# Did whites treat the Maori better than the Aborigines? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 16, 2009, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-whites-treat-the-maori-better-than-the-aborigines/521477 "2009-12-16T14:43:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![MarcinCiez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b38774/32.png) [@MarcinCiez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarcinCiez)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-whites-treat-the-maori-better-than-the-aborigines/521477/21 "2009-12-17T05:54:40Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > The reason why the Mabo case was so important is because the Murray Islanders practiced agriculture and marked their garden plots with stone markers, thus rendering the continent wide declaration of Terra Nullius invalid. Completely off-topic.. but it reminded me of… “It’s the constitution. It’s MABO. It’s just…the vibe.” 😃 Aussies will get it. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-whites-treat-the-maori-better-than-the-aborigines/521477/22 "2009-12-17T07:01:12Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > The difference was analogous to the difference in South Africa between the Khoisan peoples and the Nguni (Zulu, Xhosa) peoples. Europeans made short work of the **hunter gatherer Khoisan peoples** , but encountered centuries long resistance from the much larger, much better organized Xhosa and Zulu. Khoisan weren’t (just) hunter-gatherers. The bulk (Khoe-khoen) were agriculturalists. \*Smallpox \*was what made short work of the Khoe-khoen. That and the fact that they lived where the Europeans first landed. The Xhosa didn’t put up much more resistance when the Europeans _actually arrived at where they lived_ to take over. Organised khoe-khoen resistance extended from 1652 [to 1803](http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/556618/Southern-Africa/234051/Khoisan-resistance-to-the-Dutch). That’s not any “shorter work” than the Xosa and Zulu wars. ---
**Author:** ![lynne-42](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lynne-42/32/3138_2.png) [@lynne-42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lynne-42)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-whites-treat-the-maori-better-than-the-aborigines/521477/23 "2009-12-17T12:55:56Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > No, it wasn’t. The idea that Terra Nullius meant the land was declared empty is a myth. etc. I sit corrected. I was being very sloppy - spelling included. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-whites-treat-the-maori-better-than-the-aborigines/521477/24 "2009-12-17T14:36:33Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > There are similar stories in the southwest. Apparently when Cortez landed, local tribes were happy to tell him the way to Mexico City. > > I don’t remember the real name, but it was a HUGE city, loaded with well armed Aztecs at the height of their power. Wealth, glory, gold, all awaited them, right down the road. I’m not entirely sure if they wanted the Spaniards to smash the Aztecs, or the Aztecs to smash the Spaniards :dubious:… Probably more the former than the latter; Cortes had many Indian allies, after all. Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec “empire,” was one of the largest cities in the world when he visited, and the neighboring tribes and city-states considered it more than a little overbearing: [Tenochtitlan - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenochtitlan) See Gary Jennings’s excellent novel _Aztec_ for a very readable account of Tenochtitlan in its days of power and glory. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-whites-treat-the-maori-better-than-the-aborigines/521477/25 "2009-12-17T14:37:11Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > The Maori also adopted firearms very quickly (which they also used against other Maori). And the Maori were organized enough to be able to negotiate agreements such as the [Treaty of Waitangi](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_waitangi) (1840), which gave them some formal rights (although often not honored by the British). Depends on what you mean by “not honoured” and which version of the treaty you are reading. A good number of the terms in the treaty meant different things to the Europeans and Maori. Much of this is still being debated today. And while you may say “organised” to sign a treaty, do bear in mind that there are hundreds of tribes that are signatories to the treaty. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-whites-treat-the-maori-better-than-the-aborigines/521477/26 "2009-12-17T14:45:46Z")
> [@History\_Mystery\_and\_the\_Wolf](#): > > Some notes: > > 1. Colonisation in NZ occurred later than in Australia. By the nineteenth century (around the 1840 signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, the foundational colonial document) the head of the Colonial Office was sympathetic to humanitarian and utilitarian arguments. These were also supported by NZ’s missionary settlers of the time, who had significant lobbying power in London. The overall effect was official Colonial Office policy that sought to treat Maori significantly better than native Australians and Americans had been. > > 2. Maori were numerous, relatively centralised in the upper half of the North Island, and had rapidly assimilated firearms since the early nineteenth century. In fact the 1810-1820 period saw significant inter-tribal conflict between Maori, with extensive use of firearms. This meant early settlers could not act with impunity, and without military support from London, were forced to accommodate Maori who could at any time drive them into the sea. Contrast with Australia where small farmers militias were able to decimate isolated and disorganised groups of aboriginals. > > 3. Maori were also able to adapt rapidly to the settler presence: they traded happily and were accommodating of settlers. Having settlers near your community was widely seen as a way of adding to ones mana (importance) because of the manufactured goods they brought, and the protection from other warring tribes they could provide by their presence. This meant London had no reason to intervene, and when combined with (2) meant there was relatively positive relationship for the early years. > > 4. The above all changed as settler numbers and aspirations increased and Maori numbers decreased due to the effects of disease and low-level warfare. By the 1860s Governor Grey was able to convince London of the need for intervention against Maori, and the New Zealand Wars occurred, During these campaigns, particularly in the Waikato, Maori were able to rapidly adopt sophisticated tactics, historians like James Belich even credit them with the invention of trench warfare. Heavy casualties were inflicted on the Colonial forces, and it should be noted that at one point 1/4 of the standing Imperial Army (25000, including many Sepoys from India) were in NZ fighting. Although Maori did well tactically, their logistical abilities were never going to beat the empire, and eventually they lost strategically. This marked the permanent shift in power in NZ away from Maori to settlers. > > 5. From 1865 to the1960s represented the nadir of Maori in NZ. Significant land alienation occurred under the Native Land Court process, destroying traditional tribal structures and creating many of the lingering social problems that face Maori. Assimilation was followed as an official policy, but perhaps because of the different colonial experiences, extermination was never perused. Paternalism often dominated where in Australia or the US a diffidence to the decline might have occurred. This is also explained by NZ’s more compact geography: in Australia it was easy to forget about a people you had driven into the desert. In NZ the Maori were driven into towns, where you couldn’t easily destroy them with neglect. > > 6. By the 1960s and 70s a cultural renaissance was under way with Maori to a degree not yet seen in Australia. Maori became proud of their heritage and the Treaty of Waitangi, long forgotten, became a central part of NZ’s constitutional framework and source of restitution from the state. > > So in conclusion, the Maori colonial experience differed in significant way from the Australian one, due to the different time and circumstances in which it took place, as well as the different capacities of the Maori people in the early years. Good Post! A couple of points I would like to add.. 1. Maori actually had a thriving trading culture long before Europeans arrived - particularly with Greenstone (too scared to attempt the Maori spelling) 2. One of the key problems in the early years of the Treaty, and when it came to the franchise, was that Maori did not recognise individual ownership of land - they only recognised communal tribe ownership. I am not up on the actual process here but I know trying to vest Maori land in an individual led to big problems. 3. Since the mid eighties New Zealand has been making a concerted effort to settle “treaty grievances” - something that Australia has not been as forthcoming about with the Aborigines. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-whites-treat-the-maori-better-than-the-aborigines/521477/27 "2009-12-17T15:27:41Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > 1. Since the mid eighties New Zealand has been making a concerted effort to settle “treaty grievances” - something that Australia has not been as forthcoming about with the Aborigines. Kinda hard to settle treaty differences when there is no treaty to be agrieved by. No? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-whites-treat-the-maori-better-than-the-aborigines/521477/28 "2009-12-17T15:41:19Z")
> [@History\_Mystery\_and\_the\_Wolf](#): > > Contrast with Australia where small farmers militias were able to decimate isolated and disorganised groups of aboriginals. Which is something that, while it happened, was perishingly rare. IIRC only 6 confirmed cases occured in over 200 years, and of those, two events resulted in murder convictions for the people involved. There are more verifiable accounts of European and Asian family groups being decimated by Aborigines than the converse. Obviously this isn’t something that had any significant bearing at all the overall treatment of Aborigines > [@](#): > > 1. Maori were also able to adapt rapidly to the settler presence: they traded happily and were accommodating of settlers. As did Aborigines > [@](#): > > in Australia it was easy to forget about a people you had driven into the desert. Far from being driven into the desert, Australian desert Aborigines invariably left the desert willingly to take up residence around European settlement as soon as they possibly could. The very concept of driving Aborigines into the desert makes absolutely no sense. All of Australia has been occupied to maximum carrying capacity for 20, 00 years. Aborigines being driven into the desert simply could not survive because the land couldn’t hold any more people. The only time it would have been vaguely plausible is after the traditional owners had already deserted the land to become fringe dwellers, but under those conditions it makes no sense for the refugees not to also become fringe dwellers. This myth of desert Aborigines is a very popular one in Australia for some reason. The fact is that most Aborigines lived where most later Australians lived. The traditional desert Aborigines rapidly deserted their traditional lands to take up residence around white settlements, and there is no evidence of any Aboriginal groups being driven into deserts. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-whites-treat-the-maori-better-than-the-aborigines/521477/29 "2009-12-17T17:53:00Z")
Of course most aborigines lived in the most productive part of Australia, which is the eastern strip where most Australians live today. People lived in the desert, but not many because it was, you know, a desert. Just like today. ---
**Author:** ![History\_Mystery\_and\_the\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/53a042/32.png) [@History\_Mystery\_and\_the\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/History_Mystery_and_the_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-whites-treat-the-maori-better-than-the-aborigines/521477/30 "2009-12-18T01:57:06Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Far from being driven into the desert, Australian desert Aborigines invariably left the desert willingly to take up residence around European settlement as soon as they possibly could. Yes I was guilty of being slightly glib here. I was a suggesting a pattern of Australian pastoralists displacing Aborigines during the early colonial period: driving them away from the fertile southeast, and inwards to more marginal lands, resulting in high levels of depopulation. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-whites-treat-the-maori-better-than-the-aborigines/521477/31 "2009-12-18T02:04:42Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Probably more the former than the latter; Cortes had many Indian allies, after all. Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec “empire,” was one of the largest cities in the world when he visited, and the neighboring tribes and city-states considered it more than a little overbearing: [Tenochtitlan - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenochtitlan) > > See Gary Jennings’s excellent novel _Aztec_ for a very readable account of Tenochtitlan in its days of power and glory. I still think it would be more humorous to picture the local leaders meeting and the conversation going like this: Hey guys, these foreigners here are looking for some El Dorado. Something to do with a city of gold or whatever. They’re pretty weird. I know! Send them over to our enemies over there! With any luck they’ll wipe each other out and we won’t have to see either of them again. Great idea! Hey Spanish guys, the place you want is right over there. Keep going til you see the big buildings. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-whites-treat-the-maori-better-than-the-aborigines/521477/32 "2009-12-18T03:24:59Z")
> [@History\_Mystery\_and\_the\_Wolf](#): > > Yes I was guilty of being slightly glib here. I was a suggesting a pattern of Australian pastoralists displacing Aborigines during the early colonial period: driving them away from the fertile southeast, and inwards to more marginal lands, resulting in high levels of depopulation. But do you have any evidence at all that this ever happened? It seems impossible for it to happen for the reasons already given. Look, the fact is that the vest majority of Aborigines died of disease. The vast majority of the remainder voluntarily became fringe dwellers around white settlements. A tiny number, all in the north AFAIK, were forcibly relocated to government and church communities. The idea that large numbers were driven into marginal areas is a popular myth, but not one that I have ever seen a shred of evidence for. Yet for some reason it is a very potent myth in Australia, akin to the image of Adam and Eve being driven out of paradise. Which makes me think that it is entirely mythical. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2009, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-whites-treat-the-maori-better-than-the-aborigines/521477/33 "2009-12-19T05:54:44Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Kinda hard to settle treaty differences when there is no treaty to be agrieved by. > > No? true it is, true it is…but its also a bit disingenuous on your part. The fact of the matter is that New Zealand has made a far more determined and persistent effort to handle and settle grievances than Australia has - just look at how long it took Canberra to apologise for the lost generation. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2009, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-whites-treat-the-maori-better-than-the-aborigines/521477/34 "2009-12-19T12:36:21Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > true it is, true it is…but its also a bit disingenuous on your part. The fact of the matter is that New Zealand has made a far more determined and persistent effort to handle and settle grievances than Australia has - just look at how long it took Canberra to apologise for the lost generation. I assume you mean the so-called “Stolen Generation”. But you need to realise a few things. Firstly the entire concept is based purely on hearsay. Secondly, despite at least 14 separate trials of the best cases that ATSIC could put forth, only two black people have ever been shown to have been unfairly removed form their parents. In the other 13 cases the children were either removed from abusive parents or surrendered or abandoned volountarily by parents who could no longer care for them. In contrast in the same time period 4 non-Aboriginal children have been shown to have been unjustly removed. Thirdly, since this forced removal of black children has become absolutely verboten we have seen such shocking statistics as 50% of children in Aboriginal communities being regularly raped. 20% of children under 14 having venereal disease and instances where multiple children were forcibly housed with known repeat peadophiles and subsequently repeatedly raped. So there’s a pretty damn strong case that the so-called stolen generation never existed, and that the enforced removal was undertaken for some very compelling reasons, and should be initiated again. When looked at in light of those facts, is it really surprising that it took along time to apologise for something that apparently never happened? A lot of shit has been heaped on Black Australians, much of which deserves an apology. The “Stolen Generation” almost certainly wasn’t one of them. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-whites-treat-the-maori-better-than-the-aborigines/521477/35 "2009-12-20T07:14:04Z")
> [@lynne-42](#): > > It’s a very unpretty part of our history, and of Britain’s. Between slavery in America, apartheid in South Africa, the aborigines in Australia, the Indians in India and now this, it makes you wonder what part of colonialism was ever pretty. ---
**Author:** ![Scissorjack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c67d28/32.png) [@Scissorjack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scissorjack)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-whites-treat-the-maori-better-than-the-aborigines/521477/36 "2009-12-20T08:06:48Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > 1. Maori actually had a thriving trading culture long before Europeans arrived - particularly with Greenstone (too scared to attempt the Maori spelling) _Pounamu_ {Poh-oo-nah-moo} [From an earlier thread, here’s a very brief synopsis of 19th Century relations between Maori and European settlers,](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7282363&postcount=15) to add to **HMW** ’s splendid summary. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-whites-treat-the-maori-better-than-the-aborigines/521477/37 "2009-12-20T11:54:09Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Between slavery in America, apartheid in South Africa, the aborigines in Australia, the Indians in India and now this, it makes you wonder what part of colonialism was ever pretty. The very edited highlights: Railways Telegraphs Education Stable Government Electricity International Trade Look, as much of a Colonialist and Imperialist as I am, I do concede that it wasn’t all cricket, drinks on the verandah, and the odd spot of tiger hunting on weekends. But neither was it purely a horrible, irredeemable, indefensible thing IMHO, and overall I think was a net good for the world, if a bit misguided at times. Let’s face it, without Colonialism 99% of us on these boards wouldn’t be here. Also, the Maori weren’t cannibals by the time the Europeans showed up. They did, however, have an astonishing affinity for firearms and guerrilla warfare, and they also liked the neat stuff (trade goods) the British brought with them. The Maori were also skilled artesans, whereas most of the Aboriginal tribes were still stuck firmly in the stone age and whilst they did (and still do!) create many great artistic things, they weren’t on the same level as the sort of stuff created by Maori craftsmen at the time the Europeans showed up and decided to play _Colonisation_ two hundred odd-years before the invention of the personal computer. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-whites-treat-the-maori-better-than-the-aborigines/521477/38 "2009-12-20T13:10:51Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > The very edited highlights… “But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?” 🙂 > [@](#): > > Also, the Maori weren’t cannibals by the time the Europeans showed up. Ummm… are you sure? Conversations with natives regarding cannibalism (that was going on at the time) appear in Captain Cook’s writing, and as late as 1835 when the Taranaki Maori invaded and conquered the Chatams they are recorded as having slaughtered and eaten the natives. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2009, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-whites-treat-the-maori-better-than-the-aborigines/521477/39 "2009-12-20T19:16:39Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > The very edited highlights: > > Railways > Telegraphs > Education > Stable Government > Electricity > International Trade > > Look, as much of a Colonialist and Imperialist as I am, I do concede that it wasn’t all cricket, drinks on the verandah, and the odd spot of tiger hunting on weekends. But neither was it purely a horrible, irredeemable, indefensible thing IMHO, and overall I think was a net good for the world, if a bit misguided at times. > > Let’s face it, without Colonialism 99% of us on these boards wouldn’t be here. > > Also, the Maori weren’t cannibals by the time the Europeans showed up. They did, however, have an astonishing affinity for firearms and guerrilla warfare, and they also liked the neat stuff (trade goods) the British brought with them. The Maori were also skilled artesans, whereas most of the Aboriginal tribes were still stuck firmly in the stone age and whilst they did (and still do!) create many great artistic things, they weren’t on the same level as the sort of stuff created by Maori craftsmen at the time the Europeans showed up and decided to play _Colonisation_ two hundred odd-years before the invention of the personal computer. I know our modern imperialist will probably be frothing at the mouth when I write this:D, but in relation to India **Railways and Telegraph** Yup, and would have come anyway. Like the Internet, Computers etc came without any colonial master. Ditto Electricity. **Education, Stable Government, Internation Trade** All existed before the British and indeed the Raj hurt the caiuse much more than it helped. Trade with Iran, the Middle East, C Asia died out pretty much, trade upon which the whole sub-continent depended, replaced with becoming a raw material source for Manchester. In the field of education, literacy actually went down, you had two foreign langauges imposed, English and Urdu, so a good amount of people who were literate in their own native language suddenly overnight became illiterate. And of course the British administration was far far removed from the locals than what replaced them. I am an anglophile, but frankly any benefit of colonialism was incidentak at beat and would have happened anyway. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-whites-treat-the-maori-better-than-the-aborigines/521477/40 "2009-12-21T02:56:02Z")
> [@Scissorjack](#): > > _Pounamu_ {Poh-oo-nah-moo} > > [From an earlier thread, here’s a very brief synopsis of 19th Century relations between Maori and European settlers,](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7282363&postcount=15) to add to **HMW** ’s splendid summary. Thanks, BTW, as an aside the south island is at times referred to as Te Wai Pounamu, or land / place of greenstone. As another aside, and just pulling this out of my backside.. most New Zealanders know at least some Maori, words like Pounamu (greenstone), Marae (village), Kaumatua (elder), Hikoi (gathering / walk), Whare (family if I recall correctly), Haka, Kai (food), Wai (water, I think), Hangi, Hongi (way of greeting) etc etc…how many Aboriginal words are in daily usage in Australia (beside Ulluru)? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-whites-treat-the-maori-better-than-the-aborigines/521477.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-whites-treat-the-maori-better-than-the-aborigines/521477.md?page=3)