Prominent New Zealand Historians
To fully uncover the change in public attitudes, it is important for historians to look at the reliability of each source (thus the historians) to understand how much knowledge and understanding they have on the Invasion of Parihaka and the two leading debates discussed in Change in Public Attitudes. Some historians may be limited in their writings due to a lack of knowledge and this causes bias in writings. For example, the lack of knowledge on the Invasion of Parihaka can hinder the significance of the event and can cause the public to not fully recognised or take seriously the injustices felt by Maori. Therefore, it remains vital for historians to analyse the reliability of each historian and source they are using so not to incur this.
From a historian's point of view, I have provided a personal insight into each historian's authorship and thus their background.
From a historian's point of view, I have provided a personal insight into each historian's authorship and thus their background.
Kerry Bolton, The Parihaka Cult, 2012
Kerry Bolton is noted for his far-right, conservative views and can be credited as a fascist. Bolton would hold the perspective that other historical publications have an anti-Pakeha agenda. However, his writing can be identified holding an ‘anti-Maori’ agenda. This is reinforced by the acknowledged sources he uses which are Pakeha written publications. This suggests that there is bias in his writing. Bolton has doctorates in theology and diplomas in psychology. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Social and Political research and a ‘contributing writer’ for the Foreign Policy Journal. Bolton has written and published a sizeable amount of books and has experience in historical writing. It could be argued that Bolton is quite extreme in his writing. Some of Bolton’s claims do not corroborate with that of other leading New Zealand historians such as Hazel Riseborough. Bolton accuses Te Whiti of ‘whore- mongering’, speculating prostitution at Parihaka. Criticism can further be made over some of the language he uses to describe Te Whiti and Parihaka e.g. hooligans, ex-convicts, cult, prophetic metaphors, and messianic language. This language provides a negative connotation and influences the reader to think negatively of the settlement. This further reinforces Bolton’s bias. After analyzing Bolton’s perspectives and writing, I feel that some claims do not hold a lot of validity to them and I take caution with his arguments.
Kerry Bolton is noted for his far-right, conservative views and can be credited as a fascist. Bolton would hold the perspective that other historical publications have an anti-Pakeha agenda. However, his writing can be identified holding an ‘anti-Maori’ agenda. This is reinforced by the acknowledged sources he uses which are Pakeha written publications. This suggests that there is bias in his writing. Bolton has doctorates in theology and diplomas in psychology. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Social and Political research and a ‘contributing writer’ for the Foreign Policy Journal. Bolton has written and published a sizeable amount of books and has experience in historical writing. It could be argued that Bolton is quite extreme in his writing. Some of Bolton’s claims do not corroborate with that of other leading New Zealand historians such as Hazel Riseborough. Bolton accuses Te Whiti of ‘whore- mongering’, speculating prostitution at Parihaka. Criticism can further be made over some of the language he uses to describe Te Whiti and Parihaka e.g. hooligans, ex-convicts, cult, prophetic metaphors, and messianic language. This language provides a negative connotation and influences the reader to think negatively of the settlement. This further reinforces Bolton’s bias. After analyzing Bolton’s perspectives and writing, I feel that some claims do not hold a lot of validity to them and I take caution with his arguments.
Hazel Riseborough, Days of Darkness, 1989
Hazel Riseborough has taught at Massey University and holds advanced degrees in Maori Studies and History. Along with Days of Darkness, Riseborough has authored Shear Hard Work (AUP, 2010) to which she received the CLL Writer’s Award in 2008. Riseborough has been reviewed on Puke Ariki’s website, a museum in Taranaki that features Maori history and conflicts in New Zealand’s history. This notes her significance as a leading New Zealand historian. Riseborough introduces her purpose of her book; ‘It is a study of policies and personalities at a time of intense feelings and reactions resulting from cultural misunderstanding and racial intolerance’. She believes the government helped to create this. Riseborough writes from a symptathetic point of view towards Maori and on the Invasion of Parihaka. Riseborough’s sympathy can be identified in her language and her conclusions e.g. ‘encroachment of a destructive European culture’. From a historian’s perspective, I think Riseborough has identified an orthodox Maori perspective on the Invasion and the settlement itself. Riseborough did not make extreme claims like Bolton did. She provided in-depth and thoughtful responses to these perspectives that she built on and developed her own conclusions, which provided me with an insightful stance, on the issue. This helped me to develop my argument. I value Riseborough’s perspectives and Days of Darkness on a whole. From a historian’s perspective, I believe Riseborough helped to add weight to my argument. This was a useful source to help me to identify perspectives and reinforced this with explaining the strained relationship between Maori, Pakeha and the government.
Hazel Riseborough has taught at Massey University and holds advanced degrees in Maori Studies and History. Along with Days of Darkness, Riseborough has authored Shear Hard Work (AUP, 2010) to which she received the CLL Writer’s Award in 2008. Riseborough has been reviewed on Puke Ariki’s website, a museum in Taranaki that features Maori history and conflicts in New Zealand’s history. This notes her significance as a leading New Zealand historian. Riseborough introduces her purpose of her book; ‘It is a study of policies and personalities at a time of intense feelings and reactions resulting from cultural misunderstanding and racial intolerance’. She believes the government helped to create this. Riseborough writes from a symptathetic point of view towards Maori and on the Invasion of Parihaka. Riseborough’s sympathy can be identified in her language and her conclusions e.g. ‘encroachment of a destructive European culture’. From a historian’s perspective, I think Riseborough has identified an orthodox Maori perspective on the Invasion and the settlement itself. Riseborough did not make extreme claims like Bolton did. She provided in-depth and thoughtful responses to these perspectives that she built on and developed her own conclusions, which provided me with an insightful stance, on the issue. This helped me to develop my argument. I value Riseborough’s perspectives and Days of Darkness on a whole. From a historian’s perspective, I believe Riseborough helped to add weight to my argument. This was a useful source to help me to identify perspectives and reinforced this with explaining the strained relationship between Maori, Pakeha and the government.
James Belich, Making Peoples, 1996
James Belich holds an MA in History from Victoria University of Wellington where he later won the Rhodes Scholarship in 1978, travelling to Oxford to complete his DPhil at Nuffield College. In 1990, Belich was awarded the Royal Society of New Zealand’s James Cook Fellowship. In 2011, Belich was awarded the Prime Minister’s Award for Literary Achievement. Belich has written, Making Peoples, 1996, Paradise Reforged, 2001, The New Zealand Wars, 1989 (winner of Trevor Reese Memorial Prize). Belich also wrote I Shall not Die: Titokowaru’s War, 1989, (winner of 1990 Adam Award) which focuses on Riwha Titokowaru, a Maori prophetic leader linked to Te Whiti. Making Peoples is a nearly twenty-year-old publication. However, I consider this publication relevant for use in 2015. In my opinion, Belich holds an orthodox perspective; ‘I have tried to write this book without fear or favour… on the tragic history that has happened to non-Maori as well as Maori’. Belich supports many of Riseborough’s perspectives, which add weight to the argument on the debate. ‘Making Peoples examines Maori and Pakeha backgrounds’ and from a historian’s perspective, this source has helped me to identify and argue the orthodox perspective on the Invasion and settlement.
James Belich holds an MA in History from Victoria University of Wellington where he later won the Rhodes Scholarship in 1978, travelling to Oxford to complete his DPhil at Nuffield College. In 1990, Belich was awarded the Royal Society of New Zealand’s James Cook Fellowship. In 2011, Belich was awarded the Prime Minister’s Award for Literary Achievement. Belich has written, Making Peoples, 1996, Paradise Reforged, 2001, The New Zealand Wars, 1989 (winner of Trevor Reese Memorial Prize). Belich also wrote I Shall not Die: Titokowaru’s War, 1989, (winner of 1990 Adam Award) which focuses on Riwha Titokowaru, a Maori prophetic leader linked to Te Whiti. Making Peoples is a nearly twenty-year-old publication. However, I consider this publication relevant for use in 2015. In my opinion, Belich holds an orthodox perspective; ‘I have tried to write this book without fear or favour… on the tragic history that has happened to non-Maori as well as Maori’. Belich supports many of Riseborough’s perspectives, which add weight to the argument on the debate. ‘Making Peoples examines Maori and Pakeha backgrounds’ and from a historian’s perspective, this source has helped me to identify and argue the orthodox perspective on the Invasion and settlement.
Dick Scott, Ask That Mountain, 1975
Dick Scott is a historian and journalist who gained a Diploma of Agriculture at Massey University in 1943. In 2007, Scott was awarded the Prime Minister’s Literary Award of Achievement in Non-Fiction and was appointed Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit in the 2002 Queen’s Birthday and Golden Jubilee Honours. I found difficulty in identifying Scott’s perspective. Scott identified a Pakeha and Maori perspective but I was often stumped as there was supporting and contradicting evidence of both a Pakeha and Maori perspective. Perhaps Scott did not have a direct focus on the debates I was investigating. After further researching, I discovered that Scott had received help from a Parihaka elder, the late Whatarau Wharehoka, to rework Scott’s original story of Parihaka into Ask That Mountain, 1975. Soon after its release, historians and journalists slammed Ask That Mountain with criticism. From a historian’s perspective, knowing that Scott has extensively researched and corroborated with Parihaka elders, holding first hand experience, adds to the reliability of the source. However, criticism can be made over Scott’s use of quoting and use of sources. Scott infrequently footnotes and uses lengthy quotes, almost paragraphs. The pitfall of using such lengthy quotes is that the reader will become disinterested and will not continue reading. This limits Scott in identifying his perspectives and making historical conclusions.
Dick Scott is a historian and journalist who gained a Diploma of Agriculture at Massey University in 1943. In 2007, Scott was awarded the Prime Minister’s Literary Award of Achievement in Non-Fiction and was appointed Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit in the 2002 Queen’s Birthday and Golden Jubilee Honours. I found difficulty in identifying Scott’s perspective. Scott identified a Pakeha and Maori perspective but I was often stumped as there was supporting and contradicting evidence of both a Pakeha and Maori perspective. Perhaps Scott did not have a direct focus on the debates I was investigating. After further researching, I discovered that Scott had received help from a Parihaka elder, the late Whatarau Wharehoka, to rework Scott’s original story of Parihaka into Ask That Mountain, 1975. Soon after its release, historians and journalists slammed Ask That Mountain with criticism. From a historian’s perspective, knowing that Scott has extensively researched and corroborated with Parihaka elders, holding first hand experience, adds to the reliability of the source. However, criticism can be made over Scott’s use of quoting and use of sources. Scott infrequently footnotes and uses lengthy quotes, almost paragraphs. The pitfall of using such lengthy quotes is that the reader will become disinterested and will not continue reading. This limits Scott in identifying his perspectives and making historical conclusions.
M.P.K. Sorrenson, Oxford History of New Zealand, 1981
M. P. K. Sorrenson began his career as a junior lecturer at the University of Auckland (1958) and continued to complete his DPhil at Oxford University. Sorrenson returned to Auckland in 1964, teaching for thirty-one years. Sorrenson was a leading member of the Waitangi Tribunal for twenty-five years which was one of the most prominent positions he held. Sorreson is New Zealand’s most important living historians. Sorrenson co-authored the Oxford History of New Zealand with his chapter ‘Pakeha and Maori’. Sorrenson focuses more on the relationship between Maori and Pakeha but has a minor focus on settlement conditions of Parihaka. Sorrenson was useful to use to support but contradict Bolton’s perspective. From a historian’s perspective, this was interesting to write on. In my opinion, I believe this source held an orthodox view on the Invasion and also supported the perspectives of Belich and Riseborough who were sympathetic towards Maori. To the contrary, Sorrenson also used evidence that uncovered a Pakeha perspective. Perhaps he did this to make his writing unbiased. Overall, I can conclude that using Sorrenson helped me to add more weight to my argument/ debates of these historian’s perspectives.
M. P. K. Sorrenson began his career as a junior lecturer at the University of Auckland (1958) and continued to complete his DPhil at Oxford University. Sorrenson returned to Auckland in 1964, teaching for thirty-one years. Sorrenson was a leading member of the Waitangi Tribunal for twenty-five years which was one of the most prominent positions he held. Sorreson is New Zealand’s most important living historians. Sorrenson co-authored the Oxford History of New Zealand with his chapter ‘Pakeha and Maori’. Sorrenson focuses more on the relationship between Maori and Pakeha but has a minor focus on settlement conditions of Parihaka. Sorrenson was useful to use to support but contradict Bolton’s perspective. From a historian’s perspective, this was interesting to write on. In my opinion, I believe this source held an orthodox view on the Invasion and also supported the perspectives of Belich and Riseborough who were sympathetic towards Maori. To the contrary, Sorrenson also used evidence that uncovered a Pakeha perspective. Perhaps he did this to make his writing unbiased. Overall, I can conclude that using Sorrenson helped me to add more weight to my argument/ debates of these historian’s perspectives.
Virginia Winder, The Plunder of Parihaka
Virginia Winder works as a freelance journalist for Word Winder Works Ltd. (2008-present) and takes a keen interest in Maori affairs and local politics. Winder is on the Taranaki Adult Literacy committee, volunteers on Access Radio Taranaki 104.4FM and was a former mentor of Young Enterprise Scheme teams. Winder writes sympathetically towards Maori however from a historian’s perspective, I do not believe her writing is biased. The use of Fromm’s diary excerpts was an interesting choice of source. From a historian’s perspective, Fromm’s excerpts helped me to identify and argue against the orthodox Pakeha perspective, which I believe added weight to my argument.
Virginia Winder works as a freelance journalist for Word Winder Works Ltd. (2008-present) and takes a keen interest in Maori affairs and local politics. Winder is on the Taranaki Adult Literacy committee, volunteers on Access Radio Taranaki 104.4FM and was a former mentor of Young Enterprise Scheme teams. Winder writes sympathetically towards Maori however from a historian’s perspective, I do not believe her writing is biased. The use of Fromm’s diary excerpts was an interesting choice of source. From a historian’s perspective, Fromm’s excerpts helped me to identify and argue against the orthodox Pakeha perspective, which I believe added weight to my argument.
James Cowan (Hero Stories of New Zealand, 1935) and R. Parris, Report, 1882
Cowan wrote from a sympathetic perspective to Maori. Contrastingly, Parris wrote from a sympathetic Pakeha perspective. District Commissioner Parris was sent to Parihaka and wrote and published a report in 1882 on his findings of the settlement. Parris wrote about the leadership of Te Whiti and similar to Bolton, made personal attacks about him. From a historian’s perspective, Parris was useful to use as a source to support Bolton’s perspectives and added weight to Bolton’s arguments. However, I believe Parris was personally motivated to shed a negative light on the settlement and Te Whiti. Therefore I do not hold much value in Parris’ perspectives. James Cowan was a historian who is noted for writing on colonial history and Maori ethnography. Cowan spoke fluent Maori and was therefore able to interview and understand Te Whiti and his drive for the settlement. Cowan was able to understand and correctly interpret Te Whiti’s speeches and perspective due to his fluency in the language. Because of this, I believe that Cowan is a reliable source. Cowan was also useful to argue Riseborough’s perspectives and reinforce the nature of Te Whiti’s leadership. Both Cowan and Parris’ experiences of the settlement/ Invasion are primary evidence. In using their accounts, it added a more perceptive dimension to the debates.
Cowan wrote from a sympathetic perspective to Maori. Contrastingly, Parris wrote from a sympathetic Pakeha perspective. District Commissioner Parris was sent to Parihaka and wrote and published a report in 1882 on his findings of the settlement. Parris wrote about the leadership of Te Whiti and similar to Bolton, made personal attacks about him. From a historian’s perspective, Parris was useful to use as a source to support Bolton’s perspectives and added weight to Bolton’s arguments. However, I believe Parris was personally motivated to shed a negative light on the settlement and Te Whiti. Therefore I do not hold much value in Parris’ perspectives. James Cowan was a historian who is noted for writing on colonial history and Maori ethnography. Cowan spoke fluent Maori and was therefore able to interview and understand Te Whiti and his drive for the settlement. Cowan was able to understand and correctly interpret Te Whiti’s speeches and perspective due to his fluency in the language. Because of this, I believe that Cowan is a reliable source. Cowan was also useful to argue Riseborough’s perspectives and reinforce the nature of Te Whiti’s leadership. Both Cowan and Parris’ experiences of the settlement/ Invasion are primary evidence. In using their accounts, it added a more perceptive dimension to the debates.
Michael King, Penguin History of New Zealand, 2003
Michael King has a degree in History and further gained a PhD in History at the University of Waikato in 1978. King held seven fellowships at leading universities and was a Visiting Professor of New Zealand Studies at Georgetown University in Washington DC. In his thirty-year career, King authored and published over thirty books and to which he was most notably awarded the Prime Minister’s Award for Literary Achievement. King was sympathetic towards Maori issues but treated them with sensitivity for he knew he was a Pakeha himself. King aimed to provide and educate New Zealanders on the Invasion of Parihaka but generally on New Zealand’s history; ‘this book is unashamedly a history of New Zealand… directed at curious and intelligent general readers, Maori and Pakeha, who are not historians.’ From a historian’s perspective, I believe that King did not hold bias in his writing but did aim to focus on concerns of Maori from the past and present. King was a useful source and I value his perspectives on the focusing debates.
Michael King has a degree in History and further gained a PhD in History at the University of Waikato in 1978. King held seven fellowships at leading universities and was a Visiting Professor of New Zealand Studies at Georgetown University in Washington DC. In his thirty-year career, King authored and published over thirty books and to which he was most notably awarded the Prime Minister’s Award for Literary Achievement. King was sympathetic towards Maori issues but treated them with sensitivity for he knew he was a Pakeha himself. King aimed to provide and educate New Zealanders on the Invasion of Parihaka but generally on New Zealand’s history; ‘this book is unashamedly a history of New Zealand… directed at curious and intelligent general readers, Maori and Pakeha, who are not historians.’ From a historian’s perspective, I believe that King did not hold bias in his writing but did aim to focus on concerns of Maori from the past and present. King was a useful source and I value his perspectives on the focusing debates.