Rape, Assault, and Assault with Intent in Colonial Aotearoa New Zealand, 1842-1872
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
“UNFIT FOR PUBLICATION”: RAPE, ASSAULT, AND ASSAULT WITH INTENT IN COLONIAL AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND, 1842-1872 by CAITLIN ANN CUNNINGHAM B.A., University of British Columbia, 2011 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (History) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) August 2014 © Caitlin Ann Cunningham, 2014 Abstract In Aotearoa New Zealand between 1842 and 1872 British colonial judges, juries, and reporters expressed their particular understandings of what constituted “rape” in the contexts of Supreme Court trials. Both white and Maori women encountered scepticism in court and a share of the responsibility for provoking the crimes carried out against them, although Maori women faced particular vilification. While judges frequently declared their strong aversion to the crime of sexual assault, they rarely backed their rhetoric up with strict sentencing practices, even when the male perpetrators were Maori. As a result, an important distinction arose between hypothetical scenarios of rape, characterized by judges and the press as egregious, and real life cases, which rarely met the high standards of rape according to definitions recorded in the press. Through the primary use of newspaper reports on Supreme Court trials contained in the Papers Past database, this thesis explores the contours of these hegemonic definitions of sexual violence in a formative moment of British colonization efforts in New Zealand. It traces the struggle between British masculinity and Maori resistance efforts, and how this struggle played out in heterosexual rape trials tried according to British colonial law. While Maori tribes successfully resisted the British colonial take-over of both their cultural autonomy and land, the British responded by softening the boundaries of race and strengthening the bond of masculine power. In this moment, rape became a symbol of both social chaos through a failure of controlled Victorian masculinity, and representative of men’s nearly limitless access to women’s bodies. ii Preface This thesis is entirely the original, unpublished, and independent work of the author, Caitlin Ann Cunningham. iii Table of Contents Abstract........................................................................................................................................... ii Preface............................................................................................................................................ iii Table of Contents........................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................................v “Unfit for Publication”: Theoretical and Historiographic Groundings............................................1 Defining Rape in Colonial Aotearoa..............................................................................................11 The Bond of Masculinity: The Roles of Race and Gender in British Colonization Efforts ..........16 The Limits of White Male Access to White Women’s Bodies......................................................23 Rape and Social Mischief ..............................................................................................................34 Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................40 Afterword: The Past in the Present ................................................................................................46 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................52 iv Acknowledgements I have received tremendous support from many channels throughout this project. First, my overwhelming appreciation goes to Paul Krause, for persistently challenging my understandings of knowledge, historical sources, and the nature of the past. I owe much to his stubborn confidence in me. My gratitude also extends to Leslie Paris. From her mentorship in the HIST599 writing seminar to her capacity as a co-supervisor, she offered valuable lessons and committed many hours to thoughtfully attentive feedback. They have both pushed me to become a better writer and historian. I am further indebted to the support of individuals with whom I interacted solely as a result of this project. To Angela Wanhalla and Jean Barman for answering my pleas for help. They were instrumental in helping this project take shape despite never having met me before. Likewise, thanks go to the lovely staff at the Alexander Turnball Library and Archives New Zealand in Wellington. They were patient and instructive as I embarked on my first archival research project. To my professors and colleagues, whose challenges, critiques, and support have made this process infinitely rewarding. Many offered me time and energy through their perspectives on early drafts of this project, discussions regarding its best execution, or moral support through the last months, most notably Lachlan Fleetwood, Victoria Padilla, Kaitlin Russell, Bradley Miller, Laura Ishiguro, Robert McDonald, Nicola Walker, Meghan Longstaffe, and Sarah Thornton. Of course, any remaining errors are mine alone. I owe some more particular thanks, as well, to Alejandra Bronfman, who agreed – in the final hour – to act as my third reader. I am indebted to her for the timely completion of this project. In general, my appreciation extends to the department’s wider faculty and staff for v creating such varied opportunities for graduate learning. Financial and logistical support also made this project possible, and I am further grateful for funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and the UBC Department of History, not to mention the logistical aid of Michel Ducharme and Jason Wu. I have personal thanks to give as well. Last year, somebody very close to me faced a major health scare. I am incredibly appreciative to those that extended empathy and understanding throughout that very difficult period. Particular thanks to my instructors Neil Safier and Eagle Glassheim, and, again, to Paul Krause, who was unwavering in his compassion and willingness to advocate on my behalf. At last, my family and friends offered their consistent cheerleading and interest throughout this process. To all of you – my wonderful siblings, my special parents, my happy niece, and my varied extended friends and family – I am so grateful. I appreciate you all even more than ever, especially after considering the possibility that one of you could disappear from the fold. Finally, and most ardently, I extend my wholehearted thanks to Marc Slingsby-Jones. In his zealous commitment to sustaining me over the last two years he demonstrated enormous patience, fortitude, and commitment to my cause. vi “Unfit for Publication”: Theoretical and Historiographic Groundings Historical examinations of rape necessarily require a distinction between women’s experiences of harm and legal or social constructions of that harm. What has become apparent in the course of this narrow study on colonial Aotearoa New Zealand, between 1842 and 1872, is the importance of distinguishing between them.1 In the following pages, I speak relatively little about the emotional aftermath or even the socioeconomic ramifications of rape and rape charges. This is largely because women’s voices were persistently silenced in the records, most profoundly evidenced in the colonial news reports that omitted women’s rape testimonies on the grounds that they were “unfit for publication.”2 Despite this, I argue that news reports on Supreme Court trials do allow some access to women’s experiences, even if they are the kinds of sources that historian Alain Corbin warned us against, those paroxysms that offer only “momentary access to an underlying reality.”3 Withstanding Corbin’s cautionary advice – he argues that our focus ought to be on those who have left no traces at all – I maintain that it is 1 The Maori name for New Zealand is Aotearoa, which is commonly translated as “land of the long white cloud.” I will use both New Zealand and Aotearoa interchangeably in an effort to reconnect with what it means to “colonize” the territory of others. For more on the lasting impacts of research, continued colonization, and universalizing of “Indigenous peoples” see: Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (Dunedin: University of Otago Press, 1999). 2 “Supreme Court,” Wellington Independent, December 7, 1865, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi- bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=WI18651207.2.12&srpos=3&. The phrase recurs frequently in newspaper reports on rape cases, this is simply one example; Erin Ford Cozens, “‘The Shadow Only Be Their Portion:’ Gendered Colonial Spaces in Aotearoa/New Zealand, 1840-1855” (PhD diss., University of Hawai’i, 2011), 263; Michel Rolph Trouillot, Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History (Boston: Beacon Press, 1995); Ann Laura Stoler, Along the Archival Grain: Epistemic Anxieties and Colonial Common Sense (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009), http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/892022182?accountid=14656. Due to the consistent silencing of women’s voices in the records, I aim to deconstruct imaginings of