The explanation I’ve always heard for why New Zealand was settled by Polynesians so late is that they preferred to start their voyages against the currents when they were fresh so that they wouldn’t have to fight the currents on their way back if they weren’t able to find any new lands to rest and recharge
Kiwi here, I haven't heard that before. New Zealand is very isolated and far south. Polynesian explorers went from the North to the South, so New Zealand was last.
I am unsure why there wasn't earlier immigration from Australia, possibly technological or cultural. Australia is huge, so maybe there wasn't population or resource motivation to explore and settle new lands.
> I am unsure why there wasn't earlier immigration from Australia, possibly technological or cultural.
Indigenous Australians were not mariners, they reached australia by island hopping, and at a time when the sea levels were even lowers and thus the distances between islands were lower (Tasmania was a peninsula at the time).
While NZ is close to Australia by air, the Tasman sea is 1700km of open unforgiving ocean. This is not a distance you can reasonably cross as a people with little history of navigation, or even a lot of it. Scandinavia to Iceland is 2/3rds that distance and Iceland was only colonised in the 9th century, by a reasonably maritime culture (mid-era norse).
Indigenous Australians never reached New Caledonia either even though it’s much closer to Australia (~1200km), as far as I know the earliest arrivals were circa 1500~1000BCE at the earliest and from the other side (the Lapita reached New Caledonia from through).
who lived on islands and travelled between PNG and Queensland, Australia but didn't venture south past the Great Barrier Reef and to New ZEaland - but did have the boats and seafaring skills.
Sounds like largely coastal navigation, with some longer hops, a pretty different beast from the open water austronesian (/ Melanesian / Polynesian) navigation.
It’s hard to imagine the bravery (or desperation?) of those explorers who ventured off into the open ocean. It seems likely that some would not have seen dry land again. There are probably some archaeological sites waiting at the bottom of the southern ocean.
Polynesian navigators were amazing at navigating via the stars. Kupe made the journey from Hawaiki (it's still unclear exactly where that is though) to New Zealand and back, and his grandson was able to navigate back to New Zealand just from his description of the stars. That grandson came to New Zealand on Ngātokimatawhaorua, the canoe that my family traces their ancestry back to.
Sometimes it feels like there is still not a lot of humans here !
They mention immigration towards the end - it's pretty impressive the speed and scale at which the population is changing towards much more asian. There was a census this year (results to be released in 2024) so pretty curious about the numbers.
It's kind of astounding how few people you see in public places. If I was an alien who had just crash landed in suburban Christchurch I'd probably conclude that cars were the dominant lifeform.
If you're interested in diving deeper, the History of Aotearoa New Zealand podcast ( https://historyaotearoa.com/ ) is a great resource, very well researched and engaging.
Should the recency of Maori arrival in NZ make white NZers (and Englishmen such as myself) feel less guilty about colonisation? Is it any different to displace a people who had been in place for just 300 years compared to one who had been there for 10k (Americas) or 50k (Australia)?
Most peoples have been displaced at some point. My Brythonic ancestors, if I have any, had their land settled by the Romans, the Danes and the Saxons all in the space of ~500 years.
I'm not an expert, some facts may be wrong, but it's something I have wondered about.
I'm a white NZer and feel no guilt whatsoever. I'm not responsible for the actions of my great great grandparents, and I don't think they were here in the 1840s regardless. Doesn't mean I deny what happened or think it was in any way good, but feeling guilt over something you had no part in rarely achieves genuine recompense.
And who would you return the land to? The original owners are no longer alive, and there is no guarantee that current descendants would be the ones actually owning the lands today. Tribe warfare and slavery weren't uncommon among Maori, so while some Maori would own the land today, they would likely have to gain that ownership through the same violent means used to take the land away from them.
Bit like the Rockefeller fortune really, then? The original Rockefellers are no longer alive after all.
> there is no guarantee that current descendants would be the ones actually owning the lands today.
Say what now?
Much the same time as John D. Rockefeller was born the Treaty of Waitangi was "signed" in 1840 (there's some conflict over versions and translations and genuine evidence some people signed an English language version after being shown another version in their own language etc.) and birth records and family histories from then until now are pretty solid.
Again, why should anyone respect the legal agreements about the Rockefeller trust if no one can be bothered to respect the agreements made in the Treaty of Waitangi?
The answer to your question is the answer to my question, and I actually have no stake or opinion on whether these lands should be returned. Maybe they should. But who should get these lands if we follow criteria resembling the laws of modern civilization (which is the one we'd have to apply here)?
That's the problem with collective ownership - nobody and everybody "owns" the land, and you can say they still own it the same if they still live in New Zealand. And, based on my very limited understanding of their history, they themselves couldn't ensure any sort of ownership given that land changed hands based on frequent warfare and conquest initiated by their chieftains.
About the Rockefeller foundation... You can check the laws that govern the continuation of his property, they are laws that apply to everybody and are codified in books of law.
Its not really an ownership issue, it's a redress issue. It's not about applying some letter of the law approach regarding land ownership, it's about restoring the mana of the Maori people - really just providing what was guaranteed under te tiriti o waitangi - ironically, very much in line with the co-governance approach being so maligned in NZ today.
At least, that's my opinion as a pakeha who has read the treaty (both versions) and read some of the early history of Maori land theft. What redress really looks like can only be adequately expressed by Maori, IMO
If you see the wrongess of colonisation as primarily stemming from a violation of imagined "ancestral ownership rights" then yes perhaps it's different.
If instead you actually care about the experiences of the human beings who were and are involved... Then no it doesn't make a single bit of difference.
Why should you feel evenly remotely guilty, you're not a coloniser, you're not even the ancestor of a coloniser (not that I think ancestors should in any way feel responsible for the actions of their forebears)
But also, while I agree that you shouldn't feel guilty or responsible for the actions of your ancestors, if those ancestors put in place a system of inequality, and some of that inequality persists to this day, which you benefit from while the descendants of those oppressed are still suffering from, don't you think that's at least worth acknowledging? And maybe considering that those who are still suffering because of an unresolved systemic marginalisation don't deserve to?
> Should the recency of Maori arrival in NZ make white NZers (and Englishmen such as myself) feel less guilty about colonisation?
No, the length of time doesn't matter. The guilt is appropriate due to the violence and inhumanity in the way the displacement was carried out (even if that was the norm at the time), and the continued oppression and erasure that occured.
I agree with you on this, at least. The length of time doesn't matter.
I would argue that the only sensible reason for a feeling of guilt is actus reus. I didn't participate in colonisation, I don't feel guilty that my ancestors did, and I'm yet to hear a clear argument for why I should.
It does seem logical to feel guilty if you benefit from the displacement of existing societies to their disadvantage, are aware of that benefit, and don't work to correct it.
I'd also suspect that the violence and inhumanity inflicted during colonisation are, as far as the "how guilty should descendents of colonisers feel" calculation goes, irrelevant. The thing that many of us are personally responsible for and should feel guilty about is shutting our eyes, and not doing enough to correct the inequity that still exists today.
> The thing that many of us are personally responsible for and should feel guilty about is shutting our eyes, and not doing enough to correct the inequity that still exists today.
This is what I meant by the "continued oppression", so we agree with each other.
We agree with each other.
My guess is you subscribe to some sort of "noble savage" myth. Pretty much all prehistoric peoples were way, way more violent and inhumane than even 1700s British. War, murder, rape, etc. were commonplace in general but in particular among the Polynesians.
While the way 1700s British acted would not meet modern British standards, it's a hell of a lot closer to them than Maori behavior and values of the same time period. In the mid-1800s some Maori invaded the Chatham Islands and enslaved, killed, raped, and ate the population (called the Moriori). Here's a quote from Wikipedia:
A Moriori survivor recalled : "[The Māori] commenced to kill us like sheep.... [We] were terrified, fled to the bush, concealed ourselves in holes underground, and in any place to escape our enemies. It was of no avail; we were discovered and killed – men, women and children indiscriminately." A Māori conqueror explained, "We took possession... in accordance with our customs and we caught all the people. Not one escaped....."[38] The invaders ritually killed some 10% of the population, a ritual that included staking out women and children on the beach and leaving them to die in great pain over several days.[34]
If you're interested in learning more you could read some ethnographies of modern-day (or close to modern day) primitive peoples. The Yanomamö work thinks a lot about violence because people (the antrhopology community) couldn't even believe how violent they are. The other way to go about it is to think about the development of morality in humans (like moral universals). One theory goes small gods who are fallible and many --> big gods who always watch and are few --> the kind of normative morality software you have installed right now, which doesn't depend on gods.
It's an interesting perspective. I'd like to see a scientific paper!
Anthropology is divided in two: "biological" anthropologists take evolution and biology seriously and see themselves as scientists, while other types (most notably "cultural") are much within the tradition of postmodernism, and don't aspire to do science (or only pretend to). These second kind aren't concerned much with communicating objective truth (because they don't believe in that); their politics informs their work to a great extent on average.
I don't know which kind Salmond is since I don't know her work, but it's entirely possible to collect all first-hand accounts from pre-$SOME_YEAR and search them for references to how children were treated. Then, assign each one a score based on some measure of how well the children were treated (note: "how well" is in direct reference to the moral system that modern Westerners have, and Salmon takes the same stance without mention in the article). Look at your data. This'll tell you how the people writing thought of it. You should probably also model year of writing and what that means for the writer's baseline, at minimum.
Guilt for the faults of one's ancestors is especially strange in this case, since it only ever applies to one side (the European side), and nary a whisper of the past of slavery, cannibalism, and genocide are mentioned because those are things belong to the "oppressed" people (the Maori).
That's only part of the picture, though. Some bad things happened, but as a consequence, some arguably much worse outcomes were avoided.
The sole reason that slavery and cannibalism do not exist in New Zealand today is precisely because it was colonized. The British outlawed those things (and brought Christianity, which also had an impact).
The "displacement" wasn't extensive, either. The link says the "population may have reached 100,000" prior to colonization, in a nation of 100,000 square miles. Much of it, particularly in the south, was never occupied or controlled, the terrain was neither hospitable nor accessible until colonization brought roads. Now that area is highly productive and exports from there pay for hospitals and schools.
It's also basically unfathomable that if the British hadn't colonized NZ, it would have been totally left to its own devices to develop. Another, less friendly colonizer may have come. What if it were, say, Belgium?
It gets a little tiresome to hear one side of the argument for decades on end, while people fear ostracism for even thinking of mentioning the other half of history.
That's exactly the problem, there's no room left for frank discussion or a neutral inquiry into how romanticizing the past can damage all our futures, Maori and Pakeha alike.
Yes there were tragedies, and they went on for a very long time. Land sold by people who did not own it, children forbidden to speak their own language, fisheries robbed, an infinite list of terrible things. However, a great number of other terrible things ended. Why can we only discuss half of that?
Should it not infuriate one and all for some conman to proclaim to the media a "Maori worldview". Nobody ever comes on TV and asserts that all Pakeha share a worldview or that they should. Politicians and pundits put words in the mouths of others and lie and romanticize a past that never existed while literacy declines and moldy homes grow more expensive.
Rawiri Waititi (of The Maori Party, which is shamefully named considering most Maori vote Labour) was on twitter the day a Maori man died talking about how that man was wrong for not subscribing to Waititi's particular imagination of what a "Maori foreign policy" is and engaging in Russian apologia. (see https://www.facebook.com/RawiriWaititiMP/posts/i-hope-this-i... )
We preach the tikanga and the kaupapa and pretend that all Maori must necessarily believe those are the right way, a historical absolute that has gone unchanged since time immemorial and was corrupted only when the British arrived. Yet we abandoned slavery, cannibalism, feudal hierarchy, and reserving a large portion of education for men only.
We're the first nation to give women the right to vote, and yet it's questioned whether it's right for the prime minister to be allowed to speak on the marae simply because she's a woman, but hey, the tikanga, the evil Europeans, if only we'd stuck with slavery everything would all be better...
We're losing the unity we used to have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manners_Street and it seems like we're slow-motion diving headlong into an unequal system of laws and government in the name of atoning for the sins of those long dead, while not mentioning all the halted evil that democracy and the rule of law stopped.
Our dishonesty will probably damn us to iniquity.
I'll be fine, but I worry about the rest of the people here and the opportunities they'll lose by forsaking modernity.
I dont think this is about romanticising the past. Maori were colonised, a violent process that nearly destroyed their culture, language and left them destitute. That's the fact of the matter. No happy clappy messaging about Maori culture is required to realise that Maori suffered immensely through colonisation, pakeha gained immensely through colonisation and we continue to do so.
To suggest this is some swings and roundabouts, 50/50 kinda thing is frankly offensive.
The wrong is in displacing people by force - as in taking their land & kill / deport inhabitants elsewhere. Some of that could be corrected but of course there are limits.
Outside of that, there's just the status quo and "natural causes" (immigration, deaths/births etc). Life goes on.
I'd actually refine it to "displacing people by force when those people wouldn't have displaced you had the roles been switched". Otherwise the displacers don't have the moral high ground, seems to me. They just got lucky vs. the displacees.
I think the issue is the persistent violence of colonisation. The loss of land, language and culture. It does intergenerational harm. I can't see how it matters a jot whether it was hundreds of years, or thousands. But that said, 1840 - 1250 = 590 years.
