The Long Dark Cloud of Racial Inequality and Historiographical Omissions
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE LONG DARK CLOUD OF RACIAL INEQUALITY AND HISTORIOGRAPHICAL OMISSIONS The New Zealand Native Land Court Beryl Woolford Roa* Abstract This article argues that William Pember Reeves’s history of New Zealand, The Long White Cloud: Ao Tea Roa, published in 1898, played a pivotal role in establishing and promulgating the national ideology proclaiming New Zealand to be a model of social equality, by failing to mention how the resources of the nation were transferred from its indigenous population into colonist control. This ideology denied knowledge of the racist policies of successive New Zealand governments which deprived Mäori of their lands and resources and sponsored inequality, primarily through legislation implemented by the Native Land Court. Keywords Native Land Court, William Pember Reeves, historiography, social Darwinism The Native Land Court population, has often been ignored, trivialised or misunderstood. William Pember Reeves’s The Native Land Court was the main govern- history of New Zealand, The Long White Cloud: mental instrument which facilitated the legal Ao Tea Roa, was published in the last decade transfer of land from Mäori to colonist. Yet its of the 19th century and became an example for central role in facilitating the development of several generations of historians to come. They colonial society, at the expense of the indigenous followed his lead in failing to acknowledge or * Email: [email protected] 4 MAI JOURNAL VOLUME 1, ISSUE 1 understand the devastating effects of the Native construct a framework within which prop- Land Court system on Mäori in any depth.1 erty laws conforming to English laws could be It was only in 1975, with the advent of the written for New Zealand (Boast, 2008, p. 93). Waitangi Tribunal (Te Roopu Whakamana i Te When their work was completed, the new leg- Tiriti o Waitangi), that the true extent of anti- islation was passed by Parliament, and the fi rst indigenous government policy and legislation Native Land Court began operations in 1865.2 began to be revealed. Although the Native Land Court was sup- The Native Land Court was a unique sys- posed to run according to the basic principles tem. For several years after annexation, the that bound the rest of the legal system, in prac- colonial administration tried to control land tice, rules and regulations were often relaxed sales between Mäori and Päkehä by imposing or ignored (Gilling, 1994, pp. 120–122). Crown pre-emption, which gave the Crown the Parliament made and changed laws governing sole right to buy Mäori land—a condition of Mäori land every year, and judges repeatedly Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi. But Crown made decisions according to their own per- pre-emption was unpopular and a new scheme sonal whims (Ward, 1995, pp. 96–98). The of land exchange had to be formulated that Court quickly became vulnerable to corruption refl ected the economic and political aspirations involving both Mäori and Päkehä, private citi- of the colony. Previously, the process of gaining zens and those acting as Crown agents. indigenous lands had been relatively simple. The main role of the Native Land Court was During the 17th, 18th and early 19th centuries, to provide individual title to collectively held native peoples in other British colonies (Canada, Mäori land enabling Mäori land to be sold to Australia and the United States in particular), Päkehä.3 Each year, more immigrants arrived were massacred, died of introduced diseases or and more land passed from Mäori to Päkehä were forcibly moved onto reserves. However, ownership. Individual and fragmented land a more humanitarian outlook towards non- ownership undermined and corroded the hapü Europeans had developed amongst infl uential and whänau traditions which formed the basis politicians, administrators and church lead- of the Mäori economic world and traditional ers; leading to the abolition of slavery within society began to disintegrate. the British Empire in 1833. (Moon, 2002, The Native land laws formulated the legal pp. 29–42; Ward, 1999, pp. 9–10). Thus an basis on which land claims could be made innovative system of land exchange was devel- through the Native Land Court. These laws oped in New Zealand, partially in consideration were created from European interpretations of of imperial benevolence. Mäori customary rights to land tenure: “take The purpose of the Native Land Court was kite, take tupuna, take tuku and take raupatu”. to give communally owned Mäori land a recog- But no reason (take) was considered legitimate, nisable legal title which conformed to English unless it could be proved that the “discovery; law. This was a diffi cult process because the occupation by ancestors, conferment of gift, or concept of land ownership did not exist in conquest” had been followed by continuous Mäori tradition. Hapü, not individuals, jointly held the rights to use the resources of the land and waters. Nevertheless, in an attempt to mix 2 The Native Land Court was ready to proceed in 1862 as a temporary court, but the Land Wars delayed its introduc- oil and water, Päkehä legal minds strained to tion. It became permanent in 1865. 3 “It can be seen that the outright sale of millions of acres of Maori land was a feature of every decade from the Land 1 Under The Mäori Purposes Act of 1947, Mäori were no Court’s inception until the 1920s, with the well known longer legally designated as Natives, and the Native Land exception of … Carroll’s ‘taihoa’ (wait a while) policy and the Court became the Mäori Land Court. Maori Land Settlement Act 1900 …” (Ward, 1999, p. 61). MAI JOURNAL VOLUME 1, ISSUE 1 5 occupation or use of the land—“ahi kä”. By general view. The retrieval of the alternative 1890, the Native Land Court had been function- account of New Zealand’s colonial past has ing for 25 years and had jurisdiction in every forced a reconsideration of the old narrative district throughout the North and South Islands. and a reappraisal of its production. The emer- By 1890, “only ten million acres remained in gence of a new national perspective has been all Maori ownership, seven million acres of which the more diffi cult as its propulsion into being was alienated by 1930” (Ward, 1999, p. 149). was instigated by Mäori and not by the dili- These fi gures confi rm the success of the Native gence of Päkehä historians or academics in their Land Court system and the descent of tangata traditional role as midwives to historical narra- whenua into economic marginalisation. tive. In this sense, it is a breech birth. In 1901, an article appeared in “The British Until the advent of the Waitangi Tribunal, Empire Review” describing the state of race this transpiration was merely alluded to or relations in New Zealand. According to the ignored by generations of New Zealand histo- writer Walter Buller, “Mäori enjoyed full civil rians, thus relegating it to hidden corners of the rights and still held 5,000,000 acres of the best national psyche. In this way, the producers of of the nation’s land, therefore demonstrat- historical narratives colluded in manufacturing ing a model of racial accord as an example and perpetuating the late-Victorian fi ction that to the whole world” and “The Pakeha public New Zealand was a model of racial relations. has generally believed this view unquestion- ingly” (Ward, 1999, p. 308). Buller’s statement demonstrates that by the turn of the century, Pember Reeves’s prototype history the myth of racial equality was established as an important ideological platform for New New Zealand-born William Pember Reeves Zealand’s emerging historiography and nation- (1857–1932) held ministerial portfolios in two hood, which in part, survives to this day. Liberal governments under John Ballance and If historiography is “an adventure in the Richard Seddon during the 1890s. He is most history of ideas, the study of how a subject known for his support for female suffrage, has been written about, how trends and inter- pensions for the elderly, trade unions and indus- ests in research have changed, how public trial law reform. He served as Agent-General events, world affairs, and so simple a matter in London (the equivalent of today’s High as the opening of an archive shapes the way Commissioner), from 1896 to 1908. Pember in which writers explore the past” (McHugh, Reeves remained in England where he was asso- 2001, p. 189) then New Zealand historiogra- ciated with the Fabian movement publications phy has reached an important crossroad. This (King, 2003a, pp. 267–268). occurrence is the direct result of two Acts of In 1898, The Long White Cloud: Ao Tea Roa Parliament—the Treaty of Waitangi Act (1975), was published and became the fi rst, foremost- which established the Waitangi Tribunal to accredited national history of New Zealand.4 act as a commission of inquiry into alleged, contemporary Crown breaches of the Treaty of 4 The fi rst attempt at a national biography, bearing no pre- Waitangi (1840); and the Treaty of Waitangi tensions as to objectivity, was published in 1856 by A. S. Amendment Act (1985), which extended the Thomson and was called The Story of New Zealand: Past & Present—Savage and Civilized (London, 1859). George commission’s jurisdiction to investigate histori- Rusden published his History of New Zealand in several cal claims from 1840 onwards. The Treaty of volumes in 1883. Rusden criticised the Native Land Court, Waitangi Acts began a process that unbolted particularly in relation to its judgement on Te Atiawa lands a door to reveal a new dimension of a past in Taranaki. However, his work was widely condemned and largely ignored.