In your “Conversations” column for 18 February 2021, you state that “in an age of misinformation online and social media noise” .. “learning our history ... teaches us to think critically”. Yet you repeat one of the grossest lies which have ever been perpetrated about the history of New Zealand. Yes, you repeat one of the most frequently chanted lies with which our history is sullied: that “Colonel Nixon was famous for razing unfortified Rangiaowhia while men, women and children burnt in their church.” Not a word of this is true.
The truth is that in a humanitarian move to minimize loss of lives, both of Government troops and Waikato rebels, General Cameron chose to bypass the rebels’ strong fort at Paterangi and cut off their food supplies from Rangiaowhia which was thus actively engaged in the rebellion. In an early morning move after women and children had been allowed to leave the village unharmed, the village was quickly occupied, the churches still standing. At one slab hut occupied by armed rebels, Sergeant[1] McHale was ordered by Captain Wilson to enter and demand the surrender of the occupants. Old fool Hoani Papita shot him dead, at which point a furious encounter took place in which Colonel Nixon was mortally wounded and the slab hut burnt to the ground. The accounts of Captain Wilson, two troopers who were present and one Potatau who had escaped early from it with his parents are all consistent. The fort at Paterangi was deserted without a fight. As historian Chris Pugsley has observed: “it was the decisive action in the entire conflict, a severe economic setback for the Kingitanga and a major blow to its morale.” - a rebellion in which, at one stage, the rebels had planned to attack Auckland and slaughter most of its inhabitants.
So much for your “razing [of] unfortified Rangiaowhia while men, women and children burnt in their church”, concocted within months by the rebels, furious at being so outwitted, as Captain Wilson discovered in a discussion with two Wesleyan ministers at a great Maori meeting at Kopua not long afterwards. It has been repeated in one shape or form ever since; in recent times by Tommy Wilson, in “Eraka’s blog”, by JOC Phillips, by Susan Devoy, by Vincent O'Malley, by members of Ngati Apakura in the “Waikato Times” and by deceived children of Otorohanga College.[2]
And so, Arena, you have stated once again in a column
published in most local newspapers in New Zealand and read by perhaps millions
of people, one of the most blatant lies ever perpetrated in our country. Yet you are a Member of Parliament which is
responsible for law-making and for government.
You could well take your own advice, learning to think critically by a
study in more depth of New Zealand’s true history.[3]
Bruce Moon
Nelson
[1] Records very on whether McHale was a
corporal or a sergeant.
[2] Full references are available
[3] This would not include your example of “the
arrival of Maoris in Aotearoa” since our country was never called that when
they did but only by a couple of English storytellers in the 1890s! Their actual arrival can only be described
accurately as “pre-history” since nobody knows for certain the whereabouts of
“Hawaiki” which the legends say is the place which they came from.
Bruce Moon is a retired computer
pioneer who wrote "Real Treaty; False Treaty - The True Waitangi
Story".
3 comments:
It never ceases to amaze me how the Left-wing woke brigade pretend to condemn and disparage practices that they themselves carry out on a regular basis. Perhaps they don't realise they're woke, a bit like John Campbell on TVNZ's Breakfast Show, but more likely it's a case of do as I say, not as I do.
In this case, disparaging "an age of online misinformation and social media noise". Two classic tactics employed by the Left to ensure only their message reaches the eyes and ears of the public.
I am certain the battle has been lost to present a fair and balanced account of NZ history to our schoolchildren. Our opposition, on current showing, are highly unlikely to reverse this once it is enacted. They are too intimidated by the "racism" backlash. And so the Left win again...and will keep winning until the public tell them in no uncertain terms that they have had enough. When will that happen..............................?
Bruce - this is just one more example of the government's publicly declared intention to re-write New Zealand history.
Hitherto, this tactic was more typical of Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler, among others. George Orwell's prophetic novel 1984 illustrates it.
Here's another [part-] Maori lie about history, exposed.
Ngati Whatua’s claim to mana whenua over the Tamaki Isthmus is arrant nonsense as I will show.
It is today asserted that Ngati Whatua “gifted” the land on which Auckland City now stands to the Crown, thus somehow entitling them to be involved on an ongoing basis in running the city.
To bolster this claim and mislead the public, Ngati Whatua caused to be removed from public display a bronze plaque with the inscription: “Here at Point Britomart on 18 September 1840 the British Flag was raised in token of the purchase of this site from Ngati Whatua.”
A replacement plaque was erected reading: “This Mauri Stone acknowledges the agreement made on 18 September 1840 between Apihai Te Kawau of Ngati Whatua and the British Crown. Te Kawau gifted 3000 acres to establish the City of Auckland.”
We see here deployed a version of Adolf Hitler’s Big Lie technique as outlined in Mein Kampf: repeat a lie over and over until it becomes the ‘truth.’
The land was not “gifted” at all, but sold to the Crown for cash and goods, as evidenced by Deeds of Sale in both English and Maori to this effect.
Once land is sold in such a specific manner, it’s gone for good, and the seller has no further claim over it or ongoing right to say what happens with it. Assertions to the contrary can be likened to selling someone a house, then demanding a perpetual say in how it is renovated, decorated and landscaped.
In any event, like so many early New Zealand land sales, Ngati Whatua’s claims to ownership at the time of sale were tenuous at best.
Ngati Whatua were not the first occupants of the Auckland area. Originally based further north, they colonised the locality around 1750 by exterminating its former occupants, Te Waiohua.
Ngati Whatua assertions that Auckland’s volcanic cones are “ancestors” is self-serving cultural twaddle. Even if this nonsense was true, the cones are clearly “ancestors” of comparatively recent adoption. This is nothing but thieves attempting to place their claim to the proceeds of robbery and murder beyond any doubt.
What goes around comes around. In the 1820s, the Tamaki Isthmus was repeatedly invaded by musket-toting Ngapuhi. The Encyclopaedia of New Zealand records that as a result: “much of the isthmus was abandoned as tribes sought shelter in the Tainui region.”
Historian, RCJ Stone, notes: “fear of Ngapuhi prevented them [Ngati Whatua] from occupying their old home for many years afterwards, indeed, not until Auckland was founded [in 1840] did they feel safe.”
Ngati Whatua thus “sold” to the Crown land they’d cravenly vacated more than a decade before. Land they no longer occupied or controlled in any meaningful sense. This placed the Governor and his troops between Ngati Whatua returnees and renewed hostilities from Ngapuhi.
Payment from the Crown also underscored to neighbouring tribes that the mana of the land remained with Ngati Whatua, though many might think running away from a powerful enemy and staying away for almost 20 years hardly justifies such a claim.
While hiding behind the skirts of Queen Victoria was a clever stroke of business from both a practical and a Maori perspective, this historical action hardly supports demands from Aucklanders of Anglo-Ngati Whatua descent for special involvement in running Auckland based on having some Maori ancestry.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.