Give these poor people what they’re owed
Martin Doyle
I congratulate Te Papa for recovering eight “toi moko” [“tattooed Maori heads”] from European museums.
I also congratulate the city of Rouen which chose to make a principled stand and get French law changed so the items could be returned to New Zealand. What interested me about the French approach was that it involved quite a bit of public discussion and debate, not to mention moral outrage over “acts of barbarism” committed on innocent people who had been captured, tattooed, and beheaded to service a “sordid trade”. In short, they brought not just the heads out of the back room, but the crime itself.
In contrast, we in Wellington are still keeping the real truth under wraps, or disguised by the spin doctors. At least twice last week I heard radio reports talking about Joseph Banks in 1770 buying a “toi moko” in exchange for some “old linen drawers”. Initially, I thought they meant drawers out of some piece of cabin furniture. I now think they meant ‘old underpants’. But if so, why didn’t they just say so? Also, the feel I got from our reports was that all the “toi moko” were from the 18th century. Wrong again.
But just as a Wellingtonian [and Wellington region supplied huge numbers of “toi moko”], I wish to ask some questions. And why not: ‘dignified’ silence can certainly show respect, but it is also a way of dodging our moral obligations. And I believe that a further wrong is now being done to the victms simply by treating this as a ‘cultural’, tribal, matter. Here’s why this approach is wrong....
Firstly, the victims were people. There are over 800 tattooed heads (“toi moko”) that were sold out of New Zealand. By and large, they were tattooed, then beheaded, specifically for this inhuman trafficking. Some have said this is treating people like “chattels”. I’d call it an Atrocity.
Secondly, although the trade started in 1770, it persisted right up to the 1860s. In fact, Rouen was able to get its head in 1875. What this means is that some of these beheadings were occurring after the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. Consequently, the victims were first and foremost New Zealanders. And clearly entitled to the full protection of the law.
Thirdly, if such a large number of New Zealanders have been murdered for profit and their remains are now being returned, then the New Zealand government’s primary obligation is to investigate the circumstances of their deaths. I presume it’s too late to consider Police action, but given the sheer numbers of “toi moko”, I believe a Royal Commission of Inquiry should be established. Many countries in Europe and Africa have conducted, and are conducting, similar inquiries about systematic executions on such a large scale. Agreed, the killers will never be punished. But does that matter?
As Voltaire noted: “To the living we owe respect, but to the dead we owe only the truth.”
I also congratulate the city of Rouen which chose to make a principled stand and get French law changed so the items could be returned to New Zealand. What interested me about the French approach was that it involved quite a bit of public discussion and debate, not to mention moral outrage over “acts of barbarism” committed on innocent people who had been captured, tattooed, and beheaded to service a “sordid trade”. In short, they brought not just the heads out of the back room, but the crime itself.
In contrast, we in Wellington are still keeping the real truth under wraps, or disguised by the spin doctors. At least twice last week I heard radio reports talking about Joseph Banks in 1770 buying a “toi moko” in exchange for some “old linen drawers”. Initially, I thought they meant drawers out of some piece of cabin furniture. I now think they meant ‘old underpants’. But if so, why didn’t they just say so? Also, the feel I got from our reports was that all the “toi moko” were from the 18th century. Wrong again.
But just as a Wellingtonian [and Wellington region supplied huge numbers of “toi moko”], I wish to ask some questions. And why not: ‘dignified’ silence can certainly show respect, but it is also a way of dodging our moral obligations. And I believe that a further wrong is now being done to the victms simply by treating this as a ‘cultural’, tribal, matter. Here’s why this approach is wrong....
Firstly, the victims were people. There are over 800 tattooed heads (“toi moko”) that were sold out of New Zealand. By and large, they were tattooed, then beheaded, specifically for this inhuman trafficking. Some have said this is treating people like “chattels”. I’d call it an Atrocity.
Secondly, although the trade started in 1770, it persisted right up to the 1860s. In fact, Rouen was able to get its head in 1875. What this means is that some of these beheadings were occurring after the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. Consequently, the victims were first and foremost New Zealanders. And clearly entitled to the full protection of the law.
Thirdly, if such a large number of New Zealanders have been murdered for profit and their remains are now being returned, then the New Zealand government’s primary obligation is to investigate the circumstances of their deaths. I presume it’s too late to consider Police action, but given the sheer numbers of “toi moko”, I believe a Royal Commission of Inquiry should be established. Many countries in Europe and Africa have conducted, and are conducting, similar inquiries about systematic executions on such a large scale. Agreed, the killers will never be punished. But does that matter?
As Voltaire noted: “To the living we owe respect, but to the dead we owe only the truth.”
Have Your Say
0 Comments
No comments.