S+SCHOLARSHIP+SUPPORT

To research more articles about the diet solution video pregnancy then visit **Scholarship is an award not a qualification**.

This is the link to the Scholarship History page on the NCEA site
 * [|Scholarship History page]**

[|Level 3 History seminar support]
 * Scholarship seminar series by Wellington History teachers and the Ministry of Culture and Heritage**

History Scholarship addresses six basic skills addressed through a written response.

1. Candidates whose arguments are //sophisticated// (7 or 8 marks) could have demonstrated this through literacy, fluency, insight, elegance, flair, discernment, complexity and / or originality 2. A candidate will have effectively communicated a //substantiated argument// with a solid argument consistently supported by evidence from the sources and / or their own knowledge (6 marks). A candidate whose argument wavers or drifts in places is likely to gain 5 marks. 3. A candidate who has communicated a relatively simple argument (maybe largely narrative) that is not always supported by evidence or where the argument is in the background rather than explicit should be awarded a mark of 4. 4. A candidate who is awarded 2 marks has attempted to communicate an argument but has really written a narrative
 * Skill 1 Effectively communicate sophisticated, substantiated argument. **

**//1. develop informed and perceptive//** judgements about the nature of historical evidence and / or historical research. PD1 (8 marks or 7 marks)2. 2. make **//informed//** judgements about the nature of historical evidence and / or historical research. PD2 (6 marks or 5 marks) 3. **//make valid judgements//** about the nature of historical evidence and / or research. PD3 (4 marks or 3 marks) **//4. attempt//** to make valid judgements about the nature of historical evidence and / or research. PD4 (2 marks or 1 mark)
 * Skill 2 Develop informed and perceptive judgements about the nature of historical evidence and/or historical research **


 * Skill 3 Critically evaluate historical narratives. **
 * 1) critically evaluate historical narratives [**//sustained//**]. PD1 (8 marks)
 * 2) **//critically evaluate//** historical narratives. PD2 (6 marks)
 * 3) **//evaluate//** historical narratives. PD3 (4 or 3 marks)
 * 4) **//attempt//** to evaluate historical narratives. PD4 (2 marks or 1 mark)


 * Skill 4 Demonstrate a thorough and perceptive understanding of historical relationships in selected contexts and settings. **
 * 1) demonstrate a **//thorough//** and **//perceptive//** understanding of historical relationships in selected contexts and settings. PD1 (8 or 7 marks)
 * 2) demonstrate **//an informed understanding//** of historical relationships in selected contexts and settings. PD2 (6 or 5 marks)
 * 3) demonstrate **//an understanding//** of historical relationships in selected contexts and settings. PD3 (4 marks
 * 4) **//attempt//** to demonstrate an understanding of historical relationships in selected contexts and settings. PD4 (2 marks)

1. synthesise, with **//perception//** and **//insight//**, ideas relevant to the historical context(s) and setting(s). PD1 (8 or 7 marks **//2. synthesise//** //ideas// //relevant// to the historical context(s) and setting(s). PD2 (6 or 5 marks)  **//3. identify ideas//** relevant to the historical contexts and settings. PD3 (4 or 3 marks)
 * Skill 5 Synthesise, with perception and insight, ideas relevant to the historical context(s) and setting(s). **

//**4.**// **//attempt//** to identify ideas relevant to the historical contexts and settings. PD4 (2 marks or 1 mark)
**Skill 6 Demonstrate an understanding of the critical underpinnings and scope of an historical question/context.**

**//1. demonstrate an understanding//** of the **//critical underpinnings//** and scope of an historical question / context. PD1 (8 or 7 marks) 2. **//understand//** **//and//** **//define//** the scope of an historical question / context. PD2 (6 or 5 marks) 3. **//demonstrate some understanding//** of the scope of an historical question / context. PD3 (4 or 3 marks) **//4 attempt to demonstrate some understanding//** of the scope of an historical question / context. PD4 (2 mark or 1 mark)

The following is some feedback from a workshop run by a History teacher on the weekend of (5th September) Main details which emerged from the Scholarship Workshop which Alyson Atchison conducted on Saturday. Dr Jennifer Frost from the University of Auckland History Department opened the workshop with a brief outline of what the History department expects in tverms of Historiography which was also very interesting and useful. In her PPT presentation Jennifer used an image which John Gaddis an American historian also uses to epitomise the aims of an Historian. Jennifer also presented a Historiography synthesis grid which is also attached to this email. Yes, people did comment that the figure in the image is male!

**THE SCHOLARSHIP WORKSHOP** These are the main ideas which emerged from a presentation on 5th September and the discussion and ideas which developed from what she said.

Students should be aiming to write 1500-1600 words.

They should spend only one hour reading and annotating the sources briefly. Many students are writing detailed plans which become mini-essays in themselves. It is noticeable that some students start writing their essay-historical article too late to create an effective argument. But it was also noted that some students can write very quickly and construct an effective argument in quite a short span of time. They are probably quite exceptional.

There are two particular problems areas in student essays. They are Skills 2 and 3 in the menu of competencies students are supposed to demonstrate.

(2) Make judgements about the nature of historical evidence concerning this historical issue.

(3) Evaluate historians’ interpretations and the views of contemporaries that relate to this issue.

A lesser problem is Skill 4 which can also trip up some students.

(4) Demonstrate an understanding of historical relationships relevant to this historical issue etc.

A vital point! Unpack the task! This is often not done. Read page one of the exam very carefully. They should hilite key words such as analyse, evaluate, compare, and contrast if they are present. Hilite words such as contentious and try to understand what they mean.

Understand the task and its timeframe!

Many students simply construct a series of responses to the sources which they have chosen. In essence they create a list and do not take the next step up to use the sources to reinforce an argument and write an extended analysis. Ask: does the source support or negate the argument?

It is vital to sort out the key idea or viewpoint of a source AND refer to the source by its title. It creates a less than professional feel to the article if the sources are simply referred to as Source A or Source H. All the sources have titles. Students do get credit for being able to put a source in context, eg a feminist perspective or a viewpoint which has been superseded by recent research.

**The 2009 Exam** A Catalyst! Some debate occurred around this concept. Alyson pointed out that catalyst creates a reaction. It could be a key event, development or even a person. The hope was expressed that a significant catalyst would be chosen. But the consensus was that students should prepare for a ‘big’ or ‘small’ event that had significant consequences.

The document below is a tool to help you to see the connections in any particular resoiurce




 * Scholarship History 2005 – Outstanding Performance **

=
The revisionist renaissance of New Zealand history in the 19th Century has largely seen the idea of Fatal Impact discredited. This idea was a product of racist Victorian colonial theory, and many past historians have argued that it affected Maori because of the negative impact on Maori culture and identity over the 19th century. Certainly, this view cannot be discredited. Maori suffered greatly at the hands of new weapons technology, disease, land confiscation, and ultimately the dislocation of traditional tribal power structures in the latter half of the century. However, where the fatal impact theory goes amiss is how it portrays the Maori as victims, subject to the capricious nature of fate and barely in charge of their own destinies. Modern historians have proved this thesis wrong, showing again that Maori were firmly in control of New Zealand, both economically and socially, at least until 1840. However, it is wrong to portray Maori as totally immune to the numerous degenerative implications of colonialism. Historian Paul Monin seems to have arrived at a sensible coalition between the ‘fatal impact’ and ‘Maori agency’ theories, citing that both “Maori and Europeans shared the initiative in developments and, by implication, responsibility for them.” This is the crux of Monin’s argument, that both Maori and Pakeha had input into their futures via their actions. It does not, of course, mean that Maori and Pakeha, “always had equal power to determine, or influence, the course of developments.” Races had to share responsibility for their actions, for better or worse. =====

=
There certainly is a case for fatal impact if one solely regards the outcomes for Maori in the 19th Century. Historians such as A.Sharp look at outcomes such as, “loss of lands, settlements and cultivated areas,” as well as, “loss of mana.” However, where Sharp goes wrong is that the bigger picture is not looked at. Sharp’s article on the Waitangi Tribunal disregards the processes and events that eventually led up to the great “loss” of Maoridom. This, in essence, is largely why the ‘Fatal Impact’ Theory has been discredited. It does not regard the positive achievements of Maori, nor the ability that they were able to fend for themselves. The reality is that Maori did suffer greatly from the effects of colonialism, but not due to inferior social capacity. They were eventually trumped by what must have seemed like an alien British legal system. Attempts to craft litigation with their own agency, such as the repudiation movement of the late 1870s were a failure. Maori certainly were overwhelmed, but never helpless. =====

=
One of the major outcomes of the ‘fatal impact’ thesis is that of land loss. Maori were estranged from their traditional and ancestral landholdings in order to transform them into sites for settler towns, such as the Wakefield Settlements of the 1840s, and for European agriculture, as seen in the land confiscations occurring after conflict in the 1860s. However, many Maori sold land to the British Crown without any idea of what the degenerative social implications would be. In a case study of the Ngati Apa Tribe, G.Huwyler tells us that the tribe had “not understood” that European settlement would “eventually lead to separation from their ancestral lands and loss of their authority.” In a sense, this case study reiterates Ward’s ‘Dual Agency’ Theory. While the Ngati Apa Tribe may not have known the results of the land sale, it was still sold, ending in “dramatic changes to the Ngati Apa way of life.” It seems that many Maori were surprised as to the extent of European colonialisation and could not, perhaps, realise the full ramifications of the actions that they were taking. A classic example is that of Te Wharepouri, an Ati Awa Chief who sold most of Port Nicholson to the New Zealand Company without actually realising the consequences. Certainly, he was shocked when three boatloads of colonists were dumped on Petone Beach – he had not expected this many Pakeha. =====

=
While the study of Ngati Apa is a case study and thus possibly an isolated incident, when paired with other accounts it allows us to gain a fuller picture and to form generalizations as to the nature of land loss throughout New Zealand. When regarding maps in A.Sharp and P.McLugh’s ‘Histories, Power and loss: Uses of the Past,’ it quickly becomes apparent as to the full extent of land dispossession. Regarding ‘Map 1’, which shows the amount of land in Maori ownership at 1860, and contrasting it with ‘Map 2’, which shows the state of affairs in 1890, it becomes obvious that the Ngati Apa incident may not have been so isolated. Although G.Huwyler’s example was first purchased far earlier, in 1849, it shows the significant trend towards dispossession of land – certainly a factor resulting from a ‘fatal impact’ theory. =====

=
As well as land loss, fatal impact tells us that Maori were estranged from the intangible aspects that keep their culture alive – A. Sharp cites these as their, “language…tikanga…tino rangitiratanga [and] mana.” This, to an extent is also true, but only at the very end of the century. The Liberal Party’s great re-allocation of land in the 1890s left many Maori homeless and without social identity. With the dislocation of traditional tribal power structures, many Maori were forced to move to urban areas where their traditional lifestyle and ideas were often disregarded in the face of European progress. However, the reality is that A. Sharp’s article focuses on the claims of the Waitangi Tribunal – possibly a reason why it focuses on the negative aspects. The Waitangi Tribunal is a legislative body that attempts to resolve grievances resulting from the Treaty of Waitangi – certainly, the positives may well not be included. =====

=
However, Maori did assert their mana and traditional identity often in the face of colonialism and often late into the 19th Century. An example of this is Parihaka – a peaceful resistance movement of the 1880s. Danny Keenan writes that it was, “a phenomenon of the Taranaki Coast.” While the Parihaka movement was destroyed in the form of, “1,589 Armed Constabulary and volunteers led by John Bryce,” it is still an obvious mention of Maori retention of Mana. Numerous forms of this retention arose over the course of the century – some active and militant, others peaceful like Parihaka, and a handful of derivatives of Christianity – but they all prove that Maori mana was retained, at least throughout the 19th Century, and exercised through resistance. =====

=
Fatal impact holds little ground when one regards the process of interaction in the pre-Treaty period leading up to 1840. It was the Maori who were masters of this period, while the British dominated the latter half. This reiterates the presence of ‘Dual Agency’ – the “emphasis on (bilateral) outcomes rather than (unilateral) impacts.” When looking at the pre-Treaty period it is obvious that Maori were in control of New Zealand, both economically and socially. H. Petrie’s article in the New Zealand Journal of History reiterates this. It is, of course, “widely recognised that Maori invested heavily in flourmills and trading ships,” during the course of the 1850s. Perhaps an outcome of Grey’s flour and sugar policy, where Maori chiefs were given gifts in the form of flour mills and trading ships to force them to enter a Pakeha economy, Petrie tells us that the investment “was intended to produce wealth.” This is certainly another likely reason, as inter-tribal conflicts were forgotten, it seems, as “contributions from several hapu,” appear to have been a, “usual circumstance.” This shows that Maori were most definitely not victims of fatal impact at this stage – they were entered into a relationship of interdependence with Europeans – a trend that reverberates through the pre-1840 period as well. =====

=
Prior to the Treaty of Waitangi, many Maori were involved in trading relationships with European sealers, traders and whalers. Maori would give the necessities of life, such as food, water and shelter, (and to a lesser extent for some – sex) in exchange for European technology such as muskets, blankets and nails. This is reiterated in Peitrie’s article – at this stage, Maori were trading great canoe loads of food with the Auckland economy. It is recorded that over 2000 canoes landed in Auckland Harbour is 1848 – certainly indicative of a trend to trade. However, this is also where Monin’s ‘dual agency’ Theory is present, in that Maori were exclusively responsible fro trading with and supporting European settlements – factors that inadvertedly led to ‘fatal impact’-like ramifications in the latter half of the century. James Belich eloquently notes that “they [the Maori] had multiplied this weight [the British] through their own agency.” Nothing could be truer if one regards Maori agency and Trade being a contributing factor to the degenerative implications of the later years. =====

=
The economy between Maori and Pakeha is not the only are where ‘Maori Agency’ seems to have come into play. Changes to social aspects of the Maori culture seem to have been a reality as well. Ranganui Walker mentions the King movement – or Kingitanga, as one of these aspects. There is no doubt that the concept of a King was a European one. Walker tells us that the intention of Kingitanga was that “the [Maori] King and the [British] Queen to be joined in concord.” Maori Agency also spawned a host of other social run-offs, namely those of religion and other changes to the Maori way of life. =====

=
The CMS Missionaries arrived at a Mission station in Rangiowhia, the Bay of Islands, in 1814. It is here where Maori control and agency seemed to be the most prevalent. Nga Puhi chief, Hongi Hika was successful in controlling the Missionaries and using them to produce muskets for him. He is also famously quoted as saying that, “Christianity is not a religion for warriors.” Certainly this seems to have had an effect on his followers – the CMS did not convert one Maori to Christianity while they were there. However, Hika’s success in attaining Pakeha technology and the CMS’ lack of success inevitably contributed to the arrival of other Missionaries. These missionaries, in turn, were ones to push for the British annexation of New Zealand in the late 1830s, and grievances surrounding the Treaty would inevitably cause conflict for years to come. This is an example of ‘Dual Agency’ – a focus on the outcomes of actions as opposed to their impacts, and thus it is obvious that Maori were fully responsible, albeit inadvertedly and unknowingly, for the problems of the future. =====

=
It seems that Maori also strengthened and built upon their traditional beliefs and way of life using European technology and ideas. One such example is that of a taonga gifted to a Catholic Chapel in the Bay of Plenty, “possibly in 1845.” Held now in the Auckland Museum – the carving depicts a “Madonna and Child” – an idea typical of Christianity. While this may seem like an isolated example, when one looks at other examples, it is clearly not. In Michael King’s ‘History of New Zealand’, he shows the effect that European tools and technology had on Maori society – namely that “houses progressively became larger and better ventilated,” and also to, “the evolution of increasingly elaborate styles of carving,” – the ‘Madonna and Child’ may be such an example. It is evident that Maori used European technology for self-improvement – this cannot be debated. However in doing so, Maori may well have drawn more traders to New Zealand, contributing inevitably to the problems of the future. =====

=
Hence, it is Paul Monin’s ‘dual agency’ theory that is correct. However, what one must distinguish is that Maori and Pakeha were not equally responsible for the outcomes of their actions, that the amount of input and effect that these actions had was not proportionate equally to both races, but rather, proportionate to the population and presence of either race over the course of the century. Monin himself notes that after the 1850s, Maori continued to contribute to the outcomes of interaction with the settlers, traders and British Crown, “as increasingly junior, disempowered players.” It is evident that while Maori were firmly in control in the first half of the century, the increasing population and presence of Europeans led to their inequality in the latter half, as, “colonialism became increasingly unequal.” Monin puts this down to “European military, political and legal process”, funnily enough; those are all seen as outcomes of the ‘fatal impact’ theory. With typical use of metaphor, Belich tells us that there is often the impression that, “European Impact flowed off Maori like water off a duck’s back.” This, as he later ascribes, is not true. Maori were, as Belich says, “Devastated by war, disease, and the other traumas of contact,” but they largely prevailed. It is the change over time, bringing the increase of European presence to New Zealand which instigated the factors usually attributed to fatal impact. Maori retained their own agency to a degree, but were simply overwhelmed by the British; a general misunderstanding as to the nature of British law and politics brought about the degenerative effects of fatal impact – not Maori vulnerability as a race. =====

=
The ‘dual agency’ theory has copious amounts of merit. This is largely because it integrates the obvious effects of fatal impact present in the latter half of the 19th Century with the ‘Maori Agency’ found at the start of it. Maori were, to an extent, victims of the physical outcomes of fatal impact, but also managed to retain their own mana and ingenuity through most of the century. This is what dual agency does – it places the emphasis on Maori and Europeans making their own decisions and dealing with the “bilateral” outcomes. No longer were they victims of an unstoppable fatal impact, nor perpetrators of ingenious and intricate Maori agency, but real people, in control of the sometimes capricious outcomes of their decisions, for better or worse. =====

Marks

Skill 1 – 8/8 Skill 2 – 5/8 Skill 3 – 6/8 Skill 4 – 8/8 Skill 5 – 7/8 Skill 6 – 7/8

Total – 41/48 – Outstanding Performance

**TOPIC: NINETEENTH CENTURY NEW ZEALAND**

**Instructions:**

Your task is to prepare an article for a history journal arising from study of the following sources and from your own knowledge, in which you analyse and evaluate the relationship between politics, race relations and the economy in New Zealand from 1840 to 1890.

**Key Idea:**

In order to study nineteenth-century New Zealand history, it is essential to understand the history of politics and its relationship to race relations and the economy. The extent to which politics shaped race relations and the economy is debatable. It could equally be argued that race relations and the economy shaped politics. For example, the political issue of sovereignty had important implications for race relations, and it also had an impact on the developing economy. Access to land was crucial in a country where land was a key economic commodity, so opening up the country to new settlers was arguably an important development that had political implications. With a growing number of migrants, the ratio of Pakeha to Maori continued to increase throughout the century, creating mounting economic and political pressures at the national level and race relations issues at a local level. However, at a regional level, other economic issues developed, and the extent to which political decisions and race relations impacted on them depended upon both time and place.

**LEVEL 4 SCHOLARSHIP**

**NINETEENTH CENTURY NEW ZEALAND**

**__Topic No 2__**

The Chicken/egg debate of what shaped what in the fields of politics, race-relations and the economy in the period between 1840 and 1890 is one full of infinate links within itself. There are many ways in which this issue can be unravelled and has been argued for many years among contemporaries and historians alike. The bi-cultural nature of New Zealand from the very first European contact period had put race relations in the forefront of the shaping of the politics and economy of the young country during the early contact period. However the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi worked as a catalyst for political development and the discovery of key industries such as gold and pastoralism in the mid to late 19th Century saw the rapid development of New Zealand’s economy. The resulting environment became one in where politics and the economy shaped race relations, and not the other way around, and this was the nature of New Zealand society in the period between 1840-1890.

Prior to the 1840, there was no sense of real government in New Zealand. European sealers, whalers, traders and missionaries were not bound by any laws or governments and Maori lived in tribal environments by their own tribal heirachy. The economy was based largely around trade – guns, grog, food, flax, timber and sex were among some of the main items of trade. As such, race relations was a huge part of how society functioned as Pakeha and Maori established what historian Claudia Orange calls a “workable accord”, a system of interdependence between the two peoples as Maori desired Pakeha technology for convenience and Mana, and Pakeha needed Maori protection and support for survival. Maori took up a majority of the population and Pakeha depended on good race relations for survival. It was what dictated peace between the peoples and the economy as good race relations meant good trade.

The signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 saw a change in this pattern of influence, as the British attempted to impose their government onto New Zealand. The Treaty states in its English version that the Crown is given substantive sovereignty. On paper, however the truth of the situation did not warrant this status. British were largely outnumbered by Maori at this stage and did not have the man-power to assert its ‘authority’. As a result, the period immediately following the treaty became a battle for substantive sovereignty. British attempted to use laws and legislation to overrule Maori by asserting their right to pre-emption and the confiscation of land which the Treaty entitled them to do. These political measures worked against the building of good race relations as they led to the Northern Wars which saw much bloodshed for Maori and British troops alike. Contemporaries of the time laughed at the thought of having to fight with “blanket-swathed aboriginals” for their substantive authority, believing with a Eurocentric view that their victory would come easily. However what they were faced with was Maori ingenuity and intelligence with decoy Pa’s such as Ruapekapeka, advanced fortification, and evidence of what historian James Belich claims to be the first example of trench warfare. Rather than the obvious European superiority that contemporaries believed would be the outcome of the Northern Wars, race relations between the two developed towards what historian J. Cowan calls ‘mutual respect’ as “the two races came to gauge each other’s manly calibre and came, finally to respect each other for the capital virtues that only trial of war can bring to mutual views.” Although Maori managed to gain respect from the British at the conclusion of the Northern Wars, and the British did not win the complete substantive authority which they set out for, they did acquire land, confiscated from Maori as a result. Their bid to gain more land through political measures did not stop there, however, as the Native land courts of the 1860’s was another approach to, as Judith Binney suggests “deliberately out to destroy” Maori tribal society. As legislation passed from the 1860’s onwards ruled that Maori could not own land tribally as they had traditionally done, chiefs and other individuals were to go through a lengthy legal process to keep their homes, which often resulted in a ‘disrupted sense of community’, and eventual loss of land. This political measure amounted to discontent among the Maori population and the petition to Queen Victoria in 1882 by Tainhaneu and northern chiefs is evidence of further deterioration of race relations as a result.

Political measures by the British also triggerd counter measures by Maori in the form of their own political stands. The king movement and Parihaka were both examples of Maori attempts of assertion of sovereignty. Maori retaliation due to deterrioration Pakeha-Maori race relations and British moves to substantiate their authority also act as a cause to affect New Zealand politics in the form of the Maori Prisoners Act of 1880. The fight for sovereignty and political power between the two were the motives behind political developments such as land confiscation laws and the appointment of a Maori Monarch and had negative effects on Maori-Pakeha race relations.

The political developments which saw the confiscation of land also contributed to the economic development of the country. The Government and other organizations such as the New Zealand Company purchased land especially for the purpose of bringing in setting immigrants and townships started up as a result. However it was the environment, rather than politics and the government, which shaped the nature of the economy as the pioneering society of New Zealand was dependent on its natural resources to generate revenue. Previous government intervention in the direction of the economy proved to have failed as the agricultural vision which the government and other immigration agencies had for NZ crashed and burned due to unsuitable soil conditions. Instead, the rich tussock created an ideal environment for extensive pastoralisation and this generated much revenue for the country and also attracted settling immigrants as wool became the “golden fleece of the south”. The biggest population boom, however, happened during the 1860’s following Gabriel Reid’s discovery of gold in Otago. The gold rushes attracted a cosmopolitan work force and boosted the wealth of the country significantly, however its regional variation characteristic was also mirrored in the nature of politics as a result.

Alluvial gold-mining in the south was the easiest and yielded the most rewards, and as such it saw a major boom in the prosperity of Southern townships during the rushes of the 1860’s and early 70’s. As stated in “the Illustrated London News” in February 1862, “the Government of Otago announced that 70,000 oz of gold had been extracted from the gold fields” by September 24th and named Otago the chief object of attraction in New Zealand. With figures such as these it is not hard to visualise the state of advantage that southern provinces such as Otago had over Northern provinces such as Auckland, which had no gold. With gold yielding over 80% of the country’s revenue and the other giant industry of pastoralism also in the south, the regional variation of wealth in the population, and consequently in the government was a major issue of the time. Dunedin was able to build handsome public buildings, schools, and even a University with their riches from gold while the North Island struggled in poverty in the after effects of the war. This new development in economy shaped the change to a central government rather than provincial so that wealth could be evenly distributed. The land monopolisations nature of pastoralism also had an effect on politics as it resulted in a creation of what was described by contemporaries as a “Southern Gentry” and there came rise to an oligarchy of men who were always voted into positions of government. The nature of the economy dictated who had power politically.

The arrival of new immigrants due to the economical boom also worked to affect race relations as more Pakeha came and other races were also introduced. With the coming of new immigrants meant the decline in Maori ratio in the population as a whole, resulting in positive effects for British substantive authority just by advantage of numbers. Maori also actively sought out involvement with new economical opportunities by working in the key industries of pastoralism, gold and timber, rebuilding positive race relations especially in the south as they opened their lands up to Pakeha workers. However as Pakeha-Maori relations improved, the arrival of new immigrants saw the beginnings of new conflict especially towards Chinese gold miners. Legislation was passed in the 1870’s and 1880’s to limit Chinese immigrants, imposing a Chinese [|1500 tax credit]and language test. The economical development which saw the introduction of these immigrants resulted in political action to discriminated and destroy good race relations.

The changes and developments politically and economically between the 1840’s-1890’s worked to shape Maori-Pakeha race relations as it saw the gradual decrease of Maori authority and power in the economy as Pakeha authority and power in economy increased. Earlier historians such as Wright and contemporaries of the time saw this in the Eurocentric view of fatal impact “where the superior British assimilated Maori culture and population through impressive technology and new disease. However, revisionist James Belich argues the view of “swamping” during this period, resulting in crippling impact due to the influx of British immigrants and the exaggeration of Maori population decline. “Swamping was simply the massive outnumbering of a shrinking or static Maori population by a growing Pakeha one.” There is evidence to show this phenomena as there was no Maori census between 1857 and 1874, and the gold rushes and Vogel’s immigration schemes of the 1860-1890’s saw a significant increase in Pakeha population. Belich states that “the growth of Pakeha population was more important for swamping than Maori population decline”, and as there were no truly accurate counts for Maori population, this was most likely the case. Furthermore, Maori resistance to Pakeha attempts for substantive sovereignty is testament to Maori strength and determination to uphold their own ways and the King-movement shows Maori pride which could not have been possessed by a race undergoing fatal impact.

The political catalyst that was the Treaty of Waitangi saw a turning point in the direction of the economy and race relations in New Zealand from 1840-1890. Throughout this period, there have been examples of politics shaping economy and vice versa through the forms of regional variation due to the nature of the economical resources, and political moves to encourage immigration. Both elements of New Zealand society have worked to affect race relations as Pakeha dominance over Maori politically and economically grew eminent. However this was not without retaliation from the Maori side and these act in favour of the revisionist views of swamping and crippling impact rather than the Eurocentric contemporary and earlier historian views of fatal impact.

(8) || (8) || (8) || (8) || (8) || (8) || (48) ||
 * **For Assessor’s Use Only** ||
 * || Marks ||
 * SKILL 1 || 6
 * SKILL 2 || 2
 * SKILL 3 || 3
 * SKILL 4 || 6
 * SKILL 5 || 6
 * SKILL 6 || 6
 * TOTAL || 29