Essay writing guidelines



Download 5,68 Mb.
Page5/5
Date conversion29.08.2017
Size5,68 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5
PEEL / TELL – mnemonic for History paragraphs (alternative toTEXAS)
P = Point - main point / key idea / factors concept etc that is part of developing your argument/answering the question. It can be used here for topic sentence if you want to use TEEEL or TEEL as the acronym]
E = Explain / expand - where you explain what your point is / expand on what your point is. You add further explantion to the first sentence
E = Evidence / examples - here is where you provide evidence of your learning about the point/factor /examplese/data/names and dates etc...
E = Evaluate - here is where you evaluate / weigh-up / judge the relative importance of the point vs other points being made or in relation to the question set
L= Linkage sentence back to the question set / or linkage sentence to the next paragraph. )r both

Rationale for those words
Peel - answers to questions have many layers like an onion and need to be peeled back
Tell - tell me the answer




List the ten most important steps in writing an essay.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14


Hard Copy Resources

  • Mr Pipe’s books:

  • Early Contact

  • 1830s

  • The Treaty of Waitangi

  • 1840s Sovereignty versus Rangati=ratanga

  • 1850s The calm before the storm

  • 1860s The wars and the laws



Internet Resources
http://mags13history.wikispaces.com/AA+RESEARCHING+SITES
http://mags13history.wikispaces.com/O+HISTORIOGRAPHY
http://mags13history.wikispaces.com/F+A+GUIDE+TO+AS3.4+DECISONS
http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/ncea/assessment/search.do?query=history&view=reports&level=03
Plus the sources linked from the wikispace


  1. Assessment schedules for a Treaty essay

2009 Why did Maori sign?



Explain the beliefs and fears about the state of affairs in New Zealand shared by Māori chiefs and the British Government that led to their decision to negotiate the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840.

Evaluate the extent to which the Treaty of Waitangi had addressed the concerns of both parties by 1860.


The candidate’s response to the first part of the essay question could include:

  • There were common beliefs and fears that influenced both parties to become involved in a treaty:

  • A relationship had already been established between the British and Māori, eg 1831 Petition to King William IV by northern chiefs to be a friend and guardian, James Busby and the United Tribes & Declaration of Independence 1835.

  • Concerns over foreign influence – French and American intentions in NZ. Fear of the French in the North (du Fresne, de Thierry, Catholic influence through Bishop Pompallier and his missions). US Consulate had been set up.

  • Commercial transaction – an expectation of increased material benefits and trade.

  • Law and order needed to be established.

  • An increase of settlers were expected – less were expected by Māori, an unspecified amount were expected by the British government

  • Pressure and persuasion by missionaries who were concerned about the welfare of Māori, especially amongst humanitarians – Kororareka – Hellhole of the Pacific – drunkenness, prostitution, violence.

  • Resolution of inter-tribal rivalries and to bring peace amongst the age-old enemies.

  • Guarantees of sovereignty and control over land for both sides – British thought they would be given it, Māori thought they would not be surrendering it.

  • Concern about speculative land purchases of dubious legality taking place around the country. Missionaries and Australians ‘buying’ or claiming blocks of land from Māori, often transactions where Pākehā and Māori intentions and expectations were quite different. The British promised to investigate these ‘dodgy’ land sales. Māori expected to sell and / or lease some land to the extra settlers that would come.


The candidate’s response to the second part of the essay question could include:

  • Rather than addressing the concerns of both parties, misunderstanding resulted from the mistranslations within the Treaty – Pākehā understanding that Māori had signed sovereignty away and Māori understanding that their rangatiratanga had been guaranteed. This meant continuing tension and friction as each tried to assert their sovereignty and get what they thought the Treaty had given them. “Hastily drafted, ambiguous, inconsistent and contradictory document.” Ruth Ross.

  • Hobson’s Proclamation of Sovereignty in May 1840 over the whole of New Zealand – North Island by ceding sovereignty, South Island by Cook’s discovery. New Zealand instantly painted ‘imperial pink’ – Belich.

  • Between 1840 and 1858, Māori sovereignty began to be slowly eroded and race relations deteriorated.

  • Commissioner Spain investigated validity of land purchases – land found illegally acquired by Pākehā would not revert to Māori but would go to the Crown as surplus land – “this seriously shook Māori confidence” – Claudia Orange.

  • Wasteland Policy – settlers constantly pressured Governors to take over land not cultivated or occupied by Māori.

  • Some Māori benefited from land rent arrangements with Pākehā – Wairarapa.

  • The first 15 years after the Treaty saw a period of economic expansion and prosperity for many tribes, especially those close to Pākehā markets.

  • Growth of Pākehā population – equalled Māori in 1858 and their desire for and acquisition of land led to conflict and economic dominance.

  • New Zealand Company settlements established in Wellington, Wanganui, Nelson, New Plymouth, also Canterbury and Otago. These settlements and the growth of Auckland saw close economic links formed with Māori to ensure food supply and survival. However, when Pākehā population overtook Māori, the cooperation between the races declined.

  • Some settler attitudes toward Māori were Eurocentric and superior, and they had little interest in understanding Māori culture – arrogance and intolerance.

  • Māori were excluded from the 1852 Constitution – denied franchise and participation in government.

  • Government instituted restrictions on Māori harvesting of flax and timber – went against Article 2 of Treaty.

  • Difficulties in the North 1841–42 – Hobson directed customs duties to go to the Crown not Māori; Hobson issued a regulation prohibiting the felling of Kauri; hanging of Maketu.

  • Wairau Incident 1843 – Pākehā attempted to enforce their rights over land before Commissioner Spain could investigate the land claim by surveying the Wairau and building huts. Te Rauparaha burnt the huts, Arthur Wakefield and about 50 armed settlers tried to arrest Te Rauparaha; a fight broke out, resulting in settler and Māori deaths. Governor Fitzroy investigated and declared the settlers guilty of provoking the fighting and proposed to do nothing further. Māori and Pākehā became more suspicious of each other.

  • Conflict in the North 1844–46 – loss of mana and economic decline because of move of capital to Auckland, application of pre-emption, loss of customs revenue, fewer land sales led to resentment. Hone Heke’s grievances – loss of rangatiratanga and independence led to cutting down of the flagstaff four times, sack of Kororareka, and war between Heke, Kawiti and the government and Tamati Waka Nene. Battles at Puketutu, Ohaeawai and Ruapekapeka. Through Waka Nene, Governor Grey negotiated peace with Heke; no Māori land was confiscated but Heke’s concerns were not addressed.

  • Governor Grey actions – Grey attempted to force Māori to sell wasteland in the Wellington region, which threatened the mana of Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata. Incidents of fighting occurred in the Hutt Valley in 1846. Grey arrested Te Rauparaha. Grey acquired 30 million acres of the South Island and 3 million acres of the North Island before he left NZ in 1853. His negotiation and methods of purchase were questionable, payments were minimal, and promises were not kept especially in the South Island.

  • Rise of the King Movement was an attempt by Māori to retain land and sovereignty. In 1859, Potatau Te Wherowhero was confirmed as holding the mana of kingship, supported by Waikato and central North Island tribes. Pākehā and the Governor saw the King Movement as a threat to British sovereignty. The Kohimarama Conference of 1860 was an attempt by Governor Gore-Browne to re-examine the Treaty and deal with the problem of Māori refusal to sell land, especially the King Movement.

  • Outbreak of war in Taranaki – Pākehā desire to purchase land in Waitara led to Te Teira offering to sell it to the Crown. Wiremu Kingi denied Te Teira’s right to sell and refused to sell the land, maintaining his mana and rangatiratanga over Waitara. Governor Gore-Browne felt British sovereignty had to be asserted by denying Wiremu Kingi’s authority over Waitara. Fighting began in March 1860. Waikato Kingites joined the fighting in support of Kingi and Māori autonomy.

How would you re-organise the causes and consequences above into fewer points?

































2008 Why did the British want a Treaty?
Explain the factors that contributed to the decision made by the British Government to offer Māori chiefs a Treaty in 1840.

Evaluate the consequences of that decision for Pākehā and Māori after the Treaty of Waitangi, until 1860.

The candidate’s response to the first part of the essay question could include:

  • After difficulties elsewhere with indigenous peoples, Britain was reluctant to annex New Zealand because of the likely cost and difficulties it would face.

  • There were calls from Māori for intervention – 1831 Petition to King William IV by northern chiefs to be a friend and guardian.

  • Incidents of violence – Boyd and Alligator Incidents, Elizabeth Affair.

  • Lord Normanby’s concern over foreign influence – French and American intentions in New Zealand. Fear of French in the North – du Fresne, de Thierry, Catholic influence through Bishop Pompallier and his missions. US Consulate set up.

  • By 1830s, traders and missionaries had substantial investments in New Zealand and wanted law and order to protect their rights and property.

  • Britain had recognised New Zealand as independent many times – Imperial Statutes 1817, 1823, 1828 & Declaration of Independence 1835. This meant that if they wanted to formally intervene, the independent status of Māori had to be qualified or removed with some sort of formal agreement. But the British government found there was no Māori government through which it could work – failure of Declaration of Independence and James Busby.

  • Cession through a Treaty would avoid an expensive war. Voluntary cession was required because Māori cultivated and therefore ‘owned’ their land in the North Island. Hobson saw Ngāi Tahu as hunter-gatherers – no cultivation, no ownership. International law demanded that some kind of treaty would look good to the rest of the world (Alan Ward – a show of justice).

  • Humanitarian lobby in England – pressure from the Aborigines Protection Society with increasing concern about the welfare of Māori and the desire to avoid the disaster of Australia over again.

  • By the late 1830s intervention was seen as necessary to protect both Māori and the missionaries from the rougher sort of Pākehā – Kororareka – ‘Hell-hole of the Pacific’ – drunkenness, prostitution, violence, etc – the Colonial Office wanted lawlessness tidied up at minimal cost (Peter Adams).

  • Late 1830s speculative land purchases of dubious legality taking place around the country. Missionaries and Australians ‘buying’ or claiming blocks of land from Māori, often transactions where Pākehā and Māori intentions and expectations were quite different.

  • The New Zealand Association / Company was organising English settlement in New Zealand 1833–39 and this concerned humanitarians, missionaries and the British government because the settlers would be outside British sovereignty and doubts that Wakefield’s dealings with Māori would be fair and / or ethical. Departure of the Tory in 1839.

  • From the late 1830s, the British idea of a Māori New Zealand that accommodated some Pākehā changed to a British settler colony that would accommodate Māori – “a fatal necessity” – Peter Adams.

  • Belich – the colonial office’s response was a consequence of the myths of empire. Three agents of empire were the Church Missionary Society (CMS), organisers of systematic colonisation (Wakefield), and merchants and capitalists – all put pressure on the government to intervene formally in New Zealand. They inundated the colonial office with reports of disaster and chaos – 1837 and 1838, they received Hobson’s report, which painted a bleak picture, and a CMS report, which indicated a deteriorating situation.

  • In July–August 1839, the British government decided that at least limited intervention was needed. Settlers had to be controlled and Māori had to be protected.

  • The British government expected:

– sovereignty would be given by Māori to the British for all parts of the country

– the authority to impose law and order over everyone in New Zealand



– total control over land in areas ceded to them, which they would sell to settlers.


How would you re-organise the causes above into fewer points?




































































The candidate’s response to the second part of the essay question could include:


  • Misunderstanding resulting from the mistranslations within the Treaty – Pākehā understanding that Māori had signed sovereignty away and Māori understanding that their rangatiratanga had been guaranteed. This meant continuing tension and friction as each tried to assert their sovereignty and get what they thought the Treaty had given them. “Hastily drafted, ambiguous, inconsistent and contradictory document.” Ruth Ross.

  • Hobson’s Proclamation of Sovereignty in May 1840 over the whole of New Zealand – North Island by ceding sovereignty, South Island by Cook’s discovery. New Zealand instantly painted ‘imperial pink’ – Belich.

  • Between 1840–58, Māori sovereignty began to be slowly eroded and race relations deteriorated.

  • Commissioner Spain investigated validity of land purchases – land found illegally acquired by Pākehā would not revert to Māori but would go to the Crown as surplus land – ‘this seriously shook Māori confidence’ – Claudia Orange.

  • Wasteland Policy – settlers constantly pressured Governors to take over land not cultivated or occupied by Māori.

  • Some Māori benefited from land rent arrangements with Pākehā – Wairarapa.

  • Growth of Pākehā population – equalled Māori in 1858 and their desire for and acquisition of land led to conflict and economic dominance.

  • New Zealand Company settlements established in Wellington, Wanganui, Nelson, New Plymouth, also Canterbury and Otago. These settlements and the growth of Auckland saw close economic links formed with Māori to ensure food supply and survival. However, when Pākehā population overtook Māori the cooperation between the races declined.

  • Some settler attitudes toward Māori were Eurocentric and superior and they had little interest in understanding Māori culture – arrogance and intolerance.

  • Māori excluded from the 1852 Constitution – denied franchise and participation in government.

  • Government instituted restrictions on Māori harvesting of flax and timber – went against Article 2 of Treaty.

  • Difficulties in the North 1841–42 – Hobson directed customs duties to go to the Crown not Māori; Hobson issued a regulation prohibiting the felling of kauri; hanging of Maketu.

  • Wairau Incident 1843 – Pākehā attempted to enforce their rights over land before Commissioner Spain could investigate the land claim, by surveying the Wairau and building huts. Te Rauparaha burnt the huts. Arthur Wakefield and about 50 armed settlers tried to arrest Te Rauparaha and a fight broke out resulting in settler and Māori deaths. Governor Fitzroy investigated and declared the settlers guilty of provoking the fighting and proposed to do nothing further. Māori and Pākehā became more suspicious of each other.

  • Conflict in the North 1844–46 – loss of mana and economic decline because of move of capital to Auckland, application of pre-emption, loss of customs revenue, fewer land sales led to resentment. Hone Heke’s grievances – loss of rangatiratanga and independence led to cutting down of the flagstaff four times, sack of Kororareka, and war between Heke, Kawiti and the government and Tamati Waka Nene. Battles at Puketutu, Ohaeawai and Ruapekapeka. Through Waka Nene, Governor Grey negotiated peace with Heke, no Māori land was confiscated but Heke’s concerns were not addressed.

  • Governor Grey actions – Grey attempted to force Māori to sell wasteland in the Wellington region, which threatened the mana of Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata. Incidents of fighting occurred in the Hutt Valley in 1846. Grey arrested Te Rauparaha. Grey acquired 30 million acres of the South Island and 3 million acres of the North Island before he left New Zealand in 1853. His negotiation and methods of purchase were questionable, payments were minimal, and promises were not kept especially in the South Island.

  • Rise of the King Movement was an attempt by Māori to retain land and sovereignty. In 1859, Potatau Te Wherowhero was confirmed as holding the mana of kingship, supported by Waikato and central North Island tribes. Pākehā and the Governor saw the King Movement as a threat to British sovereignty. The Kohimarama Conference of 1860 was an attempt by Governor Gore-Browne to re-examine the Treaty and deal with the problem of Māori refusal to sell land, especially the King Movement.

  • Outbreak of war in Taranaki – Pākehā desire to purchase land in Waitara led to Te Teira offering to sell it to the Crown. Wiremu Kingi denied Te Teira’s right to sell and refused to sell the land maintaining his mana and rangatiratanga over Waitara. Governor Gore-Browne felt British sovereignty had to be asserted by denying Wiremu Kingi’s authority over Waitara. Fighting began in March 1860. Waikato Kingites joined the fighting in support of Kingi and Māori autonomy.

2012 Why did both Maori and British sign the Treaty?
Explain the factors that contributed to the decision of many Māori chiefs and a representative of the British Crown to sign Te Tiri o Waitangi in 1840.

Evaluate the consequences of this decision for the lives of Māori between 1840 and 1863.
The candidate’s response to the first part of the essay question could include:

  • The factors that contributed to the decision of many Māori to sign:

    1. Many Māori chiefs made the decision to sign the Treaty of Waitangi after making an intelligent analysis of the information available to them at the time

    2. Many chiefs may have signed for personal reasons. Chiefs such as Tamati Waka Nene were influential. He saw change as inevitable and believed that the clock could not be turned back. The Treaty was the way forward. William Colenso suggested that many chiefs were not aware of the implications of the Treaty

    3. More access to Pākehā, which in turn bring markets to sell to, goods, employment, improved trade etc.

    4. No realisation of the large numbers of settlers that would come (Keith Sinclair)

    5. For their own trade advantages – access to knowledge, superior skills and tools

    6. Control of undesirable Pākehā practices by Crown

    7. Chiefs may have signed because of the promise of food and gifts. One Tauranga chief said “pay us first and we will write afterwards”. Some may have seen the Treaty signing as a commercial transaction

    8. Many chiefs believed that the sharing of authority would enhance chiefly mana. Personal agreement between Chiefs and the Queen

    9. Expectation that the promises made in the articles of the Treaty in Māori would be honoured: Article 1 – bought an expectation of equal role of authority – “we are one people” as the Treaty implied that Māori would give up only nominal rather than substantive sovereignty, as the word used to translate the ceding of sovereignty to the British was “kāwanatanga” not “mana” or “rangatiratanga”. These words would have indicated a much stronger form of British sovereignty over New Zealand. Article 2 – guarantee of rangatiratanga over land, taonga and resources – “shadow of the land”(Nopera). Article 3 – full rights of British citizenship

    10. Pākehā officials to control troublesome Pākehā – the Governor would control Pākehā and especially those who were purchasing land. Mana of land would be held by Māori

    11. Protection from foreign powers – wary of French

    12. Little to fear as in 1840 Māori outnumbered Pākehā by 50 to 1

    13. Rival tribes signing so signed to keep up with them especially in east coast of North Island (Manuka Henare)

    14. Peace with age-old enemies

    15. Avoid Australian disaster – some chiefs were aware of what had happened to the Australian Aborigines

    16. Support against aggressive land buyers – all disputed land sales investigated

    17. Desire to sell land to few more settlers

    18. Utu – sell disputed land then don’t have to fight Māori rivals for it

    19. Peace amongst tribes regarding land

    20. The Governor’s notion of pre-emption was not explained – not the same as hokonga

    21. Some chiefs trusted the Missionaries who were persuasive as they portrayed the Treaty as an overwhelming positive deal for Māori and encouraged chiefs to sign. The missionaries may also have played up the importance of protection of British law that was promised through Article Three. In light of events such as the Elizabeth Affair, the opportunity to pursue justice against Pākehā who had committed criminal activity was seen as desirable

    22. Queen Victoria was the head of the church as well as the state – Treaty bond seen as sacred bond or covenant as in 1840 almost half of Māori were Christian.

  • The factors that contributed to the decision of a representative of the British Crown to sign:

    1. After difficulties elsewhere with indigenous peoples, Britain was reluctant to annex New Zealand because of the likely cost and difficulties it would face

    2. There were calls from Māori for intervention – 1831 Petition to King William IV by northern chiefs to be a friend and guardian

    3. Incidents of violence – Boyd and Alligator Incidents, Elizabeth Affair

    4. Lord Normanby’s concern over foreign influence – French and American intentions in New Zealand. Fear of French in the North – du Fresne, de Thierry, Catholic influence through Bishop Pompallier and his missions. US Consulate set up

    5. By 1830s, traders and missionaries had substantial investments in New Zealand and wanted law and order to protect their rights and property

    6. Britain had recognised New Zealand as independent many times – Imperial Statutes 1817, 1823, 1828 and Declaration of Independence (1835). This meant that if they wanted to formally intervene, the independent status of Māori had to be qualified or removed with some sort of formal agreement. But the British government found there was no Māori government through which it could work – failure of Declaration of Independence and James Busby

    7. Cession through a Treaty would avoid an expensive war. Voluntary cession was required because Māori cultivated and therefore ‘owned’ their land in the North Island. Hobson saw Ngāi Tahu as hunter-gatherers – no cultivation, no ownership. International law demanded that some kind of treaty would look good to the rest of the world (Alan Ward – A Show of Justice)

    8. Humanitarian lobby in England – pressure from the Aborigines Protection Society with increasing concern about the welfare of Māori and the desire to avoid the disaster of Australia over again

    9. By the late 1830s intervention was seen as necessary to protect both Māori and the missionaries from the rougher sort of Pākehā – Kororareka – ‘Hell-hole of the Pacific’ – drunkenness, prostitution, violence, etc – the Colonial Office wanted lawlessness tidied up at minimal cost (Peter Adams)

    10. Late 1830s speculative land purchases of dubious legality taking place around the country. Missionaries and Australians ‘buying’ or claiming blocks of land from Māori, often transactions where Pākehā and Māori intentions and expectations were quite different

    11. The New Zealand Association / Company was organising English settlement in New Zealand 1833–39 and this concerned humanitarians, missionaries and the British government because the settlers would be outside British sovereignty and doubts that Wakefield’s dealings with Māori would be fair and / or ethical. Departure of the Tory in 1839

    12. From the late 1830s, the British idea of a Māori New Zealand that accommodated some Pākehā changed to a British settler colony that would accommodate Māori – “a fatal necessity” – Peter Adams

    13. Belich – the colonial office’s response was a consequence of the myths of empire. Three agents of empire were the Church Missionary Society (CMS), organisers of systematic colonisation (Wakefield), and merchants and capitalists – all put pressure on the government to intervene formally in New Zealand. They inundated the colonial office with reports of disaster and chaos – 1837 and 1838, they received Hobson’s report, which painted a bleak picture, and a CMS report, which indicated a deteriorating situation

    14. In July–August 1839, the British government decided that at least limited intervention was needed. Settlers had to be controlled and Māori had to be protected

    15. The British Government expected:

        1. sovereignty would be given by Māori to the British for all parts of the country

        2. the authority to impose law and order over everyone in New Zealand

        3. total control over land in areas ceded to them, which they would sell to settlers.


The candidate’s response to the second part of the question could include:

  • The mistranslation of the Treaty led to Māori and the Crown having totally different understandings of what they had promised each other. The actions of Crown officials after the signing of the Treaty suggest that they believed that New Zealand had been instantly painted “imperial pink”, with Māori now subject to British law. Actions by Māori chiefs after 1840 suggest that they believed that they would still have authority over their people and land

  • On 21 May 1840, Hobson proclaimed British sovereignty over all of New Zealand. Most likely, this was in response to plans by the New Zealand Company to establish its own government in the Cook Strait region

  • The arrest, trial, and execution of Maketu in 1842 provided an early post-Treaty test for British law in situations that involved cross-cultural crime

  • In 1842, land commissioners began investigating pre-Treaty land purchases. If the commissioners believed that the transaction had been fair, they validated it and awarded a Crown Grant. Crown Grants were limited to 2560 acres (four square miles). Excess land was ceded to the Crown, as was land that was deemed to be invalidly obtained. Commissioner William Spain deemed most of the purchases around Wellington to be invalid

  • Conflict between some tribes in 1842 led to the suggestion that those chiefs who had not signed the Treaty didn’t come under its authority. A ruling was made that all Māori were deemed to be under Crown authority

  • The Wairau incident highlighted many of the issues that surrounded the Treaty. Ngāti Toa disputed the New Zealand Company’s claim to have purchased the land and disrupted the surveyors. The New Zealand Company officials set off to arrest Te Rauparaha. A musket was fired, killing Te Rangihaeata’s wife, and in the fighting that ensued, five more Māori and 22 Pākehā were killed. Of these Pākehā deaths, 13 had surrendered but were killed as utu for the Māori deaths. Governor FitzRoy refused to apprehend Te Rangihaeata for these killings, saying there was wrong on each side

  • The Treaty of Waitangi gave the Crown the exclusive right to purchase Māori land, but in 1844 private land purchases were allowed when Governor FitzRoy gave in to demands from settlers and Māori and waived his right of pre-emption

  • Hone Heke cutting down the flagpole at Kororareka in 1844 and 1845 was a protest against what he perceived to be a loss of Māori authority and a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Northern War that followed was very much a war of sovereignty

  • In 1846, the British Government instructed that the ownership of Māori land had to be registered. Any unregistered land was deemed to be “surplus”. Governor Grey reinstated the exclusive Crown right to purchase Māori land, citing the Treaty of Waitangi

  • Grey attempted to force Māori to sell wasteland in the Wellington region, which threatened the mana of Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata. Incidents of fighting occurred in the Hutt Valley in 1846. Grey arrested Te Rauparaha. Grey acquired 30 million acres of the South Island and 3 million acres of the North Island before he left New Zealand in 1853. His negotiation and methods of purchase were questionable, payments were minimal, and promises were not kept especially in the South Island

  • Rise of the King Movement was an attempt by Māori to retain land and sovereignty. In 1859, Potatau Te Wherowhero was confirmed as holding the mana of kingship, supported by Waikato and central North Island tribes. Pākehā and the Governor saw the King Movement as a threat to British sovereignty

  • The Kohimarama Conference of 1860 was an attempt by Governor Gore-Browne to re-examine the Treaty and deal with the problem of Māori refusal to sell land, especially the King Movement

  • Outbreak of war in Taranaki – Pākehā desire to purchase land in Waitara led to Te Teira offering to sell it to the Crown. Wiremu Kingi denied Te Teira’s right to sell and refused to sell the land maintaining his mana and rangatiratanga over Waitara. Governor Gore-Browne felt British sovereignty had to be asserted by denying Wiremu Kingi’s authority over Waitara

  • Fighting began in March 1860. Waikato Kingites joined the fighting in support of Kingi and Māori autonomy.


How would you re-organise the causes and consequences above into fewer points?













































































  1. Note guides for Treaty essays


Maori and the signing of the Treaty
Historiography

Salmond: Maori intermediaries liked what they saw overseas

Sinclair: limited Maori understanding of just how many Pakeha would come

Henare: inter-hapu rivalry and alliances meant many non-northern tribes signed out of fear of ‘missing out’

Adams: background of concerns about lawlessness

Tremewen: background of concerns regarding French intentions
The following are the reasons why some Maori signed a Treaty with Britain in 1840. They also give an indication of what expectations there were with regard to the race relations in the future: BROCCLI.

British power

Maori were impressed with Britain’s ships and power, especially after her defeat of the French under Napoleon in 1815 that had earned her the title of ‘Ruler of the Seas’. Also, traditions held that the British were the first to make contact with the Maori people. Orange notes that “[Maori chief] Titore, acknowledging Britain's past conflict with France, offered to reserve certain trees from which spars could be cut in any future Anglo‑French engagement.” Rumours that other less desirable powers were showing an interest in NZ concerned some Maori. Worst was the French with their supposed aim of utu for the killing by Maori in 1772 of Marion du Fresne. Maori were also aware of the harsh French treatment of the Tahitians



Rangatiratanga

New Zealand was without a doubt a Maori country (Maori were culturally, militarily, politically, numerically and even economically dominant at 1840). It was not until 1858 that the Pakeha population exceeded Maori; an official Pakeha presence thus did not appear threatening. In addition, in the Maori version of the Treaty rangitiratanga (chiefly authority) was guaranteed, thus there was no loss of sovereignty. As Nopera Panakaeroa of the Rarawa tribe said: “Only the shadow of the land passes to the Queen. The substance stays with us.”



Opportunities

Maori in contact with Pakeha were keen to continue the mutually beneficial trade relationship and to regulate it where difficulties were occurring



Covenant

Missionaries and both Busby and Hobson emphasised the personal and almost sacred nature of the relationship between Maori and the Queen, giving the impression that any problems could be worked out directly. There was also a guarantee to protect Maori from Pakeha trouble-makers. These points made it seem unlikely that the Treaty would not be honoured. Orange points out that “On his seven visits to New Zealand between 1814 and 1839, he [missionary Samuel Marsden] consistently promoted the belief that the Crown had a parental interest in protecting the Maori people… Maori came to expect a personal relationship with the Crown's representative and developed unrealistic expectations of continuing special treatment.”



Commercial transaction

Edward Gibbon Wakefield reported that some Maori in the Wellington region did not have the significance of what they were signing explained to them. He noted that two chiefs he knew well, Turoa and Te Aratia, thought they were signing to say that they had received a blanket from the Queen. Such instances may well be truer away from Waitangi.



Lawlessness

Maori, as well as missionaries and Busby, were concerned about pakeha lawlessness and the increase in disregard for Maori ways. They could not be sure what problems unregulated Pakeha settlement might bring in the future so thought it was better to allow the British to look after their own people



Inter-hapu rivalry

In the ongoing “pursuit of mana” some hapu, particularly northern, hoped to take advantage of the benefits it was believed the formal presence of the British government would bring. The Crown was thus the latest ‘currency of mana.

BROCCLI.
WHY DID BRITAIN INTERVENE IN NZ?
Historiography

Walker: Britain had no intention of sharing power or abiding by the high-sounding principles in the Treaty

Ward: Britain needed to be seen to be doing the right thing in its treating with Maori, but always had its own motives foremost

Adams: background of concerns about lawlessness

Tremewen: background of concerns regarding French intentions
In 1840 the British sought a Treaty with as many Maori as would sign despite its earlier reluctance to become involved in another of what usually proved to be expensive and problematic colonies: LAWDFISH!
Lawlessness

‑ British nationals especially were causing trouble. The Kororareka Association, a vigilante group, had been formed to combat drunkenness and lawlessness. Maori also called on the British to do something about the ‘riff-raff’. There had been incidents such as the Boyd and Alligator. The Elizabeth incident (Captain Stewart and Te Rauparaha) caused alarm as Pakeha became involved in Maori inter‑hapu rivalries and British law was unable to doing anything.



Alarmist Reports

‑ Busby, who found that he had little real power in dealing with troublemakers, and missionaries sent back alarmist (and exaggerated) reports of the dire effects of unscrupulous Europeans on Maori and demanded for them the protection of the Crown. (As Belich points out, the Colonial Office allowed itself to be persuaded that a relatively few grog-sellers and traders were somehow able to decimate a culture that was strong and its members well-armed.)



Wakefield and the New Zealand Company

‑ With its policy of purchasing vast areas of land cheaply and systematically establishing large numbers of new settlers with their own government, the pressure was on for the Crown to establish its own authority and to regulate what was going to be a flood of new immigrants. The crown feared that Port Nicholson and later NZ Company settlements would establish themselves as republics beyond British law.



Declaration of Independence, 1835

‑ This formalised a friendly link with Britain as protector. It also meant that Britain had recognised New Zealand's independence and thus would need a formal treaty to legally secure sovereignty.



'Foreign' countries

‑ France, especially, and the USA were believed to be interested in NZ. Busby in particular sent back alarmist reports about the Frenchman Baron Charles de Thiery and his (wild) claim of setting himself up as King of New Zealand from a base in the Hokianga.



Investments

‑ British and Sydney interests had invested substantially in NZ, for example at the timber mills in the Hokianga. Britain felt that it had an obligation to protect the investments of these companies and individuals who were concerned at the increasing problems.


Superior Culture’


- There was a sense of inevitably that Britain’s destiny (and, indeed, duty) was to spread its ways throughout the ‘unenlightened’ world. Assuming full sovereignty was thus almost the inevitable consequence of the spread of British nationals.

Humanitarianism

  • British organisations such as the Aborigine Protection Society (APS) exerted their influence in the British parliament to get a fair deal for Maori. The 1830s marked the high point of this group’s influence (successfully campaigning for the abolition of the slave trade in 1833 throughout the British Empire.)



LAWDFISH!



  1. Model essay with comments for a Treaty essay


What were the causes for some Maori and the British to enter into formal relations through the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840? What were the consequences of this by 1850?


This sentence signals that the historical context will be talked about.


  • will be discussed.

The signing of the Treaty of Waitangi was a decision of some Maori and British to enter into formal relations with each other. The factors that contributed were of political, economic and humanitarian nature, including the concerns over growing lawlessness in New Zealand, the implications of the 1835 Declaration of Independence, and the British government’s response to the threat of both French colonists and Edward Wakefield’s desire for land monopoly. The major consequences that can be seen in the decade after the Treaty was a power struggle; attempts by both cultures to assert their sovereignty. These consequences were also political, economic and humanitarian in nature, in the form of governor activity and Maori resistance movements.

Excellent introduction:

  • clear

  • addresses the content areas.

  • mentions briefly the areas that will be discussed


The decision in 1840 to sign the Treaty and therefore formalise the Maori-Pakeha relationship was made in a period of increasing unrest in a number of areas. Politically, pressure was mounting for the British Colonial Office to establish some control on a permanent basis as a security measure. The humanitarian movement was also concerned about intertribal and interracial relations, and economic issues were raised with tension over the British exploitation of resources. This historical context set the scene for the inevitable intervention of the Crown.

Good overall discussion, however a more detailed overview of the early contact period could be included
Topic sentence signals discussion of factors leading to decision.

The growing lawlessness in New Zealand was a concern for both the Maori and the British, and was a significant factor leading to the signing of the Treaty. The British received reports from missionaries, and the British resident in New Zealand James Busby, the flow of these peaking around 1837-1838. They highlighted the increase in crime with a slightly apocalyptic view, urging the government to take action. James Belich comments on the missionaries; ‘…without conscious deceit, they often stretched even contemporary imperialist credulity, claiming, for example, that intertribal warfare and interracial violence were endemic…’ Good vocab The Maori were also worried, and saw the Treaty as a means of retaining the Governor, and therefore law and order, so that some aspects of settlement destructive to their culture could be minimised.
The substantive sovereignty that the Crown aimed to obtain was impeded by the 1835 Declaration of Independence, directed by Busby, acknowledging the sovereignty of ‘the hereditary chiefs and heads of tribes’ and declaring New Zealand independent. Further legal proposition was required from the British in order to, in effect, reverse the intent of the Declaration, and the Treaty of Waitangi was a means of accomplishing this.

Good use of quote and historians point of view. Substantive sovereignty signals that you know Belich’s argument
The perceived threat of French colonisation and the settlement plans of Wakefield and his ‘New Zealand Company’ together served to urge the British Government to take action. The repeated assertion of French designs on New Zealand, however greatly exaggerated, added pressure on the government. In reality the ‘interesting but ineffective Baron Charles de Thierry’, as referred to by Belich, did not even have practical colonisation plans until after the Treaty.

Paragraph structure is excellent…

  • Topic sentence

Explanation

  • Introduces historiography.

  • Good use of examples.


A less humanitarian and more selfish view of the British decision was the desire to prevent the ambitious and idealistic Edward Gibbon Wakefield and the New Zealand Company from buying most of New Zealand cheaply from the Maori to sell to settlers and get a profit. The government was not prepared to grant state backing, and therefore a monopoly over New Zealand, to Wakefield, instead thwarting the Tory’s land-buying expedition with a pre-emption clause in the Treaty of Waitangi.
The prospect of the ‘mana’ gained by Maori by deciding to enter into formal relations with the Crown was also a major factor contributing to their decision to sign. The assured relationship with a powerful white country, it’s Queen and its God appealed to the tribes and their chiefs, and the rivalry between the hapu for Pakeha who they came to see as ‘theirs’, made some of the Maori keen to sign the Treaty. Peter Adams argues that the third article of the Treaty in which the Queen extends her protection to Maori as British Subjects, was part of a British goal of eventual assimilation of a subversive Maori.
The difference in the understanding of the Treaty contributed to Maori signing a document which, having truly understood Pakeha intention, they may not have done otherwise. The difficulty in translating English to Maori, the multiple and varying Treaty copies, the technical legal terms and the rushed nature of the creation, discussion, and signing of the Treaty accumulated; resulting in the signing of what was effectively two treaties – the first what the Pakeha understood the Treaty to mean, and the second what the Maori understood it to mean. The differences in these have created conflict from 1840 to the present.
Not clear what area of content is being discussed from this topic sentence. It should indicate whether causes or consequences are being discussed. But in a sense this is a paragraph about the event in question – The Treaty.. A solution would be: “ The signings starting at Waitangi, provided sufficiently different ‘understanding’s as to lead to far greater consequences over the next ten years.”
Consequences were the Governors’ attempts to assert authority, and the ten years after the Treaty were characterised by the conflict of opinion summed up by Ranginui Walker, ‘…subsequent to the signing of the Treaty, the Pakeha behaved towards the Maori on the assumption they held sovereignty, while Maori responded in the belief that they never surrendered it.’ A political consequence of the Treaty arose in 1846, with Governor Grey asserting his understanding of the Crown’s power when the introduction of a constitution was proposed. Grey declined this because he believed that the Maori were unprepared for Parliament, and thought that they, being numerically more powerful, were likely to resist; ‘The people belonging to it (New Zealand) are well-armed, proud, and independent’, he argued.

Reference to Ranginui Walker is good historiography and integrated into essay
A major economic consequence of the decision to enter into formal relations through the Treaty was Governor Hobson’s assertion of sovereignty in the 1840’s. A land claims commissioner investigated all pre-1840 land sales, allowing no more than 2,560 acres to be retained. The excess was labelled surplus land and became Crown property. In November 1841 Hobson issued a proclamation forbidding Kauri felling, and imposed customs duty taxes on shipping, replacing port fees which had gone to the chiefs. Maori were outraged as what they felt was an encroachment on their rangatiratanga and their confidence and trust in the Governor and Treaty was severely shaken.
Governor Fitzroy was newly installed at the time of the Wairau Affray in 1843. Settlers from Nelson claimed to have purchased the land, while Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata of Ngati Toa disputed this. Provocation from the immigrants resulted in Arthur Wakefield’s attempted arrest of Maori, and fighting broke out with twenty eight casualties, eight of them Maori. Fitzroy reviewed the case and the settlers were outraged when they were found responsible, with Fitzroy refusing to punish Te Rauparaha or give into pressure from the immigrants. In this way he effectively asserted his authority in his new position.
A consequence of the Maori decision to sign the Treaty was the conflict resulting from the resistance of the British Crown on the discovery of how they were breaching the Maori interpretation of the Treaty. Initially they resisted with engagement rather than disengagement , for example the Wairau Affray of 1843, and instances such as Hone Heke’s letter to Governor Grey on May 21st, 1845, in which he was very scathing of the British.; ‘Where is the correctness of the good will of England? Is it in her great guns?’
Hone Heke’s objection to British behaviour after 1840, namely the infringements made on chiefly mana and the moving of the capital from Russell to Auckland which diminished the north’s economic dominance, moved Heke to attack the symbol of British authority by felling the flagstaff flying the Union Jack at Russell. Fitzroy then requested one hundred and fifty officers from New South Wales, who after an attack on Russell by Heke and Kawiti, failed to take Puketutu and Ohaeawai, but succeeded in a fierce battle at Ruapekapeka. Maori involved in the fighting of the ‘Northern Wars’ as they were called, were granted free pardon, with their word to keep the peace. Despite the loss Heke’s point had been clearly made. Maori would not submit peacefully.

Heke’s position can be debated
British and Maori formalised their relationship by making the decision to sign the Treaty in 1840. The factors causing this decision to be made were the pressure on the British colonial office to annex New Zealand and be a permanent presence in New Zealand, and the differences in understanding of the terms of the Treaty. Contributing to this, historian Keith Sinclair suggests, is an intentional mistranslation of article 1 on the missionaries’ behalf. Combined, these factors led to the decision of both parties to sign. Immediate consequences were noted, mainly increased land sales and immigration, but significant conflict in the Northern Wars proved the extent of Maori frustration, and foreshadowed the following decades as years to be characterised by violence and bloodshed.
New historiography shouldn’t be introduced in the conclusion. This could have been discussed earlier. Good discussion of consequences and link to the following time period.


  1. Treaty questions as a check of understanding



Treaty Of Waitangi Questions


  1. Why was the decision by both Maori and the British Crown to sign the Treaty of Waitangi a significant one?

  2. In what way did the establishment of a ‘workable accord’ pave the way for the signing of the Treaty?

  3. In what way did the fact that Maori acculturated European ways pave the way for the signing of the Treaty?

  4. What ‘legal’ impediment [obstruction] was there to Britain simply taking over in New Zealand?

  5. Describe briefly what the three articles of the Treaty are about.

  6. What Maori word was used to translate the English word ‘sovereignty’? What did Maori chiefs understand the word to mean in terms of their relationship with the Crown?

  7. What Maori word is probably the most accurate translation of the English word ‘sovereignty’?

  8. For what reason is it likely that the missionary Henry Williams mistranslated ‘sovereignty’?

Factors’ behind the ‘Decision’ to sign the Treaty



  1. What mnemonic explains why Britain agreed to sign the Treaty of Waitangi?

  2. What mnemonic explains why some Maori chiefs agreed to sign the Treaty of Waitangi?

  3. In broad terms, what are the TWO main categories into which Maori reasons for signing the Treaty can be grouped?

  4. What does Adams put forward as a significant reason for the Maori decision to sign the Treaty?

  5. What point does Salmond make about the Maori desire to continue interaction with Europeans?

  6. For what reason does Edward Gibbon Wakefield say that the two Wellington-region chiefs Turoa and Te Aratia signed the Treaty?

  7. How did Maori understand the explanations given by Busby and the missionaries that the Treaty was a ‘covenant’?

  8. What aspect of Article 2 of the Treaty convinced many Maori that signing the Treaty would be ‘safe’?

  9. How did the Rarawa chief Nopera Panakareao describe his understanding of what the Treaty meant?

  10. Which historian identifies inter-hapu rivalry and the fear of ‘missing out on the Crown’ as a factor for some chiefs in terms of signing the Treaty?

  11. What issue with respect to the enhancing of Maori chiefs’ mana made a relationship with Britain especially appealing?

  12. What point does Tremewen make about the concerns of some chiefs with regard to the French?

  13. In terms of reasons for signing the Treaty, how did missionaries and Busby apply pressure to Britain in regard in regard to the situation in NZ?

  14. Give TWO ways in which the despatch of the NZ Company ship the Tory exerted pressure on Britain to sign the Treaty quickly.

  15. What actual evidence was there of possible French intentions to annex parts of NZ?

  16. In what way does Belich say that concerns such as the timber-milling and ship-building yards at Horeke in the Hokianga added to the pressure on Britain to sign the Treaty?

  17. In what way did Britain’s view of its place in the world affect its decision to sign the Treaty?

  18. What significant successful campaign prior to the signing of the Treaty demonstrated the strength of the humanitarian movement in Britain, and thus its influence in convincing the Crown to deal fairly with Maori?

Consequences’ of the ‘Decision’ to sign the Treaty



  1. “After the signing of the Treaty, Britain only had nominal sovereignty”. Explain what this means.

  2. If the contact period can be described as a time when a ‘workable accord’ was established, what term can be used to describe the post-Treaty period?

  3. In the period after the Treaty, in what FIVE areas were Maori still dominant?

  4. Over what TWO key issues did Maori-Crown relations focus in the post-Treaty period?

  5. What TWO LAND issues did the Governor assert his authority over that dismayed and angered Maori?

  6. After pre-1840 land purchases were investigated, what happened to land that was declared by the investigator to be ‘surplus’?

  7. How did Governor Hobson interpret the term ‘pre-emption’?

  8. For what practical reason were Maori angered by Hobson’s interpretation of ‘pre-emption’.

  9. Give TWO laws passed by the Governor that affected Northland Maori.

  10. Give one situation in the early 1840s where British law was applied to Maori, resulting in an execution.

  11. Give one example of settlers in Wellington attempting to assert what they believed was their government’s sovereignty over Maori.

  12. What was Governor Fitzroy’s reaction to the Wairau ‘Affray’?

  13. What had made Hone Heke so discontented with the Treaty that he chopped down the flagpole?

  14. How does Ranginui Walker describe Governor Grey and his impact on race relations?

  15. Approximately how many acres of land did Grey purchase during his tenure as Governor (1845-55)?

  16. Give THREE broad issues, areas or ways in which the Governors attempted to assert the Crown’s authority.

  17. Explain the political reason behind the Kingitanga’s alarm about the continuing loss of land.

  18. In what way did settlers assert what they believed was their right to power in New Zealand?

  19. Give two reasons why Governor Gore-Browne called the Kohimarama Conference.

  20. What was significant about both the Kingitanga and the Kohimarama Conference in terms of the way that Maori were asserting their sovereignty, as opposed to how Maori society normally functioned?

  21. Apart from preserving land from sale, what other main function did the Kingitanga set itself to perform?

  22. How did Wiremu Tamihana represent his view of the Kingitanga when Grey’s Chief Land Purchasing Agent (Donald McLean) suggested that the Kingitanga was illegal?

  23. Why is the Kohimarama Covenant seen as a more significant commitment by Maori to the Treaty (even if it was the Maori version of it) than the actual signings that took place in 1840?

  24. What promise by Governor Gore Browne at Kohimarama (but not fulfilled) made the chiefs believe that their mana had finally been recognised?

Answers to these questions available rom Mr Pipe




7. Assessment schedule for Northern War essay
Explain the factors that led to Hone Heke’s decision to cut down the flagpole flying the Union Jack above Kororareka (Russell) in 1845. Evaluate the consequences of this decision on race relations in the north until 1850.

The candidate’s response to the first part of the essay question could include:

Factors that led to Heke’s loss of rangatiratanga:

• The application of British sovereignty after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.

• The removal of shipping customs duties from the chiefs to the Crown.

• The Crown’s application of the pre-emption clause restricting the Māori right to sell land to

whomsoever they wanted.

• The felling of kauri was forbidden in November 1841, again reducing Māori income.

• The movement of the Capital from Kororareka to Auckland in 1841.

• The trial and hanging of Maketu for the murder of a settler family in Waimate.

• Hone Heke’s belief that both the British flag and the New Zealand flag of independence be flown to represent dual sovereignty.

• The first three fellings of the flagstaff had failed to gain any response from the Colonial Government.

The candidate’s response to the second part of the essay question could include:

• FitzRoy had waived Crown pre-emption for a time in response to Heke’s complaints.

• The fourth felling of the flagstaff included the sacking and burning of Kororareka. This led to the residents of Kororareka being evacuated to Auckland.

• Fighting broke out between Hone Heke and Kawiti against British troops supported by Tamati Waka Nene (the Northern War).

• The Northern War revealed the struggle between Hone Heke and Tamati Waka Nene to be recognised as Hongi Hika’s successor as paramount chief of Ngā Puhi.

• A reward was offered for the arrest of Hone Heke.

• Governor FitzRoy was sacked and Governor Grey installed to bring the war to a close.

• The fighting ended with the British claiming a victory after the battle of Ruapekapeka. (Belich disputes the nature of the British victory, referring to the Northern War as the “war the British lost”.)



• Hone Heke was never arrested nor punished for his rebellion, but the British clearly believed that his threat was over when they began garrisoning south of Auckland rather than turning towards the North




1   2   3   4   5


The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2016
send message

    Main page