Compare and contrast the European-indigenous encounter in Australia with that of New Zealand. In what ways can these encounters be considered wars?
by
dorianmarcus (student)
HARTUNG:
ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET
(For Open Universities Australia students)
ACADEMIC HONESTY DECLARATION (this is very important please read carefully):
By placing my name in this document I declare that:
This assessment is my own work, based on my personal study and/or research;
I have acknowledged all material and sources used in the preparation of this assessment, including any material generated in the course of my employment;
If this assessment was based on collaborative preparatory work, as approved by the teachers of the unit, I have not submitted substantially the same final version of any material as another student;
Neither the assessment, nor substantial parts of it, have been previously submitted for assessment in this or any other institution;
I have not copied in part, or in whole, or otherwise plagiarised the work of other students;
I have read and I understand the criteria used for assessment;
The assessment is within the word and page limits specified in the unit outline;
The use of any material in this assessment does not infringe the intellectual property / copyright of a third party;
I understand that this assessment may undergo electronic detection for plagiarism, and a copy of the assessment may be retained in a database and used to make comparisons with other assessments in future. Work retained in a database is anonymous and will not be able to be matched to an individual student;
I take full responsibility for the correct submission of this assessment in the appropriate place with the correct cover sheet attached and I have retained a duplicate copy of this assessment
This declaration is a summary of the University policy on plagiarism. For the policy in full, please refer to or the Student Information in the Handbook.
ASSESSMENT 2: Research Essay.
Question 2) Compare and contrast the European-indigenous encounter in Australia with that of New Zealand. In what ways can these encounters be considered wars?
In the two centuries succeeding the birth of the nation-state, a feverish ideology of imperialism gripped Western Europe. The ensuing stampede to colonise, cultivate and exploit the resources and peoples of the new worlds shaped the geo-political history of our globe, and along the way trampled beneath its zealous hooves a multitude of unique cultural legacies. Focusing attention on the British encounter with the indigenous natives of Australia and New Zealand reveals an overarching Enlightenment ideology of progress and civilisation that legitimised colonial domination. Standardising and reiterating the colonialist imperative, this concept of manifesting an imperial obligation, or destiny, was the common factor in European exploration. What was often diverse though, was the subordinating method employed by the British towards the indigenes. Though always supported by force, the amount of diplomacy used and the amount of compromise given can be seen as a direct result of the indigenous inhabitant’s ability to structure an effective socio-political and military resistance. Comparing and contrasting the Australian version of the European-indigenous encounter with that of New Zealand illustrates this perfectly, as each resulted in a different status for its native populations. Routinely accompanied by violence, the conflict arising from these encounters has thus far provoked substantial debate as to its correct nomenclature; can they be considered wars? This warrants analysis on the two contrasting experiences, their similarities, differences and individual levels of violence. These must then be compared and set against the accepted typology of war, hopefully rendering each one’s experiential pattern recognisably transparent.
The timing of Britain’s colonial incursions into Australia and New Zealand meant that they were infused with the Enlightenment ethos that, reason, discipline and conscious thought, could and indeed should, be used as a structural framework for improving the world. This energised an imperialist intervention policy that thinly disguised its resource exploitative intent. With justification thus provided, any subordinating method was deemed moral, a scenario articulated clearly through John Gascoigne’s assessment of the British mentality in colonial Australia. ‘Such a mentality helped to give the irksome, and even brutal, business of bringing the Australian continent firmly under the sway of British colonial rule something of the character of a civilising mission.’ Intrinsic in exposing a functional contrast between the Australian and New Zealand encounters, is the establishment of a consistent methodology of intent. That is, if the British confronted the two inherently different native populations with the same juxtaposed motivations of moral obligation and exploitation, then the true nature of each encounter reflects accurately the divergent characteristics of the two indigenes and their different response to invasion. Furthering this was the obvious duality of Enlightenment thought and its interpretation that heralded the equality of humanity whilst positing the ‘savage at the bottom of a hierarchy leading to civilisation.’ The resulting moral obligation to progress the uncivilised savage provides a powerful justification and supports the proposed notion of a consistent colonialist ethos that frameworks a methodology of colony building through domination, or in extreme cases, extermination. It is important to consider what analysis has revealed here before it moves on to actual encounter and the impact this had upon each native population. Indigenous Australians and New Zealanders were suddenly confronted by a well-armed, highly motivated British colonial force invested with an ‘imperial destiny’ that demanded the domination and cultural expurgation of any native peoples standing in the way of progress. Buoyed by what James Belich calls a ‘myth of empire’; an inherent belief that ‘imperial destiny’ and the transformation of native peoples into empire was assured, the British colonialists approached Australia and New Zealand with the same objective – dispossession. They followed in the path of explorers, whose intent was discovery, and were fortunate to reap from them, both navigational charts and details on the nature of the inhabitants. Immediately, comparisons reveal striking differences in innate character. Whilst skirmishes did eventuate with the Australian Aboriginal after first contact in 1770, they were mostly recorded as being benign and withdrawn, possessing a tendency for flight rather than confrontation. Primary source evidence supports this view with a letter from the colony of New South Wales’ first Governor, Arthur Phillip, to Lord Sydney, vouching for the pacific nature of the natives. Phillip goes on to say, that most of the conflicts recorded, were usually resulting from instigation by the convicts, and it is this particular dynamic that will be further examined in a later section, in the hope that the two contrasting encounters will be better understood. Records from the first contact with New Zealand’s indigenous peoples, the Maori, in 1769, reveal a vastly different temperament, with reports of them racing onto the beach in force to challenge the first ships with war-chants and volleys of rocks. Though the exact translation of the war-chant is debated by researcher Christina Thompson, her journal article is filled with accounts of violent confrontation and bravado from the Maori, in an almost reluctantly persuasive attestation to their ferocity. Eager to expose the hypocrisy in British depictions of war-like Maoris by highlighting that Britain ‘had for most of the last hundred years been almost continually at war with other Europeans’, Thompson makes a good point whilst conceding that the Maori culture did precipitate naturally towards war.It is this focus on the distinctly different characters of the Australian and New Zealand natives at the time of first contact that will establish a solid foundation from which comparison and contrast between the two encounters may be better illustrated. Any directional nuance in the subsequent relationship between the invader and the invaded may now be viewed from this platform of initial intent; the British with their concept of imperial destiny colliding with both the shy, peaceful Australian Aborigine and the bold, warlike Maori.
