Talk:Moriori genocide

Freely admit that I am not all that familiar with this topic, but calling it a "genocide" seems questionable to me. The only sources before the existence of this article that use that word is the E-Tangata piece cited in the article, and an Atlas Obscura article saying that Andre Brett, a historian, has argued that the events were not mass killing, but rather genocide. Brett has also published an article in the Journal of Genocide Research arguing as such. Other sources used in the article don't use that term, however.

For example, The Spinoff source doesn't describe it as a genocide, instead saying that Māori from Taranaki arrived on the Chathams, and "shortly after they arrived they killed around 300 Moriori and enslaved the rest". The Guardian source uses similar phrasing, saying that "the accepted wisdom was that the Polynesian settlers of the Chatham Islands, who arrived hundreds of years before Māori, were wiped out by invading Māori tribes, who killed and enslaved their population after landing on the islands in 1835". The Te Ara source describes it as an "annihilation", where "around 300 Moriori were initially slaughtered, and hundreds more were enslaved and later died". The Radio NZ describes it as an "invasion" where "a sixth of the Moriori population were murdered and those left behind were taken as slaves".

It seems to me, personally, that most of the sources speaking about these events don't describe it as a genocide. The word genocide carries such significant weight - heck, it's described on the genocide article as being "widely considered the epitome of human evil" - that I think if we're going to call something a genocide, there needs to be significant evidence for it. Don't get me wrong, hundreds of Moriori were undoubtedly killed and many more enslaved - I am not seeking to minimise that at all.

But most of the sources talking about it do not use the word "genocide". It doesn't seem to me like there is consensus that these acts constitute a genocide - again, speaking personally, they don't really seem equivalent to the other "genocide of indigenous peoples" they're listed alongside in the genocide infobox. I think that a better alternative here might be to either merge this article into another one, or to rename it to something such as "Moriori mass killings" or "Invasion of the Chatham Islands". Just my thoughts.--LivelyRatification (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

There are two ways to decide that some event is a genocide: We can find a good definition, then assess the actions against the definition; or we can check reliable sources, and see whether they describe it as a genocide. You seem to be going with the latter approach—which is totally fine—but in doing so, you kind of dismiss the historian who explicitly describes it as genocide. I haven't read through everything to check, but if it is as you describe, then we have some sources calling it a genocide, and many who choose not to comment on the word (or simply don't consider the word). I don't think this is reason enough to avoid the word, especially given the alternative assessment:

If we were to find ourselves a good definition (eg, per the genocide article, the intentional action to destroy a people … in whole or in part), the event almost certainly classifies as a genocide, and the only reasons not to consider it so would be A) because the question of intent were in dispute (as in, the invading tribes intended to destroy the Moriori, but did not intend to destroy their existence as an ethnicity or a people), or B) because the idea of a genocide is (in Western ideologies) a modern name for something that historically occurred with great frequency, and would not have been thought of as wrong until the 20th century (ish). I think (B) is not a good enough reason to consider changing the name of the page when the word is in use by at least some people, and (A) is hard to argue when we already include passages like the following:

During the period of enslavement the Māori invaders forbade the speaking of the Moriori language. They forced Moriori to desecrate sacred sites by urinating and defecating on them. Moriori were forbidden to marry Moriori or Māori or to have children. This was different from the customary form of slavery practiced on mainland New Zealand.

In short, I think that without any sources arguing against the notion of "genocide", we shouldn't dismiss that description, especially on the back of at least one historian who has written extensively and explicitly that the word applies. I vehemently oppose any merger of this subject into some other page, especially as a way of seeking to avoid calling a genocide a genocide. I am less opposed to alternative titles, such as "invasion", but I do think they would be ill-fitting, and would not accurately convey the events that followed any initial invasion. Similarly I think "mass killing" doesn't convey the extent of what happened. But I would certainly not oppose adding a section, subsection or even footnote on the word itself and how it applies (or doesn't) to the Moriori. — HTGS (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I am going with the latter approach that you describe here - but to clarify, I don't disagree with retroactively applying the genocide definition. I think the issue here might mainly be that there isn't exactly an abundance of sources relating to this event, hence why I suggested the possibility of merging, though the events do meet WP:GNG, in my view, and the article as it stands is certainly fine enough to stand alone, so I might retract that.

Generally, my thoughts on this can be summed up as followed: while there are some sources that do call it a genocide, and none that explicitly rebut that idea, most contemporary sources don't use that term when describing the events, which suggests to me that there isn't consensus that this constitutes a genocide. If it were to be renamed, I'd suggest something similar to Black War#Characterisation as genocide be added to the article, adding information about how the event has been characterised as a genocide - or if it wasn't renamed, adding a section on how other sources have characterised it. --LivelyRatification (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The Genocide article starts with "Genocide is the partial or total destruction of a human group, committed intentionally." I agree with that definition. Does that relate to the Moriori? There were two phases: the slaughter by the Maori and the diseases that followed contact with other people, mainly Europeans. Where was there any intent to destruct the Moriori? For the disease part it is quite clear there was no intention to cause so many deaths. What was the Maori intention in murdering so many Moriori? What evidence do we have of an intention to destroy a large part of the Moriori race? That intent is clear with the WW2 Jews and later in Rwanda, but is it clear in the Chathams? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

On google scholar there are nine hits for "Moriori genocide" and some are repeats or reviews. Article II of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as -

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Once again, what was the intent of the invading Maori?

Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

This term certainly was not invented by the article, see this for example and I would much rather rely on this source than The Spinoff. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Interesting article. Although opining the killings was genocide, or what he labels 'colonial genocide', he also confirms other writers do not describe the killings as genocide. He also points out other examples where the term genocide in its usual meaning does not fit well with the Moriori. Put another way, he says the killings are not seen as a genocide, but they should be if we change the meaning of what is a genocide. The article could lead into a healthy debate but here is not the place. This is just one of many possible quotes that highlight doubt with attributing premeditation to what happened -

"One Ngāti Mutunga participant in the Chathams invasion, Rakatau Katihe, emphasized that ‘we caught all the people. Not one escaped … what of that? It was in accordance with our custom’. Toenga Te Poki corroborated the account: ‘those who ran away into the forest we killed according the ancient customs’.

Footnote55 Even if this defence of customary behaviour is accepted, it was of course not in accordance with pacific Moriori customs. Moreover, the attitude of Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama to their conquered subjects was often at variance to custom, which was not annihilationist"

BTW, I had not seen the earlier discussion started by user:LivelyRatification, despite the reasoning being uncanily similar to mine. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

My reply was dedicated to the original post to show that the term 'Moriori genocide' was not invented with this article. I don't know what the academic consensus is in this regard but I don't believe the article title is an issue (we have Gaza genocide for example) Traumnovelle (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

if we change the meaning of what is a genocide, except there is not a singular definition of genocide, and this seems to be a misreading of the argument that Brett presents.

Brett argues that two, of the many, definitions do not map onto this case, and those are those of the colonial genocide and the genocide where the perpetrator must act on behalf of a state. These are more accurately viewed as 'types' of genocide. The first he argues is inadequate as the Maori are not viewed as a colonial power, and the second from the view that the Maori perpetrators were not acting on behalf of a state. If you read further, he argues it is a case of genocide as the Maori perpetrators sought to destroy the Moriori as a group, which points to the UN Convention's legal definition, which is one of the most restrictive definitions of genocide.

Now, as to the negated notions, while it may not be a case of colonial genocide, this does not mean it is not genocide, as we have other examples of inter-indigenous genocide such as the Haudenosaunee on the Huron. For not being committed by state actors, there are a plethora of cases of genocide that have been analysed and studied specifically due to their perpetration by non-state actors, as can be seen in the work of Mohamed Adhikari (particularly with other contributors in the book Civilian-Driven Violence and the Genocide of Indigenous Peoples in Settler Societies). -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Veryrare, full blood and unmixed ancestry mean almost the same, but IMO unmixed ancestry is an awkward phrase, hence full blood is better, but its not a big deal. But the rest of your reversal sure is a big deal. You are adding your unsourced opinion by changing what the source says. Identify as moriori is not the same as having moriori descent. They are totally different so please read the source properly and don't unintentionally insert your subconscious views on what it means. The PM or anyone, for example, may have desended from Jutish invaders of England 1500 years ago but I doubt he identifies as Danish. Next, what the current academic consensus is about whatever, is all well and good, but without a source it is just your opinion. Next, there is no need to weasel word 'although' into the sentence unless you are trying to say there are really a lot more moriori out there than people think. You are synth-ing two different ideas - the extinction of true full blood moriori and recent census data showing 640 people who think one of their ancestors was moriori. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

You will find plenty of sources on the history and current consensus of the concepts involved at Race (human categorization). —VeryRarelyStable 22:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe it's relevant to mention Tommy Solomon in the lede paragraph. The decline of the Moriori population during and immediately following the genocide is already referred to. The fact that a literal century later all surviving Moriori had Māori and/or European ancestry is technically a further consequence of the genocide, but I don't feel it's a particularly salient consequence compared to the suffering of the Moriori people in the intervening century. It's kind of got the aura of a "fun fact" that keeps being mentioned solely because it's one of the few things lots of people know about the subject. —VeryRarelyStable 05:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree with Panamitsu's reversal. Mention of his death is part of the story. Anyway, what sources say is what we say, not what we think, and sources mention it very often as part of the story, trivial fact or not. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)