cont

Back on the 'Treaty of Waitangi' it was not so much the problem for The Maori, as was the 'New Zealand Settlements Act' of 1863, whereby the Colonial Government grabbed 16,000 sq km's of Maori land, as retribution and payment for the New Zealand Wars. then sold it off to European settlers. The wars had been rather costly for the British, the Maori put up a far better fight than the they had expected, at one time the British had 18,000 troops on the ground, against 4,000 or 5,000 warriors. In the end superior fire power won out for the British, but at a high price.

The Flag Pole story is interesting, an act of defiance, Hone Heke had signed the treaty in 1840, if not on 6th February certainly later. He was not happy with it, and when the government moved the capital from Okiato to Auckland in 1841, and introduced economics which disadvantaged Ngapuhi, Hone Heke was even less happy, he had already lost his right to collect a levy on whaling ships entering the Bay of islands. Americans in the region were influencing him to act against the British. So he did. On who sided with who, the British used a tactic of offering land and other incentives to various Maori chiefs if they would side with them, and some did.

Leo, did you say something?

Joe
Aboriginals had their lands taken over by Britain. You really can't see the parallel with a wallet? A treaty seems to be about recognition, not giving anything back or declaring an end to war. The discussion from Europeans view point is irrelevant , just as it's irrelevant to say you don't need plaster for a broken bone . The man with the fracture does need plaster.

( OK Joe. The Aboriginals are like having a broken leg when they lost land and cultures. the treaty is like plaster. the colour of the plaster is irrelevant . they don't have to give the plaster back when the bone heals. the plaster is on Medicare but Aboriginals don't need cash in a treaty . the treaty is not about Medicare )

Hi Nick,

When the British declared sovereignty over eastern Australia, they thereby recognised Indigenous people here as British subjects, entitled to all the rights and protections of British law. One of those was a recognition of how they were using the land, a right which was formalised by the Colonial Office in the 1840s. It's still the law, at least in SA.

I'm not suggesting that those rights were always honoured, obviously not, especially in western NSW and Queensland, in areas beyond official control. The eastern colonies didn't have anything like South Australia's ration system until much later in the nineteenth century, a system which seems to have eliminated conflict between Aboriginal people and advancing pastoralists.

Alongside that, the SA colonial government kept a much tighter rein on the boundaries of expansion. It's indicative that, by the late nineteenth century, the great majority of ration depots were on pastoralists' leaseholds (since they needed the labour of Aboriginal people), with store-rooms built by the pastoralists and rations given out with no reimbursement to pastoralists. One bloke did it for thirty seven years.

Actually, sometimes the building of ration depots coincided with the beginnings of pastoral activity, and clearly their purpose was to stop depredations - probably especially during droughts - by Aboriginal groups on farms and stations well inside the frontier. For example, the Kokatha people foraged around the Gawler Ranges in good times, but swept down into the Eyre Peninsula during hard times, sometimes almost to Port Lincoln, raiding and, yes, killing. The Protector set up a network of ration depots across the top of the Peninsula, at Wallianippie and Point Brown to the west, Paney in the centre, and a cluster of stations in the east. That seemed to work well.

I hope this helps.

Joe

Hi Paul,

Thanks for that information about Hone Heke. I wasn't aware of the influence of the Americans: I suppose they were well into whaling all around the New Zealand coastline and posed a threat to British control everywhere.

I'd supposed that the French were more of a threat - I think they had a Mission in the Bay of Islands, and a lot of influence through Bishop Pompallier (we lived next to Pompallier Street in Ponsonby for a year or so). [Wikipedia says he had set up sixteen missions around New Zealand by 1843, including one at Kororareka (Russell) in the Bay of Islands, a crucial hot-spot for the British. And one of the earliest printing presses to print anything in Maori (I suppose Kendall's Bibles in the 1810s were in English, maybe not). Pompallier was an amazing bloke.]

Is it possible that Hone Heke was pissed off with the British because they threatened his expansionist plans ?

Quite a fascinating few years :)

Cheers,

Joe

Joe
A mugger promises the victim that he can go to hospital and drives him there. Agrees not to take his wallet another time. Victim says thank you so very much , they swap email and hug like soccer players.
Nurses sing a chorus in Emergency room as the bleeding victim smiles at the mugger driving into the South Australian sunset.

Paul1405, "did you say something?"

You would not have written that if you had not read my posts.

The problem for you is that you have no rebuttal and can only act the fool.

It is a matter of fact that the NSW Eastern Bloc of the Greens are an embarrassment to the Party.

Greens leaders past and present are critical of the intransigence and outrageous hypocritical stirring of Greens property millionaires Lee Rhiannon and her acolyte, Shoebridge.

Rhiannon and Shoebridge are using vulnerable people to get what they want and are casual about the social mayhem they risk through their stirring.

It is very nasty of Rhiannon and Shoebridge to foment discontent among the vulnerable about the very system that they themselves have proved adept at taking advantage of. Not everyone is guaranteed the politician's golden handshake for life, the political contacts and the beaut entitlements they have for life (and for their partners and family too) and take for granted.