I agree that history should not be sanitised. But surely that principle must apply to all of our history.
Burns objects to the curriculum referring to concerns about “lawlessness” surrounding the signing of te Tiriti o Waitangi. He says this could give the impression that pre-European Māori society was “lawless”, and further says the lawlessness concerned British settlers.
There is an important distinction here. Māori society certainly had its own systems of authority, customs and rules, so describing it simply as “lawless” could be inaccurate.
But neither should we leave students with the impression that pre-European Māori society was an idyllic, peaceful and orderly existence until Europeans arrived.
The historical record tells a rather different story.
In 1831, thirteen northern chiefs wrote to King William IV seeking British protection. Their letter warned of the possible arrival of the French and also asked for protection “lest the teasing of other tribes should come near us”. Clearly, conflict between tribes was a serious concern.
Intertribal warfare was an established feature of Māori society, and the arrival of European firearms dramatically intensified existing conflicts. The Musket Wars, roughly 1807–1842, involved extensive warfare, killings, enslavement and the displacement of communities.
One example was Hongi Hika's attack on Mauinaina Pā at Tāmaki in 1820. According to Te Ara, around 2,000 Ngāpuhi, armed with 1,000 muskets, laid siege to the pā. It was captured with great loss of life, including Te Hinaki and many of his people, women and children. The victors remained on the battlefield eating the vanquished until, according to the account, they were eventually driven away by the smell of the decaying bodies.
These are uncomfortable facts. But if we are demanding an “honest engagement” with our past, they belong in the story too.
This does not excuse later Crown actions, nor does it mean that European colonisation was benign. It simply means that historical honesty cannot be selective.
The same principle applies to the Treaty.
Burns objects to the curriculum suggesting that the chiefs who signed te Tiriti ceded their existing authority. Yet Article 1 of the ‘Official’ English text explicitly states that the chiefs ceded to Queen Victoria “all the rights and powers of Sovereignty”.
There is, of course, an ongoing debate about how this should be understood alongside the Māori text, particularly the meaning of kawanatanga and tino rangatiratanga. But acknowledging that debate is very different from presenting the Treaty as though the cession of sovereignty is irrelevant.
Likewise, the New Zealand Wars should certainly include the Crown's use of military force and the land confiscations imposed following armed rebellion against Crown authority — rebellions which, in the Crown's view, challenged the sovereignty ceded under the Treaty. This was followed by the subsequent loss of Māori land. Around 3,000 people lost their lives in the New Zealand Wars, compared with an estimated 20,000 to 40,000 deaths during the Musket Wars. But describing the New Zealand Wars simply as the Crown acquiring Māori land by force is no more satisfactory than presenting them as a mere misunderstanding.
The history was considerably more complicated. The wars involved questions of sovereignty and authority, resistance to Crown rule, disputes over land, settler expansion and conflict between different Māori groups and political movements.
If we genuinely want young New Zealanders to think critically about our past, we should give them the uncomfortable facts from all sides, rather than replacing one sanitised narrative with another.
History should challenge students to think — not tell them what to think.
There is an important distinction here. Māori society certainly had its own systems of authority, customs and rules, so describing it simply as “lawless” could be inaccurate.
But neither should we leave students with the impression that pre-European Māori society was an idyllic, peaceful and orderly existence until Europeans arrived.
The historical record tells a rather different story.
In 1831, thirteen northern chiefs wrote to King William IV seeking British protection. Their letter warned of the possible arrival of the French and also asked for protection “lest the teasing of other tribes should come near us”. Clearly, conflict between tribes was a serious concern.
Intertribal warfare was an established feature of Māori society, and the arrival of European firearms dramatically intensified existing conflicts. The Musket Wars, roughly 1807–1842, involved extensive warfare, killings, enslavement and the displacement of communities.
One example was Hongi Hika's attack on Mauinaina Pā at Tāmaki in 1820. According to Te Ara, around 2,000 Ngāpuhi, armed with 1,000 muskets, laid siege to the pā. It was captured with great loss of life, including Te Hinaki and many of his people, women and children. The victors remained on the battlefield eating the vanquished until, according to the account, they were eventually driven away by the smell of the decaying bodies.
These are uncomfortable facts. But if we are demanding an “honest engagement” with our past, they belong in the story too.
This does not excuse later Crown actions, nor does it mean that European colonisation was benign. It simply means that historical honesty cannot be selective.
The same principle applies to the Treaty.
Burns objects to the curriculum suggesting that the chiefs who signed te Tiriti ceded their existing authority. Yet Article 1 of the ‘Official’ English text explicitly states that the chiefs ceded to Queen Victoria “all the rights and powers of Sovereignty”.
There is, of course, an ongoing debate about how this should be understood alongside the Māori text, particularly the meaning of kawanatanga and tino rangatiratanga. But acknowledging that debate is very different from presenting the Treaty as though the cession of sovereignty is irrelevant.
Likewise, the New Zealand Wars should certainly include the Crown's use of military force and the land confiscations imposed following armed rebellion against Crown authority — rebellions which, in the Crown's view, challenged the sovereignty ceded under the Treaty. This was followed by the subsequent loss of Māori land. Around 3,000 people lost their lives in the New Zealand Wars, compared with an estimated 20,000 to 40,000 deaths during the Musket Wars. But describing the New Zealand Wars simply as the Crown acquiring Māori land by force is no more satisfactory than presenting them as a mere misunderstanding.
The history was considerably more complicated. The wars involved questions of sovereignty and authority, resistance to Crown rule, disputes over land, settler expansion and conflict between different Māori groups and political movements.
If we genuinely want young New Zealanders to think critically about our past, we should give them the uncomfortable facts from all sides, rather than replacing one sanitised narrative with another.
History should challenge students to think — not tell them what to think.
Unfortunately these woke academics pushing their warped views walk amongst us.
Sources:
New Zealand Herald — ’Sanitised’ history risks fuelling extreme views: Lecturer 19/8/26 - page A5
Science Media Centre — expert reactions to the updated Social Sciences curriculum, including Christopher Burns's comments.
Te Ara — Hongi Hika.
Online NZ Herald - (Paywalled)
Petition to King William IV
Musket Wars
New Zealand Wars
Official English Treaty of Waitangi
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
Sources:
New Zealand Herald — ’Sanitised’ history risks fuelling extreme views: Lecturer 19/8/26 - page A5
Science Media Centre — expert reactions to the updated Social Sciences curriculum, including Christopher Burns's comments.
Te Ara — Hongi Hika.
Online NZ Herald - (Paywalled)
Petition to King William IV
Musket Wars
New Zealand Wars
Official English Treaty of Waitangi
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.