No Treaty Of Waitangi and YOU?

No this isn't intended to be some pakeha rant rather a call for a bit of brain storming on what would have been the implications of history on Aoteroa/New Zealand if the British for whatever reason hadn't come to an amicable agreement with the native Maori. Given that the Maori were even in OTL in contact with various outside influences and the Treaty basically opened the way to British influence and control how would this change both New Zealand and indeed the rest of the world.

The POD could be anywhere prior to 1840 but could also discuss developments and influences post Waitangi to the modern age.

Would another Coloniser moved in and taken control? Would the United Tribes be allowed to grow and control there own destiny? Would the notion of New Zealand as an insular, nation state even be a possibility if various outsiders cut up their own spheres of influence or would there be an eventual move towards collectivisation given the geography andremoteness of the place?

A Native Collective? Various city states based on Iwi/tribal groups with a varying degree of outside contact? Maybe The French move in? The Spanish? American? Private Interests? The Offspring of Pirates? The Russians even? All have been suggested at some time or another and Just interested to hear if others have any ideas to biff around.

Hmm.

Well there seem to be a few possibilities here. I don't buy into inevitability but I would think that there are good reasons why Britain took sovereignty and those drivers would still exist in most scenarios:

1. British Australia. If we do not get rid of the Australian colonies, then it will always be that the biggest, closest, most interested foreign power to New Zealand and there will be hungry British settlers. IOTL they led contact and colonisation pre treaty and would no doubt do so in any reasonable TL.

British Australia had a variety of factors that lead to colonising NZ. A settler / colonising expectation amongst the settlers. Most people in 1840 were settlers from Britain or children of such, so everyone was used to the idea of striking out, for economic or social reasons (convicts!). The main towns of British Australia all were deeply reliant on sea transport to each other and Britain. These ships could also easily be used to go to NZ. The towns were growing fast and had to import food or raw materials from afield, including NZ (Maori producers often). Then, jealously. People develop proprietary interests quickly and NZ was seen as such by British settlers in Australia.

It also means that Britain can more easily intervene or support colonies than anyone else can. Forgetting war or conflict, colonisation is just easier if there are nearby established colonies to supply people, capital and support. Otherwise, supplying a colony from Europe is expensive and a boondoggle. Especially one that has lots of indigenous people who are rather attached to things as they were.

2. The South Island. I do not accept the terra nullius argument of colonial court, but to a certain extent, the South Island was empty enough to be inviting. Not because there was no one there, clearly there were Maori settlements all the way down, from Nelson to Bluff. But the settlement was thin on the ground (outside of Nelson area) and regardless of ownership, land use or the like, Maori could easily be pushed aside with small numbers of settlers. This is not true in the North Island. Sufficient British and other European visitors to New Zealand had arrived by the start of the 19th century that this fact would be well known soon enough. There were a few whaling stations based at Maori settlements too.

It is going to take a while for Maori to infill the South Island, despite the new crops and animals provided by Europeans. They are also going to experience a demographic collapse as well, as the Musket Wars and disease are going to happen regardless. So the South Island will remain empty for several generations at least, even with North Island migration. Any European power trying to assert sovereignty or a protectorate will have to station ships and men on the island or the North if they are going to stop people trickling in from Australia, the US or Europe.

Well, in OTL, many Maori iwi didn't sign the Treaty of Waitangi. Those that did were largely Northern tribes. Even the geographically (not demographically) largest iwi, Ngai Tahu, didn't sign the Treaty.

I think without the Treaty of Waitangi, the United Tribes will still not really be a thing. I'm thinking of doing a TL (probably after quite a while, given my Cold War TL) where the Kingitanga Movement is stronger, but it is pretty difficult to get Maori unity. The Musket Wars is the most obvious example of inter-iwi conflict, and it seems like there was even occasional conflict between individual hapu. So I see the most likely outcome as the British exploiting that (the British are still going to be the colonisers. No-one else was really interested. The French settlement at Akaroa wasn't supported by the French state, and the French Catholic missionaries seemed to have pretty much no connection to France itself. The 'threat' of French colonisation was overstated for political reasons) division between the Maori iwi. In many places all over the world, the coloniser played native groups off against each other. There will likely be a de-facto caste system, with certain 'allied' tribes put in higher positions than more rebellious tribes, with settlers over all of them. By the time many of these allied tribes turn against the British (realising British intentions), the British will be in a position of total dominance.

Well the privileged tribe process happened in New Zealand too, if I recall. They tended to be the ones who later hand their land alienated after Britain withdrew military forces, by the Settler government.

Julius Vogel said:

Well the privileged tribe process happened in New Zealand too, if I recall. They tended to be the ones who later hand their land alienated after Britain withdrew military forces, by the Settler government.

Click to expand...

Yes, it did, but it wasn't entrenched for very long. It was really just an episode, as opposed to a systematic manipulation of inter-tribal power relations.

Hrvatskiwi said:

Yes, it did, but it wasn't entrenched for very long. It was really just an episode, as opposed to a systematic manipulation of inter-tribal power relations.

Click to expand...

Right, but then to have widespread manipulation you really need people on the ground to make it worthwhile as Australia/Britain are a long ways away. If you have people on the ground you will usually then build towns and then next thing you know, there is a settler colony. Which I guess was sort of your point earlier.

Anyway. I've often thought a nice POD would be if somehow we get a small non British colony earlier than Akaroa, somewhere.

Say an American whaler of Dutch descent, a bit religious, gets 30 of his closet fellow parishoners and expands his whaling settlement at Bluff (or whatever) during the Napoleonic Wars. It has its troubles, but by the time things settle down internationally and the whaling boom carries on, there is a small Dutch/American/etc settlement of several hundred Europeans that farms a little to sell to whalers. That would be the biggest settlement in the lower South Island.

Then what? Well, Britain or another power could probably easily expel the colony, but what if they just let it stay and sort of assert control? What if they ignore it and it slowly grows? Then by the time things get really unsettled between the Maori in the 1830s we have a little *European (not British) town in an area with few Maori. It might all end there and 100 years later be like Dannivirke but it could be a draw for similar mmigration. Get a few thousand of the same ethnic/religious/language group in one area, say Southland and that area is going to remain that group for a long time. Even if everyone else is English speaking British.

Julius Vogel said:

Say an American whaler of Dutch descent, a bit religious, gets 30 of his closet fellow parishioners and expands his whaling settlement at Bluff (or whatever) during the Napoleonic Wars. It has its troubles, but by the time things settle down internationally and the whaling boom carries on, there is a small Dutch/American/etc settlement of several hundred Europeans that farms a little to sell to whalers. That would be the biggest settlement in the lower South Island.

Then what? Well, Britain or another power could probably easily expel the colony, but what if they just let it stay and sort of assert control? What if they ignore it and it slowly grows? Then by the time things get really unsettled between the Maori in the 1830s we have a little *European (not British) town in an area with few Maori. It might all end there and 100 years later be like Dannivirke but it could be a draw for similar mmigration. Get a few thousand of the same ethnic/religious/language group in one area, say Southland and that area is going to remain that group for a long time. Even if everyone else is English speaking British.

Click to expand...

My only concern with this idea (I'm all for alternate NZ ideas) is that such a polity seems a little unlikely to retain independence. Even with the religious aspect, such a settlement would still attract a lot of shady characters, and it sounds like it would end up as a more multicultural and slightly-less-bad Kororareka. European empires are still likely to assert dominance over the area, given that it's a centre for whaling, which is a big industry.

Hrvatskiwi said:

My only concern with this idea (I'm all for alternate NZ ideas) is that such a polity seems a little unlikely to retain independence. Even with the religious aspect, such a settlement would still attract a lot of shady characters, and it sounds like it would end up as a more multicultural and slightly-less-bad Kororareka. European empires are still likely to assert dominance over the area, given that it's a centre for whaling, which is a big industry.

Click to expand...

Well maybe, infact probably likely!

This is why I think Bluff, or somewhere like it on the lower South Island is ideal. Some Maori to build a community with, take local knowledge etc, far enough away that there isn't really any opposition to carving out a farm (like there would be every where up north), not so warm or pleasant. In otherwords, less attractive to the Bay of Island ruffians of OTL.

If the settlement is largely run/controlled by a solid ethnic block, then it would be less ramschackle than the Bay of Islands too. They might be able to keep better control.

Julius Vogel said:

Well maybe, infact probably likely!

This is why I think Bluff, or somewhere like it on the lower South Island is ideal. Some Maori to build a community with, take local knowledge etc, far enough away that there isn't really any opposition to carving out a farm (like there would be every where up north), not so warm or pleasant. In otherwords, less attractive to the Bay of Island ruffians of OTL.

If the settlement is largely run/controlled by a solid ethnic block, then it would be less ramschackle than the Bay of Islands too. They might be able to keep better control.

Click to expand...

Thats a fair point. IIRC, a lot of the reasoning for the British absorbing NZ into NSW was to keep the 'ruffians' at Kororareka from getting themselves wiped out by local Maori for overstepping the boundaries one too many times. But you need to give a real reason why they'd go to Bluff. Just religious reasons? There are plenty of places they could go. Why Bluff specifically?

Hrvatskiwi said:

Thats a fair point. IIRC, a lot of the reasoning for the British absorbing NZ into NSW was to keep the 'ruffians' at Kororareka from getting themselves wiped out by local Maori for overstepping the boundaries one too many times. But you need to give a real reason why they'd go to Bluff. Just religious reasons? There are plenty of places they could go. Why Bluff specifically?

Click to expand...

That is the beauty of it. The whaler likes the area and arranges the settlement. It may not be the best place, but it is about personality here. Sort of like a poor man's Wakefield combined with an even poorer Free Church settlement

The possibility of New Munster as a separate British colony, while New Zealand (North Island) will become as a British protectorate (?).

Note:
Correct me if I'm wrong, because I learned a dose of NZ history from my grand old encyclo.

I'd be interested in any of these. Just a reminder that diseases did, and would, hit the Maori heavily.

Also, non-British settlers could change the culture of New Zealand, while acknowledging British sovereignty.

Anyone reckon an earlier period of European contact would be possible?

A British New Munster without the North Island isn't really plausible, not because of practical, but rather cultural reasons. The South Island had less Maori, but it wasn't completely empty, and the Colonial Office didn't particularly see the Maori tribes as completely separate, which is why their attitude to the Treaty was so universalist when it was only signed by most of (not even all) of the NORTHERN (as in Northern North Island, not the whole island) chiefs.

There were a significant number of non-British settlers, particularly German, Scandinavian, Dutch and Croat settlers, which assimilated fairly well (and Chinese, but their status as a visible minority prevented assimilation). Croats did have some difficulties though, which is why they weren't totally assimilated, which the Germanic peoples were.

An earlier period of European contact is possible, but unlikely. Too reliant on the settlement of the East Coast of Australia and the prior existence of trade in the region.

Fairdowner said:

Anyone reckon an earlier period of European contact would be possible?

Click to expand...

Early contact would help a lot I think, so long as that early contact delivered something of benefit. So, food crops really.

If somehow someone attempted a settlement say in 1700 and transmitted grains, potatoes etc or pigs, then (environmental issues notwithstanding), the ability of Maori to expand into the South Island would be an interesting twist

Yes we would still see all the normal impacts of contact - disease, internal war etc, but an infilled South Island leaves no easy place for settlement.

The numbers of Maori in the South Island excluding Nelson were incredibly low, under ten thousand IIRC, pre sustained contact and then more so once disease /war hit.

Interestingly though the spread of European crops proceeded pretty quickly. There are European reports of sighting potatoes far in land by the start of the 19th century for one.

Apparently, the reason for the geographical limit to Maori expansion South was that the Polynesian agricultural package couldn't survive in the climate of most of the South Island. So that would be necessary for a more Maori South Island.