This mini-essay is a critical discussion around the assertion that “Power was absolute in Māori society.”

In what follows, I will firstly discuss how the assertion that “Power was absolute in Māori society” was the colonisers’ attempt at justifying the ‘civilising’ of the ‘savage’ Māori population. Secondly, I will explain how Māori society did, contrary to the assertion, have nuanced ways of regulating power. Thirdly, I will look more closely at the importance of balance and utu to Māori society. Finally, I will discuss the impact of the assertion and how it is subject to a Fanonian view.

From the colonisers’ perspective, the assertion that “Power was absolute in Māori society” justified them labelling Māori as ‘savages’ and aiming to force European ideals upon Māori in order to ‘civilise’ them. This push was seen as “a first step in ‘protecting’ Māori from society and themselves”, according to Humpage (2008). However, this veil of morality deteriorated as colonisers became increasingly frustrated with Māori not conforming to their expectations. “Kindness, conciliation, bribes and threats have alike failed,” writes the Wellington Independent (1868, p. 3); “We have tried to civilise these people ... They accept our kindness and murder the donors. They are determined to fight, and we, in self-protection, must treat them as a species of savage beasts which must be exterminated to render the colonisation of New Zealand possible.” From this, it is clear that the colonisers no longer (if at all) had any desire to understand Māori power structures nor work together to find compromises that would take those structures into account. The narrative took a further turn from ‘They are savages, therefore we must civilise them’ to ‘They are savages, therefore we must exterminate them’.

Aside from being used to push the colonisers’ agenda, the assertion that “Power was absolute in Māori society” ignored that Māori society did in fact have nuanced ways of regulating power. Far from being ‘raging savages’ who were forever at war with one another, they did not even have a “professional warrior class”, as it was believed that war was a temporal part of life just as the harvesting season was (Belich, 2013, p. 22). Inter-tribal wars occurred not with pure bloodthirst but with power-based goals in mind, such as the Musket Wars which ceased upon “restoration of inter-tribal balance of military power” (Belich, 2013, p. 20).

The concept of balance was an important one in Māori society, where conflict was not inherently ‘evil’ but rather seen as healthy and normative. For this reason, other mechanisms existed to mediate power and justice. These came under the umbrella of utu, which typically receives the overly negative translation of ‘revenge’. Such mechanisms included tatau pounamu: the exchange of revered items as a form of peace-making, sometimes including the arrangement of marriages between tribes (Keane, 2006). Tatau pounamu means “greenstone door”, with the door representing “a passageway between the territories of warring parties”; importantly, “the door was closed to all who wanted to draw blood” (Keane, 2006). Another mechanism was muru or taua muru, a way of rectifying injustices which involved personal property being taken from the wrongdoer. In parallel with the aforementioned principle of tatau pounamu, Ballara (1976) remarks that “in many instances disputes were resolved through recourse to this custom, without bloodshed.”

The assertion that “Power was absolute in Māori society” has had a lasting effect on how history has been framed, an effect which has been termed “materialisation” (Butler, cited by Jones & Jenkins, 2008). While being both inaccurate and used to justify aspects of colonisation as stated, it ultimately ignores that Māori had purpose behind their actions just as the colonisers did. Without a proper understanding of colonial society (which is assumed due to Fanonian narcissism), the actions of the colonisers could seem just as ‘savage’ – for example, the invasion of the peaceful Parihaka settlement.

To summarise, I have argued that the assertion that “Power was absolute in Māori society” was indeed a way for the colonisers to justify their actions. I have mentioned aspects of Māori society which disprove this assertion, such as their lack of a full-time military and the concept of utu. Finally, I have discussed the “materialising” effect that this assertion has had, and how the assertion itself was the product of a group which, according to Fanon, only recognised itself (Butler, cited by Jones & Jenkins, 2008).

References