Tariana Turia, Treatygate

Turia's 'holocaust': a settler mum's view

As I told Te Karere yesterday (and they wisely left out of their state-sponsored hatchet job on me), there were numerous events from the annals of old Taranaki that a more honest Maori leader than Tariana Turia could, at a stretch, have described as ‘holocausts’.

One was the massacre of one-third of the Taranakis by the Waikatos in 1831.

Another was the 1835 genocide of the Chatham Islands Moriori by 900 Taranaki survivors of the aforementioned massacre.

Both of these ‘holocausts’ took place before the arrival of the supposedly murderous Pakeha.

Afterwards, there were the many barbarous atrocities perpetrated by rebel Maori against innocent settler families like the Gilfillans and the Gascoignes.

More on those in due course — including the murder of the Lavin family in Poverty Bay, whose children were thrown in the air and impaled on Hauhau bayonets.

But for now, here is an illustration of a poem written by a terrified Taranaki settler mother (published in the Wellington Independent of March 22, 1861).

If you’re pressed for time, go straight to verse three.

As one who knows the terror of writing, let alone rhyming, to a deadline,  I can only stand in awe of her mental strength.

Now back to Tariana Turia’s hollow holocausts…

What was the death toll from the eviction of illegal squatters at Parihaka?

Precisely zero.

Oh yes, there was bloodshed: a small boy’s foot was accidentally trodden on by a trooper’s horse.

(That boy grew up to be the great Achiever Maori and Minister of Health, Dr Sir Maui Pomare.)

Hopelessly one-eyed Tariana Turia is the Treatygaters’ Exaggerator-General.

She is prepared to tell the complete opposite of the truth to gain support.

(Another of her fantasies is that Maori have been in New Zealand for thousands of years — a total fabrication.)

As you well know, Tariana, there certainly were holocausts involving Taranaki.

And they were perpetrated by your forebears, not mine.

Thanks to Trina for sending in the poem, and Brenda for the beautiful illustration.

30 thoughts on “Turia's 'holocaust': a settler mum's view

  1. Oh, you’re brilliant, John. I’m in the middle of John Robinson’s excellent eye-opening book and am about to get to the Parihaka bit. I actually think his book should be compulsory reading for everyone as there is so much mis-information out there that it just isn’t funny. I really think some people actually believe what they are saying but it’s probably not their fault entirely because they have probably learned it through our sanitised education system with regard to our history. The true facts are quite different but the real information is out there and it shouldn’t be too much trouble for people to take a small amount of time and learn about our true history. Keep up the good work. You deserve a medal.

  2. The very sad thing is the Taranaki settlers and Maori, as poignantly depicted in this verse, had been friends. There would undoubtedly have been some Maori who shared the writer’s sentiment and wanted a return to peacable relations but were badly led.

    Of March 16, 1861, just 6 days earlier:


    Yes, Maori land was confiscated, sometimes as retaliation for rebellion. Sometimes what was described as ‘confiscation’ was the result of an ownership dispute i.e.particular Maori sold land that did not rightfully belong to them. But generally Pakeha endeavours were peacable, especially in the context of those times.

    I have some sympathy for Maori who say, “you took our land”, but in 2012 the sentiment is doing more harm than good. My grandad worked underground in a mine and developed emphysema. My great grandad was officially a ‘scavenger’ – he made good out of other people’s rubbish. That’s what he was described as on Census papers. But I haven’t spent my life remonstrating the inequality, subjugation or brutishness of past times.

    [JA: And your 13 year old daughter has just won a TV fashion design contest ahead of girls three years older — a real Achiever 🙂]

  3. It boggles the mind that brainwashed people are only too happy to describe Parihaka (death toll: zero) as an atrocity or even holocaust, when by Maori standards it would hardly qualify as a teddy bear’s picnic.

    The same people are somehow able to completely minimise the 2,000 deaths inflicted by Ngapuhi at Tamaki, the cannibal rampages of Te Rauparaha, the Moriori genocide, the Hauhau massacre of 70 innocent settlers and loyal Maori at Matewhero, the Wairau massacre, the Boyd massacre, the Mohaka massacre, the Whitecliffs massacre, etc., etc.

    If the worst thing the British did in Taranaki was to peacefully evict a community of squatters who had refused for 14 years to leave a village built illegally on Crown land (confiscated for the crime of armed rebellion against the state), then I guess that proves the point that my forebears were pretty compassionate colonisers – at least by Maori standards.

  4. Parihaka the invasion of Maori land the rape of all women and female children causing a huge outbreak of syphilis.the removal and illegal incarceration of all men. The urgent requirement for a new law to continue to hold these men with no trials. The scorched earth campaign against tuhoe

  5. Maori settlement of rapaki a thousand years old. Proven. Fake historians caught out jn multiple lirs “oh I had to lie so they would pay me haha or you could have taken them to court to demand payment. But instead he lies BUT NOW hes telling the truth haha sure you are

  6. The rape of all women and children at Parihaka??

    Er, only in Tariana’s dreams. In case you’re not joking, please point me to a credible document that confirms that.

    (In the highly unlikely event that you’re not just making that up, mass rape would still not trump mass murder.)

    And will you be mentioning that Tuhoe had just gone to war against the government and were sheltering terrorists?

    And that if the boot had been on the other foot, under Maori custom the victors would have scorched (and eaten) a lot more than earth. There would have been no Pakeha left to complain.

    Your every post adds a little more credence to my point that Griever Maori are the petulant teenagers of NZ society.

    1. Do you honestly think that the atrocities caused by the invading colonisers would have been recorded? Maori did not (at that time) have a written language – their histories were passed down through oral tradition. Yes, rape and the slaughter of Maori women and their children did occur. I would suggest you watch the most excellent documentary by clinical psychologist and film producer, Paora Joseph (Tatarakihi – The Children of Parihaka).
      Also, exactly how can Maori be terrorist’s in their own land? The ‘terrorists’ were the Europeans, not the indigenous population.
      Your sanitised version of what actually occurred at Parihaka is due to the shame you feel as a pakeha. No one blames you personally for what happened, however you can be blamed for your own ignorance.

      1. 1. Yes. Many Maori were capable of writing.
        2. Maori did have a written language at which they were proficient. It was called English. They wrote letters to newspapers, and indeed had their own newspaper.
        3. You are suggesting that being the first to arrive in a location absolves a resident from responsibility for terrorist atrocities. I suggest you would be more or less alone in that view.
        4. And can you be blamed for your ignorance, or is that not possible because your forbears were here first?
        5. Why do you suggest that the opinion of a Maori clinical psychologist is more valid than that of a non-Maori academic?

  7. Sadly, I think that this deluded fool is not joking – she really believes these absurd versions of past events – because she wants to believe them as a justification to carry on nurturing the resentful feelings that are so dear to her. Tariana Turia is of absolutely the same ilk. What a shame.

  8. The statement from Anakereiti that ‘all’ the woman and female children of Parihaka were raped is over the top and display’s an extremist mentality ; though the act of rape of some Maori woman would not be below some men of the constabulary at the time.

    A ‘Mr. McBeth’ states : –

    The Constabulary carried into the district all the diseases and vices that an armed force invariably carries with it. Numbers of them were always at the “pahs” plying the wives of the absent prisoners with rum, &c. (Each time that I visited Parihaka I saw a number of Constabulary men there.)

    The consequence was that many of the prisoners, on their return, found their wives so degraded that they were compelled to repudiate them.

    [National Library of New Zealand]

    Under these conditions, it not inconcievable that some men of the Constabulary went further than just ‘plying’ the woman into bed with alcohol.

    We can acknowledge these things – but will you, anakereiti, acknowledge the the atrocities perpetrated by Maori males on settler woman?

    Just remember anakereiti – when you point your finger there are three more fingers pointing back at you.

  9. The late Colonel W. B. Messenger, narrating (1918) the incidents of the invasion of Parihaka, said:—

    “When affairs became critical on the Waimate Plains I was sent for, like Northcroft on the Bench, to leave my farm at Pukearuhe and take charge of 120 Armed Constabulary for Parihaka. Lieut.-Colonel Roberts was in command of the whole force. Although the older Maoris in Parihaka were anxious for peace, there were many young men in the place who wished to fight, and the danger was that one of these would precipitate a battle by firing a shot. When we marched on Parihaka on the 5th November, 1881, their attitude of passive resistance and patient obedience to Te Whiti’s orders was extraordinary. There was a line of children across the entrance to the big village, a kind of singing class directed by an old man with a stick. The children sat there unmoving, droning away, and even when a mounted officer galloped up and pulled his horse up so short that the dirt from its forefeet spattered the children they still went on chanting, perfectly oblivious, apparently, to the pakeha, and the old man calmly continued his monotonous drone.

    “I was the first to enter the Maori town with my company. I found my only obstacle was the youthful feminine element. There were skipping-parties of girls on the road. When I came to the first set of girls I asked them to move, but they took no notice. I took hold of one end of the skipping-rope, and the girl at the other end pulled it away so quickly that it burnt my hands. At last, to make a way for my men, I tackled one of the rope-holders. She was a fat, substantial young woman, and it was all I could do to lift her up and carry her to one side of road. She made not the slightest resistance, but I was glad to drop the buxom wench. My men were all grinning at the spectacle of their captain carrying the big girl off. I marched them in at once through the gap and we were in the village. There were six hundred women and children there, and our reception was perfectly peaceful. We drafted all the women and children out on to a hillside after the arrest of Te Whiti and Tohi. Orders had been given that no Maori property was to be touched, but I page 518 know there was a good deal of looting—in fact, robbery. Many of our Government men stole greenstones and other treasures from the native houses; among them were some fine meres.”

  10. The problem is Trinia, you are not acknowledging. John Ansell states, NOTHING happened at Parihaka, aside from a boy getting his foot broken, and how benevolent the settlers and colonial armed forces were.

    The rapes are documented John, maybe you need to do some research, but that doesnt fit your agenda does it.

    The following year authorities falsely accused Tūhoe of involvement in the killing of missionary Karl Volkner in the Volkner Incident and confiscated the iwi’s fertile lands. Tūhoe lost 5700ha of land on its northern border from a total of 181,000ha of land confiscated by the Grey government from Tūhoe, Te Whakatōhea and Ngāti Awa. The Crown took Tūhoe’s only substantial flat, fertile land and their only access to the coast. The Tūhoe people retained only harsh, more difficult land, setting the scene for later famines.[2]

    In 1868, Tūhoe sheltered the Māori leader Te Kooti, a fugitive who had escaped from imprisonment on the Chatham Islands, and for this the government punished them during the manhunt. Te Ara, the Online Encyclopedia of New Zealand, notes:

    “Old enemies of Tūhoe fought on the side of the government; they carried out most of the raids into Te Urewera during a prolonged and destructive search between 1869 and 1872. In a policy aimed at turning the tribe away from Te Kooti, a scorched earth campaign was unleashed against Tūhoe; people were imprisoned and killed, their cultivations and homes destroyed, and stock killed or run off. Through starvation, deprivation and atrocities at the hands of the government’s Māori forces, Tūhoe submitted to the Crown.”[3]

  11. Im sure they were Trinia, were they raped in the same numbers as Maori women, definitely not. And in fact, a quick example – go to google – type rape of colonial settlers women by Maori – the results may shock you

  12. Sadly, I think that this deluded fool is not joking – she really believes these absurd versions of past events – Sadly John, we consider you delusional – and even more sadly John, we still win dont we. Historically, politically we have won, havent we John. I have absolutely no resentment – because we have won! And in fact the grievers are you. Hence this blog page

  13. Anakereiti: I have no information on rapes committed by Maori against settlers.

    But I have plenty about the most barbarous murders.

    Rape is awful. But murder is more awful, wouldn’t you say?

    It would be good if you could quote what I actually said, not what you fantasise or want me to have said.

    I did not say NOTHING happened at Parihaka, I said the death toll was zero, and that the only bloodshed was to a boy’s foot.

    That is true, is it not?

    As you can see at the top of this blog, truth matters to me.

    If you can prove to me that anything I have said is untrue, I will gladly concede the point and amend my campaign accordingly.

    I have already decided not to feature the 17.5% Maori authority tax rate.

    That’s because I was persuaded – by ‘toad’ of all people, on Kiwiblog -that 17.5% is simply the rate that most beneficiaries of the organisations pay, and there’s nothing shonky about it.

    I don’t fully understand the intricacies of tax law, but I’m happy to give Maori the benefit of the doubt until someone can persuade me otherwise.

    Another point I will not be continuing to make is that all Maori are part-non-Maori.

    I am persuaded that there may indeed be some full-blooded Maori.

    So until further notice I will not be saying that there are not.

    I am happy to change my position when my information changes.

    But your record of exaggerating and seeing evil only on the Pakeha side makes it harder for me to believe you.

  14. Really John, but your seeing only evil on the Maori side should make me believe you? And I consider rape an atrocity up there with murder. But perhaps thats because Im a woman. I have tonnes of atrocious murders accorded perpetrated by settlers/colonials against Maori also. You make no mention of them. Are you saying that mass murder of Maori did not occur. And that you were in fact benevolent loving invaders, only here to show Maori how wonderful their lives would be , now that you had arrived?

  15. John, your campaign against the Treaty industry has my full support, and I admire you for taking it on, knowing that you will be subjected to ridicule and outright hatred from the grievance industry and its ignorant followers. I do think however that the campaign needs to be broadened way beyond responding to this one-eyed clown, whose deeply rooted opinions you will never change. There needs to be robust and repeated exposure of the Treaty rort by the mainstream media, because heavily edited and hostile coverage on the taxpayer-funded Maori TV just won’t do.

  16. Furthet to the lament from the mother above I wonder if she vave any thought to the Maori mothers on whose land she was living on. The ones whoze mothers grandmothers had been born on. Maybe not

  17. The ones who fled Taranaki and left it empty after they were defeated by the Waikatos.

    (And were only able to return there after the Treaty brought the rule of law and made intertribal warfare, slavery and cannibalism illegal.)

    I look forward to reading your evidence of unprovoked massacres of innocent Maori by settlers.

    Put up your evidence or shut up. I will certainly be putting up mine.

    And while you’re at it, please include your evidence for “the rape of all women and female children” at Parihaka.

    (Or have the decency to apologise for exaggerating.)

    That quote about the theft of greenstone meres supports my view of Parikaha, not your fantasy.

    You will note that the thefts were against the expressed orders of the commanders.

    The British may have been clumsy in Taranaki in dealing with the various provocations (multiple sales of the same land by mischievous chiefs – appeased by multiple payments, etc.).

    But as far as I’m aware, from my year of intensive study, they did not engage in wholesale massacres of innocent women and children the way Maori did.

    But by all means prove me wrong.

  18. There is significant evidence accepted by all reputable historians of atrocities committed at Parihaka by the Crown forces. The minimising of these serves to diminish any point you are trying to make John.

  19. I’d be happy to see what you’ve got, Tony.

    Or could it be that the definition of ‘atrocity’ has been downgraded to ‘lifting fat women out of the way, accidentally treading on feet, and looting greenstone’ to suit the Maori good/Pakeha bad Griever narrative?

    Here in the world outside Topsy Turvy Turialand, ‘atrocity’ means multiple savage and premeditated murders.

    I look forward to reading about all my ancestors who did that.

    And please don’t describe the one-eyed Marxist history-twisters of Academia Aotearoa as ‘reputable’.

    I presume you include in their number Claudia Orange – the grand dame of historical fiction who did not see fit to even mention the discovery of Hobson’s final English Treaty draft (or ‘the Littlewood document’ as the Treatygaters minimise it) anywhere in her updated Treaty of Waitangi tome.

    This despite Dame Claudia being one of the first so-called ‘experts’ to see the document.

    (Her reaction was telling: words to the effect of “This document will be politically embarrassing”.)

    It is surely unconscionable for any Treaty historian to leave out of a book purporting to tell the whole story of the Treaty the discovery of the most significant Treaty document in 149 years.

    You might say, “But she pooh-poohed its significance,” as of course she was always going to do.

    (A position made more difficult by Dr Phil Parkinson’s admission a decade later that the draft was written by James Busby – just as Busby had asserted.)

    But my point is this…

    Any historian reveiwing the history of the Treaty would have at least mentioned this find, even if only to discredit it.

    Why did she not?

  20. Lying by omission, as in not mentioning the Littlewood Document, would be much easier to explain away, than writing outright lies would be. That would be my guess as to her reasons for not mentioning it.

    Something else occurred to me a few minutes ago, while reading the speach Turia made, where she talked about how bad and depressing colonisation has been on her and her people.

    Turia is half white american isn’t she? And Sharples is half british. The same can probably be said for some of the other grievers too. Harawira used to be Hatfield for example.

    Has it occurred to any of them that if pakeha had not come to New Zealand, they would never have been born? They owe their very existance to colonisation, I would say.

  21. Orange was always a biased, somewhat selective “historian”. As for Parihaka, I have read quite a number of accounts, some fairly contradictory on some details. But not a single one of them describes anything that could remotely be described as an “atrocity”. That is just a recent embellishment, added by those who want to deepen their sense of grievance. Just as ridiculous and dishonest as Turia’s use of the word “holocaust”.

  22. Isn’t it just lovely that Pakeha are again telling Maori how they should feel about the events that culminated in the near destruction of Maori; not satisfied with committing atrocities in other lands (South Africa, India, the America’s, Australia), Pakeha believed it was well within their rights to settle in a land that did not belong to them, take what did not belong to them and force their beliefs over the indigenous people’s, because they – from their limited ethnocentric point of view – thought that it would be beneficial for “the natives”. Unsatisfied with simply stealing Maori land, Pakeha (after they swapped the Treaty Maori had signed for an unsigned one written in English) decided that they could now legally seal Maori land (like that at Parihaka) through the duplicitous act of “confiscation” following any perceived disobedience by Maori. To the ignorant woman who ignorantly claimed that this land was being used by “squatter” Maori’s; sorry love, but you fullas were the squatters – and still are. This is why Maori grievances which have (and continue to) address claims by Maori are often found to be correct and why (insubstantial) compensation is made to Maori. To date, Maori have received the equivalent of 1% of the total value of land and resources stolen, back. And this does not even account for the harm inflicted by Pakeha and the Crown to Maori cultural, social and spiritual (health) damage. You really need to stop feeling sorry for yourself .

  23. would the poms today- in the 21st century that some of us inhabit- claim to be the ‘original inhabitants’ had they been the first humans to drop in to ol enzed at the time maori did? having arrived only in recent modern times? of course not. the maori were interlopers here. given white ‘fullas’ have now been here half as long as the first interlopers, any claim by maori to be given
    privileges based on a marginally earlier arrival time are utterly fatuous. and frankly maori are very lucky to have not all been eaten when the whites arrived. humour. grow a thicker skin folks. maori had a brilliant PR job done on them to entice settlers here, only an idiot still believes the laundered history fit for kiddies in schools. time to consign the treaty to the brief period of history to which it was relevant & start again as 1 nation- b4 too late. if not already. grow up.
    oh, ps. my lot got here in advance plymouth party. a judge in maori land court. we shed blood 2 wwars for nz- & while dad gettin leg blown off in desert his ol man dying of heart attack coming back from taking appeal to privvy council uk on behalf of maori- for land. thru judicious breeding over generations- even my wife great great granddaughter of a first mayor- my grandkid something like 7th generation kiwi down all lines pure as. love to hear of a living maori with as much pure kiwi in them down the generations. oh, and we dont have as much as a half acre of stolen ‘maori’ land. or ANY type of land, to show for it. while most our family stuff in museums taranaki & akld & alexander turnbull lib, enough archive kicking about for me to marvel at the bollix too many maori keep regurgitating as fact.
    lets move on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s