MAOR165: Trick or Treaty - Context and Narratives 1
Historical amnesia, statues, and the Treaty in Aotearoa
Context: This session finishes the module on historical amnesia and introduces Trickle (continued discussion into Thursday). The lecturer emphasizes that national narratives often smooth over hard truths, privileging celebrated moments (e.g., Anzac spirit, rugby pride) while sidelining uncomfortable parts of history. Māori histories are often reduced to myths or pre-history rather than being acknowledged as full histories.
Central idea: the nation’s history is shaped by power imbalances; history teaching reinforces a dominant narrative that prioritizes certain memories over others. This sets up a discussion about how statues function in public memory and whether they contribute to or resist historical amnesia.
Key terms to watch for: historical amnesia, power imbalance, bicultural nation, memory, education, statues, memorials, contextualisation.
Key narratives and memory in New Zealand history
Narratives that organize public memory include: Treaty of Waitangi (1840), Gallipoli, World War I, World War II, and rugby/ national pride.
Maori histories are often sidelined or treated as pre-history, while settler or colonial milestones are foregrounded.
Debate around national origins: history is often taught as beginning with colonisation; the nation is imagined as a single, unified culture rather than a bicultural (Māori and Pākehā) history with unequal power dynamics.
The concept of a “balanced” society where both Māori and Pākehā histories are treated as equal remains contested.
Statues as public history and sites of memory
Statues are not neutral; they convey selective histories and normative values about who counts in a national story.
Questions to consider: Do we retain statues for education, remove them, or add contextual memorials to balance narratives?
The lecturer invites discussion: are you for retention with education, removal, or adding memorials to broaden narrative?
The role of context: contextualising statues (e.g., surrounding placards, new memorials) can reshape memory and reduce historical amnesia.
Statue case studies in Aotearoa
James Cook statue, Gisborne
Location: Looking Out Over Poverty Bay originally; removed in 2020 due to graffiti and vandalism.
Notable issue: statue depicts an Italian admiral in Royal Navy dress; design inaccuracies reveal misrepresentations.
Status: removed after years on public display and now in storage; raises questions about what to do with controversial monuments.
Sir George Grey statue, Albert Park (Auckland)
Grey’s role: instigated Waikato Wars; responsible for large-scale land confiscations.
Public reception: frequently graffitied; decapitated at times, yet remains in place.
Reactions: Paul Moon argued vandalism is an insecurity-driven act with potential legal/ethical consequences; Te Paati Māori argued that removing colonial statues is about correcting history rather than erasing it.
Council stance: Auckland Council stated removal is unacceptable; vandalism was addressed but statue remains.
Captain John Hamilton statue, central Hamilton
Context: placed in the city centre; Hamilton did not actually fight in Hamilton—died in the Waikato War.
Origin: funded by the Gallagher Group; Gallagher CEO (2017) claimed the Treaty of Waitangi was a “fraud” and denied partnership between Māori and the Crown.
Outcome: statue removed following a request by Māori iwi (Waikato and Tainui).
Statues in Ototahi (Christchurch)
Victoria Square post-earthquake renovations (2019): features a central sculpture celebrating the Treaty signatories of Ngāi Tahu, including two upright waka and six figures.
Nearby statues: James Cook statue remains; Victoria Square Popo (1990 project) commemorates the signing of Te Tiriti; surrounding paving includes whareki (birds) or mats integrated into the design.
Purpose: demonstrate how spaces can be re-contextualised to present multiple narratives and avoid single-mourced memorials.
Overall pattern from these cases
Statues reflect selected histories; decisions about retention vs removal vs contextualisation shape culture and memory.
Public action (protest, activism) is a possible response to controversial memorials.
Creating spaces with multiple narratives can challenge historical amnesia and acknowledge injustice.
Concluding reflection: how to engage with difficult histories
The question posed: Will you retain and educate, remove, or add contextual memorials?
The lecturer emphasizes the importance of engaging with difficult histories and creating spaces where multiple narratives can exist.
The aim is to avoid simplistic or monolithic histories and to acknowledge complexity and injustice while finding ways to foster memory, education, and accountability.
Contemporary discussion: language policy, education, and historical amnesia
An on-the-ground example raised by a student: cutting Māori words from junior books in contemporary schooling, with an assertion that there are only a few Māori words, despite historical suppression.
Contrast with 19th-century policy: Native Schools Act limited te reo Māori in schools unless English was prioritized; funding was contingent on teaching English, which led to language suppression at home and in schools.
Implications: this is cited as a modern instance of historical amnesia and colonial ideology—education as a site where cultural erasure can occur, particularly at a child’s level.
Debates in the discussion:
Whether experts endorse the claim that bilingual/multilingual development is difficult for children; the counterpoint is that children can develop two language streams simultaneously.
Personal anecdotes highlight intergenerational language loss and the ongoing challenge of reclaiming language and culture.
Policy and practical concerns: how to police or regulate use of old books, funding for language education, and the boundary between curriculum and freedom of teaching resources.
The Treaty of Waitangi: context, texts, and ongoing debates
Ruth Ross (1972) on the Treaty
Key claim: the treaty and its English and Māori texts are deeply complex and may not align perfectly; she described the treaty as a fraud, hoax, snare, and delusion, but she was not anti-Māori—she highlighted structural complexity.
Impact: her views helped spark renewed public debate and contributed to the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal, which examines historical grievances and interpretations.
Core idea from Ruth Ross’ view
The treaty cannot be taken at face value as a simple agreement; there are multiple interpretations, expectations, and tensions embedded in the language and histories of both sides.
The in-between period (1835–1840)
The period between the Declaration of Independence (1835) and Te Tiriti o Waitangi (1840) is described as a time of lawlessness and fragile authority.
Important factors during this period:
James Busby (British Resident) lacked sufficient authority and resources to enforce order; colonial law and governance were weak.
Land sales issues (Wakefield system): land was sometimes sold before it was properly acquired, undermining Māori authority and complicating negotiations.
French interest in colonisation (Akaroa) as a competing European claim.
Māori tikanga and hapū maintained authority within their communities and desired a British presence that acknowledged Māori sovereignty while respecting Māori authority.
British strategy and Hobson’s arrival (January 1840)
William Hobson was sent to negotiate a treaty with clear instructions to secure a British presence in Aotearoa.
Crucial point: Britain had already recognised Māori independence via He Whakaputanga (the Declaration of Independence). This recognition constrained British actions and meant that any treaty had to acknowledge Māori sovereignty and establish a framework for British presence rather than outright confiscation.
The significance of He Whakaputanga and the Declaration of Independence
He Whakaputanga (Declaration of Independence) signified a collective Māori assertion of sovereignty and a gathering of leaders (the Confederation of Tribes) with a recognized authority beyond individual iwi or hapū.
The Declaration asserted that no other authority could make laws in Aotearoa without Māori agreement and established the Confederation as an early foundational document for Māori governance.
The flags and early foreign recognition
The Declaration of Independence was complemented by a national flag (the Flag for the United Tribes of New Zealand, adopted in 1834) which Māori chiefs voted on to facilitate international trade and recognition.
The 1834 flag design (the white field with a blue canton bearing a red cross and four white stars) was chosen to enable Māori ships to enter ports under recognised directions and to conduct trade under British maritime law.
The flag and the declaration were recognised by King William (the British sovereign of the time) and published in the New South Wales Gazette, marking a formal international recognition of Māori sovereignty and a practical framework for relations with European powers.
What this means for understanding the Treaty
The treaty did not arise from a vacuum; it emerged from a context in which Māori sovereignty and international recognition were acknowledged, and where colonisation and settlement needed a workable arrangement.
The two main texts (Maori and English) do not perfectly align; the negotiation was influenced by language, cultural concepts (e.g., whenua vs property), and differing expectations of sovereignty and partnership.
The treaty has been used, ignored, reinterpreted, and undermined over time, and Maori activism in the 1970s helped catalyse re-engagement with its history, culminating in the Waitangi Tribunal.
Reflective prompts for learners
Is Ruth Ross right that the treaty is a complex and sometimes contradictory document that requires careful interpretation?
Should we prioritise understanding the treaty as complex rather than simplifying it to a single, straightforward obligation?
How should we balance the two texts (Maori and English) when considering historical accountability and contemporary rights?
How do language barriers and translation nuances (e.g., whenua vs property) affect interpretation and implementation of agreements?
Foundational moments before the Treaty and their significance
The flag (1834) and the Declaration of Independence (1835)
The flag: the Flag for the United Tribes of New Zealand represented a collective Māori identity in an international context for trade and diplomacy; it was recognised by the British Crown and publicly acknowledged in administrative gazettes.
The Declaration of Independence (1835): a constitutional-like document asserting Māori sovereignty and national leadership under the Confederation of Tribes; it asserted that no other authority could legislate within Aotearoa without Māori consent.
Importance: Together they established a Māori self-governance framework and a basis for interactions with the Crown that respected Māori authority—an important historical backdrop to the later Te Tiriti negotiations.
Interpretive tensions and sovereignty
The Declaration suggested that while Māori would welcome British protection and friendship, they would retain authority over their lands and laws.
There were debates and tensions between the North and South Island leaders over the extent and form of sovereignty and partnership.
The strategic timing of British engagement
The British decision to send Hobson to negotiate a treaty in 1840 came after recognizing Māori independence; Britain could not simply impose authority without acknowledging Māori sovereignty.
The Treaty thus emerged as a practical instrument to establish a British presence while attempting to respect Māori governance structures, although its implementation has remained contested.
Practical implications and ongoing relevance
Memory, identity, and education
How NZ teaches its history shapes national identity and influences attitudes toward colonial legacies, Indigenous rights, and social justice.
Debates about statues, memorials, and language education reveal tensions between commemorating history and acknowledging injustices.
Ethical and political implications
The debate over removing or contextualising statues raises questions about how to balance education, memory, and reconciliation without erasing history.
Language policy and indigenous language revival are central to decolonisation and cultural revitalisation, highlighting the role of education policy in steering collective memory.
Real-world relevance
The Waitangi Tribunal and ongoing public debates illustrate how historical interpretation interacts with contemporary policy and rights.
The discussion of flags and foundational documents shows how symbols and early documents continue to influence national identity and intergroup relations.
Discussion prompts for next time
Ruth Ross’s view on complexity: Do you think the Treaty’s dual texts warrant a complex, nuanced approach rather than a simple, prescriptive one?
Contextual memorialisation: If you dislike a statue, would you advocate removal, or would you prefer adding contextual memorials and educational materials to present multiple narratives?
Language and education: How should schools address the teaching (or omission) of te reo Māori in curricula to prevent historical amnesia while respecting diverse communities?
Translation and interpretation: How do language differences (e.g., whenua vs property) shape our understanding of sovereignty, rights, and partnership in historical documents?
Quick references to figures and dates mentioned
Treaty of Waitangi: 1840
He Whakaputanga (Declaration of Independence): 1835
Flag for the United Tribes of New Zealand: adopted 1834; later recognised by King William and published in the New South Wales Gazette
Wakefield land-sale system: mid-1830s onward
Waikato Wars: 1860s (context referenced in discussion of Grey)
Aboriginal/indigenous governance and Māori sovereignty as foundational concepts in the 1830s–1840s
Waitangi Tribunal: established in the late 20th century following renewed debate sparked by Ruth Ross and other activists
Victoria Square, Christchurch developments: 2019–2020s renovations; Te Tiriti commemorations (Victoria Square Popo, 1990 project)
Modern debates on language policy and education: ongoing policy discussions post-20th century; examples cited in the discussion reflect current concerns about te reo Māori instruction and funding
Summary takeaway
Statues and foundational documents are not neutral; they embody and contest power, memory, and identity. The Treaty’s history is contested because of translation, expectations, and the political contexts in which it was negotiated and implemented. The ongoing challenge is to acknowledge complex histories, confront injustices, and create public spaces and educational practices that support multiple, truthful narratives rather than a single, homogenised story.