Plausibility Check: Maori New Zealand
- Thread starter MadMc
- Start date
Not very because the Maori aren't going to be able to stop European colonisation.
It could happen, but but it would be unlikely.
I think the best way of doing it would be to introduce a 18th century POD - say an introduction of parts of the European food package. Maori proved pretty able to adapt to the crops introduced by the whalers/traders pre colonisation, to the extent of supplying the early Australian colonial markets in their own right.
So perhaps get one of the earlier explorers or traders introduce pigs, potatoes and other such more productive/colder weather crops. If that happens early enough then the Maori would be able to heavily colonise the entire country, not just the upper SI and the NI.
When British colonisation occurred the South Island was so underpopulated compared to the North that settlers were able to overwhelm the local communities very easily*. By comparison, it took a prolonged series of wars in the 1860s-70s to make the same true for most of the North Island. This gave the early colonial state a very secure base of operations.
Another POD would be to delay proper European colonisation of Australia's Eastern seaboard. If the British did not send the First Fleet and establish a colony then, or for a few decades, then the prospect of NZ being settled by British settlers is far less likely, as is the economic case for doing such.
* As an example, the area I grew up in had about three permanent Maori settlements (Otago), so far as I can remember from the last time I looked, with the permanent population being under 1000. Land theft/seizure, disease, war etc lowered that quickly and they were outnumbered by many times within a couple of years of the first British settlement in the 1840s
If you could get the tribes of North Island to unify under a single King before European colonisation, there's a chance that the 1835 Declaration of Independence the British drew up for them could mutate into a protectorate rather than just a British umbrella over disjointed tribes. The British could then colonise South Island and treat the North Island as they treated the Hawai'ian kingdom, for example.
Just a thought, and even under my POD it's by no means a certain thing.
Just a thought, and even under my POD it's by no means a certain thing.
*facepalm*.
The Maori put up some of the stiffest resistance to European colonialism out of any other indigenous race in the era. I find this idea to be plausible to an extent.
Between New Zealand's discovery in 1642 and it's rediscovery in 1769 not one single European voyage was made to come to the islands. There are a few theories on why, but one I've heard is that Abel Tasman, who led the 1642 expedition for the Dutch, was fear-mongering back in Europe. Who knows really, but after seeing nearly his whole crew get massacred and eaten, well, what do you expect.
Anyway, I don't see a reason why colonialism here couldn't be slowed further. I think a Maori majority in the South Island would be very difficult, even with what Julius suggested. British interest in the South Island, as long as you keep the north a 'frontier' of sorts, would only grow. Something like 85% of all Maori lived in the very north of the north island in the mid 19th Century. Your best bet is making the British fumble and bumble around their 'political invasion' even more than they did in OTL (read up on the New Zealand Wars - you'll find that there was no clear-cut military victor), leading to more support for the Kingitanga movement and a wider anti-colonial Maori movement. Perhaps after securing British control over the south island (and perhaps the northern side of the Cook Strait even) the British place a protectorate over the north island and recognise the leigitimacy of the Maori King.
Forgive me if I'm rambling, I'm quite sleepy
.
Except the French had no real chance. There's a myth about the French colonising New Zealand. In truth, the Maori hated the French more than the English did. The French would fish in sacred waters, hunt in sacred grounds, and make land deals that were worse than what the British did. The British were weary of Abel Tasman's eurocentric attitudes in 1642 and respected Maori customs a lot. The French set up one settler colony in Akaroa, but by the time they had a second ship of settlers arriving it had already been handed over to the British. The new settlers arrived and saw the Union Jack, to which they were told "We're flying it so the British don't bother us", more or less. In fact, that flag still flies there as though to say "na-nana-nana-na!".
Thanks very much for the input!
Looking into the New Zealand Wars, Maori victory in some of the campaigns in the southwest could lead to a slowing of European encroachment for some time. Two I see as possibilities are more victories in the Hutt Valley Campaign and the Maori not withdrawing from the valley, and a continuation of hostilities rather than a stand-off in the Wanganui Campaign. Thoughts?
Looking into the New Zealand Wars, Maori victory in some of the campaigns in the southwest could lead to a slowing of European encroachment for some time. Two I see as possibilities are more victories in the Hutt Valley Campaign and the Maori not withdrawing from the valley, and a continuation of hostilities rather than a stand-off in the Wanganui Campaign. Thoughts?
Considering it was 127 years between Tasman and Cook, how much longer could it be ignored?
Speaking of ignored if Tasman didn't find it how long could we keep any Europeans from finding it?
Speaking of ignored if Tasman didn't find it how long could we keep any Europeans from finding it?
Precisely. The South Island was much more appealing anyway when you look at the climate, etc.
Well, you have to remember that the same groups of people behaved very differently in different areas. The French are better respected by many Native Americans than the British, for instance. It often depends on exactly who is going. So some initial French colonists composed of different individuals with a different group dynamic, or with a different leader, or who due to circumstances had more positive initial encounters with the Maori that paved over later issues; could have had more success than the groups that tried OTL.
Well I was going by the assumption that it would be the same French explorers who arrived in the same year as Cook. Their ship at Banks Peninsula was apparently mere miles away at the same time as the Endeavour. It was this ship (run by a guy called Seville I think, or something along those lines) that more or less sealed the fate of the Maori opinion of the French for most of the 19th Century. Then there was, of course, the lunatic who declared himself Chief of New Zealand. Unrecognised, of course, and he later became a piano teacher in British NZ. The French didn't have much success, is what I'm saying.
Perhaps if they arrived before Cook. My implications are that during the period of discussion, which is usually the mid 19th Century, the French had no chance.
Cook
Banned
Cook would have found it even if it hadn’t previously been discovered. His mission was to find the great southern continent that was ‘known’ to be in the southern hemisphere to counterbalance the landmasses of the northern hemisphere; he zigzagged all over the South Pacific looking for land.
And no, that is not the source of my label.
And then met his end in Hawai'i. How unfortunate.
While it's unlikely, it's always possible Cook 'misses' New Zealand, or at least the bulk of it, only to discover it at a later date. The thing is though, without European incursions, the Maori would never form any kind of unified polity. They were more or less forced into it by the constant British invasions.
Well not exactly. The musket wars in 1815 --> whenever it was served more of a dividing purpose than a uniting one. Now that the tribes had better weaponry, many leaders, such as Te Rauperaha, sought conquest. This in turn resulting in mass migration. The Musket Wars were a major contributing factor in an exodus of Maori to the South Island, mostly as settlers from Taranaki. The Ngai Tahu were also refugees to the south.
I think the Maori were doomed in the long run because of the South Island's early and above all, easy fall to the settlers. I'll give you an example. By 1870 the South Island's population of British/European settlers outnumbered the entire population, Maori and British, of the North Island. The economy of the South Island was dynamic too (as it remained until the Long Depression (which to be fair, hit everyone)), which (whether they liked it or not) largely funded the Land Wars to the north.
Which is why I posited a SI POD - it could be new crops, it could be a French distraction, or whatever
Which is why I posited a SI POD - it could be new crops, it could be a French distraction, or whatever