Catherine Delahunty
Pakeha – a reflection on Ethnicity

Filling in forms is almost fun, but also annoying because very few of them allow me to tick “Pākehā”, which is actually my identity. I have never been able to tick NZ European let alone “Caucasian”, because Europe is ancestry but not my ethnicity and I have never been quite sure where Caucasia starts and finishes. All I know is that an awful lot of people allegedly come from there.

I usually just write Pākehā because I am making a point. The point is we live in Aotearoa and we have a nationality and an ethnicity, that ethnicity is ours to define.

The much debated “Pākehā” ethnicity has a fascinating and disturbing history because colonisation is ugly.  However there is one reason “Pākehā” is a great word. It’s essentially a kupu Maori which allows us to have a distinct identity while also acknowledging Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Despite various paranoid interpretations of this kupu I stick with the definition which inspires me, “Pākehā – of a different breath”. Being of a different breath to Tangata Whenua feels like an accurate description of our distinctive, historically challenged, unique identity which stands out to all except sometimes to ourselves.

The opportunity of being “Pākehā” is the opportunity to own losses we have sustained when we left ancestors on the other side of the world and the losses we imposed when this country was “settled”.

However we have to grasp the whole nettle of our culture and our relationship with Tangata Whenua and other cultures. This is not about appropriating moko or tikanga; it’s about respecting ourselves and others in the unique context of this country. Whether its birth, death, food, hospitality or language, we have our own customs as Pākehā, some are hybrids of European history and Māori norms.

We have something to let go, our racist inheritance, but something no one else can claim, our relationship based ethnicity.

And for all those out there who want the same experience and resources of “those privileged Māori”, I invite you to the wonderful world of statistics and facts around privilege, institutional racism and injustice in this country. As a “Pākehā” I am happy to share with you the long journey towards dominant group self-awareness so that everyone benefits.

137 thoughts on “Pakeha – a reflection on Ethnicity

  1. Interesting how word definitions change over the years. From what I’ve read of when the early European settlers first arrived, pakeha were not born here, while maori were; and the local Maori saw the settlers’ NZ-born children as Maori. Then came the Treaty (and versions thereof); then came the land grabs; then came the payments industry: all of which have both excellent and deplorable parts due to universal human greed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 (+5)

  2. I hate it when I am supposed to ask clients their ethnicity at the CAB it is stupid. We are all uman beans. I never know whether to put European or NZ European or English for myself because I am of Caucasian descent born in England and been here 60 years as a Kiwi by choice. Thank you for having me.

    Pakeha or Kiwi suits me fine, I liked the article above

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  3. “relationship based ethnicity”

    Can’t for the life of me get what this means – it seems to be just playing word games. ‘Pakeha’ is an identity, not an ethnicity. My ancestors didn’t magically change ethnicity when they stepped ashore here.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 (+12)

  4. ‘Pakeha’ is an identity, not an ethnicity. My ancestors didn’t magically change ethnicity when they stepped ashore here”

    That is more or less the point. Ethnicity is always defined by the individual and the group they identify most strongly with because of a shared history, culture etc.

    If, for whatever reason, your ancestors had stopped identifying themselves as European (and despite our tendency towards cultural cringe it is inarguable that we are not) and started calling themselves Pakeha then it would be so.

    Im happy to call myself a Pakeha. It recognises our history here in Aotearoa, and the special relationship between the Tangata Whenua and those of us that came later.

    To me, people calling themselves New Zealanders make an implicit statement: That ethnicity is something we can force upon others, not an identity we can collaboratively create.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 (-2)

  5. Maybe some people are confusing race with ethnicity and ethnicity with identity?

    Is there a European ethnicity, given it refers to national cultural identity and what exactly is the common national culture of Europe?

    Do Chinese New Zealanders see themselves as New Zealand Asians?
    Chinese born here and Chinese not born here would have significant differences.

    As for those born in Europe who migrated here, and those born to migrant parents some distance in perspective from those whose ancestors were here in the 19thC.

    That said many one New Zealander types (whether of the nationalist or leftist perspective on this) are descended from 19th C resident ancestors. They accept the New Zealand European label as an alternative to the more bi-cultural affirmation of the term Pakeha, and propose New Zealand Maori be New Zealanders first like them.

    Pakeha who affirm bi-cultural identity for New Zealand should be given the choice of that term, let the people decide.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  6. Sam I would put it that we arrived as Irish, Scots, Welsh, English and British settlers. Then came other ethnicities from Europe.

    Together there has emerged a New Zealand culture that includes all these groups and many others besides, but is there a New Zealand European cultural ethnicity that excludes others not of any European ancestry?

    “Pakeha” simply reflects that ethnic identity/New Zealand culture for those not Maori, yet of a bi-cultural nation together with Maori. The question is how to connect more recent migrants into this relationship. At the moment we do this by using the term multi-cultural society – of a bi-cultural nation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  7. Tangata Whenua.

    As I understand it, this means “people of the land”. If that’s right, why does that apply only to those who consider themselves of Maori ethnicity? And why does it apply to them at all?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 (+6)

  8. SPC – it’s fair to say there is a New Zealand culure based mostly on European cultures, and to call it ‘Pakeha’. But this doesn’t make Pakeha an ethnic group.

    “Ethnicity is always defined by the individual and the group they identify most strongly with because of a shared history, culture etc.”

    Yes, but also a history of living together leading to a degree of shared genes. Pakeha don’t have that – nor necessarily a shared history or culture – the minute my ancestors stepped off a boat they became identifiable as Pakeha, i.e. European colonists in New Zealand. A cultural and to some extent, political or historical, identity. This is quite irrelevent to their ethnicity – they were still (in this case) ethnically British, or northern Europeans or whatever.

    ‘Maori’ on the other hand, is clearly both an ethnic group and a cultural identity.

    ““Pakeha” simply reflects that ethnic identity/New Zealand culture for those not Maori, yet of a bi-cultural nation together with Maori.”

    I’m not convinced we qualify as a bicultural nation. We sure as hell weren’t when the term ‘Pakeha’ was coined.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  9. Sam, but New Zealand European is no more an ethnicity than Pakeha, not unless ethnicity becomes race. In which case we merge all Asians, South and East into New Zealand Asians.

    The unstated position is Europeans look alike as non Maori Pakeha, whereas other migrants get to declare a national ethnicity – because they are those that make a bi-cultural nation multi-cultural.

    But the “white” culture in New Zealand is not European …

    As to 1840, we were more two peoples in two nations in one sovereign state. This happening again is what some fear about the term bi-cultural nation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  10. There was, in 1840, a bi-cultural nation where you could divide the two cultures into Maori and Pakeha.

    However 170 years later we have a multicultural nation, and to suggest that simply to go on a long journey with Catherine Delahunty to a promised land where Maori and Pakeha cultures can coexist as seperate but co-depedent cultures is an insult to ALL other cultures

    As a “Pākehā” I am happy to share with you the long journey towards dominant group self-awareness so that everyone benefits.

    You can almost imaging a “I have been to the mountain top and have seen the promised land” speech.

    This magical mystery tour that Catherine Delahunty would like to take us on is a journey without end for the the destination is not in view, and is without a purposes that ALL New Zealanders can buy into.

    Simply as the people are beyond caring about the treaty and the unspecified destination for the happy clappy celebrations of nationhood.

    And no dominant group will exist in future New Zealand to take any interest in the treaty or the journey to that unknown destination.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 (+5)

  11. We have a multi-cultural society, but the developmental form of a bi-cultural nation. What “we” are doing is encouraging Maori renewal/self confidence with the latter – with the process to consider progress in the constitutional area as a way to reinforce completion of Treaty iwi settlements.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  12. “New Zealand European is no more an ethnicity than Pakeha”

    Exactly.

    “As to 1840, we were more two peoples in two nations in one sovereign state.”

    Actually we were two peoples in a multitude of nations with a distinct lack of clarity as to which administrations retained, or had gained, sovereignty. Clearly many hapu and iwi had not signed away sovereignty, quite possibly none had.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  13. Kia ora Cath

    Love this. As usual you express the Pakeha issue with your customary eloquance. We are all so happy to have an MP of your integrity and calibre in our parliament.

    Just been reading in a book that in 1795 the german ethnologist Johann Blumenbach visited the Caucasus and was “impressed by the health and physique of the mountain people”. Despite them not being quite white he used the term Caucasian as one of his 5 great divisions of mankind.

    Love this…Caucasian started with obvious anomalies haha.

    Clare Robinson

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 (-5)

  14. The word ‘Caucasian’ relates to the Caucasus, not ‘Caucasia’.

    You remind me of a high school music teacher who told me Greig was a ‘Norwegian, from Norwegia’.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 (+5)

  15. Tangata Whenua…
    So when the first Polynesians stepped ashore were they Tangata Whenua instantly? I don’t think so! So when did they become the People of the Land?
    A generation?
    A hundred years?
    Three hundred years?
    I am born New Zealander, I AM Tangata Whenua!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 (+4)

  16. Well, I admit to getting a bit miffed when someone like Peter Sharples, whose father was English, claims to be Tangata Whenua, excluding others who have been on the land for longer, when my family has been here for 5 generations on one side and at least 4 on the other. Including some very well known New Zealanders.
    I feel way more comfortable on a Marae than in an English pub, my first cousins, and many other family members, are Maori, and New Zealand Chinese, who have also been here for generations.

    When I started work, mostly with British and Americans, I found we do have a distinct New Zealand Pakeha culture. We have little in common with Europeans.

    Pakeha Tangata Whenua is fine by me.,

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 (+3)

  17. Pakeha has become an accepted term for New Zealanders of white British descent. I wonder what that makes Chinese, Dalmatians etc, who have also been here since the early days.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 (+3)

  18. At that certain point when a distinction needed to be made, those who were native, made it. Their original intention and interpretation is the one we need to default to, as we do with the Treaty. Makes the issue seem quite simple.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 (-4)

  19. So Tangata whennua doesn’t mean ‘people of the land’, but ‘first people of the land’. There are some dictionaries that need advising, greenfly.

    Great post Catherine! I’ve always felt like their was no ethnicity box for me to tick. I’m white, but I’d never been to Europe. I usually tick ‘other’ and write NZer. I’ve got a bit of Maori blood, enough for a $1000 grant when I was a varsity. But I’ve got a heap more Chinese blood (which came to NZ in 1923) than Maori.
    I’m a mongrel really. As are most Kiwis, including Maori.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 (+5)

  20. I’m saying, fin, is that those who first declared it, are the authority on what it means. They are gone, but if we consider what they meant, we’ll get it.
    Why do you yearn to tick an ethnicity box?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  21. As a migrant from the US I find the exclusion of the USian category as well as the “Pakeha” category a bit off-putting. I am NOT from Europe or worse, from England :-)

    Got to list ethnicity somehow? the only reasonable thing to do is don’t.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  22. So BJ, by my reckoning you could become a citizen, but never Tangata Whenua.
    If your kids were born here they would immediately be Tangata Whenua. One bit of fine print…only the children of citizens can become Tangata Whenua, not just any old tourist etc.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  23. samiam – anyone who can whakapapa back to pre-european settlers (that is, maori who lived here before the arrival of Tasman, Cook et al) can, if they wish, validly call themselves Tangata Whenua. What’s so difficult about that?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  24. “I wonder what that makes Chinese, Dalmatians etc,”

    I would consider Dalmatians are Pakeha, and Chinese Tau Iwi.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  25. Pakeha of Dalmation extraction, Pakeha of Chinese extraction.
    Why not?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  26. What’s so difficult about that??
    As a born New Zealander please explain which part of me isn’t “of the land”.
    Once you have identified that bit…please explain what land it belongs to?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  27. Actually Samiam, the thing that irks me is that I have to be grouped with the British to get anywhere close to matching, and I am by no means and in many ways very much NOT British. They make desperately poor food, rubbish automobiles and warm beer. There are a LOT of Americans here, and according to all the forms we fill out, we’re all Brits…

    Which is obviously wrong. :-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  28. At least they spell right and can drive on the correct side of the road!
    Their comedy leaves American for dead.
    I can’t think of much else to recommend them though.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  29. samiam – I think I see your disconnect. You are taking the literal meaning of a term, ‘tangata whenua’ and believing that, because you fit that description, you qualify as one of the team that uses the term to describe themselves. That’s a mistake. If you were a cowboy, and you lived in Dallas, would you claim that you are a Dallas Cowboy?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 (-1)

  30. Kia-ora Catherine

    i agree that many ‘kiwis’ identify differently.. some even still support a monarchy (but,not I) ?!

    just a thought.. many Govt. forms have a part for ‘other’ ethnicity: maybe you & others of like mind could write ‘Pakeha’ or similar there ? If enough people did so, then the ‘powers that be’ may wake up & see a need to include it as a viable option in future…..

    Kia-ora Koutou Katoa

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  31. ‘Born here’ and having your placenta buried on the land are two different things. Most placenta are disposed of by the hospital staff – incinerated usually. Your interpretation is not sound, Kerry.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  32. It is craziness trying to establish who was here first and whom, by being the first, has the highest status.

    The futility is born out by the “fact” (yes questionable but not without foundation) that Maori landed here after a journey starting in China.

    http://maaori.com/people/maoriara.htm

    What greenfly is saying is that Maori were first here and as such have first dips as tangata whenua status.

    However Catherine Delahunty (and greenfly) don’t want to recongnise that Maori ancestors came from China and South East Asia. And as such, any current Chinese or Filipino immigrant should have equal ethnic rights as the emigrants that left their shores 15000 ago.

    Surely ethnically they are the same people?

    You can see where the ethnic labeling and pidgeon holing of New Zealanders is so stupid.

    But the likes of Catherine Delahunty and greenfly keep trying in vains to seperate races and ethnic backgrounds. Giving one higher status then another.

    Even though this is totally impossible.

    Cant be far before someone invokes Godwins law and starts an ethnic seperation discussion.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 (+3)

  33. I don’t just live in NZ.
    I am BORN of NZ.
    I BELONG to NZ
    You haven’t yet explained to me just what it is about me that isn’t Tangata Whenua.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  34. Greenfly. Arguing about Maori words when you do not understand their contextual meaning just makes you look stupid.

    The tradition is that, as those who have grown up in a Maori context know, the place you are Tangata Whenua is where your afterbirth is buried. Where you were born.

    Which is why some Maori relations of mine, some years ago, had a fight to change hospital procedure, so that those who wanted had the placenta returned to be buried on their land.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  35. I think it’s pretty clear that the pigeon holing of people is fairly arbitrary. I just wish we could stop all this nonsense. Why do the Maori spokespersons refer to “our people”? I recall the recent bi-election when some Mana party guy bemoaned the “fact” that his people’s vote was split between two parties, completely ignoring the fact (actual fact) that more people who think of themselves as Maori voted for another party than voted for the two so-called Maori parties.

    So what is Tangata Whenua actually supposed to mean? Is it supposed to mean “indigenous” and, if so, how does that apply to people who may not retain much of the culture their ancestors practised 700 years ago and cannot even trace a slither of their lineage back more than 700 or 800 years, rather than thousands of years? In the end we can all trace our lineage to immigrants.

    I know and have known many Maori who seem to be no different from other “Pakeha” I know, having similar lifestyles and ambitions. I’m struggling to figure out just what is so different about those who consider themselves Maori, and nothing here seems to explain that. So Catherine’s post just seems to be a bunch of words.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  36. Gerrit – it’s not crazy at all to describe who was here first. Maori were clearly established here well before Europeans arrived. Where’s the crazy in that? Your claim that the ancestors of those original immigrants could claim to be Tangata Whenua is…quaint.

    samiam – what’s different? You can’t (presumably) whakapapa back to pre-European-arrival ancestors, living on these islands. If you could, you could claim to be Tangata Whenua.

    Kerry – you may think my ignorance of taha maori makes me look stupid, but my years teaching highschool as Head of the Maori Department and Kaiwhakaako Reo Maori, along with my years spent managing the Mahi Ka Kai project at Te Koawa Turoa o Takitimu helps ease the pain of your criticism. I always stupidly believed that the rohe in which your whenua was placed (not always buried, sometimes secreted in a ti kouka, apea) gave you manawhenua, rather than made you tangata whenua. I’ve so much to learn from you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 (-3)

  37. greenfly,

    Gerrit – it’s not crazy at all to describe who was here first. Maori were clearly established here well before Europeans arrived.

    You miss the point I’m making. No one questions who which ethnic group arrived here first.

    What we are questioning is the right of one group of immigrant people to have privileges above and beyond those of their ancestors or those of people who arrived after them.

    Maori are not indigenous people (to call themselves that is in insult to true indigenous people such as Canadian Inuit or Australian Aborigine people.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 (-1)

  38. “Maori are not indigenous people (to call themselves that is in insult to true indigenous people such as Canadian Inuit or Australian Aborigine people.”
    What???
    Aboriginal Australians walked the land bridge thousands of years ago and populated the world’s largest island, and in time, qualified as indigenous to that big country.
    Maori sailed from far-flung Pacific islands hundreds/thousands of years ago and populated this cluster of South Pacific islands, and in time, qualified as indigenous to these few mountainous isles.

    You don’t agree?
    Why ever not??

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 (-1)

  39. greenfly,

    Maori were clearly established here well before Europeans arrived.

    Where is “here”? Are you referring to every inch of what we now call New Zealand or Aotearoa? Were they settled in every inch of these islands when Europeans arrived? Did they, at that time, regard themselves as a single people, wherever the different groups settled? Why would immigrants arriving later (from anywhere) have a different status and at what point in the past would that have been the case?

    Sorry about all of the questions but this stuff really confuses me, as a relatively recent immigrant.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 (-2)

  40. greenfly,

    Maori sailed from far-flung Pacific islands hundreds/thousands of years ago and populated this cluster of South Pacific islands, and in time, qualified as indigenous to these few mountainous isles.

    What exactly is the qualification for indigenous status? Were Maori called Maori when they first came to these islands? Over what period did they arrive and did later immigrants have a different status to the first ones?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  41. greenfly,

    Maori sailed from far-flung Pacific islands hundreds/thousands of years ago and populated this cluster of South Pacific islands, and in time, qualified as indigenous to these few mountainous isles.

    You don’t agree?
    Why ever not??

    Many others who sailed to the same cluster of pacific islands and are NOT to be called “indigenous” simply because of a time scale of less then 1000 years?

    Why ever should Maori be called “indiginous”?? Or conversely, if you claim them to be “indigenous”, then why cannot every other immigrant ethnic community be called “indigenous”??

    Maybe you need to set a time frame of “occupation” to claim “indigenous” status.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  42. Were they settled in every inch? Wtf?
    If they hadn’t set up camp on the top of te maunga tapu Aoraki, are they disqualified from the title ‘indigenous’? If none of them had plumbed the depths of te roto makariri Wakatipu, are they therefore disqualified from claiming the islands as theirs?
    Why would immigrants arriving from elsewhere have a different status? How about that hundreds of years gap? Not worth a jot, Tony? Has a tourist, fresh off the plane the same status as an old Kiwi battler, born 90 years ago in Eketahuna?
    Strange thoughts, yours.
    Gerrit – Many others who sailed to the same cluster of pacific islands and are NOT to be called “indigenous” simply because of a time scale of less then 1000 years?”
    2000, 1000, 900, 800…you are quibbling over significant stretches of time. Millennia are big. Centuries are big. It’s the gap that makes the difference. If we were quibbling over a decade, you’d have an argument. We ain’t. You don’t.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  43. Greenfly, you said they’d settled “here” before Europeans arrived but what did “here” mean back then? Must it have meant coast to coast, in both directions, on all islands? The intent of the “every single inch” term was was perhaps a step too far for the conversation at this stage.

    Regarding timescales, I’m assuming that not all the original people who started to settle the islands did so by arriving on the same boat or the same group of boats. You seem to be saying that a group of people that arrived hundreds of years after the first group should have a lesser status but are fuzzy over a group that arrived, say, a few decades after the first group. The timescale seems arbitrary. This has nothing to do with tourists, who don’t intend to settle on these islands.

    I see many more questions weren’t answered and you’ve picked on your own interpretation of the ones you decided to answer, in attempts at ridicule. That’s not a particularly convincing strategy. I’m still in the dark about what really marks some people out as different in some fundamental way. I’d go along with Gerrit in questioning just what makes an indigenous person indigenous, and add the question about what should attach to such a status and why.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  44. greenfly,

    Glad to see you set a timeline. 1000 years after the first Chinese immigrants arrived in New Zealand their locally born offspring call them selves indigenous.

    But people who arrived here 10 years ago, their offspring cant be called indigenous.

    More craziness.

    No wonder so many people no longer give a toss about traveling Cathrine Delahunties journey to that unknown nirvana called “dominant group self awareness”.

    I am happy to share with you the long journey towards dominant group self-awareness so that everyone benefits.

    Does anyone know what “dominant group self awareness” means?

    Very new age rhetoric.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 (+4)

  45. What does the law say, I wonder? Does Tangata Whenua have legal status? Is the term recognised by Parliament? Is it used in the Treaty of Waitangi?
    If any of these are the case, your arguments fade into te kohu.
    Did the aboriginal people of Australia all arrive on foot at the same time, settle on every part and call themselves ‘aboriginal’? You seem to have no trouble accepting that they are indigenous.
    1000 years ago .v. 10 years ago – really Gerrit? Descendants of the first arrivals call themselves descendants of Tangata Whenua and are therefore able to claim Tangata Whenua status. Those who arrived 10 years ago cannot claim ancestry of that kind. That’s the difference. In any case, how many modern New Zealanders of Maori descent do personally claim to be Tangata Whenua? I’m guessing many would say, “On my father’s side”. or “on my mother’s side”. Maybe they’ll say, “kind of”. Who knows. We assume much here.
    Tony – apologies for sounding ridiculous (wanting to ridicule) – I was feeling combative and am accustomed to locking horns on right-wing blogs.
    “I’m still in the dark about what really marks some people out as different in some fundamental way” – fundamentally, we are all the same, however, the test for Tangata Whenua-ness in this country is ones ability to whakapapa back to those who were here before the arrival of the first European explorers. Is that not easy to grasp and decisive?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 (-3)

  46. “Dominant group self-awareness”

    Easy. You must know the meaning of ‘self-awareness’, Gerrit, so I’ll not labour the obvious. You must surely know what a ‘dominant group’ is as well, and must also be able to work out that it’s that group that is not as self-aware as Catherine would like it to be, given that she wants to take you on the journey to the point where you, as a member of that group, are. Tangata Whenua are not that group. They are not dominant in our society. They are fewer in number and do not occupy the bulk of positions of influence and power. Another group does – non-Tangata Whenua. Members of that group do not understand the relationship between their group and Tangata Whenua very well. Catherine seeks to remedy that. I suppose this thread is an example of members of that group becoming more self aware through discussion. That can’t be a bad thing. If you find Catherine’s term for this process to be very New Age and rhetorical, perhaps you could suggest a better term?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  47. greenfly,

    “self-aware” is not a term I would use as it can be either narcissist self focused or it can be emphatically societal focused.

    Problem you and Catherine Delahunty face is that (and I’m only going by what feedback I receive in the cultural and ethically diverse melting pot that is South Auckland) is that none (or only a few) gives a toss about becoming “self-aware” in their relationship with Tangata Whenua.

    Good luck trying to take people on the journey, will be pretty lonesome I would suggest. Especially as you don’t have a picture painted of how this magical journey will be measured as having been reached.

    So go on both of you, paint a picture of what the journeys end will look like.

    Paint something that the great unself-aware can relate to.

    Or does the old expression If you don’t know where you are going, any road will take you there still hold true?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  48. Greenfly. Seeing as you have bought out the big guns I am consulting around my Rohe.

    I have shown this thread to several of the Maori speakers I know. Awaiting more answers.
    So far it seems to depend on the Iwi, how they define Tangata Whenua.
    Word meanings vary as much as pronunciation.
    Definitely not as cut and dried a definition as yours, so far, on the whole.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  49. Gerrit – ‘magical’ journey? Belittling the process of encouraging self-awareness around an issue that is regarded as the corner-stone of our relationship with the islands’ ‘first peoples’ seems kinda ‘small’ of you. The Treaty requires understanding, if every day actions are to be in line with the principles held therein. If one of the parties, collectively, shows that it has a shallow understanding of that relationship and that treaty, surely increasing their understanding is the intelligent thing to do.
    Kerry – nga puu nui? Ka mau te wehi!
    You say you’ve discovered that the meaning of Tangata Whenua is a matter of how those who are, define it. We are in agreement then. My ‘definition’ was simplistic, to match the discussion, but you may recall I referred to whether or not those candidates for the title ‘Tangata Whenua’ wished to be classified as such, as well as their ability to whakapapa back down the line.
    I look forward to your assessment of the answers you are gathering.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  50. and I’m looking forward to you explaining what part of born New Zealanders isn’t ‘te Whenua’.
    Then explaining where does that other bit belong?
    Hawaiki perhaps? Oh, wait, that’s where the other other bit belongs.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  51. greenfly,

    Belittling the process of encouraging self-awareness around an issue that is regarded as the corner-stone of our relationship with the islands’ ‘first peoples’ seems kinda ‘small’ of you. The Treaty requires understanding, if every day actions are to be in line with the principles held therein.

    Most people don’t give a toss about the “relationship” with the “first people” and therefore the journey is rather a “small” event to more then just me.

    Did a quick walk around the Manurewa market, whilst buying the weeks vegetables, this morning and asked random people (about 40 in total) what the treaty meant to them. Now the result is not scientific or accurate but is indicative.

    91% don’t give a toss about the treaty. They don’t indicate they even WANT an understanding.

    That is why I’m calling it a mythical, magical journey.

    Mythical as no-one is going on it, magical as the outcome is going to raise “self-awareness” in those who are not interested.

    Have a nice journey to who knows where. I’m sure Catherine Delahunty will be cheerful company.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  52. No one is interested in understanding the meaning and ramifications of the country’s founding document, Gerrit? That’s unfortunate, as knowledge, they say, is power, meaning ignorance is powerlessness, I guess. What a great pity is is that most New Zealanders are powerless because of their lack of knowledge. I guess Catherine is figuring that education is a good thing, an enabeling thing, whereas you seem to think that it’s superflous to our needs, a waste of time, a lighter-than-air ‘magical’ thing. I’m surprised that you are such a staunch advocate for ignorance. An ignorant population is subject to the machinations of those better knowing of the facts, I always think. Education and knowledge are weapons against exploitation, I believe. But for you, the warm embrace of ignorance is a comfort and a succor. curious.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 (-3)

  53. Should everyone have equal rights, from birth, regardless of race, creed, or ethnicity?

    no one else can claim, our relationship based ethnicity.

    I’d wager there’s little chance of anyone claiming it, as I’m not sure anyone understands what is meant by the term “relationship based ethnicity”?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  54. greenfly,

    No, what I said was that most people don’t care about the treaty. You can have the greatest educational policy (or journey) but it is wasted if no one is interested.

    You are aligning disinterest with ignorance. I would say that it is exactly the opposite . People are schooled up on the treaty and find it had no bearing or is woefully inadequate in providing guidance in their lives.

    Treaty to most is a meaningless document, a decision arrived at not from ignorance but from understanding.

    Problem you still face is that in your mind the treaty is the bees knees as far as our founding document.

    But most don’t see it that way, they see it as a hindrance to constitutional reforms, in the fact that it is so out of step with 22nd century thinking.

    Go ahead, go on your journey and see how many will join you.

    Just remember to differentiate between peoples ignorance and disinterest. They are quite separate emotions.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 (+3)

  55. ” People are schooled up on the treaty ” you say, and from that educated position, reject it as meaningless?
    What nonsense, gerrit.
    Firstly, I would say that most people are not “schooled up on the Treaty. There is, in my experience, a woeful lack of understanding about the Treaty. Perhaps you could tell me where it is the people you have discussed this with, learned about the Treaty and it’s ramifications? That would help me to accept what seems to me to be an erroneous claim. Did they study it at uni? Did they attend hui at their local marae? Did they it on their telly?
    Most New Zealanders have a good knowledge of the Treaty and have decided that it’s meaningless?
    Pull the other one, it has bells on.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  56. greenfly,

    Again you are reading it from the prospectus that those descendents, not from the first immigrations, just simply need education to the glory of the treaty and they will be able to complete the journey of self-awareness.

    I saying that many may have completed the journey (my guess at those numbers may be as good as yours) and decided the treaty is a load of codswallop and off no value.

    You simply (nor I) do not know.

    You and Catherine Delahunty are free to cling to the belief that with the right education a new age of enlightenment regarding the treaty will be endorsed by the populace.

    Well go ahead, hold your education seminars, nothing stopping you.

    But when you do ask the people who have attended re-education regarding the treaty on how they felt afterwards.

    If they paint a rose picture, you are on the right pathway of your journey.

    But if you find that resentment is high, maybe you need to think differently about how to carry on the journey on your lonesome.

    Manukau City Council, before amalgamation, was pretty staunch in sending staff to Maori awareness seminars, to marae hui’s etc.

    Ask those people how they felt, my feedback from people who attended was that it was mainly a waste of time and space.

    Still waiting for you to paint a picture of what journeys end will look like.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  57. Gerrit – I’m not sure why you believe I’m holding education seminars on the Treaty. It seems to be self-generated belief of the sort people get from interviewing their own keyboards. You asked, originally,
    “Does anyone know what “dominant group self awareness” means?”
    I believed I did, and explained my take on the expression. Oddly, you then partnered me up with Catherine and had us on the seminar circuit together.
    Then you asked for a picture. Mine is: New Zealanders, all versed in the Treaty and the discussions around it, making informed discussions in terms of the agreement. After all, the Treaty is the founding document upon which the relationships between Maori and other New Zealanders is based.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  58. greenfly,

    Well who will be running the education seminars? or more importantly who will attend?

    If no one attends is the achievement, you painted so eloquently, possible?

    Thanks for painting that picture by the way.

    Not sure many will be painting a similar one, but there you are.

    Problem that will continue to grow is that “other New Zealanders” care less and less about a “relationship” with Maori.

    It will continue to grow every generation until (and this is my painting of the future) we will, in New Zealand, have a constitution based on equality irrespective of ethnicity and historical immigration patterns.

    The treaty will be consigned to history where it deserves its righteous place as a document that served reasonably well for 100 years but is now totally outdated.

    Time for a constitution based on equality.

    Now I know you will go on about righting past wrongs and all that type of grievance stuff, but frankly they cannot ever be righted and it is plainly time for a new constitutional start for all New Zealanders.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  59. The national Government claims that it has made significant progress in ‘righting past wrongs’ (Tuhoe) and settling claims (other Iwi).
    Do you not believe Mr Findlayson and Mr Key?
    Are they lying?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  60. greenfly,

    fundamentally, we are all the same, however, the test for Tangata Whenua-ness in this country is ones ability to whakapapa back to those who were here before the arrival of the first European explorers. Is that not easy to grasp and decisive?

    It’s easy to grasp but fairly arbitrary. Why wouldn’t the descendants of non-Maori who settled an area that Maori didn’t be regarded as Tangata Whenua, for that area? This was really the point behind my question of whether Maori settled every inch of what we now call New Zealand. If the islands of New Zealand were, say 100 times as large or there were far more habitable islands in New Zealand that non-Maori first settled, would there be special status for the various ethnic settlers in various parts?

    There are many other angles to view that special status from but it seems to me that the reasons for special status, as stated so far, seem pretty arbitrary. As there are very few, if any, Maori who live the way their original Maori ancestors did, Tangata Whenua seems misplaced.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  61. So, Tony, you are saying that if you were to find and settle on a spot somewhere in Australia where the Dream Time People haven’t occupied, you would become an aboriginal?

    I see.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  62. Eh? I was examining your position, greenfly. Mine is, currently, that no group of people deserve special status within a country. You clearly think that there are cases where some groups do deserve that special status and I was trying to determine why it should be just this one group. So far, the reasons seem fairly arbitrary, but I’m all ears.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  63. No group deserve special status – the Koru Lounge argument, eh!
    Special status – the Past Injustice Group, aren’t they a special case and deserving of reparation? Certainly the Government seems to think so. Agent Orange – ring a bell? I don’t see what issue you have with recognising special status groups. What did Maori do to deserve special status? Got here well before we did and co-signed a Treaty guaranteeing them…special status. Are you for reneging on treaties, Tony?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  64. Should the child of a woman who was prescribed Thalidomide be compensated for it’s missing limbs? Or do you believe it’s only the swallower of the pill that should get something to ease her pain?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  65. Absurd argument, greenfly. If someone is the victim of an injustice, then they should have recourse to some kind of compensation or retribution. If someone’s late parents were victims, then there would be a question over how justice is served. If one set of someone’s grandparents were victims, the idea of justice becomes more vague. The further one goes back, the more hazy the idea of justice. A set of my grandparents had to leave their country because of persecution and had to start up again in another country. I don’t think of myself as special or needing retribution for their hurt.

    But justice would be within the the laws of the land for the particular person or persons wronged. But there are other issues with Maori Tangata Whenua; certain rights exist for them, that don’t apply to other people who do not claim to be Maori.

    Regarding treaties, if signed, they are signed by people who represent groups at the time of the treaty. Were all groups affected consulted at the time? Should a treaty last into eternity regardless of who signed it? I would think treaties are up for renegotiation or dumping just like any other piece of legislation. Why would any treaty be regarded as sacrosanct for ever? I’m sure that’s not generally the case and can’t think of a good reason why this one, signed 173 years ago by representatives of the British Crown and various Maori groups extant then. We have a very different set-up now, on all sides.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 (+4)

  66. Question the Treaty as much as you like, Tony. The two parties who signed it, the Crown and Maori, aren’t.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 (-3)

  67. Gawd – This thread is still going!? What does it take to drive a stake through its ugly heart anyway?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  68. BJ,

    People having fun, good discussion though.

    For we have gone from a journey of self awareness for the dominant ethic group to the plebs dont have a say in that the Crown and Maori will go on their merry path irrespective of what the people think, say or want.

    That is till the first government which says enough is enough and we start a journey to a democratic, equality amongst ALL people constitution.

    Interesting execcise to carry out BJ, when you are next at a gathering of people ask how many give a tinkers cuss about the treaty.

    Interesting results you will find.

    Next question will be how long a political party will tap into that sentiment and campaign on equality for ALL under the sun.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  69. greenfly,

    Yep, but you forgot to look at Labour with the seabed and foreshore policy. Created the Maori party who are going?

    Mana party split from the Maori party and are strong proponents of a constitution based around the treaty. They are going up in the polls?

    Not many journeys to self awareness.

    Slowly but surely consensus will build for an equality based constitution.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  70. Solka,

    Yep at a steady 12% and 100% reliant on a Labour party to see your policies enacted.

    If people really cared they would be flocking to the Greens so they can join Catherine Delahunty on the journey to “self awareness”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  71. The whole point of the discussion, gerrit, is that people don’t really care. I argue that it’s because they don’t know. You say it’s not worth knowing. Bj’s right. Nothing has been gained here, bar entertainment.
    Solkta’s right though. The Greens are the third-biggest party and a significant force in new Zealand politics. If Labour don’t get their teko together, the Greens will be in the top two before you can say Prime Ministers Russel Norman and Metiria Turei :-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  72. greenfly,

    Again you get it wrong what I’m saying.

    I said people by and large, do know what the treaty entails and STILL dont give a tuppenny ha’penny.

    Your are absolutely right nothing has been gained here if you do not understand that people dont care about the treaty, not by ignorance as you are suggesting, but by being familier with the treaty and all the seperatism it entails.

    Seperatism you cannot include in any meaningful equalateral constitution

    But go on your journey (or let Catherine Delahunty and the parliamentary wing of the Greens do it for you) to raise self awareness in the people who you think are ingorant, see how many will follow.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  73. “91% don’t give a toss about the treaty. They don’t indicate they even WANT an understanding.”

    You’d probably get the same response if you asked about people’s understanding of economics. Doesn’t mean understanding economics wouldn’t be a good thing.

    So far as people’s understanding, and rejection, of the Treaty goes, A survey in 2004 found 8 percent of people claimed to know a lot about the Treaty, 45 percent ‘a fair amount’, but only 34 percent knew the year it was signed. Less than half knew the Waitangi Tribunal was the body responsible for hearing Treaty claims. (http://www.ssc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/TreatyofWaitangiAwarenessResearch.pdf)

    Hardly demonstrates that people know lots about the Treaty and have judged it irrelevant.

    Trouble is, much of what is taught about the Treaty is claptrap. There’s a real fear of facing up to the realities of history in New Zealand. And this is why it irks me to hear the Treaty called a ‘partnership’ (which it isn’t) or talk of a ‘relationship based ethnicity’ (whatever that is). Or the Treaty being called a ‘founding document’ (given the Treaty was ignored by the government for most of New Zealand’s history, and to a large extent, still is, that would make the foundation of government – and the nation – largely illegitimate. That might be true, but nobody is going to dare teach that in schools.)

    The reality was that the British government established itself here after a rather limited deal with some Maori, almost immediately reneged on the deal, then declared the whole deal a ‘nullity’, yet still insisted on exercising power over the whole land mass, and used force to deal with anyone who complained – liberally helping themselves to Maori land along the way. 150 years later they got a bit worried about discontent and offered some limited compensation.

    But New Zealanders are largely too insecure to admit this, and sort things out on this basis. Some (mostly those who have benefitted from history and pretend they haven’t) pretend it’s all too late to sort anything out, and prefer to ignore our history, and some (mostly those in liberal la-la land) pretend we can embark on some sort of abstract ‘journey’ based on a long-standing ‘partnership’ which will let us skip off, hand in hand, to to somewhere over the rainbow.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  74. “I said people by and large, do know what the treaty entails and STILL dont give a tuppenny ha’penny.”

    “91% don’t give a toss about the treaty. They don’t indicate they even WANT an understanding.”

    Hmmmmm…….

    I maintain that most New Zealanders know very little about the Treaty of Waitangi. I think you are quite wrong, gerrit. Perhaps you could explain where you get your ‘data’ from. Have you a report to link to, or do you just ‘reckon’?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  75. Sam’s research and assessment is very sound and useful, isn’t it, gerrit. Hard to argue with real data.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  76. greenfly,

    if you were keeping up with the dialog you would remember that I held a private little survey, totally unscientific, totally on the fly, totally indicative only and totally spontaneous by asking 40 people at the Manurewa markets whilst buying this weeks vegetables.

    Well if that is the interest level (around 50%) who want to learn more about the treaty you have fertile ground to explore with your journey to dominant culture self awareness.

    But be aware about this snippet from the Sam quoted report.

    Treaty interested respondents were less convinced about the usefulness of seminars and workshops with only 38% considering these as useful.
    Focus groups respondents were also less convinced about the usefulness of face-to-face sources to disperse Treaty information. A key reason for reservations on face-to-face sources expressed in the focus groups was that public face-to-face forums were likely to become confrontational.

    Good luck the Greens with the journey to instilling self awareness in the dominant culture group.

    As an aside, how would the Greens know what the people of Manurewa think about anyway. No representation here at all.

    At least National, Labour and the Maori party have offices and representatives on the ground to discuss peoples feelings, aspirations and thoughts.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  77. Why do I yearn to tick a box? …Greenfly.
    I think it’s about whakapapa (not the ski field http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/papatuanuku-the-land/page-8). Where you’re from.
    I feel like a New Zealander.
    In fact I find it kind of sad that I sound like I’m doubting the fact that I’m a born and bred Kiwi.
    Perhaps I could warm to ‘pakeha NZer’??? But I wonder about the “original intention and interpretation” of the kupu/word. Was it ‘of different breath’?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  78. Well, gerrit, your little survey is unconvincing and looks wan compared to the one Sam Buchanan has provided. My apologies for failing to keep up with the diaqlogue. Today I had a radio show to ‘make’ and a Community Board to petition (I want to install around the edge of the estuary, for the kingfishers, and broker peace between those who would enliven the townscape with art-works, and those who seek to wither the artists enthusiasm with their flinty gaze) along with completing a long list of pruning tasks, starting with red currants and ending with grapes. The Treaty will just have to struggle on without me.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  79. All hail The Pakeha Party….I look forward to them holding the balance of power and to get every bit of racism expunged from our statute books.
    The treaty is a crock, in reality it always was. A new constitution is required if our nation is to move forward in a sustainable way. That doesn’t preclude setting HISTORICAL claims, but then lets move forward with a document that actually works.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 (+3)

  80. I’ve read Catherine’s post three times now, and am still not sure what she is talking about.

    Is this summary correct?

    a) She ticks “Pakeha” in answer to ethnicity
    b) Our unique identity stands out to everyone, but often not ourselves That doesn’t sound right. I’m pretty sure I know my identity, and I’m pretty sure the rest of the world can’t pick me as a Kiwi until I open my mouth. Even then, they tend to think I’m from Sydney….
    c) Being Pakeha means we can own losses when we left ancestors on the other side of the world? What losses? I was born here. I didn’t settle here. Perhaps she’s talking about her self? Does she see herself as a colonist?
    d) We don’t understand our own culture. Really? So, an English immigrant is going to tell me what my own culture is, because she says I don’t get it? How presumptuous. I was born here. I’ve lived overseas. I’ve come back. I think I’ve got a very good idea of what “our own” culture is, thanks.
    e) We have a racist inheritance. What does that mean? Is she saying we’re racists?
    f) We have a relationship based identity that no one else can claim. Who are these other people and what are they trying to claim? What is a relationship based identity?
    g) As a “Pākehā” she is happy to share with me “a long journey towards dominant group self-awareness so that everyone benefits”. I have no idea what this means. “Journey” to what end?

    The journey I, and most Kiwis are on, is to a place where everyone is deemed equal, regardless of race, creed or colour.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 (+9)

  81. “I look forward to them holding the balance of power and to get every bit of racism expunged from our statute books.”

    Will those statute books take into account Te Ao Maori? Or will they continue to inflict British ways of seeing and organising the world on other cultures?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  82. “Will those statute books take into account Te Ao Maori?”
    That’s up to New Zealanders to decide, isn’t it?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  83. “That’s up to New Zealanders to decide, isn’t it?”

    It would rather smack of racism if we continued to base our laws on a British model because those of British culture have achieved a majority of the population thanks to having installed a government and invited their mates in, regardless of the views of the indigenous people.

    A bit like me bringing some friends over to your place uninvited then declaring that, as we are now in the majority, we are going to take a democratic vote to decide whether or not to drink all your whiskey.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  84. What we have here is a failure to balance one concept with another. This is not uncommon in recent political history around the world.

    Some place national security before civil liberty, yet also choose to place the equality of each individual before economic security or indigenous group rights. The same attitude applied in the 19thC when European and Maori land ownership came into conflict. So while they claim to support settlement of historic injustice they see no inconsistency in applying a world view that repeats it two centuries later.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  85. It would rather smack of racism if those laws applied to one group of New Zealanders and not another, based on a roll of the genetic dice of racial whakapapa. As it stands we have a race based set of statutes. I will always fundamentally oppose any such institutional racism.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  86. “It would rather smack of racism if those laws applied to one group of New Zealanders and not another..”

    I see no reason, or good sense, in any race-based laws. For example the Waitangi Tribunal could be replaced with a body to look at all large-scale injustices to ethnic or other groups. Though I’d reckon 95 percent of its work would be dealing with Maori.

    The tricky bit would be getting Pakeha to accept being at times accountable to laws based on Maori tikanga. Historically, Pakeha have been pretty resistant to calls for ‘one law for all’.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  87. The point of law is to manipulate the behaviour of those bound by it such that a specific goal is more readily realised. The degree to which a law achieves its aim is a question of logic, not of world view; regardless of if you are Maori or Pakeha, a law achieves its goal to the same degree.

    A person’s world-view is important in two places in relation to the law: first, your world view affects how your behaviour is controlled by the law and thus the efficacy of the law; second, your world view affects what you believe the goal of the law should be. The whole notion of laws based on Maori or Pakeha world-views is naught but silliness; an argument over which classical, but likely less than ideal, path to take rather than sitting down to think for a moment.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  88. Sam,

    For example the Waitangi Tribunal could be replaced with a body to look at all large-scale injustices to ethnic or other groups. Though I’d reckon 95 percent of its work would be dealing with Maori.

    That is all people are asking for. Replace the focus on Maori grievances to include ALL New Zealanders. Possibly it would still be focused 95% on Maori issues.

    The point is that it would now be 100% inclusive.

    Though you do need to quantify “large scale”.

    Groups like (as but one for example) the service personnel (and their children, and grandchildren) exposed to nuclear fallout in the 1950′s and agent orange in the 1960′s would have better representation of their concerns.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 (+4)

  89. There is evidence that other people were here first but maori elders won’t allow the public to know. I don’t consider the moari to be anything more than new Zealanders just like everyone else who was born here. I dislike the word pakeha, I am of Scottish ancestry but 5th generation new Zealander. I get sick and tired of maori culture being forced on people especially children, aren’t the rest of us allowed our own culture. And the majority of Non maori new Zealanders have no connection with what happened here all those years ago. All maori seem to see when they look at any remotely white looking person who speaks english is a “pakeha” whose ancestors “stole” their land, in reality the majority of us “pakeha” are not of English decent

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  90. “That is all people are asking for. Replace the focus on Maori grievances to include ALL New Zealanders. Possibly it would still be focused 95% on Maori issues.”

    Fine by me. Not so sure that there wouldn’t still be a whole bunch of people moaning whenever Maori are compensated for an injustice of some sort, though.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  91. “There is evidence that other people were here first but maori elders won’t allow the public to know.”

    Yes, its well-known that Maori own the newspapers and television and control publishing, and are therefore able to supress inconvenient facts.

    “aren’t the rest of us allowed our own culture.”

    Yes, and we practice it everyday.

    “All maori seem to see when they look at any remotely white looking person who speaks english is a “pakeha” whose ancestors “stole” their land”

    What a load of rubbish.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  92. Sam,

    The tricky bit would be getting Pakeha to accept being at times accountable to laws based on Maori tikanga. Historically, Pakeha have been pretty resistant to calls for ‘one law for all’.

    You have an example to demonstrate a reluctance by ANY New Zealand (not just Pakeha) citizen to oppose a law based on Maori Tikanga?

    My understanding is Tikanga translated means protocols.

    http://www.korero.maori.nz/forlearners/protocols

    Not sure, for example, how protocols surrounding individual tribes Tangihanga can be incorporated into New Zealand law.

    What Maori protocols have ANY parliament ruled against bringing into law, bearing in mind parliament has to take into consideration the effect any law change has on the whole population, not just Maori or Pakeha.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  93. Sam. Don’t go putting words in my mouth, I did not say anything about maori controlling the newspapers and television. I was talking about sites of historical importance that prove other people made it here before maori. I live near one such site so I know what I’m talking about. Once maori realised it predated them by 500 hundred years they stopped anyone from studying it further. The same has happened at many other sites across the country. The sites that have been documented actually date back 2000 years and were found under layers of volcanic ash. Pictures of wooden boats with sails and detailed maps on rocks beneath the ash. The boats look to be possibly phoenecian. the phoencians were the greatest seafaring people of their time and sailed from the Mediterranean all the way around Africa and on to India and Indonesia trading spices etc. It makes sense that they may have made it here. It would be great if these things be could be studied properly without maori taking offence to it. And as for what I was saying about maori culture being forced on people, it is true, especially children. Culture is something that should be taught at home not at school just like religion, It is a parents right to decide when it comes to culture or religion. Schools should be neutral. And I’m right about how a lot of maori see white new Zealanders as just “pakeha’s” who’s ancestors stole their land even though most of us are not even English and have no connection to what happened back then. Just admit it sam. you are one those arrogant maori who think they own this country and every white person owes you something, aren’t you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  94. greenfly,

    Repealed in 1962. Like 50 years ago, duh.

    Anything current?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  95. “What Maori protocols have ANY parliament ruled against…”

    It’s impolite to slight someone who answers your question correctly, gerrit.
    You might like to rephrase this question of yours as well (aside from the missing ‘er’):

    “You have an example to demonstrate a reluctance by ANY New Zealand (not just Pakeha) citizen to oppose a law based on Maori Tikanga?”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  96. yes headmaster,

    you are correct I did ask ANY parliament. My bad.

    let me rephrase

    “What Maori protocols are ruled against that are currently the laws pertaining to ALL New Zealanders?”

    I guess you are next going to quote the Seabed and Foreshore legislation but in my view that is an issue of customary rights not protocol.

    Anyway, up to my elbows in lanolin grease (smell like a damp shearing shed) so will catch up later.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  97. “Being of a different breath to Tangata Whenua feels like an accurate description of our distinctive, historically challenged, unique identity which stands out to all except sometimes to ourselves”

    My identity is in the long, hot days of summer.
    My identity is the sand between my toes, and the cool southern water up to my ankles.
    My identity is camping up from the beach, and running quickly over the coarse, brown grass.
    My identity is Aoteroa, rugged individual, glistening like a jewel, at the bottom of the world.
    My identity is playing acoustic guitar and drinking beer with friends.
    My identity is easy going, a little rugged, a little uncivilized, but in a good way.
    My identity is to take people as they come.
    My identity is beyond civilization, out in the rugged, untouched landscape.
    My identity is in the deep, off-green colour at the bottom of the river.

    My identity is not “different breath”.
    My identity is not different anything.
    My identity is Kiwi.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 (+1)

  98. “I guess you are next going to quote the Seabed and Foreshore legislation but in my view that is an issue of customary rights not protocol.”

    I would say tikanga covers much more than simply protocol, including notions of ownership. So, yes, I would cite the Seabed and Foreshore legislation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  99. tika – correct, accurate, valid. Kei te tika tau.
    Gerrit seeks to restrict the definition so much that only his examples will fit.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  100. Well, actually it doesn’t matter, there is no neeed to debate the term, I’ll just adjust my original comment to say ‘Pakeha have been resistant to laws that stem from Maori traditions and practices, rather than European traditions and practices’.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  101. Sam,

    The problem is not Pakeha laws, it is laws that are democratic for ALL New Zealanders that don’t align with Maori law based around tribal regimes and birth rights.

    Let me add thus to your statement, a rider clause

    ‘Pakeha have been resistant to laws that stem from Maori traditions and practices, rather than European traditions and practices’.

    especially when those Maori practices and traditions are undemocratic (as in not applying equally to ALL New Zealanders) and racist (as in biased towards one race and not ALL others).

    Maybe if you replaced the racist wording Pakeha and European (who are not the only race here in New Zealand aside Maori) in your statement you would get some empathy from the 85% non Maori population.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  102. I’m not sure what you are getting at Gerrit. What does ‘laws that are democratic for ALL New Zealanders’ mean?

    There’s nothing racist about using the term ‘Pakeha and European’ is there? I was talking specifically about Pakeha and Maori interactions, not other races. Once again, I’m not sure what you are trying to say.

    I’m not talking about laws which apply only to Maori (or any other particular race) – I’m talking about laws based on Maori traditions that apply to everyone. So far I don’t really know of any such laws.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  103. The problem is not Maori laws, it is laws that are democratic for ALL New Zealanders that don’t align with European law based around private property rights.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  104. This thread still going? Our resident Mila Hanska won’t be pleased..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  105. Lets see if we can kick start this again, (seeing frog is not putting up any general debate threads) and we have racially biased legislation before parliament..

    I would have thought the Greens would have been all over this like a rash. Iwi who were granted fishing quotas under Treaty of Waitangi settlements will be excempt from the proposed law that requires all fishing boats operating in New Zealand waters to be New Zealand flagged (meaning wages and conditions based on New Zealand standards).

    It is a national scandal that Maori, given settlement quota for the purpose of bringing young Maori into the business of fishing, are now given a preferential right to use Third World foreign labour to harvest those very resources,” Talley said.

    Under the redrafted Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, which he called “racially biased legislation”, 35 per cent of New Zealand’s entire fishing resource, being iwi owned, could be fished by foreign charter vessels (FCV), Talley said.

    After exposure of appalling human and labour rights abuses aboard FCVs, which mostly fish iwi quota, the Government last year introduced a bill that would require all fishing boats to be New Zealand-flagged by 2016.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8982068/Iwi-exemption-threatens-NZ-fisheries-Talley

    So we do see separate laws based on race in New Zealand, Yes?

    So unless the Greens come out swinging against the 35% IWI quota being fished by FCV, it is hypocritical for the Greens to ignore this latest attempt at racial selective law making.

    Especially when Steffan Browning(representing the Greens) was so much in favour of it that he wanted the legislation moved forward.

    STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) : I rise to speak to the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This bill implements decisions on the regulation of foreign charter vessels following the allegations and then the recommendations of the ministerial inquiry that followed. It requires that all vessels are flagged as New Zealand ships from 1 May 2016. We think it should be a little bit quicker, but the bill is a move in the right direction. It strengthens the chief executive’s power to consider a wide range of matters when consenting to foreign charter vessel applications. These matters extend from fisheries management matters to employment and vessel safety conditions. Bringing together those different aspects is very important, and it is a very timely move.

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/debates/debates/50HansD_20130214_00000024/fisheries-foreign-charter-vessels-and-other-matters-amendment

    Shame on the Greens if they support laws based on racial lines.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 (+4)

  106. “So we do see separate laws based on race in New Zealand, Yes?”

    This isn’t based on race – it’s based on the nature of the body that owns the quota – nor is it yet a law. Maori who own general (non-iwi) quota aren’t given extra time to re-work who does the actual fishing (if that were the case it would be race-based).

    As I understand it, it is proposed that iwi be given seven years to re-flag vessels, as opposed to three years for other companies. There is a problem that iwi agreed to a settlement of claims based on the value of that settlement – it then becomes problematic if the governemnt acts to reduce the value of the settlement.

    That isn’t to say agree with the proposal. It’s mad to point to significant labour abuses and then wait three, or seven, years to address the problem (especially since its taken years since this concern was first raised). I’d also reckon iwi businesses would be able to make arrangements to fish their quota much sooner than seven (or three) years.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  107. Sam,

    No matter how you spin it,

    IWI=Maori

    The proposed law favours IWI, thus is a racist law.

    How many more “favourable” laws do IWI=Maori need before they can operate in the real world?

    Pandering, pandering, pandering to a special needs race based constituency that should be abhorrent to even the most radical Green.

    That is if equality is a concern.

    How much does it reflect on the mana of an IWI that they need seven years to do what every other non-iwi entity can (reflag their contracted fishing vessels to NZL) in three???

    Embarrassed to be pandered to like that, I would be.

    I wonder if Steffan Browning will enter the debate as it would be interesting to know if he favours IWI=Maori being able to operate foreign flagged slave ships for an extra four years.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  108. I’m with Gerrit on this one. The exemption on iwi-owned fishing interests is shameful. There is no excuse for it and it’s demeaning and corrupt, in my view. That said, the bad example that provides is not indicative of the whole compensatory system that seeks to address wrongs. There are many valid examples of rightful, justifiable and fair redresses for iwi who were treated brutally and unfairly.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  109. “IWI=Maori”

    Nope – iwi are a quasi governmental structure. I agree that this is a stupid proposal, but the trouble here is the inevitable difficulties that arise when Maori have different political/economic structures to Pakeha, arising from different histories and the unwillingness of the colonial state to drop its Pakeha bias. If it did that we souldn’t have these anomalies.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  110. Sam,

    You talk drivel. IWI structured fisheries are European by nature and by design. All operate with a chairman and a board.

    Inspect

    Aotearoa Fisheries

    http://www.afl.maori.nz/

    Even the reporting structure is pretty mainstream.

    Then we have entities such as Ngati Ranginui Iwi Fisheries Holding Company

    http://www.ranginui.co.nz/fisheries_holding_company

    Structures along the lines of an incorporated society. Very European.

    You should read through the Ngati Tuhoe fisheries trust to see the very European structure of a charitable trusts.

    http://settlement.ngaituhoe.iwi.nz/consolidation-of-entities/mandated-iwi-organisation/

    Do some background reading and stop spinning.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  111. Given the ad hominem attacks, I guess there’s not much point discussing this further, but please note I said nothing about how iwi corporations are structured – I referred to iwi themselves. Iwi are not, and have never been, simply business entities.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  112. Sam, I would like to understand your view better.
    I thought you definition of iwi as a quasi gov’t structure was hard to understand, but equally I don’t see many ‘average Joe/Jane’ maori benefiting from iwi settlements, so I don’t really think iwi = maori either.
    Could you give an example of the pakeha bias of the state. And an example of the different political/economic structure of Maori compared to pakeha; and how do you define pakeha?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  113. Pakeha bias of the state mostly comes from our laws being based on English ones. Property rights are a good example. Maori held land collectively while England tended towards individual title.

    Iwi were a governing structure in pre-colonial New Zealand. There current status is a bit vague – hence I call them ‘quasi governmental’. They seem to be acting as part local government, part share-holder owned corporates. There is no real Pakeha equivalent.

    I would say the benefit the average Maori recieves varies from iwi to iwi, Ngai Tahu seem to be doing a reasonable job of sharing the proceeds from assets and business ventures, but I’m sure there’s issues here. Same as there are with the unequal benefit Pakeha recieve from business and governmental structures.

    I would define ‘Pakeha’ as a person resident in New Zealand of European descent.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  114. “So we do see separate laws based on race in New Zealand, Yes?”

    Looks like this isn’t going to go ahead, so, no, not in this case.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  115. Sam,

    I would define ‘Pakeha’ as a person resident in New Zealand of European descent.

    So you’d include many Maori in that definition?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  116. Sam,

    Could you please provide more examples of this bias? I find the notion interesting.

    I realise that the lack of any recognition of collective ownership was a problem during the early decades, particularly when that ownership was used to exploit Maori. Is collective ownership not recognised, now, in the form of trusts, though?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  117. “So you’d include many Maori in that definition?”

    Up to them how they identify.

    There’s a lot of baises around language – with the expectation that proficiency in English is the norm and little opportunity too use Maori in official or academic arenas (outside of ceremonial activities). And an expectation that Maori will show proficiency in the manners and skills of European formal behaviour, without a similar expectation on Pakeha to perform in Maori cultural contexts.

    I don’t think trusts represent the methodology of Mori collective ownership very well.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  118. I thought it was ownership by conquest. Just like the white muthafukkas or the yellow peril or, or…
    It’s called human nature, sadly not one of our best attributes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  119. Sam,

    Up to them how they identify.

    So you’re withdrawing your definition of: “I would define ‘Pakeha’ as a person resident in New Zealand of European descent.“?

    I’m also not sure what “formal behaviour” you’re referring to. I know those who consider themselves Maori who wouldn’t have much more inkling of formal Maori behaviour than you think Pakeha would have though, in very general terms, I’d agree with you. Personally, I think it’s a shame that our increasingly homogeneous global economic culture can’t seem to accommodate alternatives but arbitrary groupings of people is largely artificial.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  120. Sam,

    English is, more or less, unavoidable. As the world becomes more globalised, languages other than Mandarin, English, Spanish, Hindi, and Portuguese become increasingly redundant save in ceremonial and cultural contexts. I acknowledge that the historical insistence on English was institutionalised discrimination against Maori. I would suggest, however, that this no-longer disadvantages Maori in any meaningful respect as almost every, if not every, person who can speak Maori can also speak English to a satisfactory degree. Furthermore, the routine usage of a non-major language in academic or governmental institutions would hamper discourse both in requiring Pakeha, new and old, to learn the language and would make the relevant documents inaccessible otherwise. That is, unless the documents were to have both English and Maori, in which case the inclusion of Maori is little more than an, almost condescending, tip of the hat.

    What other legal bias can you identify and how would you correct them?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  121. Thanks for your thoughts Sam Buchanan.
    A ‘pakeha Maori’, … :)
    Lots of food for thought, I guess I assumed ‘pakeha’ was an ethnicity based on skin colour, and thus it didn’t appeal to me.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  122. “So you’re withdrawing your definition of: “I would define ‘Pakeha’ as a person resident in New Zealand of European descent.“?”

    Nope – this definition still fits. I didn’t say ‘Exclusively European descent’.

    “languages other than Mandarin, English, Spanish, Hindi, and Portuguese become increasingly redundant”

    Totally disagree. A language holds too much information for it to be so easily disposed of. In any case, we a re a very long way from only requiring the languages you list, and there’s no particular reason to suppose the path of globalisation will continue on its present trajectory. The last couple of globalising episodes eventually faltered and died.

    “almost every, if not every, person who can speak Maori can also speak English to a satisfactory degree”

    Not so sure about that – there seem to be a fair few people around who are more articulate in Maori than English. Depends what you mean by ‘satisfactory’ I guess.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  123. Sam,

    .“So you’re withdrawing your definition of: “I would define ‘Pakeha’ as a person resident in New Zealand of European descent.“?”

    Nope – this definition still fits. I didn’t say ‘Exclusively European descent’.

    Indeed you didn’t, and I didn’t suggest that you did. So many of those who consider themselves Maori are also Pakeha, by your definition. If any person resident in New Zealand has European descent then they fit the definition.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  124. Sam,

    Totally disagree. A language holds too much information for it to be so easily disposed of.

    I am not suggesting that other languages will be disposed of. When it comes down to it, though, language has two main purposes: communication and the transmission of culture. When it comes to academia, governmental departments, enterprise, or most any other endeavour, communication is the only aspect that really matters in terms of utility. On the international scale, those languages that I highlighted have the highest communicative utility; so much so that you need a very specific purpose to justify another language on the grounds of communication alone. On the local scale, English is practically a requirement for any discourse. With the exception of a small proportion of immigrants, anyone can communicate in English. Thus the communicative utility of any other language is minimal save in ceremonial or appeasement circumstances (and lets be real, the use of Maori by government is more appeasement than respect).
    As to satisfactory communication, I would consider satisfactory to be sufficient to communicate most ideas encountered in everyday life. I would exclude culture-specific constructs simply because even those with supposed mastery of language can have difficulty translating them. Perhaps it is because I am not from north of the Bombays, but I have never met someone whom identifies as Maori and did not learn English as their first language, myself included. I would suggest that the number who use Maori but approximately equal in their communicative ability with English are rare.

    Anyway, more examples of bias would be appreciated. I do not mean to conflict with you on each, my responses are merely my musings. I find that putting them out there helps me develop and refine my position.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

The ability to post further comments on this blog will return after the election.