Audioblog: Metiria on the Maori Purposes Bill
Haven’t had an audioblog for ages, and Metiria delivered an excellent speech on the Maori Purposes Bill in Parliament last week, so it seemed like a good time. You can download the speech as an mp3, or listen to it streamed.
It’s definitely worth checking out. She uses material from The Hollow Men to attack both National and Labour on Maori issues, and outlines why the Green Party is strongly opposed to setting a deadline for lodging historical Treaty grievances.
At one point, while she is detailing the cynical tactics behind Don Brash’s first Orewa speech, National’s Anne Tolley raises a point of order demanding to know what that has to do with the bill. The answer, of course, is that without the dog-whistle politics of that speech whipping the country into a frenzy, the Government would not now be legislating to set a deadline for Treaty claims, since the only reason that policy evolved was in an attempt to respond in kind to National’s racist rhetoric.
Unfortunately, the bill subsequently passed, with only the Greens and the Maori Party voting against it.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
A most excellent speech indeed and a very astute analysis of how Brash’s vile speech has perverted the progress of Treaty reparation in this country.
December 11th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
I am surprised that the greens support such blatantly racist policies.
If Dr Brash is remembered for one thing I hope it is his Orewa speech, it was about time somebody had the guts to bring this into the open.
This treaty reparation rubbish (aka the treaty gravy train) has to stop, until then we will never make any real progress with race relations in this country.
One law for all and an end to race based law, schools and sporting teams.
December 11th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
I think Hagers book proves that if you put a microphone in a toilet you hear people fart.
The Orewa speech was infamously successful because it just echoed what the public think. It may be unfair to put a time limit on Treaty settlements, but it is dumb of the Greens to want to validate the Maori version of the Treaty, in the interests of (naieve and missguided) justice.
JH
December 11th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Big Bruv, if I steal your house, how long do I have to hang on to it, before you agree that the theft should be consigned to the dust bin of history and you stop whingeing and get over it?
December 11th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
It is not the repatriation and compensation for the stolen house that is the problem.
It is that every generation of Maori gets to seek the compensation for the house even if the generation before has had full and final settlement.
This will go on ad infinitum.
if that is what you want, great. If not what do you want?
December 11th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Oh here we go again. Big Thug uses this as yet another opportunity to launch into one of his uninformed rants where he will refresh the page every five minutes and pounce upon any responder who dares to challenge his ignorant ideas.
I am sure we have been down this path many times before with you Big Thug, trying to explain that racism is in fact the use of institutional power to disadvantage a minority group so that they have less access to rights and services that the dominant culture of that society have.
And that it is entirely incorrect to label policies racist that try to redress the balance of that by giving those minorities a helping hand to bring them up to the same level of education, health and social advantage that members of the dominant culture take for granted, and redress historical injustices against them. But NO, you still insist on using the word racist to imply that Maori somehow have more advantage than Pakeha under those policies, even though statistical data proves otherwise.
Referring to the Treaty reparations process “rubbish” is the truly racist attitude here. If you would make it your business to step out of your right-wing ignorance for a moment and read some of the historical facts about how the Maori were cheated of their land and rights by our colonial government you would understand that this is a completely justified and necessary process.
You might try enlightening yourself a little and study up on the information available at this web site here, which entirely debunks any bigoted arguments you may be intending to foist upon us as this thread progresses:
http://aotearoa.wellington.net.nz/back/project.htm
December 11th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
jh Says: …but it is dumb of the Greens to want to validate the Maori version of the Treaty, in the interests of (naieve and missguided) justice.
No jh, it is NOT dumb - because it is the just thing to do. It is the Maori version of the treaty that the Maori agreed to, not the mistranslated english version of it and that makes it the correct version, because we came here asking them to allow us to live in this country and those are the terms that they agreed to by their own understanding.
To suggest otherwise is as “dumb” as it is to suggest that indigenous peoples where “dumb” enough to trade their lands for a few rifles and blankets. And that just ain’t so.
December 11th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
jh Says: …The Orewa speech was infamously successful because it just echoed what the public think.
Wrong again jh. It did not echo what the public think, it merely served to pray upon the fears of those who are uninformed about the real history of this country, and inciting yet another round of Maori-bashing.
I would hardly call that “successful”, unless you are measuring success in terms of a politicians ability to “divide and rule”.
December 11th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Gerrit Says: …It is that every generation of Maori gets to seek the compensation for the house even if the generation before has had full and final settlement.
Oh really? Please show me the evidence that previous generations of Maori have had “full and final settlement” and by who’s definition?
December 11th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
ZAN, Been reading the web site you challenged me to seek.
As a non english foreigner I dont have any relationship with Maori. In fact Moari see me as an unwelcome settler.
Something I didn’t know so there I’ve learned a bit!
Anyway I’m still going to call myself a New Zealand belonging to Ngati Tauiwi.
The treaty says that Maori and the English Crown (not the NZ parliament?) have equal status. Should then the New Zealand parliament not have equal representation? Numerically? Who has the deciding vote under the treaty when the partnership is equal and an impasse occurs? Cant find that reference as yet.
December 11th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
http://aotearoa.wellington.net.nz/back/project.htm
” The lawlessness of British subjects was reaching alarming proportions by this time with incidents occurring around the country. Among these were the the murders of a Maori chief and his family in the South Island.
Was that Captain Stewart of the Brig Elizabeth????
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/culture/frontierofchaos-elizabeth
It’s 2006 and we are dealing with the Chirstchurch Urban Design Plan. Apparently the population is going to double in the next forty years. We voted for containing growth but the developers have been lobbying behind the scene and are looking to overturn that… The developers solution will be driven by the lowest common denominator. They will piss over us all as they have money (”other peoples”… ) and we are “the little people who haven’t done anything”… Sir Bob Jones.
JH
December 11th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
I have an image of two beatles (brown and white) fighting in the dust. Along comes an ox and squashes them.
JH
December 11th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
This thread is a perfect illustration of where we are today.
I’m not even going to pretend to understand a fraction of the Treaty issues, but looking at the big picture (ie a global perspective) NZ continues to rearrange deckchairs aboard the Titanic whilst the boat goes down. We look in, whilst forgetting to look out.
Somehow, we have to make Treaty issues past tense. The Treaty is a hugely important part of our history, but the time is well past for wrongs to be righted (to the degree possible) and let New Zealand attempt to dig it’s way up the OECD ladder. Or we’ll all continue to sink together.
December 11th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Zan
I think you might be mistaken about which one of us constantly refreshes the page.
Anyway, I fully understand what racism is Zan, and I am against it, Gerrit hit the nail on the head when he/she mentioned that there is not end in sight should the greens get their way (thankfully that will never happen) and the Maori version is ratified.
You mention that I might like to read about the treaty, well I can assure you I have, alas it might not be the books you would want (order) me to read but it is still history.
I just cannot see how you can ever label a policy that gives special rights to one race of people as anything other than racist policy.
I find it quite interesting that you are so aggressive about this, it is almost like you have no time at all for people who do not share you opinion, I just have not worked out why as yet, perhaps it is that you have recognised that this Labour government has adopted some parts of the Orewa speech and the chances of you attaining your goal are fast disappearing.
…..and please…redressing the balance!….just how far do you take this guilt complex, as the old saying goes you can lead a horse to water….
And finally not every person you disagree with is bigoted, it is always easy to label somebody Zan, it is a lot harder to debate the issue, i suspect that you label people when you know in your hear that you are fighting a losing cause.
I see race relations as one of the biggest problems facing NZ right now, the end of the treaty gravy train is good place to start on the long road back to harmony, racist legislation and left wing liberals making excuses for the over representation of Maori in all the wrong statistics is not helping the issue.
December 11th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Stop, breathe, read, reassess.
If you have not done so, please get your hands on Robert Consedine’s Healing our History.
I’m a “70s baby, early 80s child” who grew up a relatively sheltered white boy in conservative rural canterbury. I had no real understanding of treaty issues until I read this book a few years back. I believe that my ideas (prior to reading) were typical of those from my upbringing - which is to say typical of a substantial portion of kiwis. People who happened also to be the target audience for Orewa 1.
Lets not lose the point of this post. Orewa 1 was intentionally devisive. It flew in the face of the understanding that had been developed through a vast amount of social (and economic) research and engagement on treaty issues.
This is not a “now” issue. It has evolved over a significant period of time only through allowing Maori into processes of mutual understanding.
Full and final settlement may well be expedient in terms of climbing an OECD ladder (db), but it is not a means of ensuring equitable access to public and private goods and services.
This is not an economic argument. To lower it to one is simply another layer of (yes, zAN) “divide and rule”. Read the book. Please.
Mike
December 11th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
Zan said;
“Oh really? Please show me the evidence that previous generations of Maori have had “full and final settlementâ€? and by who’s definition?”
Zan, my point exactly. Maori will never be happy. So we will have treaty settlements in my great great grandchildrens time.
The word I have heard that will make Maori happpy is complete decolonisation. True?
December 11th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
Read Robert Consedine’s Healing our History. Please. It’s an illustration of how wrought with difficulty the concept of “full and final…” is.
The point of this post was to highlight that Orewa 1 was devisive. Orewa 1 showed no respect to the years of social (and economic) work and research done in NZ.
Orewa 1 felled with one whack a long process of engagement on Treaty issues - a process that had until that point become able to genuinely recieve, absorb, and apply a range of informed perspectives. It had become more than simply affirmative action.
Resolving Treaty issues is not a “now” event. It is a process of understanding and engagement. That it is incompatible with climbing the OECD ladder does not mean that it is any less important.
To see Treaty issues as firstly an economic argument is simply misguided. To persist with the economic argument is arrogant, narrow minded, and evidence of a continued “divide and rule” mentality that continues in these lands.
Read the book. As a white boy from a conservative rural background i found it very helpful.
Mike
December 12th, 2006 at 12:00 am
http://aotearoa.wellington.net.nz/back/project.htm
[HAVEN’T OTHER GROUPS APART FROM MAORI SUFFERED FROM RACISM?
Yes, because New Zealand is essentially a monocultural society,
other racial groups are the victims of racism and prejudice. Pacific peoples have in particular been scapegoated for our racial and economic problems more than any other settler group that has come to New Zealand.
What about the Chinese?? [strange omission]]
WHAT ABOUT LANDS THAT WERE UNOCCUPIED BY MAORI TRIBES?
The instructions given to Hobson by the Colonial Secretary, Lord Normanby, recognised that Maori people held title to all land in New Zealand: .. Maori title to the soil and to the Sovereignty of New Zealand is indisputable, and has been solemnly recognised by the British Government.
We’ll settle for some of all of it now and some of all of it after that and some of all of it after that etc etc [”we” being people of varying ethnic mix — As Don Brash rudely pointed out]
I don’t think the Orewa speech was divisive I say again it touched a nerve. What seemed like a lot of money may not have been in reallity, but I think it was a response to a whole lot of things from “kill a white” to “only the dominant group can be racist”, and, Maori commit crime because they are a colonised people (therefore our fault), “we are at the bottom of the health statistics (it’s our fault they smoke) and especially the idea that the beaches which we believed were protected by the Queens chain would one by one be claimed by Maori, and all this at a time when the “world discovers New Zealand” and snaps up our “ridiculously cheap” coastal property and camp grounds etc dissapear.
Your notion of justice is true to a degree but in the wider historical context not so much, I think.
JH
December 12th, 2006 at 1:22 am
In International Law, where there are differences in meaning, “the document in the indigenous language takes precedence”.
Thus “Te Tiriti O Waitangi” which was the document signed by all Iwi and Hapu involved, is “The Treaty”, not those copies in the Englisn language.
I find it interesting that those on this blog who regularly advocate their “rights” to private ownership for themselves (and presumably their heirs) see Maori initiatives to sort out their historic and current rights and entitlements as “racist” … (and these “rights seekers” wish to impose “the will of the majority” to stop Maori from to this from happening!)
Well I am not part of your greedy “majority”.
I look forward to the day when my (hopefully bilingual and bicultural) Mokopuna will live in Aotearoa/NZ, this country of ours that is “egalitarian, fair to all, peaceful and ready for whatever lies ahead from Global Warming” (for example!)
December 12th, 2006 at 3:10 am
Big Thug Says: …blah-blah-blah-blah… gravy train
Big Dictionary Says: Gravy train: a position in which a person or group receives excessive and unjustified money or advantages with little or no effort
Please explain to me how a process which takes years and painstaking work to gather the screeds of evidence required to prove one’s Iwi or Hapu was wrongfully disenfranchised of it’s tribal property to the court… and then seek to be compensated for what was rightfully theirs in the first place is “excessive” or “unjustified”?
The only thing excessive about that by my reasoning is the hoops that Maori are forced to jump through in order to present their rightful claims and the unjustified criticism of them for asking nothing less than that the injustices of our history be redressed.
It seems to me that the foundation of your “gravy train” argument is based upon the mistaken idea that we are just giving “hand outs” to these people and it has nothing to do with legitimate process or fair compensation for real wrongs.
Oh, and Gerrit you completely missed my point here and I do not appreciate you trying to associate what I said with such racist comments as “Maori will never be happy”. (ewwwwwwww)
My point is that Maori have not reached a “full and final settlementâ€? yet, so it’s not exactly fair to suggest that they will “just keep demanding more”.
And as to the “word” you “have heard”…? Sounds like more talking points from the right-wing echo chamber to me.
PS: Well said Eredwen and mikeymike (cheers for the link)!!!
December 12th, 2006 at 6:31 am
So de-colonisation is a true aim Zan?
Funny that a left winger would defend Maori propeprty rights when in a true social republic (the aim of the left, no!) there would be no property rights (Maori or otherwise) except those owned by the State!
At the time of the great socialist New Zealand revolution the treaty would become just another momento of history.
While right wingers (of whom I’m not) would be on Maori’s side defending their property rights!
Careful of what you wish for Zan.
December 12th, 2006 at 8:09 am
Zan
You seem happy to abuse and slander others yet do not answer reasonable questions asked of you (very Winston Peters), I will try again.
1 Do you support racist legislation, if so can you please tell me how this differs from Apartheid?
2 Is the ultimate goal decolonisation?
3 How many generations of NEW ZEALANDERS do you think should go one taking the blame for this?, as far as I am aware there has already been one FULL AND FINAL settlement.
4 If there is indeed an end to the treaty gravy train what excuse will you come up with then to justify racist policy and tax payer hand outs?
December 12th, 2006 at 8:45 am
eredwen Says:
December 12th, 2006 at 1:22 am
In International Law, where there are differences in meaning, “the document in the indigenous language takes precedence�.
Thus “Te Tiriti O Waitangi� which was the document signed by all Iwi and Hapu involved, is “The Treaty�, not those copies in the Englisn language.
I find it interesting that those on this blog who regularly advocate their “rights� to private ownership for themselves (and presumably their heirs) see Maori initiatives to sort out their historic and current rights and entitlements as “racist� … (and these “rights seekers� wish to impose “the will of the majority� to stop Maori from to this from happening!)
———————————————–
Eredwen, please elaborate on “historic and current rights and entitlements” under the Maori version of the Treaty.
When you get down to the nuts and bolts it is by no means a minor issue. Only a romantic primitivist with their head in the sand would even contemplate it.
Sometimes it is better to ‘let sleeping dogs lie.
We are not likely to explore all the strands here but I believe that strong arguments can be made in favour of the status quo, as the lesser of two evils.
JH
December 12th, 2006 at 9:05 am
“as far as I am aware there has already been one FULL AND FINAL settlement”
Wow, Big Bruv, I can’t let that one go. I’m not sure what you are thinking of there, but that’s absolutely not the case. The Treaty settlement process is NOT about making one settlement with all Maori - indeed that would be impossible. The kinds of injustices we are talking about occurred in different places at different times to different tribes, and the settlement process reflects this.
There have already been several “full and final” settlements, but for individual iwi. For example, Ngai Tahu in the South Island received a package of settlement measures in the late 1990s to the value of $170 million for well-detailed Treaty grievances (known as the 9 Tall Tress as there were 9 basic claims). These were evaluated by the Waitangi Tribunal, accepted by the National Government of the time, and legislation was passed to put the settlement into effect. It included economic reparation, an apology, and the symbolic transfer of title of several historically significant land areas back to Ngai Tahu. This settlement is considered “full and final”, but only for Ngai Tahu, and only for those 9 claims. If, for example, another fraudulent land sale was to take place tomorrow, that could be a fresh breach which could be settled separately.
This is the process that is taking place all over the country as the Crown negotiates with individual iwi to settle well-documented grievances. There will never be a “full and final” settlement with all Maori.
Sometimes I think that if this basic material was compulsorily taught in all schools, the level of debate about these issues would be considerably higher. Unfortunately, there is no reference to the Treaty at all in the new draft curriculum
December 12th, 2006 at 11:18 am
Green policy goes far beyond redressing individual claims, it recognises Maori ownership of the whole of Aotearoa, including the foreshore and seas around Aotearoa (via the Maori version of the Treaty).
JH
December 12th, 2006 at 11:26 am
well said frog….
and is that imperative part and parcel of green education policy..?
if not..why not..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
btw frog..people like big bruv..talking in talkback mode…are a positive force imho..in that they force us to refine our/complex ideas into coherent form..such as the paragraphs above..
(and if only to shut up the likes of big bruv..eh..?..)
and therefor give the required ammunition to other more sympathetic readers of this forum..
for them to use when they come up against this model of fervid/irrational rhetoric..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 12th, 2006 at 11:43 am
Why not just scrap the Waitangi Tribunal altogether, repeal the nationalisation of the foreshore & seabed, & allow the Government to be sued in civil court?
That way *any* New Zealander could seek damages from the Government for illegal behaviour, not just Maori - and they would all be subject to the same court, and the same standards of evidence.
As it stands, the Waitangi Tribunal is a racist body, in that only those of Maori descent can bring claims to it, although the Treaty applies to all New Zealanders.
December 12th, 2006 at 11:50 am
Frog,
Is what jh says true? That “Green policy … recognises Maori ownership of the whole of Aotearoa?”
December 12th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
Duncan,
Wrong the treaty only applies to Maori and the English Crown (not British?)
if you are not Maori or English the treaty does not apply because we are here at the behest of the English Crown and not Maori who consider us Tauiwi. (illegal settlers)
Interesting takes you find on that web site Van said we must study.
Treaty also says that there would be an equal partneship between Maori and The English Crown. Do the Greens envisage a New Zealand parliament made up 50/50 Maori and English Crown representatives? You should do because that is what the treaty says.
How does that fit into an Westminster system of democracy?
Maybe the upper house while the Tauiwi form a lower house?
Phil,
Totally agree these types of dicussions are healthy because it makes people think and form opinions.
Perhaps you could in your prose, paint a picture of how you see New Zealand in 30 years time? Where will the Tauiwi fit?
December 12th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
Gerrit,
The Treaty states that Maori will “cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty … extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects.”
The idea is clearly that Maori get to keep title to land & resources which are theirs at the time of the signing, for as long as they want it - and in exchange, they cede sovereignty to the Crown and become British subjects.
I’d be curious to know how you get “partnership” from “cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation.”
With respect to the Treaty applying to all New Zealanders, the purpose was to ensure that Maori - as British subjects - received equal rights. There is no provision within the treaty for the creation of racist organisations like the Tribunal, which are for the use of those of a particular race alone.
If the Treaty did promise Maori different treatment on the basis of their race, that would be ample justification for the abolition of the Treaty as an example of apartheid, for the same reason that the Foreshore & Seabed nationalisation should be repealed.
Racism is morally wrong.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
Duncan, no. Here are the Key Principles of the Green Party’s Treaty of Waitangi policy:
1. The Green Party affirms that Te Tiriti o Waitangi remains a living and fundamental constitutional document.
2. The Green Party, through its Charter and its constitution, acknowledges the indigenous language version of Te Tiriti as the legitimate text of an agreement that described the rights and responsibilities of hapu and the Crown, and which:
a)gave the Crown the right to kawanatanga,
b)confirmed the chiefs’ tino rangatiratanga,
c)gave Mäori the individual rights of British people, and
d)confirmed their religious, spiritual and customary rights.
3. The Green Party acknowledges that the Crown and its representatives have breached, and continue to breach, te Tiriti. We support the resolution of, and restitution for, all outstanding historical and contemporary breaches.
4. The Green Party believes there is a need for an ongoing dialogue grounded in Te Tiriti, both to give effect to the relationship that it enshrines, and to build a high level of awareness among all citizens of the unique role of Te Tiriti in our nation.
The whole policy can be read here.
Incidentally, just wanted to point out that it’s a common mistake to assume the foreshore and seabed issue is a Treaty issue. It’s not. Maori claims to native title of the foreshore and seabed do not stem from an alleged treaty breach, but from international law which recognises native title.
The controversial Court of Appeal decision which kicked off the foreshore and seabed debate did not grant that title to anyone, it simply found that the Maori Land Court had the jurisdiciton to consider foreshore and seabed land the same way it considers other land in determining whether native title existed or not (not, most often). The subsequent legislation removed this ability.
The claim that was taken to the Waitangi Tribunal about the foreshore and seabed was not over whether foreshore and seabed land was native title, but about the process the government followed after that Court of Appeal decision.
So, in determining what our approach to Treaty settlements should be, it’s best to leave the foreshore and seabed out, and consider that as a separate issue.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
1 Do you support racist legislation, if so can you please tell me how this differs from Apartheid?
Racist legislation? Difficult to know quite what you mean. Some examples would help.
But Apartheid: The decolonisation process would logically end up with a system that looked similar, but not identical, to the South African Government’s propaganda about apartheid. (I remember it well, I was a collector of it for a school project in the 70s).
There were two things wrong with apartheid that are not wrong with decolonisation. 1) 4/5ths of the population got access to only a small fraction of the resources while 1/5 got the lions share, and the best. 2) The group an individual (or a community) belonged to was decided by the state.
With the decolonisation process (I have been listening for years to Moana Jackson) there are two systems (as in apartheid) but there is no pre condition on who gets the best or the most, and belonging is a matter of choice for individuals or communities.
I concede it is hard for a pÄ?kehÄ? to be accepted as a mÄ?ori, but many mÄ?ori (as in they could whakapapa if they wanted to) live as pÄ?kehÄ?, and I do not think any of us have a difficulty with that.
That is the difference.
2 Is the ultimate goal decolonisation?
Yes. But decolonisation is not “kick out the whiteys”. It is “allow mÄ?ori society to develop”, and allow mÄ?ori society and institutions the same status as pÄ?kehÄ? institutions.
3 How many generations of NEW ZEALANDERS do you think should go one taking the blame for this?, as far as I am aware there has already been one FULL AND FINAL settlement.
It is not about blame. Very few mÄ?ori commentators talk of “blame”, it is pÄ?kehÄ? commentators that talk of “blame”.
4 If there is indeed an end to the treaty gravy train what excuse will you come up with then to justify racist policy and tax payer hand outs?
Recasting your question without the pejorative language: If the treaty issues are ever all settled will the taxpayer still fund mÄ?ori initiatives?
Well, yes. Just as the taxpayer now funds pÄ?kehÄ? initiatives. The symphony orchestra, Te Papa, Parliament (this website eh frog?)…
I hope this helps
[i]W[/i]
December 12th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Duncan,
Have a read f the web site that Van has listed way up in comments. Cant seem to be able to cut and paste the link into this comment.
Expalins it all about partnerships. You can get interesting conclusions from this web site.
Notice the issue of Tauiwi is still not addressed by the Green party?
Bliss,
I can exept the concept of apartheit as you propse,just dont know how it would sit in a democratic Westminster system of representation. Could you explain?
December 12th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Gerrit,
I had a brief flick through the site Van linked, & will come back to it when I’ve got the time to read it through.
I must say though that their explanation of why separate development isn’t apartheid to be eerily reminiscent of the attempts to defend the status of black Americans during the Civil Rights movement as “separate but equal.”
December 12th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
frog said: “Sometimes I think that if this basic material was compulsorily taught in all schools, the level of debate about these issues would be considerably higher. Unfortunately, there is no reference to the Treaty at all in the new draft curriculum.”
I totally agree! Having read the contributions of some on this blog, I begin to think that the level of misinformation (disinformation?) in our society is much higher than expected, and serious or becoming so.
When Don Brash gave his Orewa Speech I thought (asumed) that most Kiwis would see through his rhetoric / “politics of envy” etc … but obviously not. It now seems that the speech he gave was carefully targeted … and his words are being repeated more or less verbatim here!
A plea to our young(?) “right wing” contributors here: Please check your facts and learn a bit of history before continuing with your campaign of “racism” etc. To Greens (and to well informed Kiwis in general) you come across as at least ignorant, if not malicious.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
eredwen,
Rightiousness knows no bounds. As a non right wing blogger but interested in how the treaty settlements and the treaty will fare in the future find this dicussion interesting.
Problem I have is everytime one ask as question there are no answers only rightiousness from the “well informed kiwi’s” (aka Greens) and in return being called a right wing racist.
Such as
1. the issue of Tauiwi is still not addressed by the Green party
2. I can except the concept of apartheit as you propose, just dont know how it would sit in a democratic Westminster system of representation. Could you explain?
December 12th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Should read
Questions such as
1. the issue of Tauiwi is not addressed by the Green party
2. I can except the concept of apartheit as you propose, just dont know how it would sit in a democratic Westminster system of representation. Could you explain?
PS
Thanks to Van for pointing us uninformed into the direction of this web site
http://aotearoa.wellington.net.nz/back/project.htm
Questions are based on statements made on this web site so maybe the informed are nor as informed as they thought they were!
December 12th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Gerrit, I am not sure what you are getting at with the Tauiwi issue. The Green Party welcomes visitors or tauiwi from all cultures as you can see from the Human Rights Policy:
“The Green Party envisions an Aotearoa/ New Zealand where we are:
- A model of tolerance, democracy and inclusiveness.
- A good international citizen that accepts international responsibilities to welcome all new migrants, treat them well, and help them settle into our society.
- All enjoying a standard of living that enables everyone to feel a sense of participation in and belonging to the community.”
The Treaty of Waitangi is between Maori and the Crown, so the Treaty Settlement process rightly takes place only between those groups. It is true that the Treaty was the instrument that provided the basis for British migration to New Zealand and thus for New Zealand society to have the shape it does today, which is why it is so important that we all understand its unique role in New Zealand. But in terms of the official Treaty relationship there are only two parties.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
This topic only highlights the growing problem of race relations and intolerance in New Zealand.
The tone of this tread is noticeably more aggressive than any other, most of those who support what Metiria has to say do not show a lot of empathy with those who disagree with them, as Gerrit says the standard retort of “right wing racist” is becoming boring.
I am not one who would dismiss the injustices of the past but i am one who thinks that the past is well and truly behind us, the intolerance of those who support the continuation of the gravy train is somewhat worrying.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Qoutr from the afore mentioned web site
“For the Crown to presume the right to make further immigration acts without consulting the tangata whenua was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. It has been the Crown, rather than a joint agreement between the Crown and Maori, that has decided who will come to New Zealand, from what countries they will come and under what conditions they will be given status here”
Judging by that statement it was only one party to the treaty that gave Tauiwi like me a “permit’ to live in New Zealand.
To the other treaty partner I dont have a right to be here.
My question to the green party (and as a potential green voter) is
1. do you support me being in New Zealand
2. does Maori support me being in New Zealand
How does the treaty effect me when my status in New Zealand is uncertain? Even though I’m a New Zealand national by naturalisation it may long term not prove to be the paper it is printed on.
Another question that remains unanswered;
The treaty says that there would be an equal partnership between Maori and The English Crown. Do the Greens envisage a New Zealand parliament made up 50/50 Maori and English Crown representatives?
How does that fit into an Westminster system of democracy?
December 12th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
BB, theres no point in shutting off the past if it has not been dealt with. “Hand in your guns, all will be forgiven.”
Dealing with the past requires an understanding of the stories of both Maori, settlers, and all of their descendants.
As I said above, it can not be approached from an economic perspective. Doing so belittles the issue and gives them in a eurocentric context - no way to gain understanding.
Again, I thoroughly recommend the Consedine book.
Mike
December 12th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
Frog:
If the egg yoke is what pakeha bought legitamitely.
Where in the Maori version does the egg white (un inhabitted areas, beaches, seas) become outside the domain of tino rangitiratanga?
JH
December 12th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
[The link to the Treaty on this site has been hijacked
http://aotearoa.wellington.net.nz/back/project.htm
Does anyone know how to stop that with Firefox?
JH]
December 12th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Bliss,
I can accept the concept of apartheid as you propose,just don’t know how it would sit in a democratic Westminster system of representation. Could you explain?
It cannot. The “Westminster” system tolerates only one sovereign that is the ultimate owner and arbitrator. That is, in the medium term, incompatible with decolonisation.
But the “Westminster” system is not the only way to run a democracy. Moving to MMP was a step away (in a good direction IMO).
Helpful?
W
December 12th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Thanks Bliss.
Guess that begs the qustion then if the majority dont want de-colonisation it may not happen? Under MMP de-colonisation would appear even more unlikely?
Your interpretation on how New Zealand society would look after de-colonisation? Especially representation for the equal treaty partners or will at the end of de-colonisation the treaty be torn up?
December 12th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Of course decolonisation may not happen. But I think asking questions about what the “majority want” is very dangerous. Moreover, counter intuitively, it is undemocratic.
Democracy is not “Majority Rules”. That is a dictatorship of the majority. The way I see it, a democratic society is one in which all who are effected by decisions have meaningful input into the decisions being made.
In our system elections are a very crude and rough democratic tool. The select committee system is less crude and more effective.
As for decolonisation: I cannot envisage colonised up to Tuesday, and decolonised from Wednesday. It will be a long process, and where it will end I cannot predict.
It happens by more and more m\u0101ori communities and organisations getting control over more and more of there lives.
Eg: Kura Kaupapa are a part of that process
And why would the treaty ever be torn up? Was the Magna Carta ever torn up? In 500 years the treaty will probably be in a siillar state.
W
December 12th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Mikey
I appreciate what you are saying but for the current generation to expect me to believe that all their woes are down to a historical grievance really does stretch my tolerance levels to breaking point.
While we contiue to hold out the carrot of massive tax payer funded handouts nothing will change.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Basically Bliss, if the English Crown was to be no longer relevant in New Zealand then the treaty is also irrelevant. Torn up sounds destructive and is not what I meant, maybe after decolonisation it will no longer be relevant and hence not required.
The issue of Tauiwi in regard recognition by Maori needs to be clarified. Maybe up to 60% of the population is Tauiwi. Be interesting what the verdict from Maori will be as rationally you cant send them home (being maybe up to 4th generation settlers).
Will the Tauiwi people have a voice after de-colonisation? Will they be Aotearoa’ans?
I envisage a new tribe Ngati Tauiwi who will claim rights of citizen ship and representation.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
Article the second:
In the English text of the Treaty, MÄ?ori leaders and people, collectively and individually, were confirmed and guaranteed “exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries and other properties”.
In the MÄ?ori text of the Treaty, MÄ?ori were guaranteed “te tino rangatiratanga” – the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands “wenua”, villages “kainga”, and all their property/treasures “taonga katoa”.
Frog:
Explain my egg metaphor.
Thanks
JH
December 12th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
Geez - I wander in from work and here it is again, the fruits of ambiguity, splattered all over the landscape. :-0
The first problem is that the treaty itself divides us into Maori and non-Maori, it isn’t amiguous about THAT, it is very definite. There are umpteen Maori entities represented and the Crown is represented and they all signed as equals. To honour the treaty means that Maori have a much larger say in what happens in this country than they would by simply counting votes. This result can be called racist and has been called racist several times in the past 8 hours. Why?
Because ANY law that implements the treaty will have to discriminate between Maori and non-Maori. Any Constitution based on the treaty has to do the same. I see NO escape from that.
The only proposition I have considered seriously as a solution is a constitutional dual parliament… and no law stands without the assent of both Prime Ministers, with the constitution so formed being accepted as superceding the treaty. At least then we could have “one law for all” for almost everything and still meet our obligations…. the electoral laws would be a mite peculiar.
I’d reckon this could suit the Libertarians here well, as such a government would have a hell of a time making ANY new laws.
That’s my $0.02 - worth exactly nothing after rounding
respectfully
BJ
December 12th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
To Gerrit and BB: “Decolonisation is a process that assists indigenous people to identify as members of a racial group that has been systematically oppressed by a dominant culture; it enables them to take action towards social transformation. Facilitating an understanding of oppressive processes and affirming the legitimacy of a people’s ancestral culture encourages cultural renewal” (Dudgeon & Williams, 2000).
I personally do not feel threatened by that in any way, and I cannot imagine why anybody else would, unless they subscribe to the sorely mistaken belief that decolonisation means we non-Maori are all going to have our land confiscated and be shipped back to the UK. However, if you choose to live in the fear of ignorance regarding that myth, then there’s nothing I can do to help you.
To Frog, who says: “Sometimes I think that if this basic material was compulsorily taught in all schools, the level of debate about these issues would be considerably higher. Unfortunately, there is no reference to the Treaty at all in the new draft curriculum”. Your comment really hits the nail on the head for me and is the source of much of my personal outrage around this issue.
During the 80’s I was involved with facilitating “Project Waitangi: Pakeha Debate The Treaty Workshops”. When the real history of Maori was presented to me I was outraged that we were never taught this stuff at school - only a sanitised version NZ history which parallels Howard Zinn’s description of the way that american history is taught in US schools, where the atrocities of the colonial white race are completely whitewashed.
One of our two-day Project Waitangi workshops would barely even touch the surface of all the things we were not taught in NZ school history classes, and the more one learns the more righteously pissed they should be at the way Maori have been treated here over time and be motivated to support the efforts of Maori today. Which is why I chose to actively support the Project. I couldn’t not support it!
I thought it was a very good thing when they started to make Treaty Workshops compulsory in tertiary institutes here, even though they were pretty brief and diluted compared to the Project Waitangi ones. But then the shit hit the fan and all the screeching racists protested about this as being “political correctness run wild” and the government is accused of “social engineering”.
People, we seriously need to get off the “politically correct” bandwagon and start concerning ourselves more with being “historically correct”, because I regard this lack of proper education as being the core issue that we are faced with today and root of BB’s so-called “problem of race relations and intolerance”.
And for your information BB…. the problem is not a “growing” one. The problem has existed for decades and the only thing new is that more people are talking about it now, but sadly most of this talk is reactionary and founded in bigotry and ignorance.
Frog, I would dearly like to see some concrete policies from the Greens which make this stuff compulsory in our school history classes. Is there anything in the pipeline?
December 13th, 2006 at 1:31 am
zANavAShi: Well said.
December 13th, 2006 at 2:38 am
Thanks Eredwen. As a teacher, you might be interested in this recent article by Mitzi Nairn, who founded Project Waitangi. There are also some resource links at the bottom of the page for those who may feel motivated to organise your own local Treaty Awareness workshops:
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/in291006.htm
December 13th, 2006 at 6:11 am
zANavAShi,
Having studied the web site you recommended and picked a particular area of concern in my comments (that of Tauiwi) I find that neither the frog nor you can answer my concerns. To repeat.
“For the Crown to presume the right to make further immigration acts without consulting the tangata whenua was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. It has been the Crown, rather than a joint agreement between the Crown and Maori, that has decided who will come to New Zealand, from what countries they will come and under what conditions they will be given status here�
Judging by that statement it was only one party (the English Crown) to the treaty that gave Tauiwi like me a “permit’ to live in New Zealand.
To the other treaty partner I dont have a right to be here.
My question to the green party (and as a potential green voter) is
1. do you support me being in New Zealand
2. does Maori support me being in New Zealand
How does the treaty effect me when my status in New Zealand is uncertain? Even though I’m a New Zealand national by naturalisation it may long term not prove to be the paper it is printed on.
Another question that remains unanswered;
The treaty says that there would be an equal partnership between Maori and The English Crown. Do the Greens envisage a New Zealand parliament made up 50/50 Maori and English Crown representatives?
Holding treaty workshops I’m sure would raise questions like these.
December 13th, 2006 at 6:26 am
BJ,
Under the treaty you would only have one parliament. An equal split one between Maori and representaives of the English Crown.
Meaning that if your birth is Scottish, Cook Islander, Australian, Italian, American or in my case Dutch you will have no representation in the parliament.
Only Maori and those of English Immegrant stock may sit in it because they signed the treaty.
With over 60% of the people in New Zealand not represented would we still be a democracy?
It is with sadness that I note being called ignorant yet again when the very people for whom the workshops (and the school programmes the “well informed”) are meant to enlighten, cannot answer a simple question from the ignorant.
Maybe the teachers need to be better taught to know what is in the treaty and the ramifications thereoff.
December 13th, 2006 at 6:29 am
(and the school programmes the “well informed�)
Should read - (and the school programmes the “well informed’ will have taught)
December 13th, 2006 at 8:01 am
You people who dream you can solve the problem by teaching the treaty, are just PREACHERS.
A better system would be an FAQ - including Q’s from those opposed/skeptical. All policy makers should be hammered on the hard questions
As with any party policy statement, the greens position is just a sales brochure, only to be driven here, here and here, don’t take it over here! etc . One I thing I learnt about buying a car is: Don’t let the salesman guide you over the car; poke and prod for yourself. The CULTURAL FUNDAMENTALIST element in the green party cannot answer the hard questions period.
JH
December 13th, 2006 at 9:13 am
Gerrit
My answer was to supplant the treaty with a constitution that recognized and made equal, the balance between Maori and Pakeha control, and which did not exclude the more recent migrants from other lands. The importance of this is clear when the entire preceding thread is scanned.
The Treaty is divisive.. even as it binds us together it tears us asunder. It was designed well, to cast the problem forward in time when (it is hoped) the divisions can be managed less violently. Maybe that time is come, I don’t know for sure. I don’t know of any country that has had dual parliaments, but you’d note that I didn’t envision more than a dual, in spite of the number of signatory Maori tribes. I don’t know for sure that the construct would work at all, though I expect that it could.
The point is that both Maori and Pakeha still want what is best for New Zealand. Consider that any bill would have to pass muster in BOTH communities. I would expect that from this there would be more “cooperative” memes developing and less division overall…
Now it’s cost all of you the time to read the damned thing. I’ll have to start paying you at this rate
Another $0.02
BJ
December 13th, 2006 at 10:25 am
BJ,
Almost heresy to say “surplant the treaty” but I agree that is where the problem lies.
How then to make the treaty effective for
1. Maori (people of the land)
2. Pakeha (english immigrants)
3. Tauiwi (all other immigrants)
that is fair?
Seeing that the treaty when written could not have envisaged (or the English Crown would not have allowed it) immigration by other people.
The Green party policy states
“The Green Party envisions an Aotearoa/ New Zealand where we are:
- A model of tolerance, democracy and inclusiveness.
- A good international citizen that accepts international responsibilities to welcome all new migrants, treat them well, and help them settle into our society.
- All enjoying a standard of living that enables everyone to feel a sense of participation in and belonging to the community.�
Because the treaty excludes Tauiwi we dont have a feeling of inclusion, participation or belonging to the community.
Would the Green party care to address that concern?
December 13th, 2006 at 10:26 am
bjchip Says:
December 13th, 2006 at 9:13 am
It was designed well, to cast the problem forward in time when (it is hoped) the divisions can be managed less violently.
==============================
Was it well designed? What about the ambguity(?) in the wording “kawangatanga katoa” etc. How can it have been well designed when the situation was such that one side had no idea what was around the corner (ie mass immigration). It was formed with good intentions, but the people who gave the instructions weren’t the ones who were going to turn the soil.
One explanation given in David Slacks Book Bullshit Backlash and Bleading hearts is that both sides gambled. Maori gambled that demographics would stay pretty much the same and the British gambled that Maori would be assimilated .
One has to be realistic about what will work or forget it. Two parliments why??? >>> Because it is in the treaty? no, because radicals want it. You don’t build a house on a crooked foundation.
JH
December 13th, 2006 at 10:59 am
Gerrit deserves some sort of answer and I will try to give it.
How then to make the treaty effective for
1. Maori (people of the land)
2. Pakeha (english immigrants)
3. Tauiwi (all other immigrants)
that is fair?
Not fair, but IMO not accurate.
The treaty was between the crown and MÄ?ori. The crown legitimately got kawanatanga.
Immigrants have come here at the behest of the crown so are, legitimately (as legitimately as anyone else) here. As non- mÄ?ori.
The division is mÄ?ori and non-mÄ?ori, not the three Gerrit makes.
I, too, am non-mÄ?ori and I belong no less than any mÄ?ori. My sense of belonging is deepened by deep roots (all my grand parents were born here, the first before 1838) but I acknowledge that I have not made a choice, like an immigrant has, so in a way, my commitment is shallower.
Does that help?
W
December 13th, 2006 at 11:06 am
While we are here at the bequest of the crown, the crown (English Crown we must remember) did not consult Maori on non english immigration and because they did not we are not here by right under the treaty.
That is how I see it.
Be interesting how the teachers of the treaty see this however.
December 13th, 2006 at 11:25 am
Gerrit
If you want to feal that you have no right to be here, do not blame the Green Party!
The Green Party is not making you feel unwelcome, you are doing it to your self!
My advice is to Get Over It!
W
December 13th, 2006 at 11:58 am
Get Over it!!
Isn’t that what some commentators are saying to Maori!!
The Crown colonised you — Get Over It!!
“We won, you lose, eat that”
Jeez Wayne.
December 13th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
bliss Says:
December 13th, 2006 at 10:59 am
The treaty was between the crown and MÄ?ori. The crown legitimately got kawanatanga.
But where do you live bliss?, does the chief have tino ragitiratanga?
Metira Turie stated on National Radio that “the Green Party has clearly stated that Pakeha xan stay in New Zealand as long as they abide by the Treaty”
JH
December 13th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
From the “Joint Methodist Presbyterian Public Questions Committee” 1993
explains the difference between Rangatiratanga and Kawanatanga
“The Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi clearly confirmed tino rangatiratanga or Maori sovereignty over all things Maori (Article 2). It granted to the Crown, kawanatanga, a word which is a transliteration of the word governorship (Article 1). Maori would have been in no doubt as to the meaning of rangatiratanga and, on the basis of its being guaranteed in the Treaty, willing to sign it. In 1840 Maori had no desire and no need to give away their tino rangatiratanga. What they gave to the Crown was limited power, to control new settlers. That power was kawanatanga. In retaining tino rangatiratanga it was clear to Maori that their ability to control their own destiny was not diminished. In granting kawanatanga they saw that they would benefit from limited controlled immigration and the introduction of new technology (Article 3) of the Treaty did not make Maori into British subjects. It recognised the continuing right of Maori to enjoy their own laws, customs and lifestyle, just as British citizens enjoyed their own. This was reinforced in (Article 4)(unwritten) which stated that the Governor would protect Maori ritenga or custom.
However, the English text of the Treaty which successive governments have relied on to this day for their legitimacy, or their own unilateral proclamation of sovereignty, assumes that Maori gave away all their sovereign power to the Crown. Such an idea would never have been acceptable to Maori. 200,000 Maori had no need whatever to concede any power to just 2,000 settlers. They signed the Maori text because they knew what it meant. Their tino rangatiratanga was retained.
On the incorrect assumption that Maori ceded sovereignty (tino rangatiratanga), successive governments have set about usurping tino rangatiratanga. The denial of the right of tino rangatiratanga since 1840 has been expressed in legislation, decisions of the Courts, and most recently in attempts to rewrite the Treaty in the form of principles.”
Kawanatanga only applies to English Settlers, not Maori who have Rangatiratanga.
Where do the Tauiwi sit?
December 13th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Gerrit, I think Bliss was being mischievously ironic and I hope you will remember your reaction to that the next time you see this attitude being directed toward Maori.
I also want to say to you (and to others here) is that you have no reason to fear. But if you can’t not fear, then at least don’t allow your fears to be constructing straw men over this issue.
When I first learned all this stuff 2 decades ago my initial reaction was to be filled with fear also, but I have since learned that the honouring the Treaty does not threaten any of us and in fact will have many benefits for all, especially for those of the Green persuasion.
It’s not that I am trying to be rude or evasive by not replying to all your points and questions Gerrit, it’s just that this is not the place for such a complex discussion, and I personally do not want to become entangled in it too deeply here for that reason, nor am I the best qualified person to answer many of these things for you.
And to echo what was said above, it is not the Greens responsibility to answer all your questions about the Treaty either, although it is fair enough for you to ask them to allay your fears as regards to Green policy on the security of your citizenship here. Although I think your fears would better be allayed by more thorough study (suggestions below).
But this was not meant to be a thread about debating the Treaty, it was a thread about the long term backlash from Brash’s racist politics and we have strayed from the topic a bit here so I will stop hijacking this thread any further after this reply to you.
I encourage you to follow the resource links in the 2nd article I posted above and find yourself a workshop to attend, or even better yet arrange your own with a group of concerned friends. I also encourage you to read the book recommended by Mike.
There comes a point where we must take responsibility for our own learning and there are plenty of other reputable resources out there on these issues if you commit yourself to that learning pathway.
All I can do is offer some places to start upon your journey as you boldly go where few Tauiwi have gone before (fade out to theme from Star Trek…….)
December 13th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Gerrit wrote….
Kawanatanga only applies to English Settlers, not Maori who have Rangatiratanga.
Where do the Tauiwi sit?
Bliss replys…
With the English Settlers. Duh!
Why make it so hard? Why struggle for alienation?!
W
December 13th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
A good place to finish, Thanks Zan,
The links you mentioned are not attached - can you resend.
Cheers, been very enlightening.
December 13th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Bliss you have missed the point completely. Read the comments.
Tauiwi cannot sit with the English Crown!!
That is why there is a seperate word for the non english immigrants.
Duh!!
December 13th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Here’s a link to an address by Michael King
http://sof.wellington.net.nz/origins.htm
JH
December 13th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Here you go Gerrit, but you might need to copy and paste this directly into your browser:
http://trc.org.nz/
Quote: “We provide free Treaty courses when community groups or members of the public organise 16 or more people who want to attend a 12-hour introductory workshop.”
Some excellent resource links from that site also.
Good luck
December 13th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Thank you Bliss
I do think that Gerrit is intentionally making it harder than it is sometimes.
JH, consider at the time, the alternative to a treaty was genocidal warfare and that getting a treaty signed by umpteen tribes and the crown required a LOT of ambiguity, I think the guy who wrote it did well. I am sure he didn’t intend for it to last the way it has, but it recognizes umpteen + 1 governments as equal.
One has to be realistic about what will work or forget it. Two parliments why??? >>> Because it is in the treaty? no, because radicals want it. You don’t build a house on a crooked foundation.
There’s no particular difficulty with having two deliberative bodies agreeing on laws. In the US there’s the House and the Senate, in Britain they have the House of Lords… what part of this is really THAT hard? As to why, it has to solve the same problem the treaty pushed into the future. It has to provide for equitable sharing of the lands collectively known as New Zealand (or Aotearoa) between the “native” inhabitants and their descendants who originally signed the treaty as Maori and the rest of us who are more recently arrived under the rule of the Crown. That’s WHY, and radicalism has nothing to do with it. Nor is the concept of two deliberative bodies agreeing on a law a “crooked” foundation.
The constitutional change has to be AGREED to by Maori. Not voted into place by a Pakeha majority. They are equal parties to the original agreement and must be regarded as equals now.
Not superiors… equals. We share.
respectfully
BJ
December 13th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
I have got to let this go. But I am upset that Gerrit seems so determined to be left out.
The fact that there is a word “tauiwi” that (is said to) mean “non english immigrant” only matters if you let it. There are a lot of labels people put on each other for many different reasons.
Hippy. Stoner. Nigger. Punk. Honky. Wasp. Pom.
But just because a label is placed on you, does not mean it should stick! That is a choice that you must make yourself.
It seems to me, as I quipped before, the Gerrit is desperate for alienation. That is sad. I for one make him/her welcome, and s/he is welcome to sit at my side in the treaty partnership, to stretch the metaphor. But it is an invitation I cannot make her/him accept.
I just hope that Gerrit does not blame, in any way, mÄ?ori or the Green Party for his/her feelings of not belonging.
It is up to Gerrit to choose this country as her/his home. And if Gerrit makes that decision, IMO, Gerrit belongs.
W
December 13th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
bjchip Says:
December 13th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
JH, consider at the time, the alternative to a treaty was genocidal warfare and that getting a treaty signed by umpteen tribes and the crown required a LOT of ambiguity, I think the guy who wrote it did well. I am sure he didn’t intend for it to last the way it has, but it recognizes umpteen + 1 governments as equal.
=====================
I don’t think the alternative was genocidal warefare, infact Maori would have been better off without the treaty, I think.
In NZ’s case you have to remember that Maori had a limited access to food, there being no native mammals, and the only crop that was much use was kumara (a subtropical) plant. This limited the size of the Maori population and so NZ had large unoccupied areas (especially in the South Island).
=======================
There’s no particular difficulty with having two deliberative bodies agreeing on laws. In the US there’s the House and the Senate, in Britain they have the House of Lords… what part of this is really THAT hard?
===========
Except that those bodies are formed from the same population. What you propose would be different (ie two different ethnic groups). It could end up being nothing more than a tug of war. On the other hand things can pan out in unexpected ways; some societies function because people know that if they missbehave (act in a dissorderly fashion) they will all suffer.
I can’t imagine what constitutional changes Maori would agree to: under the treaty Maori retain tino rangitratanga but concede kawangatanga katoa. Some claim kawangatanga was a rather impotent word others that it is a strong word, however at the time of the signing of the treaty there were 60 to 70,000 to 200,000 (according to the author of Gerrits article), so it is unlikely they would have conceded anything to their dissadvantage so quickly.
Assume therefore that tino rangitratanga equals what we commonly consider as power, control over a tribal territory which would include the seas around as far as the members of a tribe could reasonably keep out intruders. In the meantime we come and buy land, be it a farm in Fairlie or a pokey summerhill stone flat in Aranui. This belongs to us but it is in some tribes territory, [although in fact the colonists quickly out numbered Maori and gained the upper hand so that the closest thing we see to Tino Rangitiratanga is a Maori MP]. [This is how I understand the Maori version of the treaty it means that we only own our flat in Aranui and the tribe owns evrything else].
What might Maori want? How might we heal the injustices of the past? There is the treaty settlement process, where native inhabitants were ripped off, but there is also the issue of the foreshore and seabed. The bumper sticker. “Foreshore and Seabed Maori Foreshore” might give us an idea, as could the occupation of the Brighton Pier, not to mention the people on the hikoi on ‘Holmes’ who were filmed saying to the public: “we’re your new landlords”.
The unofficial policy of the New Zealand Government is to ignore the treaty in so far as tino rangitiratanga goes (and therefore native ownership of the foreshore and seabed). As historical injustices go that doesn’t rate very highly, I think since the alternative is equal access rights for all New Zealanders.
JH
December 13th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
JH
“Genocidal warfare” doesn’t specify who gets killed. The treaty got both parties out of destructive warfare mode and if you don’t think that was a brilliant accomplishment for the time I am not optimistic that we’re going to make sense of each other’s posting.
As for two houses with different makeups, what does that have to do with it? I am perplexed by this objection as there is no substance to argue. Maori cannot work out how to govern themselves? That’s hardly the case. Maori cannot work out how to make agreements with others? Maori cannot make compromises? The only uncompromising position I have seen is the one that says, one-law-for-all…. ours. That’s how the grievances became so deep-rooted in the first place.
Your next paragraphs put the pieces in place. You listen to the most militant Maori and that is the view you present as “what Maori want” . What the treaty meant for the past however long its been, its existence makes it clear that Maori and Pakeha are to SHARE here and concepts of property are not quite so ironclad.
Anathema indeed to the “ownership” society.
respectfully
BJ
December 13th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
This thread just goes from bad to worse, it is no wonder that Maori are not succeeding as they should.
There are literally hundreds of people prepared to make excuses for them.
We are often told that these “grievances” are the reason Maori cannot “move on”, it seems that the cure for all ills is money (vast sums of it)
As yet NOBODY has managed to tell me or explain (in anything other than PC babble) to me how these “grievances” can possibly be the reason that Maori do not achieve at the level they should, Maori have exactly the same opportunities (they actually have more) as every other person in our society
One day New Zealand might be a place where all men are treated equal, this will not happen until the left realise that generations of welfare dependents and endless treaty claims are not going to help us achieve this.
JH states that the governments unofficial policy is to ignore the treaty, the sooner this becomes official government policy the better.
December 13th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
big bruv
My wise old father had a saying:
“There is no point in farting against thunder”.
Other Greens may not use those same words, but that is what several have decided about the attitudes of some of the participants on this thread.
You say “As yet NOBODY has managed to tell me or explain …” and you are right!
When one comes into a discussion with misinfromation, lack of information, and prejudices, one tends to leave it with the same misionformation, lack of information and prejudices.
December 13th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
bjchip Says:
December 13th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
“Genocidal warfare� doesn’t specify who gets killed. The treaty got both parties out of destructive warfare mode and if you don’t think that was a brilliant accomplishment for the time I am not optimistic that we’re going to make sense of each other’s posting.
===================
I was musing that if there was no treaty it may have been better for Maori as for a while there was a system they relied on but it let them down. IE they may have been less complacent at that crucial early stage.
========================
BJ
As for two houses with different makeups, what does that have to do with it? I am perplexed by this objection as there is no substance to argue. Maori cannot work out how to govern themselves? That’s hardly the case.
======================
The problem is that we would be making decisions about the same scarce resources or, we share the same fish bowl. It is interesting that you can’t see the problem. I thought about it and I realised you probably see Maori as neutral whereas I see them as the opposition. That comes from years of listening to the radio and watching telly as activists spit sparks. I watched the attitude of even my most liberal friends change over time.
==================
BJ
What the treaty meant for the past however long its been, its existence makes it clear that Maori and Pakeha are to SHARE here and concepts of property are not quite so ironclad.
===================
That’s where we differ again, I don’t see the treaty as benign. The Maori version gives us the right to buy land from the Crown who buy it from Maori , It makes Maori British Citizens, but It leaves tribes in posession of everything else via tino rangitiratanga. The Crown can browse over a shoulder or two but that is all. We can only share if it is ok with Maori who are the Tangata Whenua and Kaitiaki (guardians).
The problem with sharing power is THE FORMULA: Maori are Tagata Whenua, descended from Rangi and Papa, they are litterally born of the land, whereas we are outsiders. They are also due to their bloodlines with the land, and experience, Kaitiaki and have duties to the environment over and above us. You may think this is just playing but the cultural police take it seriously. The difference between me and the cultural police is that I’m a realist and they are romantic primitive leftists (and probably Trotksy- Lenninists with a bit of white leghorn –getting a bit tired) so they don’t see a problem with that (in fact it turns them on a bit).
“We” as a group “stole” Maori land but individually all “we” may own is the summerhill flat in Aranui. Under the Maori version of the Treaty Maori are entitled to free and undisturbed possession of the beaches etc so the person in the summerhill flat in Aranui may have to ask permission to go sit on the beach (assuming he doesn’t get beat up at the bus stop).
JH
December 13th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
PS I hope eredwen learnt something from that.
JH
December 14th, 2006 at 2:11 am
jh - you’ve got a fundamental misunderstanding of what the treaty is and does. Do read Claudia Orange - she’s very good and you’ll feel much better equipped once you have a solid grounding.
The “maori version of the treaty gives us the right to buy land from the crown…” is false. The treaty establishes the relationship between the crown and Maori, and establishes the crown as legitimate in NZ. It certainly has nothing to say about the ability of settlers/citizens to buy land from the crown.
Say that “‘We’ as a group “stole” Maori land” is incorrect. The Crown stole Maori land. And yes a citizen you can own a quarter acre. I’m failing to see this as an issue, or even why these two points are linked.
As for Maori owning beaches - they don’t. They can’t - Labour ensured that the beaches were nationalised. And even if they hadn’t, what Maori and the Greens wanted to preserve was the ability of Hapu groups to go to court to prove undisturbed and continued use/possession (ahi ka roa) for 150+ years. Crown law thought it unlikely if more than a couple of families in the country could prove this.
Do you feel exploited? Don Brash called the audience of Orewa “punters” and said they lived “out there in Punterland”. He set out to make you feel uncomfortable and scared with his bogey men of powerful and rich Maori controlling NZ. All so you’d vote him in to privatise the hospitals and primary schools.
December 14th, 2006 at 7:35 am
I was musing that if there was no treaty it may have been better for Maori as for a while there was a system they relied on but it let them down.
Yes, the treaty was intended to benefit BOTH side to the conflict…
I don’t quite understand yet, what part of “killing each other” you think might have been better than the shaky peace that ensued… your viewpoint takes a peculiar slant here, that the treaty was for the Maori, when it really had to be for both sides to be able to stop killing each other.
Again we are making decisions about those same scarce resources now. Then we go to court with some number of tribes to determine what their rights are… and you like this better than my idea which (did you notice or not?) creates a unified Maori government entity and removes the source of the lawsuits about current resource decisions. Older grievances still would have to be resolved, but no new ones would be possible.
I will let others here argue about what the treaty says and doesn’t say, as I have observed only that its existence does create a division that splits our society at a fundamental level. As CITIZENS we cannot regard each other as equals, and that sort of division is not healthy in the long term. I suggested a means of bringing things into balance, removing the problem to the highest level of government where it can be managed, and creating the ideal of “one law for all”.
I keep hearing “it can’t be done”. Why not?
If Maori concepts of “duties to the environment over and above us” disturb you and the concept of sharing disturbs you as much as it seems to, then perhaps you really don’t belong here. I may not be seeing what you see because I don’t LOOK for the worst. There is plenty in the Maori culture that I can respect and admire, where you seem to only see that someone who might beat you up at the bus stop.
The beating at the bus stop has nothing to do with Maori non-Maori… it has to do with poverty. People get beaten up at bus stops in Brooklyn and there’s not a Maori within 100 miles. Blacks beat up Blacks, Whites beat up Whites… the race issue is not as important as the poverty and inequality issue.
BJ
December 14th, 2006 at 7:59 am
Bliss,
Alienation is not the right word. Confused is not right either but closer. Hence the search.
Confused because we have “rights” to access to country but physical barriers are put in the way.
Such as reported access to public land in the Ureweras being blocked by Maori.
Personnally had access to beaches blocked by Maori at Raglan (Go past the world famous surfing spot and into the next bay. Further access to the bay is denied by a big corrugated iron gate and barbed wire to the low water mark. Local tribe claiming it is their refridgerator - the bay that is).
While to a long term settler like you this is understandable, as a new one I find this repressive and apartheit like in nature. Being denied access to what I was taught was my “right” to walk the bay.
Maybe not to take the shell or sea food without asking - that I would not do if there was a sign to say ask first.
The way shell and seafood is being stripped from all beaches giving local Maori the custodial rights to the food and to share this on a sustainable level with the rest of the population may not be a bad thing.
December 14th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Eredwen
Did you dad say anything about farting into the thunder of political correctness?
I have tried to debate this issue with other forum members but at the end of the day it is a waste of time as most have no idea of reality or at least they are not prepared to admit the facts.
At least I can take solace from the fact that their views will never make it into law.
December 14th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
BB,
You cannot debate with a teacher. They know everything, are convinced you know nothing and worse that your opinion is worth diddly squat.
Reverting to
“When one comes into a discussion with misinfromation, lack of information, and prejudices, one tends to leave it with the same misionformation, lack of information and prejudices”.
Personally have got a lot out of this discussion.
Am much wiser and now know the correct word I was looking for about the treaty, “perplexed’ would sum it up for many recent immigrants.
Still Bliss, Van and others have directed me to good information plus google finds facts and opinions very quickly.
The eredwen of this world are nothing but trolls. You know the ones we get accused of being! Contribute nothing but demean any query.
December 14th, 2006 at 11:35 pm
Enough of this Gerrit!!!
I have done my sincere best to be civil to you in this discussion and respond with empathy to your concerns, but my patience for you just ran out when stepped over the line with your comments to Eredwen.
The Wikipedia definition of Troll: “In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.”
Frogblog is an established community of people who come here to discuss issues of Green politics, and in the 18 months I have been hanging out here those discussions have mostly consisted of thoughtful open-minded debate where participants are able to disagree respectively with each other and advance their collective understanding of the issues.
Eredwen is a respected long-standing member of this community who I have observed to possess a unique depth of wisdom on a wide range of issues, contributing constructively to discussions and also possessing a great deal of tolerance to people who are less politically aware than herself.
Whereas yourself, JH and Big Bruv are established members of KiwiBlog who actively enjoy the agreement of other extreme right-wing members over there and made the deliberate choice to enter THIS established community in order to promote those right-wing agendas.
I don’t see Eredwen making a deliberate choice to make her way over to KiwiBlog to try and force her left-wing agendas on to you there in your own established community. So by the above definition it is YOU THREE who are the trolls here and NOT her.
There is only one motivation for people such as yourself to chose to enter an established community of people whom you already KNOW do not share your own political leanings - and that is for the purpose of being disruptive.
My patience for your coordinated freep attack has run out. All you three have done here recently is to try and transform this green liberal community into a “Carnival of the Right-wing Trolls”.
This is our established home and we have enjoyed it as such. So please just sod off back to Kiwiblog where everybody already agrees with you and leave us in peace!!!
December 15th, 2006 at 6:48 am
Have perhaps made about 3 or 4 comments on Kiwiblog so you are wrong.
If in your opinion eredwen little speech to BB was not a rightious holier then thou, know all put down, fine thats for you to decide.
I think otherwise.
Do you think eredwen’s comments were civil to BB?
If the green party wants to get more votes to instigate the policies it sees need implementing, it needs to address the questions being asked by voters. And yes robust question demand robust answers.
Eredwen’s answers were not informative, constructive or helpful.
Just put downs. Pretty sad for a woman of her standing.
December 15th, 2006 at 7:26 am
Gerrit
I have to say that the only one who will debate an issue (and I note that Zan conveniently over looks the fact that I have changed my opinion on a few things in my time here) is BJ.
I am not offended nor upset by the put downs or name calling from people like Zan as it just shows the shallowness of their argument.
I have a genuine interest in some Green party policy but it seems that unless you embrace the total green package you are not welcome.
What Zan fails to understand is that unless the Greens can convince the public (well the 94% who do not vote for them) that they are not people to be scared of then they will continue to have almost no influence on policy and legislation.
Zan’s desire to stamp out all those who do not share his/her vision is rather extreme but sadly common among those from the hard left.
December 15th, 2006 at 10:00 am
taranaki Says:
December 14th, 2006 at 2:11 am
jh - you’ve got a fundamental misunderstanding of what the treaty is and does. Do read Claudia Orange - she’s very good and you’ll feel much better equipped once you have a solid grounding.
=============
Actually I feel that the treaty has become like a relgious belief; I have heard it said that it doesn’t meet the criteria for a good and binding contract [not those words]. I have read Michael Kings History of NZ and David Slacks Book which I quoted above (and I listen to Radio NZ, watch current affairs and read between the lines).
===============
taranaki Says:
The treaty establishes the relationship between the crown and Maori, and establishes the crown as legitimate in NZ.
===================
I can’t see how the Maori version does that
My concern about the Maori version is tino ragitiratanga
versus kawangatanga. One chief said that (he understood) the shadow of the land goes to Queen Victoria, but the substance remains with us. I keep coming to the conclusion that we are only entitled to what we have bought and the tribes own everything else.
As you say labour nationalised the beaches so Maori can’t own them, and as a political reality it was never going to happen anyway. However if you maintain the moral high ground by insisting that the Maori Version is the correct one it leaves us with a situation where there is a giant hole to fill in [I believe that it leaves us with the egg analogy. The yolk represents what we own, but the rest belongs to individual iwi. Then there are responsibilities re taonga (includes culture and language)]. Some people will keep saying we should do this and that under the treaty (and therefore earn our right to be here). The reality is that people won’t adopt Maori culture unless they want to, and if it is forced on them they will rebel. I work with people who speak about 7 different langauges and the one I would most want to learn is Mandarin (there are elderly Chinese who stroll around my nieghbourhood looking at the gardens.
BJ
ignore the rhetoric in my last post. While disscussing things in a written format has advantages, you can’t cut in,, “what do you mean??”
December 15th, 2006 at 10:03 am
test
December 15th, 2006 at 11:07 am
zANavAShi:
Thank you for the support and kind words (which were greatly appreciated!) and for your your insight.
A quick analysis of contributions to this thread follows:
Gerret 24 posts, jh 16 posts, big bruv 8 posts, duncan bayne 4 posts
THUS: these 4 people 52 posts (average: 13 per person)
zANavAShi 11 posts, bliss 6 posts, bjchip 5 posts, eredwen 4 posts,
frog 3 posts, mikeymike 3 posts, phi-u 1 post, sam buchanan 1 post,
dbuckley 1 post, taranaki 1 post
THUS: these 10 regulars (a predictably smaller group than usual) 36 posts
(average: 3.6 per person)
I could analyse the content/tone/ etc of the posts to expand on the above numbers, but I think it is self evident to anyone who reads through the thread.
December 15th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
I think more could be achieved by analysisng the topic into seperate subthreads eg
Does the Treaty of Waitangi give soverienty to the Crown via kawangatanga or does it remain with The Chief by tino rangitrataga?
If the treaty upholds tino rangitiratanga does this mean in fact that under the treaty we have no rights to anything other than the urban properties or farms we own?
Does the Green Party believe we should ratify the Treaty fully or partially.
are Pakeha who want to keep the security of Crown ownership of wilderness and coastal areas greedy?
What did Pakeha (?) steal from Maori and how should we make recompense. (sam Buchanan)
Examination of some of the theories behind positive discrimination. Colonisation and influence on crime, educational achievemnet etc
When will it (compensation) end? Gerrit
Healing our history. Dig it up or put it behind us. Move back or move forward?? . [ My review of this book is that it is well intentioned (very syrupy) but its prescription will lead us down the path to Bosnia– I must admit I have’nt read it yet]
etc
etc
JH
December 15th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
Gerrit, If I have been too hard on you then I apologise for that. However I believe Eredwens comments to BB were entirely justified and I echo them.
The reason I have always enjoyed coming here is that the level of discussion on issues I am passionate about has always been respectful, thoughtful, educational and solution-focused.
I welcome the opportunity to examine different sides of the debate without being flamed for my ideas and I find here a wealth of information which I would not otherwise have had the opportunity to find access to. I am highly invested in seeing constructive healthy debate that broadens everybodys understanding.
And being that I feel a deep sense of urgency with many of these current issues, I quite righteously object to seeing that debate stifled by the use of fallacious, divisive arguments and petty partisanship which only serve to waste the precious time and energies which are needed right now to be constructively focussed upon forward action.
It does NOT serve the spirit of healthy debate when people employ slimey tactics that have become the trademark of sewer-dwelling right-wing forums, parroting negative buzzwords loaded with bias and bigotry and hurling marxist analogies ad infinitum. Neither does it assist the spirit of that debate to nitparse your opponents opinions in order to wear them down or to sweep the entire content of them aside by applying labels to invalidate their entire argument.
The majority of BB’s input on this blog uses these styles of tactics and you will find many of them listed here on SourceWatch as being “Propaganda Techniques”:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Propaganda_techniques
I have no interest in engaging in sincere debate with people who’s agenda is to deluge me with propaganda, because as Eredwen quite accurately observes “When one comes into a discussion with misinformation, lack of information, and prejudices, one tends to leave it with the same misinformation, lack of information and prejudices.”
That is one of the truest things I have ever read on an online discussion forum. Another of my favourite truisms, and one of my core philosophies of life, is this:
“If you’re not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem”
If you’re here to be part of the solution, then welcome.
December 15th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Zan
That is about the funniest thing I have read all year, that only worrying part about it is that I honestly think you mean it.
When it comes to name calling you take the cake, the fact that you do not (will not) see this in yourself is bloody hilarious.
If you ever really want to chat about propaganda technique then I am always available, I would love to hear you explain why the Greens in particular insist on scare monger tactics to get their point across, if you doubt this then tell me who said this….”petrol WILL BE $2.00 a liter by Xmas”
I have always been very wary of extremists be they fr