Talk:Ngāti Hauā

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Māori task force.

Rohe of Ngati Haua

There appears to be some confusion about the rohe of this iwi. Some atlases show the rohe as being south of Maniapoto land and west of Lake Taupo. In this resource it says as Waikato and Bay of Plenty. Ngati Haua's most well known, Wirimu Tamihana, The Kingmaker, seems to have had land at Waharoa near Matamata. There are lots of references to his interaction with missionaries there. Possibly ,like many iwi, the Ngati Haua had interests in land in many different areas. Can anyone comment on this? One aspect noteworthy of the iwi was that they appear to have taken a positive view of selling land to the government-one that was in direct conflict with the view of the Kingitanga to which they ,nominally at least, belonged. They were one of the first iwi -maybe THE first to sell land to the government for the new railway in the 1880s. Perhaps someone knowledgable fron Ngati Haua could comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.184.199 (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than one iwi by this name. The one in the upper Whanganui (south of Maniapoto) is different from the one in the Waikato that this article is about. Nurg (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits re history

The new material added here over the last few days feels very colonialist POV, focussing on cannibalism, "reckless selling", and uses very old sources. The Te Ara stuff is from 1966, and the idea of "reckless selling" is thrown into a different light when you realise that the Native Land Court did its very best to make it easy for Maori to sell, without reference to the majority of its traditional owners, something the Crown has since conceded was a problem. The para on the settlement is full of minor errors as well. I'm going to try and leave in some of the neutral info, but it needs quite a cleanout. Tirana (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the face of it "reckless selling"seems fairly accurate. You have not presented any sources or quotes that show there was NOT reckless selling. Remember there WAS a "colonial" period. You cannot just junk large parts of history because it is not PC today.The evidence is VERY clear that many Ngati Haua did sell huge areas of land for very good money (for those days). What was happening was that Maori were being given the same democratic legal right as Europeans. The treaty promised this to Maori in 1840. Ngati Haua and other Kingite Maori had tried to assert their total independence in 1863-64 by the rule of the gun but were defeated. The Native land court allowed ordinary Maori to have the same rights as everyone else. Tamihana surrendered his mere to general Cameron. I think the mind set of Ngati Haua was shown that they were quite prepared to sign up to legally binding agreements to lease and sell even before the court made a decision.There are a couple of these documents on line. Tamihana was a smart person and realised that Maori were going to have to adapt in a peaceful way to a new way of life. By nature he was inclined to peace anyway. It is clear that before his death he was totally happy to be a Ngati Haua New Zealander and work with settlers and farmers like Firth in peace and harmony rather than fight them.Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What happened, and the Waitangi Tribunal has found accordingly and the Crown has apologised for it, was that the Native Land Laws limited the number of customary owners of a block to 10, thus extinguishing the rights of everyone else who had a customary stake in the land. If you weren't one of the ten, your land could get sold without your consent. None of that was foreshadowed in the Treaty, and it's neither democratic or reckless. If you were taking a fair approach to the history, you might say that throughout most of NZ's colonial period, Maori land loss was seen by the Pakeha population as either positive or their own fault; since the 1970s land march, views have changed. Digging through the fraught issue of whether a particular tribe was kupapa or rebel or a bit of both is a fraught issue best left to historians. What you've argued looks more like original research. Tirana (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least the section on the settlement is now accurate and properly referenced. Even if the Waikato Times called it the fastest settlement ever, a more authoritative source would be better, along with a hyperlink or something to suggest they actually said that. The fact that the Waitangi Tribunal wasn't involved isn't notable - it usually isn't. Tirana (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your version of the Native Land Court rules is seriously flawed. From the very beginning Maori had the right to either individualize titles OR to retain communal titles or do both. Much Maori land is still held in communal title today. Iwi decided, block by block, what to do with their own land. It was up to the iwi to decide how they owned the land. Remember more than 50% of the land court judges were Maori at a time when Maori made about 30% of the population. All judges and court staff were fluent Maori speakers. 115.188.178.77 (talk) 09:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]