Talk:Flagstaff War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
Flagstaff War is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
The following stub article was deleted from The Flagstaff War and that page was redirected to First Maori War. -- kiwiinapanic 14:28, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The Flagstaff War took place on March 11, 1845, in New Zealand. On that day, Chief Hone-Heke led 700 Maoris in the burning of the white settlement Kororareka, which was built in breach of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi.
[edit] Original research
The "so who won the war" section seems like original research to me. --AW 20:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Also I think much of the "who won the war" section is disputable:
- Even on the stated war aims, Maori did loose complete control control over the far north within a few years; the area was utterly European in law and government by the time of the Waikato invasion, and largely European in culture within a generation.
- Both sides often claim victory, especially in asymetrical conflicts - (Hamas and Israel spring to mind). But wars are rarely a simple matter of one side losing and another winning. This is a problem still marring the histiography of the New Zealand Wars. It is simplistic to follow the 19th century European concept of victory being whoever held the field at the end of a battle. It is also simplisitic to present Maori as having a series of military victories and victorious tactical retreats. There was no battle of Britian to follow Dunkirk - the 1865 end game was Pakeha control over New Zealand, where the majority of the descendents of Maori were loyal subjects of Victoria, practising an increasingly European culture, and even the handful of dissenters, (be they Te Kooti or Te Whiti), used culturally foreign tactics to pursue their largely futile protests.
- The emphasis on the Treaty of Waitangi is a modern preoccupation, with no real evidence that it was the root of Hekes complaint; I would suggest rather than being concerned about the nicities of international jurisprudence, he was concerned with establishing a reputation as a great warrior and with growing European settlement and control, and this was inevitable with or without a treaty - the treaty was a sign of increasing Pakeha power, not the cause of it. It is an anachronism to conflate the two.
But that is just my opinion, and no doubt a minority one - definitely NOT intended to be in the article :-) Winstonwolfe 04:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response
No, it is not original research; everything mentioned in this section is taken from various historical accounts. However it is an attempt to summarise the situation in the months immediately following the war. There has been in NZ for many years an assumption that the war was between the British and the Maori, it wasn't that clear cut at the time. Secondly there is still an assumption that the British won the war because they won the subsequent peace, ie took all the land and disenfranchised the Maori. However that is looking at it from one perspective only; and down the wrong end of the telescope of history. Did the Maori who fought for Hone Heke and Kawiti feel they had lost the war? Somehow I doubt it. Perhaps questioning the received truth/version is original research; but then perhaps that is the function of historians. Which I am not, just a Wikipedian trying to keep the questions open. ping 07:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC) How else can you judge victory except from a historical persepctive. I think the truth you described as recieved has not been current for 50 years, and your own view is now mainstream. My comment was to doubt an anylasis based on the dualistic concepts of winning or losing. But as noted these are personal views FYI, and i am not proposing altering the article. Winstonwolfe 23:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ruapekapeka
No separate article has been written, but from the dead end link I assume means someone thinks there should be one. I can do a quick article, but someone else would do it better. In the mean time, I've added some photosWinstonwolfe 23:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Response
You've quoted: No, it is not original research; everything mentioned in this section is taken from various historical accounts. However it is an attempt to summarise the situation in the months immediately following the war. There has been in NZ for many years an assumption that the war was between the British and the Maori, it wasn't that clear cut at the time. Secondly there is still an assumption that the British won the war because they won the subsequent peace, ie took all the land and disenfranchised the Maori.
Took all the land? Go into the Maori Land Court in Whangarei and read the block files to some of the land still owned by Maori, in Northland. Land ownership, by Maori in Northland, still super-exceeds before the British influx. If Maori lost all their lands in the north, then why am I still a successor to some Maori owned lands and entitled to succeed to it?
