The Treaty: Whats the Story?

Achievement Standard 3.4 (91437 - V1): Analyse different perspectives of a contested event of
significance to New Zealanders
Credits: 5 (UE Reading)
Achievement

Achievement with Merit

Analyse different perspectives of

a contested event of significance
to NZers

Analyse, in depth, different

perspectives of a contested event
of significance to NZers.

Achievement with Excellence

Comprehensively analyse different
perspectives of a contested event of
significance to NZers.

Its over 170 years since the Treaty was signed, and there are still disagreements over what it means. You
have decided to write an article for a history magazine that summarises the debate(s) that exist around the
events surrounding the signing.
Your article needs to analyse at least TWO different perspectives, which MUST include the views of:

people who were there at the time of the signing (ie primary evidence)

historians (and other experts, if appropriate) writing well after the event

Focus of your article

What did each side believe the Treaty actually said? What did Maori, especially,
understand the Treaty to mean?
You will be assessed on the depth/comprehensiveness of your analysis. This can readily be achieved
through identifying just two perspectives. To do well, you must demonstrate a thorough understanding of
the debates and make it clear which view you support, backed by evidence.

TASK A: Initial Research and Planning

1. Carry out initial analysis of the FOUR compulsory sources provided to begin developing your
understanding of the issues/those who have different views on them. It might be useful to:
a. Compare and contrast the various views: what are they, and who holds them.
REMEMBER a secondary source that does not state an explicit view on the Treaty issue
above is actually (unknowingly) taking a position on it
b.
c.

Identify whether convincing evidence is used to support those views.

Consider other issues that might affect the reliability of the sources (and thus the perspectives of
the person holding them) such as the authors qualifications. You can research beyond Moodle for
this, but keep any analysis succinct (brief and to the point).
The period in which the author was writing might also have influenced their perspective. This
might include Eurocentrism, but you must provide evidence of it if you are going to claim that it
exists in a source.

2. Plan your main arguments, creating a draft that outlines the early evidence for the two perspectives, and
your initial response to some or all of the points above. USE THE TEMPLATE ON MOODLE.

NOTE: you may do reading outside of the sources provided for you on Moodle if you wish to further your
understanding of the issues; BUT for your final submission you may ONLY use the Moodle sources.

Submit your Planning on Wed April 13 (Term 1, Week 11) by 9pm (by Google doc/email)
Submit your FINAL TASK on Tue May 17 (Term 2, Week 3) by 9pm (by Google doc/email)

TASK B: Researching and analysing

Begin by first skim-reading, and then more carefully reading, a wider range of BOTH primary and
secondary sources as provided on Moodle. Use no others!

As a rough guide, use 8-12 sources in total, including plenty of the primary sources.

Analyse and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the perspective of each individual/group,
providing plenty of referenced evidence (eg provide the names of historians, primary sources used
etc as appropriate). See Task C, point 2 below.
o
o

For all PRIMARY sources, use the analysis guidelines in the class workbook, page 3.
Consider issues that might affect the reliability of the sources, and the perspectives of the
above individuals/groups (their qualifications and issues such as Euro-centrism). Refer again
to the Task A instructions.

If possible, identify and explain the historical relationship of continuity and/or change in the
perspectives. This might most easily be detected over time (ie when the source was published).

Be aware that this assignment isnt really about the British/Maori views of what the Treaty
meant, but what historians (and other commentators) have said about what the Treaty
meant. Avoid DESCRIPTION of what happened; this assignment is about analysis/evaluation.
Avoid engaging in conspiracy theories about evidence/sources being tampered with or
mistranslated or secretly destroyed! This will NOT be the case!
Your own personal opinion on the Treaty is not required, but your conclusions based on your
analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence is!

TASK C: Writing your final Article (in NO MORE than 2500 words, plus bibliography)
1. Write a very BRIEF introductory paragraph that:

identifies in broad terms the historical debate(s) surrounding the understandings of the Treaty, and
which historians/commentators line up alongside each perspective..

Identifies clearly YOUR view on the issue(s), based on your analysis of the various arguments.

2. In the main body:

Outline the strengths and weaknesses of the two sides, using plenty of evidence (primary and
secondary) that youve analysed and critiqued. You might decide to fully analyse one perspective and
then in the second half analyse the other.
o

If using quotes, keep these relatively short; they should be used to back up YOUR points,
rather than being the point. Identify who is being quoted.

When using sources, try to compare (and contrast) where it is appropriate to do so. For
example: Smithers argues that ., while Chapman points out even more convincingly that.
This is supported in the primary source by Wilkins, who states

Comment on the historical relationship of continuity and/or change, if appropriate.

Make it clear what perspective YOU believe is best supported by your analysis and evaluation of the
evidence. You may incorporate this as part of your analysis (this is often the best way), or as a separate
paragraph once you have presented the various arguments.

3. Include a bibliography of the sources you have actually used. Set these out as below:

Secondary sources

Primary sources

Achievement Criteria
Achieved: Analyse involves explaining, as an historian, different perspectives of the contested event.
Merit: Analyse, in depth, involves evaluating, as an historian, the validity of different perspectives of the
contested event. Evaluating involves appraising and presenting an opinion.
Excellence: Comprehensively analyse means making judgements, as an historian, on the historical validity
of different perspectives of the contested event, drawing conclusions that demonstrate thorough engagement
with the evidence and the historical ideas it contains. Historical validity refers to peoples different
historical perspectives and reasons for these.

Assessment Conditions Summary: AS3.4 Perspectives

Time

Allocated class periods:

Final due date: May

17th, by 9pm (email or
Google docs)

Weeks to complete:

Five in the library

Place

In class only

Collaboration

Group

Resources
Referencing
Sufficiency

Out of class only

Group presentation,
individual grade

In and out of class

Group sharing ideas,

independent submission

Independent

Only as supplied via

Moodle, plus class text for
reference
Bibliography required

Bibliography & citations

Citations

Not Applicable

Authenticity statement

Not Applicable

Word length:
Maximum of 2500

Authenticity
Resubmission

Evidence of class work

Yes
As per standard policy

Submission of drafts &

workings

(There is no second reassessment

opportunity.)

EXEMPLAR: Debating the reasons for Cooks death

This exemplar contains all the elements of an Excellence-level response (on one perspective
only), although it really does need a bit more depth/detail.
Perspective 1: Cook was viewed as a human, not a god, and was killed for reasons other than
being part of a religious ritual.
Who holds this view: the anthropologist Gananath Obeyesekere; the prominent Cook historian James
Beaglehole; primary sources as supporting evidence= from crew on the Endeavour, second Lieutenant
James King and ships surgeon Samuels.
One perspective on Cooks death is that the native Hawaiians saw Cook not as a
god but as a normal man, one who had outstayed his welcome on the Island. One
of the key experts who holds this view is the anthropologist Gananath
Obeyesekere. Obeyesekere argued that the Hawaiians were more than just
savages, and they were too realistic to believe that a God could be turned into
human form. He goes on to say that the strained relations from thefts and lack of
communication and understanding between the natives and Cooks sailors, as
well as Cooks own mistakes, was the cause of Cooks death. Obeyesekere states
this plainly: This was no case of mistaken identity; Cook exhausted supplies on
the Island and when he returned his own actions led to his death. His views do
carry great weight as he has a PhD in Anthropology from the University of
Washington and is now the Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at Princeton
University. However, prior to completing his book on Cook - The Apotheosis of
Captain Cook: European Mythmaking in the Pacific - in 1992 his main area of
anthropological study focused only on Sri Lanka and India, with a total absence
of experience or expertise on the history and culture of Pacific Islands such as
Hawaii. Furthermore, his claim that because he is non-European he has a greater
understanding of native minds carries no real weight.
On the other hand, the internationally recognised expert on Cook, New Zealands
John Beaglehole, expressed similar views to Obeyesekere, in that Cooks
increasing impatience and bad temper was in the end what caused Cooks death.
He argued that the theory in which Cook and his men were hailed as Gods who
needed to be ritually killed as part of the Makhiki religious ceremony had no
evidence to support it. He did, however, say that Cooks men arriving during
Makahiki was a totally unprecedented event, for no Hawaiian god is supposed
to arrive as a physical person during these ritual festivals. In this respect,
Beaglehole says, the Hawaiians may have wondered if Cook was a god, but very
soon dismissed the idea as he acted very much like an ordinary man. This is
backed up by primary evidence from the Endeavours journals, such as those of
James King (second lieutenant): The Natives lay before Cook when he first came
ashore, recognising him as a superior being, but soon were trading items,
chatting as best they could in a friendly manner, and generally treating him as a
great chief, not a god. The ships surgeon Samuels hints at a similar
relationship: I could see from my position on our ship anchored in the harbour
that Captain Cook and the chiefs, once initial uncertainties were over, were soon
meeting together as equals, even if the latter [Natives] certainly were not. These
are clearly two Eurocentric views, but in terms of the debate over whether Cook
was a god or not isnt, at least in this case, very relevant. A strength of these
sources are that these views were recorded at or near the time of the events they
describe.
Thus despite some apparent weaknesses in the argument of Obeyesekere, when
combined with Beagleholes expertise and the primary evidence there is a
convincing case that Cook was not viewed as a god, but was killed for some other
reason than being caught up in a religious ritual.

Clear statement of the

perspective. This is followed by
the evidence to support it ie the
expert views, including short
quotes as evidence.

Analysis of the strengths and

weaknesses of the source by
looking at the qualifications and
expertise of Obeyesekere, plus
anything that might undermine his
views. NOTE if you dont feel
that there are any weaknesses,
dont invent some where you
dont believe they exist.
The case is being further built with
the addition of the views of
another expert. Note that the
quotes support a point being made
and are short, sharp and relevant.

And, finally, supporting

primary evidence and an
analysis of it in terms of its
reliability. One point worth
noting might be to wonder how
Samuels really could tell what
was going on onshore from his
position on the ship

Concluding statement on where

the weight of the evidence lies
(so far).