Talk:James Belich (historian)/Archive 1

Untitled

Belich is described as a "revisionist" historian. What is the basis for this title? I feel he is a "historian" of dubious reliability, rather than revisionist. His versions of history are frequently downright laughable, such as his assertion that late 19th century Maori invented seige warfare! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Belich was obviously wrong on many points about warfare.Reading his work it is easy to see the liberal use of positive adjectives to highlight Maori achievements and negatives to down play British ones."Revisionist" refers to the fact that many early accounts were written from British "victor" veiwpoints which it is fair to say werent always well informed.Quite a large number were actually novels which used the wars as a setting for a ripping yarn.A lot of myth has crept into NZ history .Unfortuneatly Belich went too far in countering these myths and has created a new set of myths.The whole issue was made worse by the TV series which even further romanticized Kingitanga Maori. Claudia Feb 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.153.162 (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Military errors

For some reason Belich is prone to apparent blunders when writing about military affairs. In his book the NZ Wars he says that the main reason Kingitanga Maori lost the Battle of Rangiriri was that they had insufficient warriors to man the defensive line. Belich makes the claim that the defensive line was about 1000m long from the river to the lake. Actual measurement of the 1863 "shore"line shows the distance was about 520m. Did he actually go there ? How could he get the measurement so wrong? It seems he measured the distance to the wrong lake! The Rangiriri defensive line extended from the Waikato river to Lake Kopuera,not Lake Waikare. The water level in 1863 was possibly higher than now but that would not have made such a huge difference. Based on this wrong measurement he then says that that 500(actually about 520) defenders was clearly inadequate. One defender to every metre of line sounds like a very thick line of defence. The real question is -how could they have actually squeezed in any more? Clearly Belich is geographically challenged. If he had measured the distance to Lake Waikare he would have seen that it wasn't 500m or 1000m but 3km. His research is of poor quality as there are at least 10 contemporary maps, sketches and even photos that show the relationship between the defensive works ,river and lake .

Only the very small central part on the hillock had well developed earthworks. It is easy to see why the British guns had limited effect(apart from maybe psychological) as shelters were dug unto the reverse slopes of the central rampart. The effect of the guns on the more open trenches was probably greater as Maori abandoned those early on in the battle after hand to hand fighting. Belich did not answer the question as to why about half of the surviving defenders left in the middle of the battle-retreating down the eastern trench and fleeing in waka hidden in the scrub by the lake. If the answer to the defence(in Belich's view) was more defenders then why did half "retreat"?

A significant proportion of the defenders seem to have been Ngati Haua with Wiremu Tamihana as they were not among the captured who seem to be Ngati Mahuta. Tamihana was always very lukewarm on war anyway, to say the least. What was his real reason for going? Ngati Haua did extensively upgrade Te Tiki pa at Maungatautari but then a left after just 3 days, without any conflict at all. Some historians have said Ngati Haua ran out of supplies, but that sounds strange given that they had spent so much time preparing the pa. It seems highly unlikely that anyone would go to that much construction effort without storing enough food. The route from Matamata ( where Ngati Haua gardens were) to Te Tiki was still open until 3 days before the sudden departure, so there was ample time to bring in food. The British found large supplies of ammunition at Rangiriri so perhaps that was an issue?It was certainly a problem at Orakau for the Maniapoto/Tuhoe defenders. It seems to be lead they were short of as some Maori were making their own gunpowder by 1863 as is evidenced by a few who blew themselves up in the process.It doesnt pay to smoke while manufacturing gunpowder! Claudia

Date Errors

Belich claimed that Maori had been in New Zealand for a 1000 years(p17 Nz Wars) before the period of the Land Wars. This would take the Maori origins back to c850. However there is absolutely no evidence that Nz had any human population before about 1280 so he was at least 400 years out. Belich did admit he was a revisionist but it is hard to see why he moved the date back so far.Maybe it was just a straight out mistake- again.Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Before the invention of carbon dating the only way of calculating the date of arrival of the Māori in New Zealand was through whakapapa and oral history. These give dates as early as 850 CE for the first discovery of New Zealand and as late as 1350 CE for full settlement (these two dates were taught in the school system as late as the early 1980s). Also please note that just because nobody has found a site carbon dated before 1280 CE that does not mean that there wasn't settlement before then - just that nobody has found the earlier settlements yet. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Lastly please note that any commentary on Belich must conform to Wikipedia's Bipgraphies of living persons policy - go read it before continuing. Anything you say about Belich that is not impeccably sourced may be removed by any editor and if you re-insert it, you may yet again be blocked from editing. Daveosaurus (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Credibility

Belich admitted that he was a revisionist but went further and admitted that his first edition of NZ Wars, largely written in his mid 20s, contained errors. He rewrote the book for a second edition but errors still remained (see above). Award winning New Zealand historian and biographer Edmund Bohan refers to Belich's book as "stimulating but flawed" Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)