The difference is that Maori were Polynesians with the resistance to Eurasian diseases that entailed and were primarily agriculturalists . As a result Maori were never decimated by disease the way that Aborigines or Native Americans were and could maintain high populations. That is the reason why mixing was relatively higher.
[/QUOTE
I remember being taught at school that authorities thought around 1900 that the Maori people would die out becuase their numbers had gone down to 40,000. I do not have a cite for this. Does anyone ?[/QUOTE]
and quote "The Maori population declined rapidly as a result of the wars and European diseases, such as influenza, measles, and whooping cough, to which they had little resistance. The Maori population fell from about 85,000 in 1769 to 42,000 in 1896. In the late 19th century, European settlers spoke of the Maori as a “dying race.”
Blake, could you explain why you think Maoris had resistance to Eurasian diseases.
Since that link requires registration, I’m going to take a stab and say that both the size of New Zealand and the relative population densities and mobility of Maori and settlers, as well as the very short time-frame, were a factor: whereas Aboriginal and Native American populations were both spread over a wide area and relatively mobile, and thus isolated and thus unable to build up an immune resistance before it was too late, New Zealand is small. All the best bits - primarily the arable areas of the middle and upper North Island - were where the Maori populations were concentrated. These “best bits”, not uncoincidentally, were where Europeans also settled: there was a history of close contact and exposure right from the beginning {I’m ignoring the South Island, although it was also was settled and farmed by Europeans, since the settler presence was less than that of the North Island, and the Maori population was substantially smaller: the Land Wars were a North Island phenomenon}.
With the close proximity of populations, although Maori initially lacked resistance to introduced diseases and thus suffered early on {and remember that we’re talking about a period of much less than 100 years here}, they were able to establish a resistance relatively quickly: although the Maori population waned initially, by the beginning of the 20th century numbers were relatively stable and increasing. Being agrarian, Maori were also not a mobile population: they couldn’t roam and spread introduced diseases to tribes without European contact, but were forced to stay put and either die or get better and develop a resistance. Many died, those who survived were resistant.
A lot of the “dying race” talk was, I’m afraid, wishful thinking on the part of the immigrants, coupled with 19th century romantic nostalgia for a worthy but fallen savage foe, and half-baked notions of eugenics: the fitter race had triumphed. One Tree Hill, an Auckland landmark, is testament to that, with its monument and obelisk erected by Sir John Logan Campbell as a memorial to the Maori people. The “One Tree” is no longer there: it was chopped down as a political protest a decade or so ago by a Maori activist named Mike Smith.
That they were resistant can be seen in the fact that in 100 years of contact with literally constant warfare and social upheaval the population declined only 50%. Compare that to populations of people who had no resistance such as the Americas or Southern Australia where death rates exceeded 50% within the first 10 years of contact and exceeded 80% within the century. At the most extreme Tasmanians experienced a 100% death rate within 100 years. That puts the 50% population decline of the Maori into perspective with people who were not immune to Eurasian diseases.
It remains unclear what role introduced Eurasian diseases directly played in Maori population decline. After a couple of centuries isolation there would have been come effect of novel strains, much as a population today that had missed the Spanish 'flu could expect losses. But records of massive fatal epidemics of the type recorded in the Americas or Australia didn’t occur. Instead there were more typical reports of villages succumbing or sporadic outbreaks of the same type that were common in Europe of the day.
The one big disease killer of Maori was TB, but that is a complex case. It was largely restricted to dysfunctional societies, with traditional functional Maori communities apparently unaffected to any great degree. It was also commonly associated with alcoholism, as it is today. So it’s hard to say whether the death rate from TB was a cause or a symptom.
And on a final note, just to put that ~45, 000/100 years population decline into some sort of historical perpective, the Musket Wars which raged between Maori tribes over much of that time period claimed at least 20,000 lives directly. And that is just the casualties of the wars. Once you factor in people dying due to slave conditions, loss of agricultural production, social and economic collapse and so forth the total death toll of the Musket Wars is often put in the 40, 000 mark or higher. Which shows just how little effect disease actually had.
Maori did not have a great resistence to European diseases at all. Venereal and other diseases took their toll. But there were other factors leading to the decline in Maori population in the 19th century, not least of which was the Musket Wars just prior to the Treaty of Waitangi, as well as the alienation from tribal lands.
As to the OP – yes, basically, white Aussies and NZers up until WWII came from mainly the same stock. We are cousin nations. They’re not a bad bunch, really. In the main.
The evidence suggests they didn’t suffer much at all. Yes there were some disease outbreaks but never the extremes seen in genetically naive populations where entire villages or tribes were exterminated. Instead a severe disease outbreak amongst the Maori might have reuslted in 10% mortality, which is high but wasn’t that much worse than what was seen in Europe at that time. Disease only seems to have started being a significant killer after Maori land was taken and the people were forced to either live in European cities or on unproductive land.
That isn’t really true. Many Maori were skilled seafarers and they had trade routes that covered the entirety of both islands. Slaves, seafood, crops and information flowed alongthe trade routes ceaselessly. To show how effective this was Hone Heke’s battle plans for dealing with artillery had moved form the North Island to the central South Island with 5 years with no European aid whatsoever. I have no doubt that had disease been a problem it would have spread rapidly without European aid.
I think sums it up perfectly. Maori suffered the same population decline that is seen amongst any people subject to that sort of culture shock. The fact that they survived a European inflamed ‘civil’ war with a death toll of at least 50% of the population and still had the strength to fight back agaisnt the Europeans has to invalidate any notion of a dying race.
PS, loved your ealier post. Brilliant summary. Top marks.
As I said, there is little evidence that the Maori were much less resistant than Europeans.
Yes, venereal disease was problem, but as far as anyone can tell that was because prostitution was just about the only commodity which Maori could trade to obtain muskets. As a result in many districts every Maori woman was a prostitute, and a prostitute to European sailors and soldiers. Any people whose entire adult female population are prostitutes servicing 19th century British sailors and soldiers will of course have massive VD problems. That’s just basic reality and nothing to do with resistance or the lack thereof.
