Essay writing guidelines
Download 175.34 Kb.
|
1 2
- Navigate this page:
- LAWDFISH! Model essay with comments for a Treaty essay
- Treaty questions as a check of understanding Treaty Of Waitangi Questions
- Factors’ behind the ‘Decision’ to sign the Treaty
- Consequences’ of the ‘Decision’ to sign the Treaty
- 7. Assessment schedule for Northern War essay
- The candidate’s response to the second part of the essay question could include
‘Superior Culture’- There was a sense of inevitably that Britain’s destiny (and, indeed, duty) was to spread its ways throughout the ‘unenlightened’ world. Assuming full sovereignty was thus almost the inevitable consequence of the spread of British nationals. Humanitarianism
LAWDFISH!
What were the causes for some Maori and the British to enter into formal relations through the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840? What were the consequences of this by 1850?
Excellent introduction:
The decision in 1840 to sign the Treaty and therefore formalise the Maori-Pakeha relationship was made in a period of increasing unrest in a number of areas. Politically, pressure was mounting for the British Colonial Office to establish some control on a permanent basis as a security measure. The humanitarian movement was also concerned about intertribal and interracial relations, and economic issues were raised with tension over the British exploitation of resources. This historical context set the scene for the inevitable intervention of the Crown. Good overall discussion, however a more detailed overview of the early contact period could be included Topic sentence signals discussion of factors leading to decision. The growing lawlessness in New Zealand was a concern for both the Maori and the British, and was a significant factor leading to the signing of the Treaty. The British received reports from missionaries, and the British resident in New Zealand James Busby, the flow of these peaking around 1837-1838. They highlighted the increase in crime with a slightly apocalyptic view, urging the government to take action. James Belich comments on the missionaries; ‘…without conscious deceit, they often stretched even contemporary imperialist credulity, claiming, for example, that intertribal warfare and interracial violence were endemic…’ Good vocab The Maori were also worried, and saw the Treaty as a means of retaining the Governor, and therefore law and order, so that some aspects of settlement destructive to their culture could be minimised. The substantive sovereignty that the Crown aimed to obtain was impeded by the 1835 Declaration of Independence, directed by Busby, acknowledging the sovereignty of ‘the hereditary chiefs and heads of tribes’ and declaring New Zealand independent. Further legal proposition was required from the British in order to, in effect, reverse the intent of the Declaration, and the Treaty of Waitangi was a means of accomplishing this. Good use of quote and historians point of view. Substantive sovereignty signals that you know Belich’s argument The perceived threat of French colonisation and the settlement plans of Wakefield and his ‘New Zealand Company’ together served to urge the British Government to take action. The repeated assertion of French designs on New Zealand, however greatly exaggerated, added pressure on the government. In reality the ‘interesting but ineffective Baron Charles de Thierry’, as referred to by Belich, did not even have practical colonisation plans until after the Treaty. Paragraph structure is excellent…
Explanation
A less humanitarian and more selfish view of the British decision was the desire to prevent the ambitious and idealistic Edward Gibbon Wakefield and the New Zealand Company from buying most of New Zealand cheaply from the Maori to sell to settlers and get a profit. The government was not prepared to grant state backing, and therefore a monopoly over New Zealand, to Wakefield, instead thwarting the Tory’s land-buying expedition with a pre-emption clause in the Treaty of Waitangi. The prospect of the ‘mana’ gained by Maori by deciding to enter into formal relations with the Crown was also a major factor contributing to their decision to sign. The assured relationship with a powerful white country, it’s Queen and its God appealed to the tribes and their chiefs, and the rivalry between the hapu for Pakeha who they came to see as ‘theirs’, made some of the Maori keen to sign the Treaty. Peter Adams argues that the third article of the Treaty in which the Queen extends her protection to Maori as British Subjects, was part of a British goal of eventual assimilation of a subversive Maori. The difference in the understanding of the Treaty contributed to Maori signing a document which, having truly understood Pakeha intention, they may not have done otherwise. The difficulty in translating English to Maori, the multiple and varying Treaty copies, the technical legal terms and the rushed nature of the creation, discussion, and signing of the Treaty accumulated; resulting in the signing of what was effectively two treaties – the first what the Pakeha understood the Treaty to mean, and the second what the Maori understood it to mean. The differences in these have created conflict from 1840 to the present. Not clear what area of content is being discussed from this topic sentence. It should indicate whether causes or consequences are being discussed. But in a sense this is a paragraph about the event in question – The Treaty.. A solution would be: “ The signings starting at Waitangi, provided sufficiently different ‘understanding’s as to lead to far greater consequences over the next ten years.” Consequences were the Governors’ attempts to assert authority, and the ten years after the Treaty were characterised by the conflict of opinion summed up by Ranginui Walker, ‘…subsequent to the signing of the Treaty, the Pakeha behaved towards the Maori on the assumption they held sovereignty, while Maori responded in the belief that they never surrendered it.’ A political consequence of the Treaty arose in 1846, with Governor Grey asserting his understanding of the Crown’s power when the introduction of a constitution was proposed. Grey declined this because he believed that the Maori were unprepared for Parliament, and thought that they, being numerically more powerful, were likely to resist; ‘The people belonging to it (New Zealand) are well-armed, proud, and independent’, he argued. Reference to Ranginui Walker is good historiography and integrated into essay A major economic consequence of the decision to enter into formal relations through the Treaty was Governor Hobson’s assertion of sovereignty in the 1840’s. A land claims commissioner investigated all pre-1840 land sales, allowing no more than 2,560 acres to be retained. The excess was labelled surplus land and became Crown property. In November 1841 Hobson issued a proclamation forbidding Kauri felling, and imposed customs duty taxes on shipping, replacing port fees which had gone to the chiefs. Maori were outraged as what they felt was an encroachment on their rangatiratanga and their confidence and trust in the Governor and Treaty was severely shaken. Governor Fitzroy was newly installed at the time of the Wairau Affray in 1843. Settlers from Nelson claimed to have purchased the land, while Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata of Ngati Toa disputed this. Provocation from the immigrants resulted in Arthur Wakefield’s attempted arrest of Maori, and fighting broke out with twenty eight casualties, eight of them Maori. Fitzroy reviewed the case and the settlers were outraged when they were found responsible, with Fitzroy refusing to punish Te Rauparaha or give into pressure from the immigrants. In this way he effectively asserted his authority in his new position. A consequence of the Maori decision to sign the Treaty was the conflict resulting from the resistance of the British Crown on the discovery of how they were breaching the Maori interpretation of the Treaty. Initially they resisted with engagement rather than disengagement , for example the Wairau Affray of 1843, and instances such as Hone Heke’s letter to Governor Grey on May 21st, 1845, in which he was very scathing of the British.; ‘Where is the correctness of the good will of England? Is it in her great guns?’ Hone Heke’s objection to British behaviour after 1840, namely the infringements made on chiefly mana and the moving of the capital from Russell to Auckland which diminished the north’s economic dominance, moved Heke to attack the symbol of British authority by felling the flagstaff flying the Union Jack at Russell. Fitzroy then requested one hundred and fifty officers from New South Wales, who after an attack on Russell by Heke and Kawiti, failed to take Puketutu and Ohaeawai, but succeeded in a fierce battle at Ruapekapeka. Maori involved in the fighting of the ‘Northern Wars’ as they were called, were granted free pardon, with their word to keep the peace. Despite the loss Heke’s point had been clearly made. Maori would not submit peacefully. Heke’s position can be debated British and Maori formalised their relationship by making the decision to sign the Treaty in 1840. The factors causing this decision to be made were the pressure on the British colonial office to annex New Zealand and be a permanent presence in New Zealand, and the differences in understanding of the terms of the Treaty. Contributing to this, historian Keith Sinclair suggests, is an intentional mistranslation of article 1 on the missionaries’ behalf. Combined, these factors led to the decision of both parties to sign. Immediate consequences were noted, mainly increased land sales and immigration, but significant conflict in the Northern Wars proved the extent of Maori frustration, and foreshadowed the following decades as years to be characterised by violence and bloodshed. New historiography shouldn’t be introduced in the conclusion. This could have been discussed earlier. Good discussion of consequences and link to the following time period.
Treaty Of Waitangi Questions
‘Factors’ behind the ‘Decision’ to sign the Treaty
‘Consequences’ of the ‘Decision’ to sign the Treaty
Answers to these questions available rom Mr Pipe 7. Assessment schedule for Northern War essay Explain the factors that led to Hone Heke’s decision to cut down the flagpole flying the Union Jack above Kororareka (Russell) in 1845. Evaluate the consequences of this decision on race relations in the north until 1850. The candidate’s response to the first part of the essay question could include: Factors that led to Heke’s loss of rangatiratanga: • The application of British sovereignty after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. • The removal of shipping customs duties from the chiefs to the Crown. • The Crown’s application of the pre-emption clause restricting the Māori right to sell land to whomsoever they wanted. • The felling of kauri was forbidden in November 1841, again reducing Māori income. • The movement of the Capital from Kororareka to Auckland in 1841. • The trial and hanging of Maketu for the murder of a settler family in Waimate. • Hone Heke’s belief that both the British flag and the New Zealand flag of independence be flown to represent dual sovereignty. • The first three fellings of the flagstaff had failed to gain any response from the Colonial Government.
• FitzRoy had waived Crown pre-emption for a time in response to Heke’s complaints. • The fourth felling of the flagstaff included the sacking and burning of Kororareka. This led to the residents of Kororareka being evacuated to Auckland. • Fighting broke out between Hone Heke and Kawiti against British troops supported by Tamati Waka Nene (the Northern War). • The Northern War revealed the struggle between Hone Heke and Tamati Waka Nene to be recognised as Hongi Hika’s successor as paramount chief of Ngā Puhi. • A reward was offered for the arrest of Hone Heke. • Governor FitzRoy was sacked and Governor Grey installed to bring the war to a close. • The fighting ended with the British claiming a victory after the battle of Ruapekapeka. (Belich disputes the nature of the British victory, referring to the Northern War as the “war the British lost”.) • Hone Heke was never arrested nor punished for his rebellion, but the British clearly believed that his threat was over when they began garrisoning south of Auckland rather than turning towards the North Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 175.34 Kb. Share with your friends:
|
1 2