[Moorf]

This is a bit of an off-shoot from a thread on crime in NZ (see Horrified by Crime in NZ) but it's been a topic of conversation that I find hard to avoid both with locals here in rural Canterbury and with fellow immigrants.

Whilst I haven't yet been to the North Island there are many on the forum who have.

It would be really interesting to know if those that have been to both islands felt there was a very distinct difference between them - and I don't mean the scenery (unless that's a major factor). Does one island feel safer than the other? Is one city / region more "white" than the other? Is the weather better or worse in the South? Does the South feel more "1950's Britain" than the North?

Should make some interesting reading....

[Avalon]

Well, ive only been to SI as a visitor, so not sure how much my opinion is worth :D

Something I did hear (2nd had from hubby who heard it from someone else), is that NI has a much bigger Maori Population, where SI is mostly European and that is why SI has less crime. (DONT shoot the messenger anyone - im reporting this not saying its what I think! - personally dont think it would make too much of a difference unless you look at poverty and its relationship to crime as Maori tend to experience more poverty).

What I can say is that MY experience of crime in the NI is the same as my experience of crime in the SI (and the UK come to that) which is Zilch. Living in Welly itself - not a problem. Noise was my only real concern. But I felt safe enough to go for a walk round the harbour at about 2am one morning cos I couldnt sleep. Out here in the sticks - well - same as in the UK really. Its a long way to go to break into the house - anyone wants to break in - they are more likely to do it in the town rather than come out here and do it. In the UK, most I had nicked was a lawnmower (but then we did leave the shed unlocked!). Here, as in the UK, I have been known to come home at the end of the day and find I didnt lock the door. And really, Thats MY personal measure of how safe I feel - if I dont go into a cold sweat having done that - then its a place im happy to live, wrt crime levels. I would not feel that I could do that in any of the towns round here.

Probably doesnt tell you an awful lot - but your welcome to it anyway :nice1

[Trigirl]

the most recent police recorded crime stats by area are here

http://www.police.govt.nz/service/statistics/

if you look at the "national" one then page 4 gives an overview of crime by area. there doesn't seem to be that much of a north south divide in evidence really? ok auckland city is pretty high. but wellington and canterbury are almost identical.

[Avalon]

Just read one of your posts on the other thread - so it seem that im not the only one who has heard this bit about all the Maoris being on NI! Anyone knwo if its actually true (I mean the numbers - not wether its linked to crime or not)?

[markynz]

well, we liked the SI better, and I havent even been to Milford Sound, Queenstown, Fox Glacier, Dunedin etc etc yet..
Yes, I know I keep saying it, but Nelson is the best place in NZ.

[jodieinchch]

My dad reckons Nelson is the best place too, especially for bringing up a family.

My view on the NI and SI split- whilst I now live in Chch I travelled for 3 weeks in NI in 2003. In chch I feel safer than any UK cities, I would never walk alone in cities after dark unless I was with other people, whereas here it doesn't phase me in the slightest. Obviously there are areas I don't walk alone here, eg. university fields where rapes have been known. But, in general, I do feel very safe here as a young female. In the NI while on holiday I noticed there are more built up towns and cities with more inhabitants. In NI it seems there are bigger towns than here in the SI where it is few cities with smaller communities and farming areas. Which realistically (to me) would mean that there would be more crime. Does that make sense?

in the SI it is as you said true that the Maori are less dominant. And I don't have stats, but I know for a fact there there is only one main Maori tribe in SI (Ngai Tahu- from Canterbury and up the East Coast, including some of Nelson), and a lot in the NI. I suppose this could be connected to the crime, but only in the sense that as you say the Maori seem to be affected by NZ poverty more. Not trying to come across racist by the way (I'm far from it!).

Jodie

[Lupin]

More Maori on NI than SI by quite a margin as I understand it.

[JJG]

Wasn't there a big battle between the N and S Maoris about 100 years ago.
I believe the N won, hence the low population in the S.

[Diny]

This seems to be heading off in the direction of another debate on crime levels. As far as a north south divide ..... I think it's more of a traditional 'battle' rather than an actual thing. Abit like the English and the Scots, the Americans and the Canadians etc etc.

Over the last 20 years I've covered most parts of both north and south - the scenery is the obvious difference - both beautiful but very different. We live in a rural location on the north island so it feels like the 1950's up here sometimes. I've never lived in the south so can only really comment from a tourists point of view, but I can't bring to mind any striking differences that would make me say one is better/worse than the other. The only thing that really sticks in my mind was the littler in ChCh, from my own personal experience it's the most I've seen flitting around the gutters in NZ ..... the punts avoiding the shopping trolly that had been dumped in the river suprised me. However, I'm told that the litter was due to a high wind on garbage day .... hhmmm.


well, we liked the SI better, and I havent even been to Milford Sound, Queenstown, Fox Glacier, Dunedin etc etc yet..
Yes, I know I keep saying it, but Nelson is the best place in NZ.

Just pulling your leg here - but you list a bunch of places you haven't been to then say the place you're in is the best in NZ ...... how do you know?

But again, it's human nature to claim our chosen place is better than others - whether we've actual experience or not.

Diny

[KerryS]

I've only experienced the SI as a visitor, but my best friend is from Timaru. She moved to Auckland two years ago, and it was the first time she'd ever been to the NI. I know she has had teasing at work about being the South Island hick and various other things - all said in jest and not malice, and taken the same. There is the perception that the SI is a bit backwards in comparison to the North. Much the same as in the UK where Northerners were all tainted as being whippet loving, flat-cap wearing, pigeon fanciers...
I didn't notice a huge difference between the two islands. But, I do find a big difference between rural and urban NZ. I have heard some real humdinger arguments about this... quite interesting points from both sides.

[willsken]

in the SI it is as you said true that the Maori are less dominant. And I don't have stats, but I know for a fact there there is only one main Maori tribe in SI (Ngai Tahu- from Canterbury and up the East Coast, including some of Nelson), and a lot in the NI. I suppose this could be connected to the crime, but only in the sense that as you say the Maori seem to be affected by NZ poverty more. Not trying to come across racist by the way (I'm far from it!).

Jodie

I thought this article might be of some interest. (See the bit in bold for the point in question) Strangely, after reading the threads of the last couple of days and feeling a little put off the whole NZ idea (still coming.... just having a moment!! :p ) I found this article allayed my fears some what.


This is New Zealand's dark secret
Jamie Whyte

Now that its record of violence is revealed, there is another painful truth to confront


NEW ZEALAND is a little, South Pacific version of 1950s England. People are friendly, trustworthy and hard-working. You can leave your front door unlocked when you go out. Women can safely walk alone at night and, if you drop your wallet, someone will deliver it to your door the next day.
If you share this common view, then you are probably wrong about 1950s England and you are certainly wrong about contemporary New Zealand. On Thursday my home country made a rare appearance on the non-sports pages of The Times. In her farewell speech, the departing Governor-General of New Zealand, Dame Silvia Cartwright, lamented the country’s “dark secret”: we have an appalling amount of domestic violence.


New Zealand’s child murder rate is 0.9 per 100,000 children, compared with 0.4 in Britain and 0.1 in Spain. This makes it third worst in the OECD. Reliable wife-beating statistics are hard to come by, but there can be no doubt that it is also unusually popular in New Zealand. There are never vacancies at the women’s refuge.

Nor is violence only a family pastime. The overall murder rate is 2.5 per 100,000 people, compared with 1.5 in Britain. We have just as many assaults per person as Britain and 50 per cent more rapes.

New Zealand is not only violent, it is (relatively) poor too. Per capita GDP is only $26,000 (£14,500), compared with $35,000 in Australia and $37,000 in Britain. This is not because New Zealanders do not work. We have one of the highest employment rates in the world. It is just that what gets produced by all this work is not worth very much. New Zealand has a low-productivity, low-wage economy.

Of course, not all New Zealanders are violent and poor. In some towns — the kind that tourists visit — life is very nice indeed: rich, clean and friendly. The unpleasantness is concentrated. Its grim statistics arise from its large population of hoons.

Hoons are the underclass of New Zealand. They are inarticulate and unkempt to a degree that would appal even a chav. (No Burberry caps for hoons; simply wearing shoes often takes too much sartorial effort.) But, in other respects, hoons are just like the underclass of any other modern Western country.

They often grow up without their fathers. The succession of “uncles” who come through their home may beat or rape them. They attend school only because it is compulsory until sixteen, and leave having acquired neither an education nor any qualifications. They work in unskilled jobs, if they work at all. They have no interests and no ambitions, unless you count sex and intoxication (especially from marijuana, which grows like a weed in New Zealand). The sex leads to children, but rarely to marriage. They smoke, eat junk and die younger than the rest of us. And then their children do it all over again.

It is in this subculture of listless depravity that women and children are so frequently murdered and abused. And it is because New Zealand has such a large underclass that its social statistics are so bad.

Why are there so many hoons in New Zealand? You might expect this to be a matter of fierce national debate. Yet, until recently, there has been little serious discussion of the problem, and certainly no serious action to remedy it.

One reason for this diffidence is that many New Zealanders subscribe to the modern ethos of non-judgmentalism. For those whose motto is “I don't like to judge”, it is almost impossible even to identify, let alone to remedy, the problem of an underclass.

But, more importantly, discussing these problems makes New Zealanders feel queasy because it inevitably draws you into race issues. Not all hoons are Maori, and not all Maori are hoons. Far from it. But there is a correlation. Consider just these facts.

Maori are 15 per cent of the population, but 50 per cent of the prison population. Forty per cent of Maori children grow up in fatherless homes, compared with 17 per cent of whites. A third of Maori boys leave school with no qualification, compared with 13 per cent of white boys. The child murder rate is 1.5 per 100,000 among Maori, compared with 0.7 among whites. Maori life expectancy is seven years less than that of whites.

What is to be done? Not simply more of the same. More generous welfare payments will simply make the dependency slightly more comfortable. And more “inclusive” — that is, less rigorous — state education will increase the advantages of privately educated children. New Zealand’s examination system is now so debased that good schools offer foreign qualifications. (Sound familiar?)

Some hope comes from an unexpected source. The Maori Party was created in 2004 when its co-leader, Tariana Turia, quit the Parliamentary Labour Party in outrage over legislation that eliminated certain Maori land rights. In the 2005 general election the Maori Party stole many thousands of votes from the Labour Party and now has four members in our 120-seat parliament.

It is strange to be anything but appalled by a race-based political party. But the Maori Party is not squeamish about facing New Zealand’s social problems, and it is free of the flabby political correctness that corrupts the discussion of social policy. Among other things, it seeks welfare reforms that will end dependency and strengthen the extended family.

Good luck to it. And to the other New Zealanders such as Dame Silvia Cartwright who are finally taking the country’s social problems seriously.

[sizzlingbadger]

My husband gets teased all the time because we live out in the 'wop wops' :D rather than a suburb or Wellington itself. Hasn't stopped him getting on though.

Never really noticed a North, South Island divide whilst being here, I know there's a big divide between some of the Wellingtionians and Aucklanders but you get that the world over between different cities.

[markynz]

Diny - well, its the best place we SAW last year, after touring the NI extensively and then onto the south down as far as canterbury. Nowhere in the North Island, with perhaps the exception of Thames and the coromandel compared to the beauty of the Tasman Bay. We just did'nt have time to see the famous SI places, but lets face it, even if they live up to half their reputation they'll be good enough for me. Anyway, it will be colder down south and we like the mediteranean style climate here in Nelson. :)

[Moorf]

But, I do find a big difference between rural and urban NZ. I have heard some real humdinger arguments about this... quite interesting points from both sides.

Maybe that's it... rural/urban split. Although the article re Maori does seem to point to a socio/ethnic bias on the crime front which, if perceptions of less Maori in SI is correct, may also reflect why we think the south is safer.

All very interesting stuff folks. :yes

[sarahw]

Really interesting topic! I used to work with Maori tribes and I worked with very few on the SI but loads on NI - I doubt that less Maori are doing habitat restoration work in the SI than the NI percentage of population-wise, so I would say its likely, as everyone else says, due to less Maori being on SI.

I feel there is more of a divide between Auckland & the rest of NZ than there is between North & South Islands. Some people say there is a slower pace of life on SI (I would think they are alluding to rural areas rather than cities) and that the people are friendlier the further south you go. Weather-wise - well its a bit of a mixed bag isn't it? - look at today 20 degrees in Welly & 26 in Chch! - just watch the weather forecast for Alexandra (lower SI) in summer - it seems to be the hottest place in NZ most days! (but pretty cold in winter!)

[Moorf]

Some Maori stats...

http://www.tpk.govt.nz/maori/region/map1.pdf

http://www.tpk.govt.nz/maori/region/map7.pdf

[K&CS]

I haven't been to the North Island so I can't possibly comment on which is best. I've toured quite a bit on the SI and love living in Christchurch. Diny, if Christchurch was a litter ridden city, I doubt that so many of us would love living here. However, I know how easy it is to experience a place on a bad day and decide you don't like it and would never go back - that's what happened to us at Franz Josef Glacier - the weather was hellish and a lot of bad things happened to us when we were there (including getting a speeding ticket after Craig had announced 'let's get out of this godforesaken place). I'm sure it is really lovely and we probably will go back one day!!

One thing I have noticed on this forum (and I know that is not a true picture of immigrants in NZ. There are loads of Brits and expats where I live and I haven't met one who has ever been on a immigration forum), that the majority of people (by no means all!!) who seem to be content and always rush to NZ's defense seem to be in the SI - particularly Christchurch! Probably doesn't mean a thing...

And I'm really looking forward to touring in the NI!

Kate

[KerryS]

I think the way they actually count Maori is warped though.
For instance, my partner is Maori, although his mother was born in Scotland and his father in the US. His grandfather though, is Maori, and so his whanau and their descendents are all classified as Maori. This means "if" we had children they would also be Maori. You need to be several generations down until the advantages of Maori no longer exist - and by advantages I mean preferential places at University etc. I think my grandchildren would be the first to miss out... This also means if I end up breeding a bunch of criminally minded hoons they would also be counted as Maori for the purpose of the stats.
So, is it just NZ stats - there's definitely something unique about their counting methods!

[markynz]

Wasn't there a big battle between the N and S Maoris about 100 years ago.
I believe the N won, hence the low population in the S.


Hey ! Are you saying your maoris are better than our maoris ?! :nice1

[Diny]

Diny, if Christchurch was a litter ridden city, I doubt that so many of us would love living here.


I wouldn't go as far as saying it is a litter ridden city- (in fact I don't think I did say that), I simply said that my experience of ChCh was that for the 3 days we were there there was more litter than I'd seen anywhere else in NZ.

Interesting thought about the ex-pats living in ChCh often being the ones who will leap to the defence of NZ. Also interesting to read how many of them haven't actually been many places other than ChCh and its (days driving distance) environs.

I think both north and south are lovely - very different but equally attractive. One day we shall live in the Coromandel peninsular, not choosing this place because it's on the north island, simply choosing it because (for us) it's one of the nicest places we've experienced over here.

I'm sorry if I've offended anybody by commenting on the litter which was there when we visited, I'm certain it's not a regular feature. I was just abit suprised by it all ..... as was the American lady walking by us who exclaimed to her husband ....'God'dam - look at all this trash' !! As for the person (whoever) who has suggested I have an 'ax' to grind (I presume you mean axe) - no - not at all. I actually thought ChCh was a really nice place, loved the Sunday market, the botanic gardens were beautiful, the museum next to the gardens was fab, the kids loved riding on the trams and there was some pretty good shopping too. Plus the motel we stayed in was really nice and a reasonable price. When I find myself down that way again I shall be happy to spend some time there.

It's a windy day here today and this mornings delivery of letter box flyers are flitting all around the village.

Diny

[K&CS]

Aargh - somebody please explain to me how to quote on here!!!!

Anyway, Diny, I've been quite a bit further than Chch and have never once said anything bad about NI seeing as I have never been there. However if Chch people do jump to the defense of NZ having never been much further, then that must mean that they love their city so much that they can't bear to see it dissed and it has given them a very positive view of NZ! I'm always protective about my home town, I must say - I am with my new adopted home and with my old home town in England!

Slight aside, I suppose it's difficult for anyone who hasn't actually lived in both islands to say which is best. Most people have only lived in one and visited the other, so I guess you don't get a true picture. I also suppose most people are going to have a bias towards where they live (unless they really don't like it there of course).

Kate

[Smiler]

Kate - push the little quote button on the bottom right hand side of the post :D

[Diny]

Anyway, Diny, I've been quite a bit further than Chch and have never once said anything bad about NI seeing as I have never been there. However if Chch people do jump to the defense of NZ having never been much further, then that must mean that they love their city so much that they can't bear to see it dissed and it has given them a very positive view of NZ! I'm always protective about my home town, I must say - I am with my new adopted home and with my old home town in England



Kate


I totally understand and respect what you are saying and once again I apologise for any offence caused, that was not my intention. I now realise that it was a HUGE mistake to comment on the (albeit unusual) litter we saw in ChCh when we visited. I have made some very complimentary, positive comments about the place too but these seem to have been ignored and the one negative comment has been blown out of all proportion.

Note to self ....... only say what people want to hear in future
http://tcwozere.co.uk/smileys/nono.gif

[Ana&Steve]

Hope no one minds a outside opinion...when we visited NZ we stayed with a friend's dad in Auckland for 5 days, then drove around NI for a week and a half to end up back in Auckland. We met LOTS of people on our journey, mostly native Kiwis. The people from the NI that had visited SI said it was a great place to visit, but that they were content where they lived. The people we met from SI who were up visiting tourist sites (TePapa Museum, Waitomo Caves, and Rotorua were the places we met SIers) couldn't imagine wanting to live anywhere but SI. Just about everyone poked fun at Aucklanders, even the Aucklanders! :p But on the whole no one gave us the impression that either was less "Kiwi" than the other. The only negative thing I heard was in a pub in Auckland, a group of Kiwis we were sitting with all agreed that SIers tended to be more racist against Maori, and that is why there are so few there. Mind you, this is what we heard others say, we never experienced it!
A young Maori couple took us in after meeting us at a petrol station in Awakino, they showed us their Mauri, stayed up all night talking about culture, and made us omelettes for breakfast. They were among the nicest people we have ever met. :)
Just wanted to share my observations, as they seemed relevent to this thread. ;)
Ana

[K&CS]

Hey Diny, not remotely offended (and never am by anything on here) - just joining in the debate. Think it's a good one too!! (Baby screaming which is why I haven't messed around with the quote button).

Kate x

[Diny]

just joining in the debate. Think it's a good one too!!
Kate x

Me too - some really good debates going on of late. At the end of the day, we're all on this forum because we have one common interest.

Long may the discussions/debates continue.

Diny

[veronica]

I've been to both islands as we have family in auckland although I have never lived there. It seems to me that there are small differences but they would be more to do with the size of the cities rather than anything else. there seems no better or worse, just small diffrences.

on the Maori issues I have been told that the stronger Maoris lived in the north Island where it was regarded as better land, climate etc. and drove the weaker tribes south that would also account for more being in the north island as those tribes would have prospered more, and now the old tribal boundaries are not so apparent it could be that a lot of the ones from the south island have migrated up there.

[Moorf]

a group of Kiwis we were sitting with all agreed that SIers tended to be more racist against Maori, and that is why there are so few there. Mind you, this is what we heard others say, we never experienced it!




Yep, I'd have to agree with that from my experiences with locals comments about Maori - very derogatory and I'd say that a huge majority of those white locals that I know and speak to think they're a bunch of work-dodging, benefit hogging layabouts.... their words, not mine. I only know of 2 Maori families in the locality. Oh and if I dare to mention that the Maori were here first they quickly tell me that the Maori actually drove out another "race" before them! I really need to swat up on NZ history as I feel very lacking when they all get talking! Most of the families here have roads and vast areas of land with their family name - there is barely a trace of Maori around here except a few river names etc.

My personal experiences of Maori have been good and bad- we had Maori friends in Brighton who were a lovely family, very generous and hospitable - but the majority of Maori I see are hanging around in clapped out cars in hoodies and look pretty unsavoury.

[able]

Most of the Maori who are on the SI are themselves migrants from the NI. They started arriving in the 1960s/1970s in search of work. Only a small number of SI Maori are "indigenous" south Islanders.

I can't remember where I read this so I can't give a link.

[Moorf]

That's exactly the sort of info I need to swat up on... a bit off topic but does anyone have any recommendations for further reading? Sarahw?

[pieeater]

A history of New Zealand by Keith Sinclair is a 'must read'.

[wilson182]

Our experience of Maori has been all good, We have a couple of really close Maori friends. One of these acutally hales from the NI, Taranaki, and prefers the SI. To quote him directly, he finds racial tension to be acutally less on the SI. He has told us that if all of us lived in his home town, he would have found it much more socially unaceptable to be friends with us.

[Lupin]

Kate...to quote make sure you click "go advanced" when replying and then you get a more comprehensive page to reply on. Simply copy the bit you want to quote before clicking "go advanced" and then paste it in the comment box, highlight it and then click on the speech bubble above the comment box, which will wrap quote tags around it. HTH

Dh and I are reading the penguin "History of NZ", which is pretty detailed and very interesting!

When we visited we thought both NI and SI were exceptionally beautiful and we'd have been happy to live on either. We're not city peeps so those areas didn't appeal but we've actually ended up heading to an area we've never visited! I like that SI is less populated but unless you live in Auckland you can acheive sparsely populated anywhere in NZ really.

[jodieinchch]

Also, the film 'Once Were Warriors' I would recommend people to watch. A film portraying some of the Maori ways. Sadly, it does still exist (very much so) today. This illustrated to me some of the higher domestic family issues, such as violence. I know this is a generalisation, from speaking to kiwis and watching the film but it is opinion.

Must point out again, I am in no way against or racist towards any Maori. I learn the language and love it!

[starkhorn]

Wasn't there a big battle between the N and S Maoris about 100 years ago.
I believe the N won, hence the low population in the S.

Unsure if it was 100 years ago but during the musket wars (1800 - 1840), the Ngati Toa under Te Rauparaha who over 5 years or so controlled most of the north part of the south island. As he had muskets he totally devasted many of the Ngati Tahu pa including a large pa at Kaiapoi.

Eventually he sold the lands in the south island (for 200 muskets I think) and went to Wellington area. This was is still causing problems as obviously he had only just conquered those lands from Ngati Tahu iwi and they obviously claimed those lands as their own.

Anyway the point is that yes the South Island moari population suffered huge losses during this period but so did the North Island. Infact I would say that the NI battles and massacres were far more numerous and bloody than what occurred in the SI, so I doubt if that had would be the original cause...but it's still quite an interesting point.

[starkhorn]

A history of New Zealand by Keith Sinclair is a 'must read'.

The musket wars by Michael King is also a must-read book. Most people (like me) thought that NZ only existed from 1840 onwards but there was so much happening before then that most kiwis don't even know about. Some of the heroic stories are amazing whilst the massacres that occurred would make your skin crawl. A truly amazing/horrifying period in NZ history.

I understand alot more of NZ from reading it and alot more about the whole Waitangi treaty issues that still exist today.

[macs gold]

Maori were always less populous in the South Island once the Moa had been hunted to extinction. After that Maori became less nomadic and relied more on cultivation, their main crop being kumara (sweet potatoes) which grow better the further north you go. So the South Island was fairly lowly populated even when Tasman and Cook came through.

When the English and Scottish settlors arrived they mainly populated the South Island in the first 20-30 years, there being plenty of land to go around, and few Maori to get in the way. Any Maori in the south island either intermingled/intermarried with the Europeans, or died of the usual introduced diseases.

For those interested I would recommend reading Harry Evison's "Long Dispute: Maori Land Rights and European Colonisation in Southern New Zealand". It is the bible on South Island colonisation and is a very sobering read.

My own view is that South Island Maori seem more integrated into overall NZ society than their NI counterparts. So much so, that Ngai Tahu (the main SI tribe) has had to struggle to relearn their own histories and traditions in the last 20 odd years.

I'm not so sure that SI Europeans are more racist than NIers. It maybe so, but only to the extent that racism is a natural (albeit unhealthy) outcome of not meeting therefore not understanding other cultures.

[K&CS]

This thread has definitely turned into a history of Maoris thread!! Every time I see someone has posted, I look to see it if NI v SI are slugging it out, but no. What a civilised lot you all are!! (and it reminds me that I am extremely ignorant about NZ history and I must read up a bit).

Kate

[macs gold]

Unsure if it was 100 years ago but during the musket wars (1800 - 1840), the Ngati Toa under Te Rauparaha who over 5 years or so controlled most of the north part of the south island. As he had muskets he totally devasted many of the Ngati Tahu pa including a large pa at Kaiapoi.

Eventually he sold the lands in the south island (for 200 muskets I think) and went to Wellington area. This was is still causing problems as obviously he had only just conquered those lands from Ngati Tahu iwi and they obviously claimed those lands as their own.

Maori tradition was that if you conquered and then occupied a territory for 3 years then it was "yours" (not necessarily "owned" but your tribe had use of land and associated resources). What Te Rauparaha did was get lots of muskets from the European traders in the North Island, then next fighting season he went south and conquered Kaiapoi. The next fighting season Ngai Tahu defeated Ngati Toa near Blenheim, so maybe their mana (honour) was restored.

But no, Ngati Toa had the last laugh, they sold all the east coast land as far south as Kaiapoi to the Europeans for a few muskets. And the strangest thing of all, was that the only way Ngai Tahu could prove the land (and mana) was theirs, was to themselves then sell it to Queen Wiki (Victoria). One thing led to another, and before you knew it practically the whole of the south island was owned by the "Crown".

And just to clarify, Ngai Tahu never occupied Nelson, and even now there is a bitter dispute between them and the Whakatu over boundaries, and fishing rights, etc.

Its all very complicated...but fascinating if like me you have "the south in your blood"

[macs gold]

This thread has definitely turned into a history of Maoris thread!! Every time I see someone has posted, I look to see it if NI v SI are slugging it out, but no. What a civilised lot you all are!! (and it reminds me that I am extremely ignorant about NZ history and I must read up a bit).

Kate

Like others have said, there is probably little real north vs south island difference really, and the different ethnic makeup is probably one of the more obvious points to make.

What is more notable is that people outside Auckland cannot in a million years understand why anybody would want to live in such a clogged up pretentious city. And in their turn Aucklanders think the rest of us are uncouth rednecks, and that that you can't get a decent skinny latte south of Bombay.

[adamsat]

Michael Kings Penguin History of NZ is also a good read.

For Maori stats check out ww.stats.govt.nz, loads there if you take the time to look around, http://tinyurl.com/yukyqq is a breakdown of Maori population by region from the 2001 Census (2006 results out in the coming months)

As for NI / SI divide [controversial sweeping statement] it's very like England only geographically in reverse. Everyone outside the big city in the North, hates people who come from there and everyone who lives in the big city thinks everyone who comes from the rest of the country is a backward inbred with no sense of style or culture[/controversial sweeping statement]

Only joking ;)

[diforsyth]

The summary from the 2001 Census as follows: -

One in seven people (526,281) were counted in the Maori ethnic group, an increase of 21% since 1991. Most Maori continue to live in the northern regions. Nearly 90% live in the North Island and nearly 60% live in Northland, Auckland, Waikato and the Bay of Plenty. Nearly nine out of twenty people in the Gisbourne region are of Maori ethnicity. The number of Maori in the South Island has increased by 38% since 1991 to 64,650.

[veronica]

wonder if any of that maori increase is Islanders assuming maori status for the benefits, so far I havent been able to tell 2nd generation islanders apart from maori.

[Diny]

As for NI / SI divide [controversial sweeping statement] it's very like England only geographically in reverse. Everyone outside the big city in the North, hates people who come from there and everyone who lives in the big city thinks everyone who comes from the rest of the country is a backward inbred with no sense of style or culture[/controversial sweeping statement]

Only joking ;)


Reminds me of a rather 'near the knuckle' joke I was once told .......

What's the difference between New Zealand and yoghurt?

Left long enough New Zealand will develop a culture.

Diny

[adamsat]

wonder if any of that maori increase is Islanders assuming maori status for the benefits, so far I havent been able to tell 2nd generation islanders apart from maori.

This could be a reason - I don't know how maori is defined as far as the benefit system goes.

I think the ethnicity question on the census is taken to measure which ethnic group you align yourself with.
The SNZ definition for 2001 was "The question was designed to measure ethnicity based on cultural affiliation." , there's also a long explaination about why the figures increased
http://tinyurl.com/25lcww

[ruthyroo]

My own view is that South Island Maori seem more integrated into overall NZ society than their NI counterparts. So much so, that Ngai Tahu (the main SI tribe) has had to struggle to relearn their own histories and traditions in the last 20 odd years.

That's an interesting way to put it - I am sure the original settlers i.e. Maori would see their society as the 'normal' one and us incomers being the ones that had failed to integrate into it! Mr Rr brought a Pacific Islands text book home from school a while ago, and it had all these accounts of the various ways that Europeans had screwed over the various PIs for natural resources and slave labour for the colonies. And it talked about Aotearoa in exactly the same terms as it did Vanuatu and the Cooks and all the rest... it took me a while to get my head around the idea that maybe Maori / PIs see the colonisation and exploitation of Aotearoa / NZ in exactly the same way - albeit a bigger island.

Ngai Tahu is quite renowned for having adopted Western ways of doing business - to the extent that they even (shock horror) appoint non-Maori to positions within their commercial businesses if they are the right person for the job (anyone who has worked with maori orgs will appreciate that this is unusual). Working for local government I find that they are a lot more organised and easier to consult with that iwi I dealt with in the NI.

The big NI / SI difference for me is the comapratively low Maori presence down here. Up at Rotorua, with something like 30% maori (and increasing), maoridom is part of everyday life. I went to a lot of meetings in marae and they are a key part of life there. Down here, I have come across one, maybe two marae in total. It's a big difference.