Talk:Wairau Affray

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

message: :I've fixed this and added a references section. I'll go through the article eventually and adde further references. Can you please sign your comments on the talk page with four tildes. Thanks! Grimhim 03:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what bias you're referring to. I've given the article a bit of a re-work, relying on one major book on the subject so far and replacing the viewpoint material that had drifted into it; I'll bring in other information from other authoritative sources when time allows, as well as move on to the "Aftermath" section.Grimhim (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

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

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

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

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

message: It seems a reasonable and accurate interpretation of the Wairau battle and the utu or massacre that followed, that the NZ company did have a legal title to the land. After all they did have the deed and they did have its provenance. Te Rauparaha was an invader from the north who had taken the land by conqest from a branch of Rangitane who lived in the Wairau valley for many centuries. This is quite consistent with the known history of both Te Rauparaha and Rangitane.Te Rauparaha was a shrewd customer . Like many conquering chiefs of that period, he saw the treaty as a way to officialy validate his claim on land that was not actually his at all.
It is interesting that in the Spain enquiry he claimed that the group had called out they were christians one moment (by showing the testiment and calling out "we are christians and we dont want to fight") yet within perhaps 2 minutes his warriors are clearly out of control slaughtering many unarmed people (the quakers and others) who were running away. His evidence is interesting as ,of course, he had killed all the British witnesses so could say anything without being challenged.Utu was clearly not a christian belief so what was Te R up to ?In private he had said he was astonished that the British had not immediately come to Wairau and reclaimed the land by force-clearly he expected them to. This would have been Maori Tikanga.
What Te R didnt realise was that the British were civilians with no military force to back them. When the governor did eventually arrive he quickly saw the lie if the land(he was not called "the man of war without guns" for nothing) and did everything he could to pacify  Te R, much to the horror of the settlers, who within months had started a succesful campaign to get rid of him.
In 2010 Rangitane started a Treaty of Waitangi claim for the Wairau valley.The raupatu compensation is in the order of $2 to $4 million for that area.Te Rauparaha had been so keen to validate his 18 year old conquest in 1840 that he signed the treaty Of Waitangi twice -the only chief to do so.Claudia June 2011  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.37.112 (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation of Wairau 

message: The family of Capt Blenkinsopp have indicated that the old English records show that the family name was spelt both ways. These spelling differences were very common  up until the 20th century with many if not most surnames.
: If he was active in the 1840s he would be long dead by now. I suggest you try to trace his headstone (if he has one) or those of his descendants (if he has any) to see what spelling he used. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubt over spelling of Blenkinsopp 

message: Having spent months following every tiny bit of information on this it is impossible to say conclusively if the document was a fraud or not. Most of the information is rumour. A document certainly existed  but there is little or no good evidence either way, although the document seems to have been treated as genuine in Australia and the NZ company had no reason to believe it wasn't genuine-they had paid good money for it. Efforts have been made to discredit Blenkinsopp but it is difficult to trace their origin. There is  limited information about him but what there is suggests a normal business man of that free wheeling era. 
Te Rauparaha is, on the other hand, very well known as the "Napolean of the south". He was pushed out of his homeland in west Waikato by other more powerful Waikato forces and was forced  migrate south along the coast into the land of the various Taranaki tribes. He formed alliances with some to form a huge invading army that swept into the Wellington region, destroying all before him. Survivors were taken as slaves. At least 2 iwi were totally wiped out. He secured his Kapiti Island base and fought off a group of local people trying to bring his invasion to an end but they were soundly beaten. After this he invaded the South Island and  defeated most of the small tribes in the north. Some accounts stress that his aim was to obtain greenstone on the Westcoast but he seems to have spent most or all of his energy arranging battles and further invasions of the southern part of the South Island, some of which were successful and others not.
B and Te R seem to have had respect for each other. Te R "married" his daughter to B at Cloudy Bay-a normal event back in those days when a chief thought a European could be of use. It seems unlikely that TE R could read so it is possible that B did construct a fraudulent deed to obtain land but there is no real evidence one way or another. TE R could be very duplicitous, as later deeds in Wellington proved, when he tried to hoodwink the governor-he was used to getting his way by any means possible-mainly by use of strategic force. It is reasonable to say he was extremely cunning. Of interest is that TE R was caught out when he sent a hand written note which showed he was playing a double game. This  was intercepted by troops and shown to the governor. What we don't know is if TE R himself wrote the note. If he did then it suggests that at some stage he learnt to write and presumably read English. This would throw the idea of him being tricked out the window. B would have been taking a huge risk to try to put one over Te R who was responsible for more mayhem and destruction in NZ than any other single person during the Musket War period.Claudia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael King (The Penguin History of New Zealand, p. 182) was evidently in no doubt that the land deal was "fraudulent" because Wakefield held a "false deed". Patricia Burns' history of the New Zealand Company (Fatal Success, p. 121-122) refers to the late Mr Blenkinsop's "alleged" purchase from Te Rauparaha, and then explains: "The purchase hinged on a gun which Blenkinsop had spiked before handing it over to the Ngati Toa. The chief had not seen the humour of the situation, for the rich Wairau was one of his most treasured possessions." No other books I have go into any greater depth on the "fraud" or make any judgment on the validity of the transaction, but if you have any relevant sources you'd like to raise here, that would be helpful. In the meantime I have changed the wording to "possibly fraudulent" sale, though it could be argued that since King is a reliable source, his judgment should be the one used in this article. BlackCab (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the document a fraud? 

message: Ironside was a remarkable missionary. He proved from the start of his mission a fearless man who was not afraid to tackle cultural/political issues head on. With a university degree he was an able commentator of the massacre and the aftermath. His writings show the true horror of the massacre and the effects on the small Wellington /Nelson population. As well as converting Maori to christianity he made an real effort to understand their history and language. He very quickly became a valuable asset to the government and helped avoid further bloodshed after the massacre. His presence at Porirua (Taupo Pa) just a short time after the massacre is astounding as he was an eyewitness to the reenactment of the massacre and to hear Te Rangitaeata's bloody account. He was able to report to the government the bloodthirsty mood of the Maori which tempered any  government reaction. Of interest is that his eyewitness account confirms the bloody mutilation of the victims who were killed after their  ceasefire and the beheading of the European leader. Claudia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 05:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The material adds nothing of historical worth. Ironside's nightmares have no place in an encyclopedia, and his subsequent claims about what he saw Te Rangihaeata do are also unimportant. Do you ever look back to what you have typed in? It's a mess. "Crown prosecutor and newspaper editor Mr Richardson, Surveyor Mr Cotterell, Company store keeper Mr J. Howard with about and about 50 men ..." Your spelling is appalling and the lax attention to capitalisation and style leaves a lot to be desired. 05:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

text: No, I am not being funny. Ironsides is writing about his nightmares. You have simply reinstated your edit with all your mistakes and inattention to Wikipedia style. BlackCab (TALK) 05:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I have removed it again because it is the usual rubbish contribution from that editor. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reinstated the only useful part of the material, which concerned the search party and burials. BlackCab (TALK) 06:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rev Ironsides account