The current controversy in New Zealand replicates the avalanche of opprobrium which has descended on historians and writers in other parts of the worldİattempting to argue that the term holocaust is a legitimate and appropriate one to describe the fate of many groups of people in history, particularly indigenous peoples at the hands ofİ(usually ) European colonizers. Perhaps what is particular to New Zealand is that many are being lulled out of their complacency, in part a product of the ignorance of their own colonial history, in part a consequence of the devastation being heaped upon the fabric of New Zealand society by the after- shocks of the monetarist earthquakes of the 1980's, made notorious by Thatcher and Reagan, but no less destructive in this South Pacific backwater.

Was there a holocaust in New Zealand in the middle of the nineteenth century, perpertrated by the British on the Maori? Probably not.

Not in the strictest sense of the word, but there was theft of land on a large scale and systematic duping of the locals which lead to wars , and therefore casualties, between Maori and colonizers in the 1860s, at one time called "The Maori wars," now called "The New Zealand Wars."

Revisionist historian James Belich's book and television programme of that title sought to redress the historical balance through getting the semantics correct. He has described it as New Zealand's " great civil war," the repercussions of which are still being felt as the Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal, established in 1985, struggles to adjudicate on the many and varied land claims that are brought to it.İ

And modern day Maori are troubled enough for the government to have launched, since its election victory in November 1999, a policy grandly titled "Closing the Gapí" which seeks to redress the imbalance between Maori and Pakeha ( white settlers of European descent ), an imbalance manifesting itself in terms of measurable educational achievement statistics, life expectancy and employment figures.

Associate Minister Turia was very specific in her remarks, citing the example of Maori in Taranaki (situated on the west coast of New Zealand's North Island ) to support her use of the holocaust label. Interestingly, this is where the land wars of the 1860's began and a little historical detour at this point is necessary to illuminate the nature of New Zealand's post-colonial plight.

Taranaki is a part of New Zealand that was the victim ofİconsiderable land-lust. The "Golden Triangle" is situated here, a strip of exceptionally fertile land - good soil and high rainfall. On 15 February,1840, just nine days after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, the New Zealand Company, a private company with several British parliamentarians on its Board of Directors, signed a deed to "purchase" much of this land. It was a highly suspect deal made with a few local Maori , but without the agreement of the majority of tribes affected.

The deal sweetened by the usual collection of blankets and guns together with an empty promise to preserve one-tenth of the land for Maori use. There is also evidence that those Maori who did sell their land did so without fully understanding the implications of the terms being offered by the Europeans.

There was considerable Maori resistance. Surveyors were chased away, settlers who were pre-sold plots of land on the basis of the deed, even before the land had been secured, arrived to find themselves landless and consequently put pressure on the colonial authorities to "recover" their land.

Governor Grey was sympathetic to their plight, approached individual tribes in the area and by 1859 was able to claim, despite protests to the contrary, that all land north of the town of New Plymouth had been bought- all except that in a settlement called Waitara.

Wiremu Kingi was the leader of Maori who opposed Waitara's sale. Because of disagreements in the tribe to which Kingi belonged, the new Governor, Gore Browne, decided to buy only the piece of land belonging to another leader, Te Teira.

Kingi was ordered to mark out his own piece of land but refused, on the grounds that it was collectively owned. The government went ahead with the purchase anyway, made a deal with Te Teira and some associates , ignoring the rights of Kingi and others. Three days after surveyors arrived their markers were removed, British troops marched on Kingi's encampment and demanded his surrender. He refused, the troops opened fire and so nine years of war had begun.

The first major battle of the war is described by Belich as the most important battle of that war, resulting in "one of the most clear cut and disastrous defeats suffered by imperial troops in New Zealand." Although the first war ended in a truce in 1861, and the second in a British victory in 1869, that first battle, at Puketaukauere Pa, was symbolic of the fact that nowhere else was the prospect of British defeat more real than in Taranaki. After the war there was an outburst of anti-Maori feeling that influenced generations to come, even though the Royal Commission appointed in 1927 to investigate the confiscations found that Maori were not to blame for either of the two wars.

Nowhere were Maori more harshly treated than in Taranaki. All tribal land was confiscated to punish "rebel" Maori, and not even "loyal" Maori were rewarded with land, even though the government of the day conceded that it was responsible for the first war.As Belich concluded, the conflicts were " much more akin to classic wars of conquest than we would like to believe."

So, even if this series of conflicts, these wars, did not lead to genocide, could not be described as a holocaust, they involved a shameful injustice whose effects, when combined with all those other injustices perpetrated in the cause of European colonization of New Zealand, remain to sour the social and political atmosphere in 2000.

Incidentally, Ms Turia likened the colonizers to a bunch of latter day home invaders, whose traumatizing legacy causes the sort of psychological disturbance which can lead to all sorts of disorder later in life. The Maori child abuser, whose culture was violated in earlier times, is merely responding in the only way possible for one so traumatized.

I'm not sure about that, but that debate will have to wait for another article.

This has been scaled back as his freelance writing opportunities have increased. He is currently the New Zealand editor of a London -based rugby website - www.scrum.com - contributes articles to newspapers in New Zealand , USA and Canada , and writes as much fiction as he can. He is fascinated by the way in which post-colonialism is being managed/mis-managed and reads as much modern fiction as he can. In his spare time he enjoys acting in and directing plays and growing and eating his own potatoes.