we needed to do this in social studies. It was boring as **** mostly because of the room's vibe and the learning resources but thanks for making this video you have saved me a lot of time
6:17 Tupaia was also an arioi (similar to maori tohunga) and immediately gained respect and understood the hierarchy and customs etc...... (he had mana)
What a great series. We just love it, education in its best form! Thanks for all the effort putting this history into a very enjoyable and easy to understand format.
Wow, such a great production, has been very difficult to find an unbiased, factual and concise account of historical events of the first encounters between Maori and the English, keep up the good work!!
Thanks for this series! Loving it. One crit, I feel that we're looking at Maori and Pakeha through two different lenses - one tinged with cultural relativism and the other being of contemporary moral constitution. Well done on the series though :)
You tell us Maori went through 400 years of "technological revolution". I wonder what particular technological breakthroughs they accomplished.. Details please.
To get good perspective of those early years read Kieth Newman's book, "Bible and Treaty" published by Penguin. This is a thoroughly well researched book with a great amount of material informing us of those early years of Maori and Pakeha relations.
Phil Runciman it gives u a Pakeha view on the early years. People need to remember that Pakeha didn’t understand Maori, so they put their own narrative onto something they see instead of understand. We can only take all those books written in those times as half truth.
@@x.Rhymiie.x The Pakeha view os the only truth as they journaled everything you couldn't even read or write! Europeans saved NZ from the marauding savages, you were crazy back then admit it!
@@StGammon77 we just have to accept it worked out pretty well at the end of the day not perfect but pretty well. if samoa had been colonised and was the polynesian 1st world equivilant of nz u can beat maori would be immigrating ther, instead of samoans coming to nz.
@@markreynolds7890 real comment. Humans have always been a violent, hostile, racist and paranoid species... They're animals, even the ones who delusionally thought of themselves as sophisticated or advanced
Do you consider colonisation to be solely a negative force or are there positive aspects of colonisation as well? I've heard it said that Maori openly embraced Christianity and it's teachings, but the impression I get from this video is that it was forced on them. Also, I was told that TB existed among Maori before European settlers arrived, now I'm confused as this video presents a different perspective. Thank you for your insights!
There are very few aspects of history which can be viewed 100% negatively or positively, including colonisation. Regarding TB: It certainly existed among Māori before the mass arrival of European colonists began in 1840. The disease (along with influenza, measles, and many other pathogens) were most likely spread to Māori by visiting whalers/sealers/traders in the 1790s or early 1800s - Symptoms matching TB were first reported by missionaries in 1808. I think there may be some suggestion that a strain of TB existed in NZ prior to European arrival, but I can't remember the exact details and don't have the book I read this in to double check. If you want to read more about the history of disease in NZ check out The Healthy Country? by Alistair Woodward and Tony Blakely.
Without " colonization" this series wouldnt have exised! Practically maori would still have been fighting each other on a tribal basis. No more moa to eat either!
No mention of the Tamil Bell, the convicts brought here by East India company. Greek, Persian. Mongolians. Portuguese, Chinese, or Patupaiarehe. This is not accurate
Dr David Samwell, Dafydd Ddu Feddig was the first to record te reo in roman script. 1777. And he also was an eyewitness to the Death of Captain James Cook in Hawaii. He was not an authority on the topic, but a credible eyewitness. A countryman of mine- North Welsh. If we assume protocols around history curriculum on Ao-NZ... then the kaupapa belongs to descendants first. A lot of the stuff i believe and know, these days, I would discuss and debate, "off the record". We need coherent narratives around our origins, that point to directions.
In the book "Takitimu" that is an account of early maori and pakeha life around the time of the musket wars and it says the dispute with Hone hika and other tribes had been manipulated by pakeha to sell more guns....the traders had told hone hika his daughter and other high ranking chiefs daughters had been eaten by the tribes along the coast. The traders actually kidnapped the daughters and sailed away with them once the war had started.
The continent Terra Australas is the proper name of Australia. and Australia are 3 islands Norfork Island the main island Coco island and Christmas island these are Australia check it out
The British were well versed in devide and conquer techniques but when Maori joined together they were formidable in warfare thus leading to a BS treaty that was engineered to create legal battles
No the first European missionaries did good work and warned about the Crown Treaties but the natives did not listen, you should follow the Word of God not some ancestral imagination.
@@StGammon77 yup a book that has a talking snake (adam and eve) and donkey (balaam), the good book where it’s ok to beat your slave within an inch of their life as long as they don’t die in seven days, and don’t give me the indentured servitude bs; slavery of any kind is wrong…where it’s ok to keep the wife of your slave if she wed your slave whilst under your control and then treat them as sex slave and hand them down to your children. Your god is no different to the people you have just mentioned. Go learn New Zealand history not one that fits the narrative, your arrogance obviously still hold’s dearly to your heart, L. J Steele and C F Goldie painting depicting Māori arrival to NZ and that the Dutch were the first to discover NZ your ignorance comes across that way.
10:50 --- "Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Mutunga used a European ship to sail all the way from Wellington to the Chatham Islands where they conquered and enslaved the peaceful moriori people" Understatement of the year…. Moriori survivor recalled : "[The Taranaki invaders] 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." "……the invaders killed a 12-year-old girl and hung her flesh on posts" 3:52 ---- "Māori had no frame of reference for people outside of New Zealand and it was hard to imagine the people who didn’t understand the nuances of ceremonial warnings in peaceful greetings" History is messy.
maori would of found it very hard to take full advantage of western civilization without being colonized get accesss to meaningfull amounts of capital would have been impossible
@@eeeaten it can do based on the value of the trade and land but tht was not much in 1800s, u also run the risk by colonisation by default as loans are failed to be paid back and land is 'confiscated' to repay capital lost...im nt trying to b a dick its just how capatilisms works i wish ther was a better way, but this is the sybiotic dynamic of history weather we like it or nt we in nz at the present are still the benefactors of explotation in the 3rd world, ie cheap labour strong nzd, or cheap oil strong nzd but the reality is tht if u gave the 3rd world a choice thy would still take sweat shop labour over substances farming any day of the week
i don't understand for what reason missionaries would deface Maori art when many of the greatest european, renaissance and religious art works depicted genetalia and nudity? Seems a bit hypocritical.
That's an interesting point. Two thoughts. First, there was a fair bit of defacing that went on in Europe too. Nudity was controversial even in great works of art. Second, in a different place and cultural context some early European missionaries would have seen Maori art and primative and not in the same realm as Michelangelo any art depicting biblical or classical characters, for example.
It’s called New Zealand isn’t it? When did this land start being called Aotearoa? Did Maori have this name pre European? Was there ever a Maori civilisation? I am confused. Someone please help me. Why do they call it Aotearoa? I thought it was tribbal warfare before Europeans , with no sense of a country. What’s going on?
of course it's called new zealand, but that name is from elsewhere, from the other side of the world. the name aotearoa has its roots in maori mythology, and is the most widely accepted indigenous name for new zealand. maori society was well organised and hierarchical. if you're doing comparisons between british and maori society, remember that in britain at the time of cook, only half the people could read and write, and life expectancy there was about the same as in new zealand.
The Ancient Ancestors of the Maori People before the Maori came to NZ were Ship Builder's and built some of the world's Magnificent Mega Lithic Stone Buildings in the Ancient Civilizations in other lands. And there's more info...
@@erinakaika2431 we don't have a ounce of respect for 200 years of your racist rants lady, many other people groups were living here before you came in boats, this has been proven by the Waipuora forest archealogical investigation that the local corrupt iwi have made hidden from the public that's just unforgiveable!!!! Check yourself and stop thinking you were some dystopian first nation people living in peace. You were breaking every sacred law of God, wiped people out, ate them and murdered your own female babies when you wanted only boys. Documented evidence-based facts not hearsay rracial rumours. Most people know Maori then and today are from a mix of other races, more so today. Go and have a DNA test.
"Kicked of a age of European exploration which often went hand in hand the colonisation, exploitation and oppression of non Europeans".. So what about the exploitation and oppression of Europeans, at the same time? In the last episode you mentioned the traditional practice of Maori slavery, (though made out is was different as in making it sound not as bad), and their cast system and war etc, yet it was mentioned quite matter of fact. Why didn't you mention colonisation, exploitation and oppression in regard to Maori within Maori cultures? Do you think that Maori would not have taken other lands if they could have got off these lands? And did they attack or oppress other lands on their way here? The Maori didn't know about the Europeans activities.. but they knew about their own. Whats facinating is that even though you only have Tasmans diaries as a reference you are telling the story from the Maori side. Why do you make excuses for why Maori acted violently? Was it wrong? Was it right? Is it not true that thats just what happened. Its simply history and not an uncommon or unusual situation for Maori or other peoples. I find the inflection expressed when you read the orders given to Cook at 5:45 interesting. I think that it is very very odd that you do not point out that he had other instructions. The Earl of Morton, the President of the Royal Society of London, Cook was urged to: "check the petulance of the Sailors and restrain the wanton use of Fire Arms. To have it still in view that shedding the blood of these people is a crime of the highest nature... They are the natural, and in the strictest sense of the word, the legal possessors of the several Regions they inhabit. No European nation has a right to occupy any part of their country or settle among them without their voluntary consent" How is that not central to this issue of shots fired? Also: "In both sets of instructions, Cook was told that if he found Terra Australis, he should seek friendly relations with the local people, who had the legal right to their own lands, and to avoid bloodshed if at all possible, although the Admiralty instructions added that he should take care not to be surprised by them." www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/112653947/was-james-cook-a-white-supremacist Thus you misrepresent the initial interactions with Cooks party. You also suggest that Cooks party was in the wrong for "invading their territory". 6:49 Though was it an "invasion" as per the instruction Cook was enacting? A little more on what happened to the Moriori... At least 200 were massacred and tortured. "During the following enslavement the Māori invaders forbade the speaking of the Moriori language. They forced Moriori to desecrate their sacred sites by urinating and defecating on them. Moriori were forbidden to marry Moriori or Māori, or to have children with each other." The Musket Wars also involved the theft and control of the South Island Greenstone supply and a large part of the South Island by Te Rauparaha. Presumably someone like him could have continued and dominated the whole land and become King. I am curious that you suggest that when Maori acted violently, this was based on a misunderstanding and based on traditional cultural prompts etc. Though when we hear about the missionaries we dont here that this was their cultural and traditional way. We get a moral judgment or a painting of guilt. That is not a very accurate way to represent history. Why did you not point to how cannibalism was in part used by Maori to denigrate ones enemy? Or give the act of cannibalism a moral reading? One account I read is that Maori would pile skulls into a pyramid and use another skull to knock the structure down as a game. "When Europeans arrived in New Zealand, they found that Māori ideas of sexuality were different to their own. Māori chiefs had more than one wife, and sex before marriage was generally acceptable". What is your moral judgment of having multiple wives? So your position is that things would be ok if Europeans lived by Maori Culture? That its fine to take European technology and use that to make European money, but not OK for them to take on European culture? The money system and money only had value becuase of the European system. In terms of technology European systems were in some respect more advanced. Why would such systems not be wanted or preferred? You overlook so much. Maori took on the use of steel tools which changed their carving and the spirit of the carving. Paunamu Toki / Adze were replaced with steel and the Paunamu Toki were caved into Hei Tiki to trade. You present Maori culture as if it is some sacred fixed artifact, when it was a changing and evolving expierience. Just as Celtic Pict, Saxon, Norman, etc evolved and changed with trade, war and colonisation. As if Britain had no soul or was not indigenous. Britain was a massive indigenous tribe. Yes Maori had to integrate becuase they lost to a bigger tribe. There were in some respects as an example the Moriaori to the Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama, from the Taranaki region. It seems that the Aoteatoa History show is about hanging your heads in shame of historical facts.
Adapting ones culture into your own has always been a thing but because you want Maori to look bad in the face of Pakeha you make it sound worse then oppressing ones culture and making them feel less human than you are. Pākehā had been stealing from pakeha. That nation has its own history and it is barbaric. How Maori ran within groups was far better than a king ruling over an area. All cultures have an ugly past, I still don’t think anything can touch European and their disregard for human life.
Every one can look bad in the light of history. Its not about looking bad or feeling bad. Those people and events are long gone. When you say Europeans which ones? The Chelts? Druids? The Magna Carta .. the charter of human rights? The creation of the innocent until proven guilty legal and democratic systems? There was a practice in the 19th- and early 20th-century called Blackbirding. This involved tricking Islanders onto ships etc, then they were basically kidnapped and taken as workers for the growing agricultural industries like cotton in Australia etc. This practice was actually illegal and caused great concern in England being disliked by the public etc. In one such instance involving one such Blackbirding criminal, Dr James Patrick Murray, his victims were rescued and returned to Fiji and given metal axes, quality guns etc as compensation for this crime. A metal axe in those days was like gold. How does this fit with your "I still don’t think anything can touch European and their disregard for human life"? How about Englands massive campaign to end the North Atlantic Slave Trade that took military force to achieve? It seems to me that looking back on historical events with our contemporary, dislocated perspective and even justice seeking is bound to muddy the waters in some way.
@@x.Rhymiie.x this shows a stunning lack of understanding of history and understanding historical peoples perspective, values and the context of the society they were living in. For the time the British probably showed more civility and regard for human life than most cultures, even if by today's standards we would consider it evil.
This is politically motivated isn't it? So the English were meant to integrate into Maori society? Kawanatanga means the British crown had governing authority within their sphere. A lot of chiefs were baptized & given the tittle 'Kawana,' which is understood to mean governor. The British crown was basically granted the solemnity & recognition as a 'chief.' Tino rangatiratanga was recognition of the Maori sphere of sovereignty over the lands they own. If it is that sphere of tribal feudalism & Utu that British wanted to live under, then of course, they have to integrate, unless they'd like take a stone hatchet to the head. That political notion of co-governance is a load of BS. It's easy to debunk it as BS. Kawana can probably be viewed as being synonymous with a chief, so the British were granted a lot of mana whether you like it or not. The mana of having democratic sovereignty, not tribal feudalism or autocratic sovereignty. Maori don't have to pay rates on land they never sold into the British system, so this shows that a degree of their 'Tino rangatiratanga' was & is respected by the Brits. If Maori land was stolen, then that's an injustice that needs to be resolved. Land that Maori never sold into the system technically shouldn't have to answer to the crown, that's what the term 'Tino rangatiratanga' is meant to represent. It DOESN'T represent co-governance, or everyone having to integrate into Maori ideas, I'm sorry, but ya completely barking up the wrong tree & expecting people to live a lie. It's real simple, don't sell ya land & ya maintain ya 'Tino rangatiratanga,' sell it, & you erode ya Tino rangatiratanga, which is pretty much what happened, but I guess you wanna push a narrative.
If Maori migrated to New Zealand, their oral traditions should have included their earlier migratory social interaction, according to your earlier episodes. So why was the arrival of outsiders so unanticipated? They had migrated through a series of countries and cultures ahead of their arrival here.
@@eeeaten We all originated from Africa. Aboriginals were in Australia for thousands of years. Maori attribute themselves to specific canoes. We can only speculate what information the oral traditions transmitted.
@@karentorkar8256 you didn’t answer the question. Yes of course all humans are from Africa and native Australians have been in Australia for tens of thousands of years. We’re talking about Polynesians. For thousands of years Polynesians have only seen other Polynesians coming and going.
@@eeeaten Did you not watch the film? It was in the film. Watch the film and read the post. I made a comment and asked a question in relation to this film. I am not obliged to you.
The event of Tasman has been explained in detail by Otago University lecturer Ian Barber, and it's far removed from what you state here. The information in this video is unsound and the research team (if any) is lacking in serious investigative skill. -- Cook found this place "UNINHABITED" in accord with the Doctrine of Discovery (Vatican Papal Bull) because the land was not settled by any Christians, hence the claim over the land for the Crown. -- Cook did not "INTRODUCE" pigs or potatoes etc.; he was ordered to, if he found new land, leave 'markers' to indicate to other colonising powers i.e. America, France, Dutch, that the land had been formerly claimed with due ceremony. -- "Ngati Tama & Ngati Mutunga used a European ship to sail to Chatham Islands"... WHO GAVE THEM THE SHIP & INFORMED THEM?
You seem to be splitting hairs, so what is your motivation? Cook’s Eurocentric view meant he (and the British in general) viewed these lands as empty and without order. He did introduce pigs and potatoes, and plant gardens with many different species. For whatever reason, those species were introduced by cook. Nobody “gave” ngati mutunga and ngati tama the ship, they took it. Their plan was to go to a new land and take that land (and its people) for themselves. They considered a few options and settled on the Chathams.
@@eeeaten You wouldn’t say such things if you understood the operations of, among other Papal Bulls, the Doctrine of Discovery under which Cook was authorised to stake claim over new-found lands & view non-christian inhabitants as having the same status as that of a hedgehog. It is well documented that Cook was ORDERED to leave the said markers for the said purposes; he wasn’t gifting pigs & potatoes from the goodness of his musket-slinging heart. Thank you for the clarification on the Chathams; I will look more into it.
@@che6630 I didn’t say cook was gifting anything, and two key reasons for him planting European foods were to show evidence of arrival, and to supply future European visitors. The Europeans did obviously trade however, and gave food items in return for other items. But did cook introduce many food items to nz, including pigs and potatoes? Yes.
@@eeeatenWell you just repeated what I stated about 'markers' (evidence). Again, Cook was a pawn following Orders, & part of those Orders was to leave 'markers' for the reasons aforesaid. And, no, I don't recall reading anything about "supplying future visitors". What's your reference?! *obviously the 'gift' remark was sarcastic*
Quite a history about the Maori - put the Inca's or the Aztecs to shame in degeneration. Outcast during the 13th century as weaker primitive Neolithic people by the invading Hawaiians & Tongans (Maori were from the original wave of primitive Asian/Melanesians pushed right out across the Eastern Pacific by successive stronger more advanced races coming from the west). They were outcast on rafts and some floated up in NZ stranded for 500 years. The weaker were pushed down to the South Island or Chathams etc. So the South Island Maori (had their own language) were the weakest of the weak. They were captured and eaten as 'Slave flesh' by the northern Maori doing raids. (Well they all ate each other - 80% of Maori pre European were dark skinned easily fattened slaves farmed and eaten by a lighter skinned 'Ariki' thin wiry elite royal caste). So it was with some righteousness as well as British cunning that they armed the southern Maori who then with muskets launched a genocidal war on the north.. That plus measles & flu halved the Maori population and removed most of the elite. The British then liberated the slaves and outlawed cannibalism. The northern Maori fought with the British against the south bad west Maori 'rebels'. The Maori sued for peace and a treaty was signed that removed all sovereignty and made them subjects to the English crown where the English would protect them from each other. Land could only be sold to or via the Crown. Maori could live on their reservations with native custom but none did. The treaty of Waitangi is strikingly clear in that the Maori cede sovereignty completely and become citizens of Great Britain - all 3 clauses lock that in. Nothing in today's 'Maori' culture is authentic. The music - all European (Maoris did not have tonal music, the songs are missionary tunes or introduced - Poi dance is from Islands and Stick dance from old Malaya. The carvings and art - all European - Arabesques that was the fashion at the time. Original Maori had limited dash carving and no painting of objects. No written language - all the syntax & grammar plus vowel inflection is European. No technology - some lagoon canoes and wood or stone Neolithic tools. No food sources - like pigs or crops - they left that all behind, all they had was a weak inbred fox (now extinct), some rats and a weak dismal pacific yam. They ate out all the bird-life, didn't know how to farm the sea as were island people and so they turned to societal cannibalism. Today - no full blood or half blood left. No genuine tradition and almost all are offspring of Maori slave females sold to white settlers for muskets or food. -So more fake than the 'Sioux' or 'Cherokee' or 'Crow' who had at least retained some genuineness about who they were and their history. -Everything you 'saw or experienced' is Fake. A totally convected disneyfied tokenistic set of inventions fueled by a grievance culture of mixed-race imposters fetishing a false past bad history because it pays benefits. 'This Horrid Practice' - Professor Paul Moon, "A Savage Country" Professor Paul Moon 'Behind The Tattooed Face' - Heretaunga Pat Baker, 'Anthropology In The South Seas' - H D Skinner
@Robin Tamihere have my comments been deleted here? it's important to note that: 1. aztec maori? no - there is no genetic connection between aztecs (or any other native american people) and maori. 2. maori invasion of the chathams due to british colonisation? no - ngati mutunga/ngati tama were displaced from their taranaki homeland by waikato, went to wellington, then in 1835 took a british ship to rekohu to take the lands and people as their own.
@Robin Tamihere ngati hotu are maori, their ancestors are eastern polynesian, not persian or native american. polynesian ancestry is from the western pacific, not from the east. don't be so gullible.
@@eeeaten there is still the subtle but implied accusation that Europeans were to blame for terrible and massed wars among Maori, by introducing the musket and other technology, as opposed to implicitly staying Maori make a straightforward choice to attempt mass killing of other iwi. Hongi Heke, Te Ruaparaha, Tuhawaiki and others would have used what ever weapons gave the advantage, from where ever. If the Chinese or Japanese had explored NZ early and introduced the bow and arrow or metal swords, Maori chiefs would have snatched them up. Could that have been blamed, even subtly, on the former?
@@Timeforcommonsense you're imagining it. there's no implication here that europeans were responsible for the deaths of maori at the hands of other maori with guns, and no implication that europeans were responsible for the deaths of maori at the hands of other maori who were enabled by potatoes. it's stated as an account of what happened.
@@eeeaten thers defiantly a subtle slant thy just need to keep it impartial thts all state the facts/ concepts. and leave it at tht, thn every ones happpy
Cute stuff BUT pretty free with FACTS EG conch TRUMPETS/BUGALS were so rare as to be non-existent! Gongs of wood & wooden horns were the usual. Aotearoa is not a Maori name (its a european contrivance) The introduction of spuds & pigs etc caused a population explosion then resulting musket wars resulted in THOUSANDS of deaths with the huge numbers of slaves! Check the numbers for a real shock! "disruption" is too mild to give a clear concept. read the genuine accounts ,start with Trevor Bentlys books
your objection is that they probably had less large shells than implied? aotearoa is obviously a maori name, but was indeed popularised by the british and then adopted by maori starting in the king country. it has been the most widely accepted maori name for new zealand for a hundred years. yes potatoes and muskets enabled and exaggerated inter tribal conflicts, which killed an estimated 20,000 people. those losses were eclipsed by the effects of disease and poverty that followed as maori suffered the effects of colonisation.
Maori were freedom camping on bare land. There was no ownership. Civilised culture built what we have today. It's how the world is developed. Maori are happy for colonisation money given to them for 180 years. If Cook didn't arrive when he did. The Maori would have destroyed each other. Now they are happy to live in a civilised world, with food, alcohol, drugs, transport, WINZ, clothes, toilet paper, businesses, forestry, harbours, buildings etc.
they were happy back then didn't need all your shit you brought covid flu chicken pox list gos on they were healthy lived 1000s years free of you arse holes
this is partly true even the anglosaxons benifited from the norman colonisation of england unfortunatly its how the world works even to this day we prospour at the expense of lesser nations, cheap labour , sweat shops , cheap minning etc. i think we should address this 1st b4 we get upset abot the past
Please, do tell more about missionaries' disapproval of the traditional Maori notions of "trans and non-binary" people, because I'm in the mood for some surreal, absurdist humour. FFS, what a farce some of this stuff is..
I dont accept that Maori acted in self defense due to being invaded. They were met with the strange new people and the first thing they attempt to do is grab their stuff and steal it, which I dont care what your culture is it's a disrespectful and hostile act to do.
We can't judge people of the past by modern standards In Pre Colononisation Polynesian culture theft was common. Good thief were often envied. Weak or people without Mana (slaves etc almost deserved to have their stuff stolen. But if you got caught stealing then Utu/ revenge would be expected. Maori who stole probably expected some kind of Utu from the Europeans (Although they probably didn't expect to be disproportionately shot at with European firearms). Sometimes Cook showed restraint by not acting out revenge (for theft of other incidences) which lost him Mana amongst both his own crew and Polynesians . this sometimes let to polynesians thinking he was weak and deserved to be stolen from more. ( pretty much Cook was in a catch 22 situation which is something modern anti -Cook people seem to forget)
Maori realised the strategic advantage of muskets. Sounds like the Europeans are being subtly blamed. Also their tonal inflections about certain events, like missionary influence, are very patronising. This series is dangerous to kids understanding NZ history.
@@eeeaten it damaged, but did not devastate. But when you say "Maori way of life", remember that many Maori tribes practiced slavery, cannibalism and colonised each other through war. People hurt each other and help each other in life. Life's not (literally and figuratively) black and white.
This woman has the most thick nwew zeawland accent I’ve ever heard. Where every word had a wheh sound before the first letter of every word. The guy too. It’s like chose the most New Zealand accented people to do a show on New Zealand history. Can we be a little more open in our choosing people for public education. It’s so nasal. No one sounds like this! Lol embarrassing
we needed to do this in social studies. It was boring as **** mostly because of the room's vibe and the learning resources
but thanks for making this video you have saved me a lot of time
6:17 Tupaia was also an arioi (similar to maori tohunga) and immediately gained respect and understood the hierarchy and customs etc...... (he had mana)
What a great series. We just love it, education in its best form! Thanks for all the effort putting this history into a very enjoyable and easy to understand format.
This series seems to be creating a bit of debate in comments section lol. Thanks for a great show
Debate is good. It's a great way to keep a fresh eye on the past.
Great series!
Wow, such a great production, has been very difficult to find an unbiased, factual and concise account of historical events of the first encounters between Maori and the English, keep up the good work!!
Thanks!
Awesome series, thanks so much for these!
This is brilliant, im excited to watch the whole series!
This is one of the best youtube channels I've ever watched
fill of lies though
Epic!
love this! super interesting, I learned a lot.
Thanks for this series! Loving it. One crit, I feel that we're looking at Maori and Pakeha through two different lenses - one tinged with cultural relativism and the other being of contemporary moral constitution. Well done on the series though :)
White man BAD, Maori GOOD.
9:53. Nice that you acknowledged the potato as a major factor in the Musket Wars.
Today we watched this at school this was so interesting
Are you from fendalton?
It's amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good information and very interesting.
You tell us Maori went through 400 years of "technological revolution". I wonder what particular technological breakthroughs they accomplished.. Details please.
They certainly hadn´t discovered metal. Didn´t have the bow and arrow either. Had they discovered the wheel before the Europeans arrived?
To get good perspective of those early years read Kieth Newman's book, "Bible and Treaty" published by Penguin. This is a thoroughly well researched book with a great amount of material informing us of those early years of Maori and Pakeha relations.
Phil Runciman it gives u a Pakeha view on the early years. People need to remember that Pakeha didn’t understand Maori, so they put their own narrative onto something they see instead of understand. We can only take all those books written in those times as half truth.
@@x.Rhymiie.x The Pakeha view os the only truth as they journaled everything you couldn't even read or write! Europeans saved NZ from the marauding savages, you were crazy back then admit it!
@@StGammon77 😂😂😂😂 you’re ridiculous
I subbed lol
@@StGammon77 we just have to accept it worked out pretty well at the end of the day not perfect but pretty well. if samoa had been colonised and was the polynesian 1st world equivilant of nz u can beat maori would be immigrating ther, instead of samoans coming to nz.
Thanks, very helpful.
Read from cooks journal. He didnt think maori were stealing ,maori tried to take everything .one took a sword and was shot dead.
are you disagreeing with something in the video?
History is knowledge
Bros from Fendalton
This makes me sad. History could have been so different.
Makes us who we are
@@aperaruapeeta4309 Well said
childish comment
@@markreynolds7890 real comment. Humans have always been a violent, hostile, racist and paranoid species... They're animals, even the ones who delusionally thought of themselves as sophisticated or advanced
Whats done is done, you can't live in the past.
Do you consider colonisation to be solely a negative force or are there positive aspects of colonisation as well? I've heard it said that Maori openly embraced Christianity and it's teachings, but the impression I get from this video is that it was forced on them. Also, I was told that TB existed among Maori before European settlers arrived, now I'm confused as this video presents a different perspective. Thank you for your insights!
There are very few aspects of history which can be viewed 100% negatively or positively, including colonisation.
Regarding TB: It certainly existed among Māori before the mass arrival of European colonists began in 1840. The disease (along with influenza, measles, and many other pathogens) were most likely spread to Māori by visiting whalers/sealers/traders in the 1790s or early 1800s - Symptoms matching TB were first reported by missionaries in 1808.
I think there may be some suggestion that a strain of TB existed in NZ prior to European arrival, but I can't remember the exact details and don't have the book I read this in to double check.
If you want to read more about the history of disease in NZ check out The Healthy Country? by Alistair Woodward and Tony Blakely.
@@TheAotearoaHistoryShow would u say tht nz would be as prosperous as it is today if it wasnt 4 colonisation ?
@@markreynolds7890 you're making an assumption that it could only have happened the way it did.
How about that life expectancy doubled under colonization?
History is for the victorious
Without " colonization" this series wouldnt have exised! Practically maori would still have been fighting each other on a tribal basis. No more moa to eat either!
No mention of the Tamil Bell, the convicts brought here by East India company. Greek, Persian. Mongolians. Portuguese, Chinese, or Patupaiarehe. This is not accurate
Lol and the aliens? It was the aliens, right? What you’re suggesting is fantasy nonsense.
Dr David Samwell, Dafydd Ddu Feddig was the first to record te reo in roman script. 1777. And he also was an eyewitness to the Death of Captain James Cook in Hawaii. He was not an authority on the topic, but a credible eyewitness. A countryman of mine- North Welsh. If we assume protocols around history curriculum on Ao-NZ... then the kaupapa belongs to descendants first. A lot of the stuff i believe and know, these days, I would discuss and debate, "off the record". We need coherent narratives around our origins, that point to directions.
I think you guys mean Cook *reintroduced* potatoes.
In the book "Takitimu" that is an account of early maori and pakeha life around the time of the musket wars and it says the dispute with Hone hika and other tribes had been manipulated by pakeha to sell more guns....the traders had told hone hika his daughter and other high ranking chiefs daughters had been eaten by the tribes along the coast.
The traders actually kidnapped the daughters and sailed away with them once the war had started.
Animals.
that's one version
Ballhead tactics 😂
@@mrt4916 stop using them then Ballhead
@@dobbynp we don't that's why we call it ballhead tactics 😂
Imagine that, The great potato wars
13:30 you mean 1840?
Siane Lowrie yeah she did
You have to have an hearing issue if u heard 14
the POTATO 🥔
The continent Terra Australas is the proper name of Australia. and Australia are 3 islands Norfork Island the main island Coco island and Christmas island these are Australia check it out
define proper
Lucky I wasn’t born back in those days we would have won 🏆
If the Māori didn’t kill each other in the musket wars the NZ wars could have been so much different
14:34. This is why we can't have nice things.
The British were well versed in devide and conquer techniques but when Maori joined together they were formidable in warfare thus leading to a BS treaty that was engineered to create legal battles
No the first European missionaries did good work and warned about the Crown Treaties but the natives did not listen, you should follow the Word of God not some ancestral imagination.
@@StGammon77Yawn
@@StGammon77 missionaries never did any good work. Their sole purpose was colonisation and conversion, thereby destroying cultures and peoples.
@@StGammon77 yup a book that has a talking snake (adam and eve) and donkey (balaam), the good book where it’s ok to beat your slave within an inch of their life as long as they don’t die in seven days, and don’t give me the indentured servitude bs; slavery of any kind is wrong…where it’s ok to keep the wife of your slave if she wed your slave whilst under your control and then treat them as sex slave and hand them down to your children. Your god is no different to the people you have just mentioned. Go learn New Zealand history not one that fits the narrative, your arrogance obviously still hold’s dearly to your heart, L. J Steele and C F Goldie painting depicting Māori arrival to NZ and that the Dutch were the first to discover NZ your ignorance comes across that way.
maori divide themselves during the musket wars read a book pls
10:50 --- "Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Mutunga used a European ship to sail all the way from Wellington to the Chatham Islands where they conquered and enslaved the peaceful moriori people"
Understatement of the year….
Moriori survivor recalled : "[The Taranaki invaders] 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."
"……the invaders killed a 12-year-old girl and hung her flesh on posts"
3:52 ---- "Māori had no frame of reference for people outside of New Zealand and it was hard to imagine the people who didn’t understand the nuances of ceremonial warnings in peaceful greetings"
History is messy.
Are there any Māori left?? 😄😄😄😄😄
yes there r i have quite a few maori friends
maori would of found it very hard to take full advantage of western civilization without being colonized get accesss to meaningfull amounts of capital would have been impossible
makes no sense, and suggests that maori would not have been capable of trading and developing as a sovereign people or peoples.
@@eeeaten thy would have been able to trade but would have lacked the ability to gain access to capital
@@markreynolds7890 still makes no sense. Trading and land ownership gives access to capital.
@@eeeaten it can do based on the value of the trade and land but tht was not much in 1800s, u also run the risk by colonisation by default as loans are failed to be paid back and land is 'confiscated' to repay capital lost...im nt trying to b a dick its just how capatilisms works i wish ther was a better way, but this is the sybiotic dynamic of history weather we like it or nt we in nz at the present are still the benefactors of explotation in the 3rd world, ie cheap labour strong nzd, or cheap oil strong nzd but the reality is tht if u gave the 3rd world a choice thy would still take sweat shop labour over substances farming any day of the week
@@markreynolds7890 meaningless
If they said mana, maori probably wouldn't have signed. Trickery was used.
i don't understand for what reason missionaries would deface Maori art when many of the greatest european, renaissance and religious art works depicted genetalia and nudity? Seems a bit hypocritical.
That's an interesting point. Two thoughts. First, there was a fair bit of defacing that went on in Europe too. Nudity was controversial even in great works of art. Second, in a different place and cultural context some early European missionaries would have seen Maori art and primative and not in the same realm as Michelangelo any art depicting biblical or classical characters, for example.
@@TheAotearoaHistoryShow True...i wore a tie depicting the birth of venus to work once and prudes were outraged.
@@paulthomson2288 would love to see that tie!
anglosaxons puritans were a little more uptight than other europeans tht took part in the renaissance
what a load of tosh! but we love an entertaining soapy
14:34. Oh, balls!
hi
hi harrylond6691
Not exactly a warm welcome to visitors!
Talk about The Boyd massacre. in 1809. That was Maori being nice eh! and trustworthy.
i think that was in retaliation for the false accusation and whipping of their chief.
Let's change the conversation to the genocide of the Moriori by the Maoris.....
you should watch season 3 episode 7 on moriori
It’s called New Zealand isn’t it? When did this land start being called Aotearoa?
Did Maori have this name pre European?
Was there ever a Maori civilisation?
I am confused.
Someone please help me.
Why do they call it Aotearoa?
I thought it was tribbal warfare before Europeans , with no sense of a country.
What’s going on?
of course it's called new zealand, but that name is from elsewhere, from the other side of the world. the name aotearoa has its roots in maori mythology, and is the most widely accepted indigenous name for new zealand. maori society was well organised and hierarchical. if you're doing comparisons between british and maori society, remember that in britain at the time of cook, only half the people could read and write, and life expectancy there was about the same as in new zealand.
The Ancient Ancestors of the Maori People before the Maori came to NZ were Ship Builder's and built some of the world's Magnificent Mega Lithic Stone Buildings in the Ancient Civilizations in other lands. And there's more info...
Nah they were cook islanders and Tahitians. No need to make stuff up
Dream away
@@ChrisEAdlay Respect the Maori nation when you are in Aotearoa - NZ.
@@StGammon77 Do your Research first, before you speak about our ancient roots along with an attitude of insult, racism and mockery.
@@erinakaika2431 we don't have a ounce of respect for 200 years of your racist rants lady, many other people groups were living here before you came in boats, this has been proven by the Waipuora forest archealogical investigation that the local corrupt iwi have made hidden from the public that's just unforgiveable!!!! Check yourself and stop thinking you were some dystopian first nation people living in peace. You were breaking every sacred law of God, wiped people out, ate them and murdered your own female babies when you wanted only boys. Documented evidence-based facts not hearsay rracial rumours. Most people know Maori then and today are from a mix of other races, more so today. Go and have a DNA test.
New zealand
New zealand skeleton in the cupboard watch it
it's fantasy nonsense from kooks and amateurs
"Kicked of a age of European exploration which often went hand in hand the colonisation, exploitation and oppression of non Europeans".. So what about the exploitation and oppression of Europeans, at the same time? In the last episode you mentioned the traditional practice of Maori slavery, (though made out is was different as in making it sound not as bad), and their cast system and war etc, yet it was mentioned quite matter of fact. Why didn't you mention colonisation, exploitation and oppression in regard to Maori within Maori cultures? Do you think that Maori would not have taken other lands if they could have got off these lands? And did they attack or oppress other lands on their way here?
The Maori didn't know about the Europeans activities.. but they knew about their own.
Whats facinating is that even though you only have Tasmans diaries as a reference you are telling the story from the Maori side. Why do you make excuses for why Maori acted violently? Was it wrong? Was it right?
Is it not true that thats just what happened. Its simply history and not an uncommon or unusual situation for Maori or other peoples.
I find the inflection expressed when you read the orders given to Cook at 5:45 interesting.
I think that it is very very odd that you do not point out that he had other instructions.
The Earl of Morton, the President of the Royal Society of London, Cook was urged to:
"check the petulance of the Sailors and restrain the wanton use of Fire Arms. To have it still in view that shedding the blood of these people is a crime of the highest nature... They are the natural, and in the strictest sense of the word, the legal possessors of the several Regions they inhabit. No European nation has a right to occupy any part of their country or settle among them without their voluntary consent"
How is that not central to this issue of shots fired? Also:
"In both sets of instructions, Cook was told that if he found Terra Australis, he should seek friendly relations with the local people, who had the legal right to their own lands, and to avoid bloodshed if at all possible, although the Admiralty instructions added that he should take care not to be surprised by them." www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/112653947/was-james-cook-a-white-supremacist
Thus you misrepresent the initial interactions with Cooks party. You also suggest that Cooks party was in the wrong for "invading their territory". 6:49 Though was it an "invasion" as per the instruction Cook was enacting?
A little more on what happened to the Moriori... At least 200 were massacred and tortured.
"During the following enslavement the Māori invaders forbade the speaking of the Moriori language. They forced Moriori to desecrate their sacred sites by urinating and defecating on them. Moriori were forbidden to marry Moriori or Māori, or to have children with each other."
The Musket Wars also involved the theft and control of the South Island Greenstone supply and a large part of the South Island by Te Rauparaha. Presumably someone like him could have continued and dominated the whole land and become King.
I am curious that you suggest that when Maori acted violently, this was based on a misunderstanding and based on traditional cultural prompts etc. Though when we hear about the missionaries we dont here that this was their cultural and traditional way. We get a moral judgment or a painting of guilt.
That is not a very accurate way to represent history.
Why did you not point to how cannibalism was in part used by Maori to denigrate ones enemy? Or give the act of cannibalism a moral reading?
One account I read is that Maori would pile skulls into a pyramid and use another skull to knock the structure down as a game.
"When Europeans arrived in New Zealand, they found that Māori ideas of sexuality were different to their own. Māori chiefs had more than one wife, and sex before marriage was generally acceptable".
What is your moral judgment of having multiple wives?
So your position is that things would be ok if Europeans lived by Maori Culture? That its fine to take European technology and use that to make European money, but not OK for them to take on European culture? The money system and money only had value becuase of the European system. In terms of technology European systems were in some respect more advanced. Why would such systems not be wanted or preferred?
You overlook so much.
Maori took on the use of steel tools which changed their carving and the spirit of the carving. Paunamu Toki / Adze were replaced with steel and the Paunamu Toki were caved into Hei Tiki to trade. You present Maori culture as if it is some sacred fixed artifact, when it was a changing and evolving expierience. Just as Celtic Pict, Saxon, Norman, etc evolved and changed with trade, war and colonisation. As if Britain had no soul or was not indigenous. Britain was a massive indigenous tribe.
Yes Maori had to integrate becuase they lost to a bigger tribe. There were in some respects as an example the Moriaori to the Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama, from the Taranaki region.
It seems that the Aoteatoa History show is about hanging your heads in shame of historical facts.
Adapting ones culture into your own has always been a thing but because you want Maori to look bad in the face of Pakeha you make it sound worse then oppressing ones culture and making them feel less human than you are. Pākehā had been stealing from pakeha. That nation has its own history and it is barbaric. How Maori ran within groups was far better than a king ruling over an area.
All cultures have an ugly past, I still don’t think anything can touch European and their disregard for human life.
Every one can look bad in the light of history.
Its not about looking bad or feeling bad. Those people and events are long gone.
When you say Europeans which ones? The Chelts? Druids?
The Magna Carta .. the charter of human rights?
The creation of the innocent until proven guilty legal and democratic systems?
There was a practice in the 19th- and early 20th-century called Blackbirding. This involved tricking Islanders onto ships etc, then they were basically kidnapped and taken as workers for the growing agricultural industries like cotton in Australia etc.
This practice was actually illegal and caused great concern in England being disliked by the public etc.
In one such instance involving one such Blackbirding criminal, Dr James Patrick Murray, his victims were rescued and returned to Fiji and given metal axes, quality guns etc as compensation for this crime. A metal axe in those days was like gold.
How does this fit with your "I still don’t think anything can touch European and their disregard for human life"? How about Englands massive campaign to end the North Atlantic Slave Trade that took military force to achieve?
It seems to me that looking back on historical events with our contemporary, dislocated perspective and even justice seeking is bound to muddy the waters in some way.
@@x.Rhymiie.x this shows a stunning lack of understanding of history and understanding historical peoples perspective, values and the context of the society they were living in. For the time the British probably showed more civility and regard for human life than most cultures, even if by today's standards we would consider it evil.
@@jbryantart8946 Bro you go down irrelevant rabbit holes because you're so defensive. Try and focus on one argument at a time.
@@james4727 most pakeha are evil. Most.
This is politically motivated isn't it? So the English were meant to integrate into Maori society? Kawanatanga means the British crown had governing authority within their sphere. A lot of chiefs were baptized & given the tittle 'Kawana,' which is understood to mean governor. The British crown was basically granted the solemnity & recognition as a 'chief.' Tino rangatiratanga was recognition of the Maori sphere of sovereignty over the lands they own. If it is that sphere of tribal feudalism & Utu that British wanted to live under, then of course, they have to integrate, unless they'd like take a stone hatchet to the head. That political notion of co-governance is a load of BS. It's easy to debunk it as BS.
Kawana can probably be viewed as being synonymous with a chief, so the British were granted a lot of mana whether you like it or not. The mana of having democratic sovereignty, not tribal feudalism or autocratic sovereignty. Maori don't have to pay rates on land they never sold into the British system, so this shows that a degree of their 'Tino rangatiratanga' was & is respected by the Brits. If Maori land was stolen, then that's an injustice that needs to be resolved. Land that Maori never sold into the system technically shouldn't have to answer to the crown, that's what the term 'Tino rangatiratanga' is meant to represent. It DOESN'T represent co-governance, or everyone having to integrate into Maori ideas, I'm sorry, but ya completely barking up the wrong tree & expecting people to live a lie. It's real simple, don't sell ya land & ya maintain ya 'Tino rangatiratanga,' sell it, & you erode ya Tino rangatiratanga, which is pretty much what happened, but I guess you wanna push a narrative.
It's history can't change it Learn from it ,and get over it move on or stagnate in a vengeful xngry rage up to u who cares
move on by... overcoming the inequalities that exist today as a result of the events of the past?
like moster trucks
walter
Lost me at AOTEAROA!!!!!
Ka kite
If Maori migrated to New Zealand, their oral traditions should have included their earlier migratory social interaction, according to your earlier episodes. So why was the arrival of outsiders so unanticipated? They had migrated through a series of countries and cultures ahead of their arrival here.
what countries and cultures had they migrated through? they were polynesian and had been in polynesia for thousands of years, not other countries.
@@eeeaten We all originated from Africa. Aboriginals were in Australia for thousands of years. Maori attribute themselves to specific canoes. We can only speculate what information the oral traditions transmitted.
@@karentorkar8256 you didn’t answer the question. Yes of course all humans are from Africa and native Australians have been in Australia for tens of thousands of years. We’re talking about Polynesians. For thousands of years Polynesians have only seen other Polynesians coming and going.
@@eeeaten Did you not watch the film? It was in the film. Watch the film and read the post.
I made a comment and asked a question in relation to this film. I am not obliged to you.
@@karentorkar8256 you didn't answer the question. i have explained. can you explain?
The event of Tasman has been explained in detail by Otago University lecturer Ian Barber, and it's far removed from what you state here. The information in this video is unsound and the research team (if any) is lacking in serious investigative skill.
-- Cook found this place "UNINHABITED" in accord with the Doctrine of Discovery (Vatican Papal Bull) because the land was not settled by any Christians, hence the claim over the land for the Crown.
-- Cook did not "INTRODUCE" pigs or potatoes etc.; he was ordered to, if he found new land, leave 'markers' to indicate to other colonising powers i.e. America, France, Dutch, that the land had been formerly claimed with due ceremony.
-- "Ngati Tama & Ngati Mutunga used a European ship to sail to Chatham Islands"... WHO GAVE THEM THE SHIP & INFORMED THEM?
What would the bull have to do with cook if gb wasn't Catholic?
You seem to be splitting hairs, so what is your motivation? Cook’s Eurocentric view meant he (and the British in general) viewed these lands as empty and without order. He did introduce pigs and potatoes, and plant gardens with many different species. For whatever reason, those species were introduced by cook. Nobody “gave” ngati mutunga and ngati tama the ship, they took it. Their plan was to go to a new land and take that land (and its people) for themselves. They considered a few options and settled on the Chathams.
@@eeeaten You wouldn’t say such things if you understood the operations of, among other Papal Bulls, the Doctrine of Discovery under which Cook was authorised to stake claim over new-found lands & view non-christian inhabitants as having the same status as that of a hedgehog. It is well documented that Cook was ORDERED to leave the said markers for the said purposes; he wasn’t gifting pigs & potatoes from the goodness of his musket-slinging heart. Thank you for the clarification on the Chathams; I will look more into it.
@@che6630 I didn’t say cook was gifting anything, and two key reasons for him planting European foods were to show evidence of arrival, and to supply future European visitors. The Europeans did obviously trade however, and gave food items in return for other items. But did cook introduce many food items to nz, including pigs and potatoes? Yes.
@@eeeatenWell you just repeated what I stated about 'markers' (evidence). Again, Cook was a pawn following Orders, & part of those Orders was to leave 'markers' for the reasons aforesaid.
And, no, I don't recall reading anything about "supplying future visitors". What's your reference?!
*obviously the 'gift' remark was sarcastic*
so the natives started the violence lol
They were crazy violent savages yes
Quite a history about the Maori - put the Inca's or the Aztecs to shame in degeneration. Outcast during the 13th century as weaker primitive Neolithic people by the invading Hawaiians & Tongans (Maori were from the original wave of primitive Asian/Melanesians pushed right out across the Eastern Pacific by successive stronger more advanced races coming from the west). They were outcast on rafts and some floated up in NZ stranded for 500 years. The weaker were pushed down to the South Island or Chathams etc. So the South Island Maori (had their own language) were the weakest of the weak. They were captured and eaten as 'Slave flesh' by the northern Maori doing raids. (Well they all ate each other - 80% of Maori pre European were dark skinned easily fattened slaves farmed and eaten by a lighter skinned 'Ariki' thin wiry elite royal caste). So it was with some righteousness as well as British cunning that they armed the southern Maori who then with muskets launched a genocidal war on the north.. That plus measles & flu halved the Maori population and removed most of the elite. The British then liberated the slaves and outlawed cannibalism. The northern Maori fought with the British against the south bad west Maori 'rebels'. The Maori sued for peace and a treaty was signed that removed all sovereignty and made them subjects to the English crown where the English would protect them from each other. Land could only be sold to or via the Crown. Maori could live on their reservations with native custom but none did. The treaty of Waitangi is strikingly clear in that the Maori cede sovereignty completely and become citizens of Great Britain - all 3 clauses lock that in. Nothing in today's 'Maori' culture is authentic. The music - all European (Maoris did not have tonal music, the songs are missionary tunes or introduced - Poi dance is from Islands and Stick dance from old Malaya. The carvings and art - all European - Arabesques that was the fashion at the time. Original Maori had limited dash carving and no painting of objects. No written language - all the syntax & grammar plus vowel inflection is European. No technology - some lagoon canoes and wood or stone Neolithic tools. No food sources - like pigs or crops - they left that all behind, all they had was a weak inbred fox (now extinct), some rats and a weak dismal pacific yam. They ate out all the bird-life, didn't know how to farm the sea as were island people and so they turned to societal cannibalism. Today - no full blood or half blood left. No genuine tradition and almost all are offspring of Maori slave females sold to white settlers for muskets or food. -So more fake than the 'Sioux' or 'Cherokee' or 'Crow' who had at least retained some genuineness about who they were and their history. -Everything you 'saw or experienced' is Fake. A totally convected disneyfied tokenistic set of inventions fueled by a grievance culture of mixed-race imposters fetishing a false past bad history because it pays benefits.
'This Horrid Practice' - Professor Paul Moon, "A Savage Country" Professor Paul Moon 'Behind The Tattooed Face' - Heretaunga Pat Baker, 'Anthropology In The South Seas' - H D Skinner
the historians you reference would not agree with your statements.
@Robin Tamihere have my comments been deleted here? it's important to note that:
1. aztec maori? no - there is no genetic connection between aztecs (or any other native american people) and maori.
2. maori invasion of the chathams due to british colonisation? no - ngati mutunga/ngati tama were displaced from their taranaki homeland by waikato, went to wellington, then in 1835 took a british ship to rekohu to take the lands and people as their own.
@Robin Tamihere science shows that to be untrue
@Robin Tamihere wacky, you appear to have confused reality with religious mythology.
@Robin Tamihere ngati hotu are maori, their ancestors are eastern polynesian, not persian or native american. polynesian ancestry is from the western pacific, not from the east. don't be so gullible.
Iwi colonised each other too! But something this woke wouldn't talk about this.
Bro what you talking about? Have you watched this video? From 8:40 they cover precisely that.
@@eeeaten there is still the subtle but implied accusation that Europeans were to blame for terrible and massed wars among Maori, by introducing the musket and other technology, as opposed to implicitly staying Maori make a straightforward choice to attempt mass killing of other iwi. Hongi Heke, Te Ruaparaha, Tuhawaiki and others would have used what ever weapons gave the advantage, from where ever. If the Chinese or Japanese had explored NZ early and introduced the bow and arrow or metal swords, Maori chiefs would have snatched them up. Could that have been blamed, even subtly, on the former?
@@Timeforcommonsense you're imagining it. there's no implication here that europeans were responsible for the deaths of maori at the hands of other maori with guns, and no implication that europeans were responsible for the deaths of maori at the hands of other maori who were enabled by potatoes. it's stated as an account of what happened.
@@eeeaten thers defiantly a subtle slant thy just need to keep it impartial thts all state the facts/ concepts. and leave it at tht, thn every ones happpy
Cute stuff BUT pretty free with FACTS EG conch TRUMPETS/BUGALS were so rare as to be non-existent! Gongs of wood & wooden horns were the usual. Aotearoa is not a Maori name (its a european contrivance) The introduction of spuds & pigs etc caused a population explosion then resulting musket wars resulted in THOUSANDS of deaths with the huge numbers of slaves! Check the numbers for a real shock! "disruption" is too mild to give a clear concept. read the genuine accounts ,start with Trevor Bentlys books
your objection is that they probably had less large shells than implied? aotearoa is obviously a maori name, but was indeed popularised by the british and then adopted by maori starting in the king country. it has been the most widely accepted maori name for new zealand for a hundred years. yes potatoes and muskets enabled and exaggerated inter tribal conflicts, which killed an estimated 20,000 people. those losses were eclipsed by the effects of disease and poverty that followed as maori suffered the effects of colonisation.
Maori were freedom camping on bare land.
There was no ownership.
Civilised culture built what we have today.
It's how the world is developed.
Maori are happy for colonisation money given to them for 180 years.
If Cook didn't arrive when he did.
The Maori would have destroyed each other.
Now they are happy to live in a civilised world, with food, alcohol, drugs, transport, WINZ, clothes, toilet paper, businesses, forestry, harbours, buildings etc.
vague racist nonsense
they were happy back then didn't need all your shit you brought covid flu chicken pox list gos on they were healthy lived 1000s years free of you arse holes
this is partly true even the anglosaxons benifited from the norman colonisation of england unfortunatly its how the world works even to this day we prospour at the expense of lesser nations, cheap labour , sweat shops , cheap minning etc. i think we should address this 1st b4 we get upset abot the past
@@markreynolds7890 it's not the past that people are most upset about. it's the inequalities that exist today _because of_ the events of the past.
@@eeeaten yeahhhh youre not wrong, but that's just a victimhood mentality
Give the dislike button back!!!!!
just articulate your objection with sentences.
Complete nonsense.
vague criticism is worthless. is there something you disagreed with?
Lies
what did you disagree with?
pretty much everything. It's funded by two government business. Tasman didn't even have canons on his boat.
@@kaynestempher6335 you can google it to see the heemskerck did have cannon. what else did you disagree with?
Please, do tell more about missionaries' disapproval of the traditional Maori notions of "trans and non-binary" people, because I'm in the mood for some surreal, absurdist humour. FFS, what a farce some of this stuff is..
I dont accept that Maori acted in self defense due to being invaded.
They were met with the strange new people and the first thing they attempt to do is grab their stuff and steal it, which I dont care what your culture is it's a disrespectful and hostile act to do.
We can't judge people of the past by modern standards In Pre Colononisation Polynesian culture theft was common. Good thief were often envied. Weak or people without Mana (slaves etc almost deserved to have their stuff stolen. But if you got caught stealing then Utu/ revenge would be expected. Maori who stole probably expected some kind of Utu from the Europeans (Although they probably didn't expect to be disproportionately shot at with European firearms).
Sometimes Cook showed restraint by not acting out revenge (for theft of other incidences) which lost him Mana amongst both his own crew and Polynesians . this sometimes let to polynesians thinking he was weak and deserved to be stolen from more. ( pretty much Cook was in a catch 22 situation which is something modern anti -Cook people seem to forget)
@@saltyspaceman5697 you are right we can't judge people from the past
And Cook wasn’t here to rape murder and steal ? That line you stated sounds as real as Moriori being wiped out by Maori 🙄😂
Did you say that when they stole all the land.
Shut up bei see it for what it is if someone fired a gun thru your house you wouldn't be to impressed
Maori realised the strategic advantage of muskets. Sounds like the Europeans are being subtly blamed. Also their tonal inflections about certain events, like missionary influence, are very patronising. This series is dangerous to kids understanding NZ history.
The arrival of Europeans did _not_ cause devastation to Maori populations and way of life?
@@eeeaten it damaged, but did not devastate. But when you say "Maori way of life", remember that many Maori tribes practiced slavery, cannibalism and colonised each other through war. People hurt each other and help each other in life. Life's not (literally and figuratively) black and white.
@@toshadavinci5379 life expectancy in the uk was about the same as in new zealand when cook arrived.
@@Timeforcommonsense a population decline of 50% doesn't qualify as devastation?
@@eeeaten up to 30% actually. And yes, it was a lot in a short period, but thats not devastation, no.
This woman has the most thick nwew zeawland accent I’ve ever heard. Where every word had a wheh sound before the first letter of every word. The guy too. It’s like chose the most New Zealand accented people to do a show on New Zealand history. Can we be a little more open in our choosing people for public education. It’s so nasal. No one sounds like this! Lol embarrassing
This is how New Zealanders sound