Talk:Pai Mārire

Untitled

I see the Pai Marire page is flagged. Can someone tell me why? Kiwimac

I cannot see anything wrong with it but if you like, I will fiddle around with it a bit and see if that satisfies whoever flagged it. ping 07:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it needs a few headings to break up the text and some references. I think Te Ua should go on his own page as well and then reduce the bio a little here. Herne nz 10:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected numerous infelicities of grammar and the like, and added some references. Someone else can do headings. MisterCDE 06:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your submission is heavily flawed - that is why it was probably flagged. Hauhau was the political arm of Pai Marire and the Pai Marire belief is still practised today. - it would pay for you to actually go indepth on a subject before releasing a supposition. Read something by NJ Taniwha - the bulk of your admission looks like it was plagiarised from her orginal submission but youve edited key information. You have to hunt the universities for her work - she didnt write a hell of alot but what she did was noted for its accuracy. Shes still alive as well - brilliant but sadly tortured by her own demons - last I heard she was a a pisshead.

thanks

Kisforknowledge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.74.210 (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct name

In mid 19th century NZ the common name used for this movement was Hau hauism. The community associated this name with new Maori rebellion that attempted to over throw the legitimate government of NZ using extreme violence. The attempt to show the movement as some kind of proto hippies is not only seriously misguided but plainly wrong.It was a strongly xenophopic cult which used widespread terror to try to force Europeans from NZ. Ripping out body parts from living people and eating them is not normal activity in a religion promoting peace! Fortunately there were enough resolute Christian Maori, loyal to the NZ government, to stop the violent cult. Hau Hau was the name that came to be known as a catch all for rebel Maori who rose against the government attempting to restart the 1860s land wars but incorporating an evil philosophic component to justify their heinous crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

For starters, please show some courtesy and sign your comments with four tildes.(~~~~) You have been asked this many times.

You are correct that 19th century newspapers and books referred to the cult as Hauhau. However those same sources referred to Maori as "New Zealanders" (as opposed to the British colonists), niggers, natives, savages and rebels. The fact that those terms were used then is no justification for using them now. The proper name of the movement was clearly Pai Marire (the Good and the Peaceful) and that is how this encyclopedia article should call it.

I have trawled through the major reference works I have here to try to find any consensus among writers. If anything there is a trend over time to drop "Hauhau" and use "Pai Marire" (see King, Orange, Belich and NZ History Online).

• Michael King (Moriori, A People Discovered, 1989 rev 2000, pg 104) refers to "Hauhau", and says that "by 1868, 'Hauhau' had become a generic term used by settlers in New Zealand to describe any Maori who was opposed to European colonisation or was simply a troublemaker. Those were were in fact Hauhau were followers of the Taranaki prophet Te Ua Huamene ...":
• Michael King (The Penguin History of New Zealand, 2003, pg 217) writes that as the Waikato fighting died down, "a messianic movement, another syncretic religion, was gaining popularity in Taranaki. Pai Marire (known to Europeans as Hauhau) promised its followers from European domination."
• Michael King refers to Pai Marire in Te Puea (1977).
• Ranginui Walker (Struggle Without End, 1990, pg 130) writes: "The first overtly anti-Pakeha religious cult, founded by the prophet Te Ua Haumene, arose in Taranaki .... his cult, known as Pai Marire (Good and Pecaeful) .... They were also promised immunity to Pakeha bullets if they went into battle crying 'Hapa Pai Marire Hau! Hau!' It was from this battle cry that the Hauhau cult derived its common name." (Walker then goes on to refer to attacks as being committed by Hauhau).
• Keith Sinclair's A History of New Zealand (published 1959, 2000 ed) refers to Pai Marire, but generally refers to the extremist attacks as being committed by Hau hau (two words, in italics, p 145-148).
• WH Oliver's The Story of New Zealand (1960, pg 89) says "the name they chose for themselves" was Pai Marire, but "adhererents ... were called 'Hauhaus' from the exclamation that formed a kind of Amen to their chants." On pg 256 he refers to "the fanatics of Pai Marire".
• Claudia Orange (The Treaty of Waitangi, pg 165, 172) refers only to Pai Marire.
• James Belich (The New Zealand Wars, pg 204) refers to the actions of Pai Marire over several pages, but mentions once that it was "also known as Hauhauism".

• The New Zealand History Online website refers only to Pai Marire.

The proper name of religion was unquestionably Pai Marire, and the sources above make this clear. Those authors also generally note that it was the Europeans (ie, those who understandably feared and despised them) who called the group Hauhau, but that's no reason for this article to alter its terminology. The article notes that Pai Marire became better known for the extremist end of the movement. I concede that the opening paragraph should contain the term Hauhau, and I'll write this in. Subsequent mentions, however, should be limited to the proper name of the movement. I have also removed reference to "rebel" Maori, as I do in all articles pertaining to the New Zealand wars. They were "rebel" only in the eyes of the European colonists. To the Maori, they were staunch defenders of their land, who were trying to resist its steady loss to the colonists. The term "rebel" is clearly not a neutral term suitable for an encyclopedia in dealing with a land struggle between indigenous inhabitants and colonists.

I have no idea what you mean when you say the article attempts to "show the movement as some kind of proto hippies". BlackCab (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You have also added a statement that "The founder Te Ua called the followers of the religious cult Hau Hau."[1] The statement utterly contradicts every other reliable source about the name of the movement. You have cited "Maori Claims and Reinvented Histories.2005 Auckland University Press.p252-255" for that statement. It is certainly an unorthodox view and if included would need to plainly state that this is a claim by the author, Michael Belgrave. Would you be able to reproduce on this talk page a quote from that book that states that please? BlackCab (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"Hau hau, as Te Ua called his adherents, were involved in the killing and decapitation of Captain Lloyd and his patrol at Oakura on 6 April 1864 and a futile assault on Sentry Hill at Waitara on April 30....Hau Hau were involved in the killing of the missionary at Opotiki,Carl Sylvius Volkner." Belgrave is a historian and associate professor at Massey University. He was previously Research Manager for the Waitangi Treaty Tribunal. Te Ua was no doubt a typical Maori matakite mystic like many who appear regularly in Maoridom . His creed was a philosophic base to undo the Treaty of Waitangi using violence ie to empty NZ of Europeans. Talk of arc angels, the new caanan, magic chants , dog barking to stop bullets and the whole 9 yards merely shows the depths of his depraved, xenophic and irrational thinking. It was a reversion to the old Tikanga(which was never really dead) where a tohunga prepared the warriors for battle by giving them a take to undertake the most barbaric acts they could dream up, with an overlay of simplistic miscomprehension of the Christian message of peace. In most ways it is the same tikanga that Ngati Mutunga usedon Moriori but they didnt even pretend that it had a religous basis. Their reasoning was that it was ok because violence,cannibalism and slavery were normal practice in Maori culture. The early contact period between Maori and Europeans is riddled with this sort of "thinking". For example about 1812ish a northern Maori hapu justified the well organized ambush, slaughter and eating of a ship's crew because a year before the captain had dropped his watch in the sea. This "atua"had then caused sickness with some deaths. I could probably relate another 10 times this sort of barbaric act happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the quote. Belgrave's statement, however, contradicts the weight of academic and historic opinion about the real name of the movement. His rather offhand statement alone is not enough to reject what the authors I listed above quite clearly stated about the name of the movement. And incidentally, you have provided the wrong name for Belgrave's book: it is called Historical Frictions. I am going to revert your edit, however. Your version has the following problems:

• It removes from the lead section the important point that Pai Marire was commonly known as Hauhau.
• It deletes page numbers for the cited sources.
• It refers to the movement variously as "Hau Hau", "Hau hau" and "hau hau".
• It contains irrelevant detail about the jailing of Te Kooti on the Chatham Islands (which includes material that flagrantly fails to follow Wikipedia style, mis-spells "hijack", and fails to adequately cite the source of the material).
• It changes a statement that Te Ua "suspected that missionaries were aiding and abetting the loss of Māori land" to a puzzling and incoherent statement that Te Ua "suspected that missionaries were aiding and abetting the government by providing them with letter about Hau Hau activites."
• It changes a subheading about the Ahuahu attack to "Hau hau Ahuahu attack". In an article that deals with precisely that religious movement, the addition of your mangled "Hauhau" is redundant.
• It uses the POV term "rebels" and incorrectly states that "Hauhau" rites continued to develop. The rites, of course, were those of Pai Marire, the proper name for the movement.

If you wish to discuss or address any of these issues, please do so. But there is insufficient support from reliable published sources for your changes. BlackCab (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: "To the Maori, they were staunch defenders of their land, who were trying to resist its steady loss to the colonists." That should be "some Maori". The reality is that Pai Marire divided opinion somewhat... see the James Belich page you noted earlier in that he talks about the different reactions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.89.99 (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

My reference to staunch defenders of their land refers not to Pai Marire, but to the Maori who fought the British army. I raised that issue only in explaining my objection to the term "rebel Maori", which the IP user kept inserting. My point was that to the government, Maori warriors were rebels; to the Maori people themselves they were simply trying to stop or slow the loss of their land. The term has no place in an encyclopedia in discussing this issue. BlackCab (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You have to remember that "rebel Maori" were in a small minority and that most Maori were neutral or actively supported the government. So to most Maori too they were rebels.In 1863 Nga Puhi offered their services to the government to fight the rebels in the Waikato. They were (and are) by far the largest single grouping of Maori in NZ. That was during the 1860s land wars period. After the "rebel Maori" were crushed by 1864(a large number were killed ,jailed or surrendered) most Maori by far continued to cooperate with the government. The Hau hau were or became the remnant militant extremist fringe. The Hau hau escapees from Chatham islands became the core of Te Kooti's Ringatu guerilla band. The Ringatu was simply Te Kooti's interpretation on the Hau hau. Many of their practices, beliefs and violent anti European actions were very similar. The exclamation Hau! hau! sounded like a dog bark to those who heard it. Given that the Hau hau/Pai marire founder was widely believed to be insane it is perhaps hardly surprising that the Maori that were attracted to this extremist view had strong psychopathic tendencies. Even the Maori king thought Te Kooti was a dangerous, violent nutter and wanted nothing to do with him.

It is interesting that in contemporary Maori life Nz's most violent and extreme criminal gang,the mongrol mob, have adopted the barking dog noise as their signature noise. Evidence was given in court yesterday that several mongrol mob members were barking like dogs as they raped a girl in public before stabbing her 27 times. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Te Ua Haumene Ref: Te Ara(on line)

In this widely recognized encyclopedia the opening sentence of this section says that the man (who started the church) called the church Hauhau.This seems to be disputed by an editor for some reason. I cant see any reason for a dispute as the information is quite clear and precise-it was his church he can call it what he likes! Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually (as I say again) none of the references (and as I said on your talk page if you referenced things properly we would know exactly where you were quoting from) I can find say he named his religion Hauhau - the opening sentence that you mention says he founded the Hauhau church not that he named it that. Much in the same way the Joseph Smith founded the Morman Church (interistingly at a similar time and ultimately in a similar frontier environment) but he certainly didn't name it that. From what I can gather Hauhau was a name applied from the outside to his movement rather than what he called it. Please think about what you write and what the references actually say and what it adds to the encyclopedia and whether it is appropriate to the specific article before you add information. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Strange disconnections

The introduction where it states the name of the cult is "good and peaceful"is at odds with all the known activities of the members.Te Ua seems to have started the cult in 1862 but within a few months large numbers were attacking British troops with reckless abandon in 1863. Then they moved across the other side of the North Island and persuaded Bay of plenty Maori that it would be a good idea to murder the Rev Volkner and other influencial Europeans. The method of murdering Volkner-pulling him up on a rope over a tree so he slowly strangled suggest a strong degree depraved behavior. He was then shot and thrust head first down a toilet after his eyes had been eaten. Even in the 1860s that is very strange behaviour. Where is the "good and peaceful part???" Can anyone find even a single example?

One author says the bay people were in a frenzy to the point where they were deranged.The state of frenzy was mentioned again and again by those close by. Some might call it mania. However the facts reveal that there was a considerable degree of cool manipulation and exploitation of the locals. Hau Hau in the bay did not target Jews or Catholics but only Anglicans who they apparently associated with the govt and the army. The Anglicans bought land for their families- the Catholics had no families and received more financial support from France ( and much later Ireland).The Anglican missionaries were supposed to be self supporting to a large extent.They frequently had very large families. The experience of the early Anglican missionaries was to be self sufficient in food or else they were very vulnerable to be exploited by local warlords.

The visiting Hau Hau quickly learnt from disgruntled locals, and exploited, the fierce competition , between the Volkner's Anglicans and the Catholics. Pai Marire /Hau Hau had the same fundamental beliefs as the king movement -that by denying settler's land they could slow down or stop their arrival from Britain. The only difference is that the new cult introduced terrorism to create fear-such as the parading of heads cut off the victims. They emphasized that the British would all "leave" after some "event".The event was obviously the Hau Hau uprising.

There is strong suggestion that Catholics may have stoked the fires against the Anglicans by making sure that local Maori knew that Bishop Selwyn was blessing British troops in Auckland. Father Garavel, acting as a postman, even carried a letter from the king movement to Whakatohea, the main tribe involved in the actrocity, asking them to join the rebellion. Of course Garaval swears he didn't know what was in the letter- nor did he even have a quick peek!115.188.178.77 (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

From WP:TALK: "The purpose of an article's talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Claudia, unless you are offering a suggestion on an improvement to the article based on reliable sources, your comments here are unnecessary and will be removed. BlackCab (TALK) 09:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The comment is seeking information, or examples, that supports the "Good and Peaceful" phrase in the introduction that suggests that the large number of violent acts are an anomaly. As it reads now it is all about extreme savagery and violence, touching on xenophobia. Information about Catholic/Anglican rivalry would also be valuable. Also information about the Hau Hau and its similarity to the Maori Kingi movement and Ringatu cult would improve the article. The introduction should be supported by the article. At the moment it is strangely disconnected. Recent books about the period suggest that the "frenzy" aspect has been overlooked too.115.188.178.77 (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

If your question is about how they transformed so quickly from "Good and peaceful" to "Let's cut their heads off," the answer may well be in Paul Clark's 1975 "Hauhau" book, which Belich cites. Belich highlights a passage where Clark says the violence may have been led by "subordinate prophets" who acted contrary to the religion's precepts. I don't have the book, though it's downloadable (at a cost). BlackCab (TALK) 05:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I have skimmed parts of the book, which I was able to download. Clark spends much of the book emphasising the peaceful nature of Te Ua's teachings and the causes of the violence that did take place. Perhaps if I get the time in future I'll feed some of that stuff into the article. I'm sure the book is available to you in your library; you may wish to absorb that information before expounding further on the subject. BlackCab (TALK) 12:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

That would be good as the time when the cult was "peaceful" was very short -maybe 6-12 month? or so. Then Te Ua took part himself in several "magic" attacks on Taranaki pa which resulted in the death of many followers. Then he died. Ive never seen any reason for his death perhaps he had brain cancer or similar. I noticed a new source who said that it wasn't just the British who said he was bonkers -it was his own family as well-all of them. By prophets I guess you are referring to Kereopa the head chopper and eye eater and his lot? There is little doubt that the post Te Ua Hau Hau period was very ugly and morphed into a general anti government uprising in some East coast areas.115.188.178.77 (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Rites?

I've just reverted an edit from u/Albinoni67 which had moved the text about "decapitations, the removal of the hearts of enemy soldiers, and cannibalism" up into the second sentence. It seems clear to me that it belongs where it had been - i.e. in the paragraph starting: "Although founded with peaceful motives..."

However, it seems to me that we also some other problems:

1. There is no reference given for these being "rites" (perhaps http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-Cow02NewZ-c1.html would do?),
2. Whether the old position or Albinoni67's new one, anything in the intro should be a summary of the body - yet although we actaully have a section on "Rites and beliefs", these actions don't get a mention there.
3. The "ancient rites" listed are in fact anything but that. The incantations are, according to Cowan,, "meaningless strings of English words", the niu sacred pole seems totally new as does the "supernatural protection from bullets" - and it's not clear to me that the decapitations or cannibalism count as a 'rite'. (However, offering the heart of the first enemy killed, mata-ika, to Tu certainly counts).

My feeling is that the intro needs to be very much simplified, and much of the detail moved down into the body. Snori (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Which I've now done. Please feel free to tidy up. Snori (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

An Edit

I am editing this page. The description of rites and beliefs relies on dated and partisan commentators. It is a pity that there is no discussion of this religious movement post 1865. The section of "other practices" has no references and repeats a common anti-non-European narrative Brunswicknic (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pai Mārire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131115113848/http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2006CensusHomePage/classification-counts-tables/about-people/~/media/Statistics/Census/2006-reports/Classification-Count-Tables/People/religious-affiliation.xls to http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2006CensusHomePage/classification-counts-tables/about-people/~/media/Statistics/Census/2006-reports/Classification-Count-Tables/People/religious-affiliation.xls

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)