Talk:Wairau Affray

Wairau "Incident"

--In recent decades, there has been a strong move to rename this as the "Wairau Incident". Robin Patterson 03:25, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

--I'm moving this Wikipage from Wairau Massacre to Wairau Affray. -- PFHLai 04:35, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

--However, the Europeans did write the history of the incident: for this reason it became known by the pejorative title of the Wairau Massacre. Wairau Affair or Incident would be a more accurate title, but the facts became lost in a welter of subsequent events and the need to justify the British position

--Isn't this a POV? How do you know the British reasons? And for the families of those killed, it was a massacre.

--To the above: If you get arms and seek to fight, you engage in combat. Massacre would be if they were all unarmed, did not cause any trouble and were civilians in their own right. But these settlers were armed and looking to force the issue. Therefore how can it be said when they lost the initiative, they were all of a sudden massacred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.139.214 (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

--This Article is completely biased towards the Maori Point of view. It is blatantly obvious to anyone who has any understanding of history that this is infact, incorrect.

--I agree, this sentence in particular: "Twenty-two Europeans died in the incident. It could have been more if the Māori had seriously pursued the rest of the party, but having made their point, they allowed them to escape."

Untitled

I've fixed this and added a references section. I'll go through the article eventually and adde further references. Can you please sign your comments on the talk page with four tildes. Thanks! Grimhim 03:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

--This Article is completely biased towards the Maori Point of view. I SECOUND THAT WHO EVER WROTE THIS needs to get there facts correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.27.47.18 (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what bias you're referring to. I've given the article a bit of a re-work, relying on one major book on the subject so far and replacing the viewpoint material that had drifted into it; I'll bring in other information from other authoritative sources when time allows, as well as move on to the "Aftermath" section.Grimhim (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Memorial

We have a page on the memorial on NZHistory.net.nz - http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/wairau-memorial - probably should be mentioned somewhere? Jamie Mackay (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Referencing

I've converted this page to a referencing system that uses shortened footnotes. That system is capable of quoting the same source several times, but referring to different page numbers. See Template:Sfn and WP:CITESHORT for how that works. Schwede66 02:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ad Claudiam

I have reverted to a clean version for two reasons: the lack of spaces after punctuation; and the introduction of nonsense names such as Ngati Toawho. This is probably the unspaced version of Ngati Toa, who ... but is doubly bad since it happens to look like a Maori word. In a previous edit I had elimated that, but an Anon reverted to the messy version without giving an explanation for doing so. Kahuroa (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The meaning of utu

For non Kiwis here is an explanation of the Maori traditional practice of utu or payback.In all Maori society utu was one of the several common beliefs that underpinned their belief system and led to so much violence in both traditional and post contact NZ.Other key ideas are mana meaning importance,prestige,power,authority and take meaning just cause for action.A chief was tapu or sacred because he had mana-which was built up by display of power -this could be material ie well built Pa or fine canoes , having high quality weapons,large stores of food.If anything lowered his mana this was seen as just cause(take) to use or threaten violence to get equal(utu).As Maori had no separate criminal justice system to regulate their society,they used this method -what I would call lore and order.Every Maori knew that if you did something to upset a chief and cause him to lose mana there would be hell to pay .A slave or a person who was noa(ordinary)could be killed or robbed and often little or nothing would happen-slaves generally had no great value and could be exected for the most trivial 'reason'with no utu expected.In some cases utu could be satisfied by the giving of acceptable gifts-the most acceptaple were preserved food such as birds or eels. Therefore, killing the captured was considered by all traditional Maori perfectly normal ifa chief or his property (eg his woman) was harmed.Gradually, as the influence of missionaries, christianity and British culture in general started to influence the majority of Maori, these traditional practices started to die out but at the time of the Wairau massacre/utu executions the traditional beliefs held sway. By the time of the land wars in the 1860s Maori understood that killing of prisoners was to the British abhorrent,though Maori still considered it ok to kill isolated settlers-even children as late as 1863.During the invasion of Auckland by the war-mongering Ngati Maniapoto, bands of Maori targeted soft targets such as farmers out in their fields in the Wairoa Valley and at Ramarama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.36.156 (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Utu in the case of the Wairau massacre was for several reasons according to a variety of Maori sources-firstly the killing of the chief's wahine but also for several events that had given Maori "Take"or just case in their lore or tikanga.Firstly Maori were very upset about a pakeha settler being released after he had been charged with the murder of a Maori women in Wellington. They were also annoyed at the unresolved land issues in the area.Claudia June 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.37.112 (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Interpretation of Wairau

It seems a reasonable and accurate interpretation of the Wairau battle and the utu or massacre that followed, that the NZ company did have a legal title to the land. After all they did have the deed and they did have its provenance. Te Rauparaha was an invader from the north who had taken the land by conqest from a branch of Rangitane who lived in the Wairau valley for many centuries. This is quite consistent with the known history of both Te Rauparaha and Rangitane.Te Rauparaha was a shrewd customer . Like many conquering chiefs of that period, he saw the treaty as a way to officialy validate his claim on land that was not actually his at all.

It is interesting that in the Spain enquiry he claimed that the group had called out they were christians one moment (by showing the testiment and calling out "we are christians and we dont want to fight") yet within perhaps 2 minutes his warriors are clearly out of control slaughtering many unarmed people (the quakers and others) who were running away. His evidence is interesting as ,of course, he had killed all the British witnesses so could say anything without being challenged.Utu was clearly not a christian belief so what was Te R up to ?In private he had said he was astonished that the British had not immediately come to Wairau and reclaimed the land by force-clearly he expected them to. This would have been Maori Tikanga. What Te R didnt realise was that the British were civilians with no military force to back them. When the governor did eventually arrive he quickly saw the lie if the land(he was not called "the man of war without guns" for nothing) and did everything he could to pacify Te R, much to the horror of the settlers, who within months had started a succesful campaign to get rid of him. In 2010 Rangitane started a Treaty of Waitangi claim for the Wairau valley.The raupatu compensation is in the order of $2 to $4 million for that area.Te Rauparaha had been so keen to validate his 18 year old conquest in 1840 that he signed the treaty Of Waitangi twice -the only chief to do so.Claudia June 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.37.112 (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The character of Te Rauparaha and Rangihaeata

Historians have noted that litle reliance can be placed on what these 2 Maori warrior said .They should be judged by their actions.They stand condemmed by the treacherous double game they played against the settlers at Hutt Valley a year or 2 after Wairau, when British troops intercepted letters between the 2 men which showed beyond any doubt their scheming ways .P184 The Newest country in the world .Paul Moon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.158.54 (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Claudia. Your contributions are being reverted because they are poorly written, poorly formatted and without reliable in-line references. Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources for instructions on how to cite in-line references and Wikipedia:Fringe theories for an explanation of why fringe sources such as Paul Moon are not reliable.

It would also be of great help to yourself if you got a Wikipedia account so that people could discuss your work with you in one central place, hopefully resulting in your contributions being better sourced, referenced and formatted so that they can stand as written or with minimal editing. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul Moon would have a good laugh at being called a fringe source. I believe he has written about 12 books on Nz history-most of them to do with the early history of Nz. He is employed by a leading Tertiary Educational provider in NZ and is regularly consulted by the media to interpret historial Nz events or there impact today-far more than any other historian in Nz. The only public criticism I could find was a small piece by a rather extreme Maori academic who criticised Moon's book on canabalism. The basis of the criticism was that it didn't show Maori in a good light. By all means please help correct any editing errors.Thanks.Claudia.June 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.190.22 (talk) 08:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Historians have said england is a treacherous nation of people murdering thier way through history to plunder and covet other nations for thie own ends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.13.91 (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Doubt over spelling of Blenkinsopp

The family of Capt Blenkinsopp have indicated that the old English records show that the family name was spelt both ways. These spelling differences were very common up until the 20th century with many if not most surnames.

If he was active in the 1840s he would be long dead by now. I suggest you try to trace his headstone (if he has one) or those of his descendants (if he has any) to see what spelling he used. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Unable to find details of headstone-Im assuming he was buried in Australia where he drowned but the Wairau land deed in question, which presumably was drawn up by the good captain or his legal advisor, has the name with a single p,not two. I'd say this is fairly conclusive. Most of the "descendants" seem to be on the Maori side. He appears to have been "married" to 2 Maori women including Te Rongo,the women who was shot by the armed posse at Wairau. It was a very small world then.

Was the document a fraud?

Having spent months following every tiny bit of information on this it is impossible to say conclusively if the document was a fraud or not. Most of the information is rumour. A document certainly existed but there is little or no good evidence either way, although the document seems to have been treated as genuine in Australia and the NZ company had no reason to believe it wasn't genuine-they had paid good money for it. Efforts have been made to discredit Blenkinsopp but it is difficult to trace their origin. There is limited information about him but what there is suggests a normal business man of that free wheeling era.

Te Rauparaha is, on the other hand, very well known as the "Napolean of the south". He was pushed out of his homeland in west Waikato by other more powerful Waikato forces and was forced migrate south along the coast into the land of the various Taranaki tribes. He formed alliances with some to form a huge invading army that swept into the Wellington region, destroying all before him. Survivors were taken as slaves. At least 2 iwi were totally wiped out. He secured his Kapiti Island base and fought off a group of local people trying to bring his invasion to an end but they were soundly beaten. After this he invaded the South Island and defeated most of the small tribes in the north. Some accounts stress that his aim was to obtain greenstone on the Westcoast but he seems to have spent most or all of his energy arranging battles and further invasions of the southern part of the South Island, some of which were successful and others not.

B and Te R seem to have had respect for each other. Te R "married" his daughter to B at Cloudy Bay-a normal event back in those days when a chief thought a European could be of use. It seems unlikely that TE R could read so it is possible that B did construct a fraudulent deed to obtain land but there is no real evidence one way or another. TE R could be very duplicitous, as later deeds in Wellington proved, when he tried to hoodwink the governor-he was used to getting his way by any means possible-mainly by use of strategic force. It is reasonable to say he was extremely cunning. Of interest is that TE R was caught out when he sent a hand written note which showed he was playing a double game. This was intercepted by troops and shown to the governor. What we don't know is if TE R himself wrote the note. If he did then it suggests that at some stage he learnt to write and presumably read English. This would throw the idea of him being tricked out the window. B would have been taking a huge risk to try to put one over Te R who was responsible for more mayhem and destruction in NZ than any other single person during the Musket War period.Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Michael King (The Penguin History of New Zealand, p. 182) was evidently in no doubt that the land deal was "fraudulent" because Wakefield held a "false deed". Patricia Burns' history of the New Zealand Company (Fatal Success, p. 121-122) refers to the late Mr Blenkinsop's "alleged" purchase from Te Rauparaha, and then explains: "The purchase hinged on a gun which Blenkinsop had spiked before handing it over to the Ngati Toa. The chief had not seen the humour of the situation, for the rich Wairau was one of his most treasured possessions." No other books I have go into any greater depth on the "fraud" or make any judgment on the validity of the transaction, but if you have any relevant sources you'd like to raise here, that would be helpful. In the meantime I have changed the wording to "possibly fraudulent" sale, though it could be argued that since King is a reliable source, his judgment should be the one used in this article. BlackCab (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Rev Ironsides account

Ironside was a remarkable missionary. He proved from the start of his mission a fearless man who was not afraid to tackle cultural/political issues head on. With a university degree he was an able commentator of the massacre and the aftermath. His writings show the true horror of the massacre and the effects on the small Wellington /Nelson population. As well as converting Maori to christianity he made an real effort to understand their history and language. He very quickly became a valuable asset to the government and helped avoid further bloodshed after the massacre. His presence at Porirua (Taupo Pa) just a short time after the massacre is astounding as he was an eyewitness to the reenactment of the massacre and to hear Te Rangitaeata's bloody account. He was able to report to the government the bloodthirsty mood of the Maori which tempered any government reaction. Of interest is that his eyewitness account confirms the bloody mutilation of the victims who were killed after their ceasefire and the beheading of the European leader. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 05:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The material adds nothing of historical worth. Ironside's nightmares have no place in an encyclopedia, and his subsequent claims about what he saw Te Rangihaeata do are also unimportant. Do you ever look back to what you have typed in? It's a mess. "Crown prosecutor and newspaper editor Mr Richardson, Surveyor Mr Cotterell, Company store keeper Mr J. Howard with about and about 50 men ..." Your spelling is appalling and the lax attention to capitalisation and style leaves a lot to be desired. 05:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)BlackCab (TALK)

Nevertheless Ironsides was the only eyewitness to the events who wrote in detail about the series of incidents with great accuracy. Im not sure what you mean by his "nightmares"-are you trying to be funny? It is the only account of have seen which shows in detail(page after page) the Maori warriors leaders cultural position and behaviour. Ironsides went into enormous depth about what he observed at Taupo Pa-it is a gripping account. This is of enormous historical value as it accurately shows the positions of key contemporary Maori and European figures at the time. I will fix the small errors mentioned. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk)

No, I am not being funny. Ironsides is writing about his nightmares. You have simply reinstated your edit with all your mistakes and inattention to Wikipedia style. BlackCab (TALK) 05:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

And I have removed it again because it is the usual rubbish contribution from that editor. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reinstated the only useful part of the material, which concerned the search party and burials. BlackCab (TALK) 06:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Fitzroy's own personal account of the aftermath to the massacre is the real thing.

Fitzroy's own account of his lack of action after the massacre makes perfect sense. The article in fact spells out in detail why he took this action, the quote merely confirms the previous detail is correct i.e Te Rauparaha was recognized(too late!) as being an immensely powerful warlord.That the govt was militarily weak. It had no force at all in the immediate area. That the settlers in Nelson and Wellington were very angry with him. Even Te Rauparaha was astonished the Governor took no firm action as this was quite contrary to Maori traditions. Editors who write remarks like this are clutching at straws. Why do you think it needs a secondary source? No doubt that, in addition, the governor had on his mind the difficulty with the question of real land "ownership" and deeds. But as it turns out Te Rauparaha didn't actually own the land at all and that why the Treaty Tribunal recommended a pay out to Rangitane by the government for the loss of Wairau, not Ngati Toa. The payout to the real tangatawhenua has now taken place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.178.77 (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The reasons behind Fitzroy's decision to abstain from judicial action against the Maori are in fact already in the article, using Moon (a secondary source) who quotes repeatedly from the Fitroy's "Remarks on New Zealand" book (the primary source), which is what Wikipedia prefers. I can find no reference to Te Rauparaha being "amazed that Fitzroy took no action," which you source to page 20 of Fitzroy's book, and nor can I find reference in that book to the 400 muskets in Auckland. Unless you have taken those details from other pages in Fitzroy's book but failed to cite it, it looks like you have read a page of the Fitzroy book, then once again decided to add that information but weave into it parts of your own background knowledge. Your edit actually adds little of value at all.

Can you also say where the "ruin the country" quote from Fitzroy comes from? It could well be accurate, but it is nowhere in the chapter from which you quote. And please remember to sign your comments with the four tildes and also improve your citations. Stop being so lazy. BlackCab (TALK) 22:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

"ruin" remark is from p 19 according to my notes. At the time there were only 2 small military formations in NZ and they were both in Auckland with no immediate transport to take them south. The poor military state of NZ was the reason that later governors from 1847 decided to employ Royal fencibles and "friendly" Maori to defend settlements like Auckland.I am very surprised that you have not heard of Te Ruaparaha's "surprise " statement as it is very well known. I believe Cowan was the first to high light this reaction.It explains why the "value" or mana of the British military went down in Maori eyes and part explains the confidence that Northern Maori had in attacking the British. Fitzroy's lack of military response was counter to everything Maori believed about life and warfare. Although they were fascinated by the idea of the British having full time professional soldiers they came to see them(after the Wairau case anyway) as paper tigers.115.188.178.77 (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• His reference to the possible "ruin" of the settlers is indeed on page 19 but bears no similarity to the direct quote (in quotation marks) you used. How could you possibly think it is acceptable in an encyclopedia to guess at a quote?
• "It is very well known" is never acceptable as the basis for inclusion of a statement such as the one you included that Te Rauparaha was ""amazed that Fitzroy took no action". Either find a source or don't use it.
• And so you are confirming that your edit about the 400 muskets was based on your own knowledge? That is not acceptable either.

Your edits continue to be of very poor quality and you are making very bad judgments that force other editors to chase you round cleaning up after you like you're a dog with diarrhea. BlackCab (TALK) 23:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)