporting views on the Invasion. This reveals the change in public attitudes.