Colonialism and why the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi was not based on race

[ The use of terms like 'earlier inhabitants', 'natives' etc. is simply because there were no people collectively or individually known or referred to as Māori until some years after the Treaty. ]

The Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 was absolutely NOT based upon race!  Natives, missionaries (and no doubt others) were urging the need for protection from England to prevent the natives from being exterminated.  This was considered an extreme likelihood at the time as there had already been 'many merciless cruelties perpetrated by English traders' on the natives, and it was known that there would be worse to come if not stopped.

The desire for dominance in commerce, and for gaining money and riches at the expense of many lives was heading to New Zealand, conquering and plundering both land and peoples.  We were the next in line from India, where the East India Company had left an horrific trail.  In New Zealand that same nature was particularly evident in the actions of the 'New Zealand Company', which by various means, including the use of the 1852 NZ Constitution Act., changed the initial intent or spirit of the Waitangi Treaty to become the political system we see in 2023.

Amongst those newcomers were those that had come from England with different intentions.  Found particularly amongst the missionaries were those of a totally contrary nature who had no intention of trading in arms (or even gifts), and who would avoid conflict and warfare at any cost, even if their families were threatened.  Often funded by family sources, and certainly not by commercial or profiteering interests, they introduced Te Reo in written form, worked on translations between Te Reo and English, printing dictionaries, Biblical testaments and more.  (Education of the native people developed through these missionaries work which led on to some great colleges like Hukarere and Te Aute ).

The two natures came entwined in the one entity that we generalise as being 'Colonialism', and today that legacy can be seen throughout the country.  Many cities and other places became named after the conquering 'heroes' of India; Hastings, Napier and Havelock for example, and yet on the other side, the native place names are still intact.  Side-by-side, Pahia and Russell, - it appears where the missionary resided there was no intention or even thought of changing place names.  They did not come for that.

Conquering, by the divide-and-rule nature found in Colonialism, is found in all peoples.  In the 1800's the term 'friendly natives' was referred to in both of the newcomers camps.  Today, the terms 'Māori' and 'Pakeha' are used to continue that division, encouraged by state supported media that keeps the 'industry' rolling.

It is amazing how much the influence of (and the desire for) money, causes those in authority and the subsequent bureaucratic offspring, to develop a blind-eye towards the very people that they profess they are helping - (possibly all due to the love of money and the fear of losing a regular pay-packet I thinks).

Comments and references on the above.

I had thought 1847-48 was when the word ori first became associated with a people or race.  'A Dictionary of the Maori Language', (H.W. Williams 1971) suggests 'about 1850' as a date when this began happening.  'Natives', 'New Zealander's' and 'aborigine's' were used in letters back to England.

Māori does not appear as a proper-noun in the Treaty versions.

The author has researched and read maybe hundreds of letters, but only of the early Paihia missionary families, who were still in the times of battling with the 'Romish' system in N.Z.

The story can be seen to unfold   HERE  , a brief history of the Events leading to the Treaty.  (6 x A4 pages, but read a third of it anyway to grasp an idea).

Of course 'protection of trade' required armies or troops!  See East India Company

See also the first 3 or 4 paragraphs on the NZ Company on Wikipedia. A quote from that page "The company unsuccessfully petitioned the British Government for a 31-year term of exclusive trade and for command over a military force, anticipating that large profits... etc."

In contrast, read some pages from the Church Missionary Society - some interesting reading.

From the Napier City Council website (2023): "In 1854 ...a plan was prepared and the town named Napier, after Sir Charles Napier, the hero of the Battle of Meeanee in the Indian province of Scinde."  I expect the missionaries would have kept 'Ahuriri' in the stead of Napier, the original 'Waipureku' instead of Clive (a hero from India) and many other names.  The area where missionary Wm. Colenso was established near Clive is still named 'Waitangi'.  It is interesting that at the very moment I write this, the New Zealand prime minister is in Napier announcing her resignation?

There is such a massive story in all this - of why certain missionaries, Hobson and many others were hated so much by the Colonial Govt. (which had also removed the capital of the country down to its own Wellington).

Back to top of page