The Karate Kid campaign
Audrey Young called the Greens’ election campaign ‘singularly boring‘ and John Armstrong ‘unspectacular‘. And yet, as they note without scandal, threats or bluster the Greens are the success package on this year’s election trail.
Part of it , is as Wendyl Nissen notes, that our time has come:
The Green Party’s reason for being has subtly changed from someone you treat as a mad aunt on a break from the Rajasthan ashram, to someone you seek out for their knowledge and find that everything they say seems to make sense. They are the geek who you wrote off until your computer crashed or the karate kid you ignored until he saved you from the bullies.
But the other reason for success so far I reckon is that the Greens are campaigning hard, but not just through the lens of mainstream media. Green Party members and supporters are out this election more proudly telling people they are Green and explaining why. Old-fashioned campaigning where people talk to each other kanohi ki te kanohi and discuss politics together remains one of the hardest and least noticeable to the media forms of campaigning but also one of the most powerfully effective. And it is also one of the most democratic, because it allows two way communication rather than just one way slogans.
Much like the Karate Kid you don’t notice it happening until it has already hit you.
October 26th, 2008 at 9:17 am
The greens are probably benefitting from lefties fleeing Labour First.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:09 am
The greens are probably benefitting from the Woman’s Weekly special Green Edition, the praise winning billboards, the green celebrity endorsements, the new high calibre candidates, the maturing of understanding of the importance of the environment amongst the New Zealand public, the ‘as seen on TV’ evidence of climate change throughout the world, the fracturing and collapse of the money markets, the deserved high ‘trustworthiness’ ratings and so on and so on … hard to know exactly what to attribute it to really
October 26th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Too complex greenfly, Occams razor, the simplest explaination is most likely to be correct
October 26th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
The simplest explanation? More support for greens means their policies appeal to more people.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Yeah. Sound bytes rule.
October 26th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
“new high calibre candidates,”
Just to be picky, the top list candidates are hardly new.
October 26th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
By this people usually mean Kevin Hague, CEO of West Coast DHB, and Kennedy Graham, former MFAT and UN diplomat, and brother of Sir Doug. Both are in very electable positions at 7 and 9 respectively.
October 26th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
“But the other reason for success so far I reckon is that the Greens are campaigning hard, but not just through the lens of mainstream media. Green Party members and supporters are out this election more proudly telling people they are Green and explaining why.”
I doubt that’s the reason; it’s more the green mirage thing I think, there’s no way in hell you’ll get votes for many of your back room policies.
October 26th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
We’ll see…
October 26th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
By “green mirage” I meant a generalized notion people have, not the “we’re a social justice party” version. The Green Party won’t come of age until it defines more clearly what it stands for and why and on what principles (ie the Green Charter is too open to interpretation).
October 26th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
I don’t think the public will share the candidates enthusiasm for Ti Tirriti (or the Moari Party would be polling higher).
October 26th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
jh - your ‘generalised notion’ theory is great! Your suggestion that the Green Party needs to define more clearly what it stands for ..what principles etc. is hilarious! Have you browsed through the vast collection of Green policy (readily available on line!)? Have you perused the clearly laid-out principles? You’re a real dag and quite a wag to pretend that the Greens haven’t ‘come of age’.
October 26th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
jh - you feign familiarity with Treaty issues, but mispell the reo badly! Tirriti? Moari? Aue!
October 26th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
What we need to see is case studies of how the charter is applied (with discussion) and it will become clear (for example) that justice isn’t always a straight forward black and white issue. At present the charter is used to justify a particular stance.
October 26th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
greenfly,
both ti tiriti o waitangi and the treaty of waitangi should be put through a shreader, they are unworkable and nothing more than a source of ethnic tension. both parties need to sit down and lock the door until they can work out a, preferibly non-apartheid, compromise that both parties can accept, put that compromise to a critique by iwi and communities, put it to a vote my maori registered voters and then a vote by the general population; any other way will result in nothing but tension.
As for misspeling of the maori language; haphazard use of words from one language in sentances predominantly of another language is far worse “but mispell the reo badly!” - yuck. could atleast say “te reo” since that phrase has been readily accepted. but “the reo”, thats no better than naming a child “ebony anubis” (long story, lol). yuck.
October 26th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
jh Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
>> What we need to see is case studies of how the charter is applied (with discussion) and it will become clear (for example) that justice isn’t always a straight forward black and white issue.
true. that’s why we have policies.
You can find our policies on the website, and they show how we intend to apply these principles in various areas, such as health, tax, energy, water, etc.
October 26th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
“…justice isn’t always a straight forward black and white issue.”
Sounds like something we’d say when someone claims we should just ignore the treaty.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
sapient - seems picky doesn’t it. However, while we are picking …
it’s te tiriti, not ti
I do disagree with your view of ‘the reo’ but nevermind.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
sapient said: the treaty of waitangi should be put through a shreader, (it is) unworkable.. do you find that your view is widely held by Maori (the Treaty partner, remember?)
October 26th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
“(it is) unworkable”
yes, it will cost too much to give maori what they were promised so we should unmake our promise. hmmmm I’ve heard that sentiment somewhere else before…. kyoto maybe?
October 26th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
There was a bit on the television news last week about the National Front having a bit of a march in Wellington. To be honest, if the announcer hadn’t told us who they were I’d have mistaken them for a gay pride march.
Some counter-marchers were interviewed and explained how there was no place for racism in New Zealand. However, I don’t remember seeing these people turning out to protest against the Maori Party.
So I’m confused. Is racism good or bad?
October 26th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Yes, you’re confused. I don’t think we can help.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
greenfly, lol.
Yes, it should be te, not ti. Consider it a good thing that I get the spelling wrong just as i do with my english spelling, it shows that i accually understand the words and process them rather than mearly spew them out like so many, lol.
The vast majority of Maori do not know anything much about the treaty remember, lol. many maori perceive the treaty as guaranting them a certain amount of sovereignty and as the only real recognition of them as a people so oviously they would oppose shreading the treaty, but if offered an alternative that both ensures their sovereingty as a people and allows for cooperation then i beleive many would support such measures. maori are no more a homogenous group than europeans but i do beleive that most do want to make some genuine progress, and that is something that cannot be done with te tiriti in its present state.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
# nommopilot Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
“(it is) unworkable”
yes, it will cost too much to give maori what they were promised so we should unmake our promise. hmmmm I’ve heard that sentiment somewhere else before…. kyoto maybe?
…………………
*our promise*…….. some context.
This is from David Slacks book Bullshit Backlash and Bleeding Hearts
” If you’ve read the story of the creation of the United States Constitution, you’ll know that days can turn into weeks, weeks into months, and months into years when you try to work out something as fundamental as the framework for governing your country. The drafting of the Treaty of Waitangi was an altogether different proposition. But then, if you’d asked the Colonial Office, it’s unlikely they’d have said they saw it in those terms. Hobson wrote out some notes over a few days. He showed them to Busby (who was also organising a meeting of chiefs on 5 February) who thought it needed more, and added a good deal, including the promise in Article II that Britain would guarantee Maori possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties. He knew them: there would be no deal without that. The Treaty had to be translated, of course. The missionary Henry Williams and his son Edward did so on the evening of 4 February. The result was a treaty which purported, essentially, to do this:
It recognised that Maori were the prior occupants.
It made it possible for the Crown to set up a government.
It guaranteed to Maori that their tribal authority over their
lands, fisheries, forests, villages, treasures and culture would be
protected.
It made it possible for the Crown (and only the Crown) to buy
land from Maori, if they wished to sell it, and sell it to settlers.
It gave everyone, settlers and Maori, the status and rights of
British citizens.
However - and you knew that word had to be coming – the difference in translation caused some ambiguity.
In Article I we read in English that Maori ceded sovereignty to the Queen. But do we find that in the Maori version? The closest equivalent to sovereignty might be ‘mana’ or ‘rangatiratanga’ but instead it uses ‘kawanatanga’, which means governorship. That suggests not so much that Maori have passed authority over to the British, but rather that they’ve enabled the setting up of a government by the British.
Then in Article II: the Maori text, in exchange for the protection of the Queen, gave Maori people ‘unqualified exercise of their chieftainship (te tino rangatiratanga) over their lands, villages and all their treasures (taonga)’. That looks a good deal more like shared authority. It suggests that they would keep their control over tribal matters.
The Maori text with the use of ‘te tino rangatiratanga’ has a
much wider meaning than the English text, which guarantees
to the Maori: ‘the full, exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties’. And there’s one crucial word there: ‘taonga’. Property and possessions won’t do it: it’s all things held precious, and that would turn out to be pretty significant a century and a half later.
Time for some expert help here. The first lecturer I had at law school who taught our class anything Treaty-related was Alex Frame. He grew up in Tahiti, learning to speak Tahitian fluently - an advantage, he says, when it came to understanding Maori later in his career. He trained in law, becoming a lecturer, and early in his academic career in the 1970s began introducing material into the courses that he was teaching. ‘I can remember when one used to get sort of whistled for it from the back rows of very large law classes.’ That continued through the 1970s, and when he came back to New Zealand, he found himself building more and more of the Treaty work. Then he began advising Maori groups on various matters and was involved in the first of the modern Tribunal hearings – Motunui - in 1983. In 1988 he was asked to head up the Treaty of Waitangi unit in the Ministry of Justice; so from being a commentator and a teacher on the Treaty he moved to responsibilities of advising government.
People sometimes ask me, ‘How do I see the Treaty. How should we think of the Treaty?’
I’ve always said that the first article of the Treaty - the kawanatanga part - is very strong - much stronger than some Maori are prepared to concede, and the second article, which guarantees rangatiratanga is also very strong - much stronger than many Pakeha are prepared to concede.
So how can we have these two strong articles sitting there? I’m tempted sometimes by this idea. In a way both sides gambled. The Crown gambled. Why was it prepared to sign up to Article II? Well, in a sense the Crown gambled that there would be assimilation. And therefore if there was
assimilation, as you will see. Article II would become increasingly unimportant. On the other hand, Maori gambled. After all, why did Maori sign up for Article I - and by the way, don’t go for these readings that say Article I was only giving the Queen power over Pakeha. The most elementary reading of the Maori version of the first article shows that that is completely untenable. It gives the Queen te Kawanatanga katoa - all – of the kawanatanga; o ratou wenua - of their lands. Now, which lands is that? That’s the lands of the chiefs. That’s all it can be - have a look at the structure and I challenge anyone to show me an even faintly tenable reading which can dispute that it’s all the territory of New Zealand.
So why did Maori sign up to that? Well, I think they gambled. I think they gambled that the demographics in New Zealand would stay, not exactly as they were in 1840, but would stay approximately such that there would be a preponderance of Maori and that the newcomers would be relatively few. I know there is a reference in the preamble to others coming, but I think the gamble was that if the demographics stayed favourable to Maori then this kawanatanga thing would be a really abstract sort of notion in the background.
We’ll be coming back to this later, but it’s also worth bearing in mind that as much as you need to find out what the words mean, and what the parties understood them to mean, it’s also important to keep the broad perspective that asks: who was signing this, why were they signing this, and what did they expect? As Alex Frame says, there was a bit of a gamble going
/ /
Remember, too, the bargaining position - this was an agreement between a small band of foreigners and the chiefs of the tribes of 60,000 strong, brave, smart people. Yes, they saw other people coming, but they were still in a position of strength.
More settlement would mean more markets, more trade. That had been going very well for them: why would they not want to see more, as long as their position of strength was retained?
This was an agreement between two peoples, both seeing some purpose in sharing the same space and both needing to find acceptable terms for sharing it. “
October 26th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
# nommopilot Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
“(it is) unworkable”
yes, it will cost too much to give maori what they were promised so we should unmake our promise. hmmmm I’ve heard that sentiment somewhere else before…. kyoto maybe?
……………….
*our promise*
The short answer is context. The longer answer went to moderation.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
kahikatea Says:
true. that’s why we have policies.
You can find our policies on the website, and they show how we intend to apply these principles in various areas, such as health, tax, energy, water, etc.
……………………
For example parents shouldn’t smack their children as it is against the Non Violence principle.
welfare policies may influence women who lack sufficient support to get pregnant and have several children but this is justified as Social Justice.
Single people are taxed to support other peoples families (despite not having future grandchildren to bounce on their knees etc)…. Justified under Social Justice Principle
Etc
Etc
You don’t need to examine the policy so much as see who makes them (their credentials)
October 26th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
greenfly,
also, “they are the treaty partner remember”, yeah, that would be why there was so much consultation involved in the process i proposed.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Put another way, how is a vote for the National Front any different from a vote for the Maori Party?
If being native is the key difference between acceptability and non-acceptability, does that mean that the National Front in Britain is as acceptable as the Maori Party is in New Zealand?
October 26th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
wat, we call it P.C. it is something this party excels in.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
jh said: “The first lecturer I had at law school who taught our class anything Treaty-related was Alex Frame. He grew up in Tahiti, learning to speak Tahitian fluently - an advantage, he says, when it came to understanding Maori”
jh - did you accept that he was correct in saying that knowledge of te reo Maori (Tahitian or Aotearoan) means improved understanding Maori ? Was he P.C. ?
October 26th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Wat, you’re still confused. I really don’t think we can help.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Valis,
I agree. I don’t think you can help me.
That’s the problem.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
jh, I have some sympathy for those who believe the treaty is unworkable *and* who acknowledge that changing things requires both sides to sit down, discuss and agree a different way forward. I haven’t seen anyone try though and I’m not sure it actually would be easier.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
“I agree. I don’t think you can help me.”
Good to have that settled then.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
valis,
but is it not better to try and work towards a solution that benifits both parties and with which both are happy or is it better, as the party seems to think it is, to take an outdated document that serves no purpose other than to divide a people and try to push something that will never be acheived but will cause massive dissonence anyway and not benifit eaither party but disadvantage both throught eh in-group/out-group forces created.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
No offense intended, but I think your attitude shows why you would fail going down either path. Suppose they don’t agree that the treaty is “an outdated document that serves no purpose other than to divide a people”. What then? You won’t make any progress with Maori until you acknowledge where they are coming from and that their claims have legitimacy. If you start with a predetermined position, you’ll be wasting everyone’s time.
Greens do generally think a way can be found to make the treaty work, but at minimum it is a necessary starting point to move forward in any direction. Can we predict where such a good faith conversation will lead? No, and that’s ok.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Sayonara, frog.
Happy memories in that little clip - and a foreshadowing of the power of empowerment, I’m looking forwards to a great result from a surge of young voters this election.
Now is your time - carpe diem, and the groundswell which has been building for two elections can be yours.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
green karate dude,
i heard this afternoon that John key offer two Ministerial porfolio
to Maori
what you think about that fwwog
pq
October 26th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
# greenfly Says:
jh - did you accept that he was correct in saying that knowledge of te reo Maori (Tahitian or Aotearoan) means improved understanding Maori ? Was he P.C. ?
…………………
What puts people off learning Te Reo is the feeling that this is about political power part of recognizing (as some would have it) that as Moari were here first, it must be their country .
Or to put it another way: on the face of it learning a bit o Moari isn’t too bad,, (except that it competes with a lot of other languages) but it is the political side and the cultural/social engineering that people are weary of.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
# katie Says:
Happy memories in that little clip - and a foreshadowing of the power of empowerment, I’m looking forwards to a great result from a surge of young voters this election.
………..
Why young voters. What points are older people not likely to support?. As I’ve said before older people remember when people bottled fruit for the winter, had hens etc. Cultural revolution springs to mind?
October 26th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
“i heard this afternoon that John key offer two Ministerial porfolio to Maori”
Where did you hear that? It doesn’t seem to be on any news websites. Reference please.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Valis,
I have no time to argue with idiots who refuse to accepts facts and science so that they can continue living in their own self-important delusions, thats the job of a diplomat, if anything im more of an antagonist; thats why it wouldint be me doing the negotiating, me negotiating is more likley to result in ethnic war than peace.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
that wasint intended to be a personal attack by the way, i realise it could easily seem to be one.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Know thyself, I always say.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Didn’t take it that way, I think.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
jh - are you doing that (moari) on purpose?
October 26th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
peter quixote - were the two Maori offered Ministerial portfolios from his own party ( Te Heuheu, Henare)?
October 26th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
JH,
I think there is a much simpler explanation for why few people learn the Maori language.
What puts people off is exactly the same thing which puts people off learning Japanese, French or any other language: when you have been raised from birth with a single language, learning a second language (as an adult) can be quite difficult. This is a good reason for teaching children more than one language from birth (it doesn’t really matter which languages). Young children pick up multiple languages easily, and surprisingly (or not surprisingly, depending who you are), learning more than one language does not seem to delay development in either language … basically kids are wired to learn languages very efficiently.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Having personally seen Green support grow in both Canada and New Zealand, there are many reasons, but I think one of the main ones if that the Green message is being heard by more and more people. The reason they are hearing it now is that the things Greens have warned about for 30 years are now coming to pass.
Instead of being dismissed as loonies, Greens are now being recognised by more and more people to have been the ones who were seeing things as they really were….and are….while virtually all other political parties refused to see it.
The willfully blind will never see it….they never do. But most people aren`t willfully blind.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:17 am
Valis,
while i do indeed hate in others most those traits which i hate within myself, this is not one such case. I can cite hundreds of research papers which show strongly the dangers of strong outgroup, particuarly those where victimisation is felt by one or both parties; germany, nanking, rwanda, and bolivia are the first four major instances that come to mind, but then there is always the more ‘benign’ instances such as south africa, australia, ethnic minorities in america, and of course new zealand. I can cite no research that supports the apartheid that the party purports, though i can find several sociological opinion peices which try to pass themselves off as psychology without a single fact behind them which support the parties points.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:59 am
OutinFront Says:
“there are many reasons, but I think one of the main ones if that the Green message is being heard by more and more people. ”
The Green message is a mixed one; hopefully the pragmatists will come to the fore.
Interesting post Sapient: “dangers of strong outgroup”. It isn’t so much that the te Tirriti Greens want to right a wrong as that they see their new order as desirable. The non indigenous colonisers must be brought into line (as the beast driving that group is capitalism)….. unless someone has a better explanation.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:18 am
jh - the better explanation is that the Greens favour open and honest dialogue and would like to be involved with tangata whenua in that.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:58 am
I prefer my explanation as it doesn’t hide behind anything wishy washy.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:40 am
jh - couldn’t describe your explanation as ‘wishy washy’ - more ‘paranoid’.
October 27th, 2008 at 9:25 am
The media is pretty-much campaigning for the environmentalists this time, more so than I previously remember. Just in normal articles in the paper the reporter always seems to find out the environmentalist point of view, and devotes sometimes 1/3 of the space to that. Perhaps that is because the reporters are environmentalists? In any case it has given the impression that environmentalists are a major party group, and these sorts of things tend to become self-fulfilling.
The environmentalist bandwagon has been taking up by central and local politicians. We have a ministry for the environment which is spending money like water. We have DOC which owns 1/3 of the country and is continuing to buy more. We have the Canterbury Regional Council renaming itself to Environment Canterbury in a branding exercise to allow it to massively increase spending. We have stories about water shortages, global warming, and even peak oil sometimes.
All of this has given credence to the environmentalists’ beliefs in the minds of many people. Labour has been discredited in many eyes by its scandals and things like the smacking bill (oddly an environmentalist policy) and electoral finance act. However, people who naturally vote Labour can reasonably vote for the environmentalists instead, knowing that they go together.
I don’t for a minute think any of this is a good thing. Environmentalists lack basic knowledge which would allow them to make informed and sensible decisions (economics, markets, incentives, even cause and effect in some cases). The result is a bit like the blind leading the blind, and the effects will be widespread and unnecessary human suffering.
Anyway, given all the attention given to environmentalist concerns, what is surprising is that environmentalists are not at 30% in the polls. The reason for that, is that most environmentalists are left wing and (unlike what many people say) you can’t have one without the other.
If environmentalists want to really raise their vote, I suggest they work to destroy the unions. This is the last bastion of left-ness which is more interested in Labour than environmentalism. It contributes a massive amount of Labour’s support, and without it, Labour might fade in favour of the greens.
In the meantime, I suggest environmentalists continue their campaign to capture the machinery of the state, including things like DOC, MOE, Education, local councils, etc. However there has already been huge success here and it is probably into diminishing returns now. The other big spenders are health and welfare - how about spending some time thinking about how to take those over?
October 27th, 2008 at 10:44 am
greenfly,
I to desire “open and honest dialogue”, let me display a sample of such dialouge; “foreshore and seabed; Kiwi not iwi”, “lands claimed by government and then onsold or not used as per purpose of aquisition; iwi not kiwi”, “lakes and rivers; kiwi not iwi”, “nation; cultural mixing pot, not segrigation”, “state; underwhich all are equal regardless of traits they have no influence over” ,”equality before the law”, “one nation; one law; many peoples”, “sovereignty of iwi over their own affairs within their own lands between their own peoples”, “alludial title to iwi lands”, “a new framework where by iwi and pakeha cancommunicate and co-exist in equality“; fair and honest; if you state the parties intentions so honestly what do you get? “idiotic post-colonist sentiment which treats maori as one homogolous group and places them up on a pedistal and attributes to them all the things which we think would be great whilst ignoring the fact that we create these delusions and want these changes just so we can get over the guilt that we feel since we see ourselves as colonist scum and since we have no understanding of how the world works”, lets sum my goals up in the same manner; “I want an egalitarian society free from the strifes that come about through the formation of strong ingroup and outgroup relationships that inevitably form where two groups are unequal in rights or entitlements”.
and i ment bosnia, not bolivia. lol
October 27th, 2008 at 11:04 am
sapient - the operative word here was ‘dialogue’. It’s not a matter of formulating a policy independently then declaring your concreted position. Dialogue means discussion back and forth, by my reckoning. The result of the discussion (ongoing) should be an evolving relationship that suits all parties.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Sapient says: “..me negotiating is more likley to result in ethnic war than peace.”
His subsequent posts provide plenty of reasons to believe him, so perhaps there is little more to argue with him about.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
greenfly,
its called placing ones cards on the table, atleast im honest enough to turn them face up.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Sounds like you want to set all the terms and processes of discussion too. How often have you been on a marae where the discussion takes the time it takes and goes in all the directions the participants want it to? Process is what defines product in the end and if you have a bad process you will not have an outcome that people want to live with. That has been the problem all along.
Many of your other sweeping generalisations (most Maori don’t know about te Tiriti etc) are so unfounded they are not worth commenting on.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Janine,
glad you have been reading along. I have not been to a marae since I became a tertiary student, i havint had the time, but before that i went semi-reguarly and I am perfectly aware of the nature of discusion and the processes of justice within marae and the maori system.
My ’sweeping generalisation’ is founded, the generalisation that many do know and understand the treaty is however nothing more than an idealistic delusion, our schooling system does not adequetly teach about any part of New Zealand history and especially not about the treaty, it would seem most people dont even know that there were multiple versions. I expect that the extent of knowledge held by many is “its how they shafted us”, that and whatever drivel is shouted out from the likes of tariana turia.
While there is plenty or ways inwhich i would be willing to compromise, my bottom line is that all people should be equal under the law, i am entirly for the reclaimation of land and I am for self determination so long as it does not mean that the vote of one is more valuable than the vote of another in our legislative body. I would not force anything on any of the Iwi, although i have certainly not made it seem this way in the present dialouge i would engage in consoltation with the iwi over how they thought things should play out and what they saw as resonable compromises in the founding of a new New Zealand and the constitution there of. If individuals or iwi do not agree then they would have the oportunity to propose modifications or to vote against it when the changes go up for approval by maori voters; if the measures are not passed then they get what they want and further discusion can take place, if the measures pass then a new New Zealand can be founded and based of ethnic equality rather than devisiveness. atleast that is what i was trying to express in my origional post, then the arguements put me into a more antagonist role, lol.
October 28th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Im going to stop digging myself a hole now, but even if my diplomatic skills leave alot to be desired my point is that all the science is on my side where as all of your claims lack any basis, one might say you build your house on the sand.
October 28th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I was talking about relationships, which is what the whole bicultural dialogue is about - relationships that are based on mutual respect, not ’science’ whatever you mean by that.
There are a lot of assumptions made about what Maori think or believe - like anyone else there is a wide range of opinion, some of it difficult for individualistic Pakeha to accept. In the end though, you can set all the conditions you like, but if both are not willing to trust the process then there is still work to do. So far, those who want to do stuff to Maori, or graciously allow them to do things - the usual attitudes - are not particularly trusted. Not surprising really.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Janine,
just to clarify, by science i am refering to the pile of research conducted by psychologists into interpersonal relationshps, particuarly those between readily identifyable groups, both ethnic and sub-cultural.
I seek no further debate as i am not exactly good at expressing my views and always come over as a bigot, lol, so i shall list my motivations and reasonings below so, if you so desire, you may pick away at them and modify the way i think. if you have a reasoned criticism of my conclusions i would, as always, be glad to hear it.
I desire, as always, to maximise the social welfare of our society and it is my perception that within New Zealand ethnic cooperation is a vital part of progressing as a society. But both my intuition as a member of a social species and the science to which i make reference state, fairly clearly, that where ever there are groups that are divided from each other by some form of perceived inequality there will always arise strong tensions and those tensions, although good for group bonding, inevitably leed to a break down of intergroup cooperation and create strife; a situation which i do not beleive to be good for the social welfare of our society and as such i seek to avoid such an occurance.
Our society can be divided into many groups, but most broadly, socialy and politicaly, it can be divided into tangata whenua and tangata tiriti and most people, i would expect, realise as much. there are already tensions between the two groups as is evidenced fairly reguarly by the likes of the maori party and the strong diversity of te tiriti opinions. In order to ensure a society where these two groups can cooperate we must both resolve the causes of the present strife and prevent further strife from arising. to this goal i am entirly for treaty setlements and the righting of past wrongs (though my foreshore stance is based on a opposistion to private ownership of beaches, rivers, and lakes). however in order to avoid future strife the two groups, as aforementioned, must be treated equally, atleast under the law, or inevitably strife will arise due to perceived injustices and inequality as one group feels victimised (most likley pakeha) and as such i hold that both groups should be equal under the law for our society to progress and being equal under the law includes having an equal voice, per head, in the government of the nation.
If one forces equality apon a group it will not result in equality, it will result in strife, the choice must be made by the people whom it effects. in this far it must be the maori that decide when past wrongs have been suficently accounted for and it must be maori who decide that they will give up the maori seats, and it must be maori who decide that the treaty is unworkable and a new framework needs to be brought into the picture to ensure our society progresses. the maori must decide this, but at the same time they must do so in a way that does not agrivate further strife with pakeha or the social welfare is not served.
the people must be equal or there will be no future, but it cannot be forced equality and anything but true equality will not suffice. That is not to say that maori cannot have a degree of sovereignty over their own actions but that sovereignty must apply only in maori holdings so as to not challange the sovereingty of the nation as a whole and pakeha two must have the facilities to exercise such sovereignty should they have the desire and resources to do so. else ceasation.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
janine,
in the present day any maori soveregnty or actions must take place in the framework of the nations soveregnty, so yes “graciously allow” would be correct as it would be a decision of the nation as to if such soveregnty should even be allowed.
October 28th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I think we mostly agree about equality and some of the ways that might be expressed.
One thing we seem to interpret differently is the word ’sovereignty’ - it really does mean different things to different people, even in English. It’s one of the reasons that the Green and Maori Parties prefer to refer to the Maori version: that is the one that Maori signed. ‘Rangatiratanga’ is not a direct translation as it comes from a different world-view, one in which the concept of private ownership of such things as foreshores and seabeds was unknown. This is the reason the Treaty/Tiriti is still a topic of discussion and why many Pakeha are so scared of ‘Maori Sovereignty’.
An old kuia friend of mine, deeply-versed in these things, once said to me that for her sovereignty was simply mutual respect; the ability for Maori to do things their own way, to participate in setting the process of decision-making at every level. It was not about separatism, but about inclusion in its truest form.
That to me means that the systems and processes of governance we have need to change and adapt to include the Maori perspective and process as of right - graciously allowing is an attitude of superiority that should have gone out with the Victorians.
It isn’t difficult and it isn’t scary - it might work better than the contentious model we have.
BTW, you don’t come across to me as a bigot so much as a kind of badly-spelt and punctuated text book -) - there are far worse things!
October 28th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
janine,
yeah my spelling and such is no as good as it should be.
well, idealy, how i would like to do things is have one single national government which in terms of law making is relatvly decentralised, allowing the regions a certain degree of autonomy. I would like to see the government allowing the formation of communities where by groups of individuals may purchase from the government complete land rights (eg; including mineral rights etc) and as such gain alludial title and bee free of land taxes; the communities would them be able to opperate by their own laws and do as they wish so long as they abide by the constitution of the nation and by U.N. agreements. I would also like to see an increased reliance on the community models of justice as is the maori tradition. of course that all could be hugly wasteful for a country as small as new zealand but i see it as an effective way of guaranting a degree of autonomy to maori and to any sufficently large community.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:54 am
I heard Professor Jim Flyn describe mono culutralism as “boring”
biculturalism as “facism” and multi culturalism as “fun”.
October 29th, 2008 at 7:45 am
I read jh describing how he had “heard Professor Jim Flyn describe mono culutralism as “boring”
biculturalism as “facism” and multi culturalism as “fun”.
and wondered, ‘what’s his point?’
October 29th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I agree with the boring and fun parts, but i dont see how facism neccacarily slots in there?