 |
| Acknowledgement: Stuff Pn35 |
First, several things need to be made clear. Most of us are more comfortable in the company of people like us, but this is not racism. Racism in NZ is often expressed politely. It is not necessarily aggressive or violent.
Usually we don't know when we make a racist statement or joke (it may not be intended) just as some men don't know they hurt women with some gender jokes. Those receiving will probably smile or ignore it, but they're probably hurting inside. This is the consequence. But you won't ask and they're unlikely to reply if you ask them. Honesty could spell the end of a friendship. The insult doesn't need to be spoken; rudeness and body language often tell more.
Patronage, making excuses or allowances (helping them along; treating them less than equal adults). can also be racist. The racist looks down on the other from a superior height.
Assumptions on the behaviour of individuals based on negative group racial stereotyping are also racist, although, again, sometimes not intended.
A staunch racist would tell the offended not to take the insult too seriously. It's only a joke. Be adult enough to laugh at yourself. Or they may respond, "F...k you!) or worse.
This article deals with Maori but many others are on the receiving end of racism in NZ: Pacific Islanders, Chinese, Indians and Jews are the most obvious.
Both 'race' and 'racism' have fuzzy boundaries, and they have not meant the same thing everywhere or at every time. They are both difficult to define, but in NZ 'race' is generally (but not always, as we shall see) largely self-defined, and, due to inter-marriage, not always physically obvious.
- Racism is the acceptance of racial stereotypes that bemean or belittle and show no respect for the 'other' as individuals.
- It often ridicules or denigrates the language, behaviour, history and culture of the 'other'.
- It defines the identity of the 'other', denying the 'other' the right to define themselves. It sees the world through one Euro-centre eye, and closes the 'other' one.
It is not concerned about hurting others (indeed, it may wish to do so); the negative consequences for those hurt, or for the harmonious and equal relations in society as a whole. It holds tenaciously to its rights of unfettered free speech, putting the individual above the needs of society, regardless of consequences. It denies Maori an independent and equal right to their own voice on the national stage.
It assumes equality is sameness. All should be treated the same even when the evidence is that its sterotypes and notions of equality have helped fuel the gross inequalities evident in Maori incomes, lifestyle and crime statistics. It denies any historical or present responsibility for these statistics. They are the fault of Maori.
It rejects the idea of restorative equality or positive discrimation, where action is taken to compensate for past wrongs, and improve on present inequalities.
It aims to assimilate Maori so that they merge or disappear into the wider population, rather than integrate where a Maori-Pakeha partnership, based on mutual respect, determines the extent of merging and separatism. It equates separatism with Apartheid.
We know Don Brash's views on the Treaty of Waitangi, Maori seats in Parliament, the whiteness of some Maori (has he not heard of the geneticist Gregor Mendal or recessive and dominant genes?) and bi-culturalism. Don Brash does not think of himself as a racist. He is a gentle, intelligent
man who genuinely thinks he is doing the best for NZ society. He holds nothing against Maori as individuals. But he has a peculiar fixation with race as seen in his Hobson's Pledge memberedship.
Hobson's Pledge
But he was a founding and is the most active member of Hobson's Pledge whose membership, if its Council is anything to go by, comprises mainly older male Pakeha citizens retired from executive positions in business and senior administrative positions or farmers who, at a guess, are likely to have voted National or Act all their adult life. One, a woman, has NgaPuhi and Irish/English.ancestors
(We'll look at what she has to say in Part II.) Mihingarangi Forbes's view on Hobson's Pledge, published by Radio NZ.
provides another Maori perspective.
Hobson's Pledge's sole objective is to act as a lobby group to achieve what they see as equality by depriving Maori of any perceived advantage or special identity in NZ. One of them sail negative Maori statistics are none of their concern.
They are understandably not interested in 'restorative equality' to reduce the massive Maori-Pakeha income disparity gap we now have, or lobbying for equal wages for women who perform the same jobs as men. Theirs is a very targeted objective. To achieve their notion of equality some things Maori most come down and nothing should be done to make anything come up.
The Treaty
It's strange they chose Hobson's Pledge as a name. Or perhaps not so strange if the only history they learnt at school largely ignored Maori. When Hobson's welcomed Maori chiefs with the salutation He Iwi Tahi Tatou (We are one people) he can hardly have meant it literally. Slavery was still a major force in the world. The Industrial Revolution was producing appalling conditions for workers. People were deported to Australia for stealing a rabbit and the death sentence given for crimes not much worse. Only landed men could vote. The British Empire was expanding to embrace much of the black and brown world, sometimes by warfare but often by treaty. An English gentleman would not have considered Maori his equal.
Britain needed a peaceful NZ to protect its citizens, control over convicts who had escaped from Australia, access to land, enhanced trade with Sydney merchants, and prevent possible French annexation. For their part, Maori wanted protection for their trade to Australia and protection from White vagabonds who visited our shores. The Treaty also served to revoke the Declaration of Independence signed by 52 chiefs in 1837.
It is in this context that we should consider He Iwi Tahi Tatou. The Treaty is the our country's foundation document because it is the basis of the Crown's acquisition of New Zealand, and from the Maori perspective at least, it was built on mutual respect. Rangatira to Rangatira.
The Treaty was signed by some Northern Chiefs at Waitangi and then different copies were taken around the country for other chiefs to sign. There was an English and Maori version and translation was difficult. Waikato chiefs signed the English version! No one knows what happened to its translation. Along with other copies it has disappeared.
Some important words had different meaning in the two versions. Kawanatanga meant that sovereignty was transferred to the Crown but Maori would retain te tino Rangatiratanga of their people, land and all other possessions.
Don Brash and Hobson's Pledge argue that this sovereignty stripped Maori of any claim, but others have argued the words would be better translated as governorship, self-determination. autonomy or even Maori independence. Ryan's 1995 Maori Dictionary defines Kawanatanga as government and Rangatiratanga as a kingdom, principality, realm -- or sovereignty.
The English version of Article 2 assures Maori the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates, Forests, Fisheries and other properties would remain for so long as they chose.
In the Māori text, their tino rangatiratanga will remain undisturbed over their lands, kainga and other taonga (te tino rangatiratanga o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa), literally the absolute chieftainship of your lands, your homes, and all your treasures (taonga).
Based on the Māori text alone, in Article 1, the signatories appear to be ceding kawanatanga or governorship, and in Article 2, the signatories are promised that their tino rangatiratanga or highest chieftainship would remain undisturbed.
This apparent inconsistency has led to much debate as to whether the Māori signatories intended to cede their sovereignty to the British Crown at all. Don Brash and Hobson's Pledge claim they did.1
The spirit of the Treaty, if it can be called that, was about negotiating a relationship.
It's strange that Don Brash places so much importance on the signing of the Treaty when he now wants it removed from the law.
But like others, he overlooks that from its signing until it became law in 1975 it was almost totally ignored and repeatedly broken by Governments and Pakeha settlers, though they did create four Maori seats in Parliament-- that Brash also wants abolished.
Even as late as 1960 my History Honours lecturer told me the Treaty was not a legal docement. Treaties are signed between countries, not with tribes. She quoted "It is not worth the paper it was written on. " Maori thought otherwise -- but no one asked them.
So how was it broken? For most of the 19th century by the confiscation, the individualisation of tribal titles, the forced exchange of valuable land for inferior land (such as Wellington's Oriental Bay for swampland in Palmerston North) and the forced selling of land. Te Ara Museum has an instructive online display on biculturalism and interactive maps on land alienation over two centuries.
An example of alienation was the so-called Wairau 'Massacre' when NZ Company agents tried to arrest Te Rauparaha and Rangihaeata who had prevented surveyors from surveying land they had not sold. Rangihaeta's wife was killed and the 'massacre' followed. Our history always showed Maori as the aggressor. A junior teaching colleague in 1969 told his students it as all the Maori fault,
Some Maori wanted to sell land; others were forced to sell to repay debts incurred in the Law Courts while they tried to retain title to their land.
The NZ or Land Wars (still called the 'Maori Wars' by some) during the 1860s resulted in the crushing of all resistance to land alienation; the arrests without trial of Maori leaders like Te Rauparaha, Te Kooti Rikirangi, Titokowaru, and Te Whiti O Rongomai (NZ's Mahatma Gandhi), and the total neglect of Maori wellbeing. Tribal and chiefly authority was undermined, with disastrous results on Maori organization, enterprise and pride. So much for the protection of the Crown! The colonial government annulled the Treaty in 1877.
More recently, the involuntary acquisition of land continued with the help from the Public Words Act. In 1976 Government wanted to selling part of the Bastion Point (Kohimarama) reserve for luxury housing. It was on ancestral land that Ngāti Whātua hoped to get back. They mounted a 506-day occupation of the site in 1977–78 before being forcibly removed by 800 Police and army. Over 200 were arrested (see Note 1, below.)
At the individual level there were many kinds of actvity that denigrated Maori, which could lead to a sense of inferior and lack of confidence.
Frequently repeated 'trivial' things like requiring a Pakeha to witness a Maori signing a P.O. withdrawal statement; the Rotorua theatre that refused Maori admission to downstairs seats; the barber who refuse Maori a haircut, and a secondary school system that streamed Maori children into lower stream classes from they rarely moved upways. Many Maori used their English names. No attempt was made to pronounce their Maori names correctly and many families stopped using them. The partly well-intended caning of children for speaking Maori did nothing for Te Reo or the children's self-respect.
All this and more lead to a sense of inferiority and inadequacy, prime cause of today's negative crime statistics. Most were based on lack of respect that would not have been tolerated had the boot been on the other foot.
Two Trends
The 1960s and 1970s saw the emergence of two new trends: on the one hand a greater interest and concern by Government; on the other, what has been called the 'Maori Renaissance.' -- a growing pride by some Maori in Maoritanga, a resistance to Pakeha exclusion, and an insistence they be consulted in matters concerning them.
A major Government inititative was the1961 Hunn Report, where an effort by Government to come to grips with what it saw as the 'Maori problem.' Although well intended, it was essentially patronising and demeaning document. Among other recommendations, housing for Maori (and Pacific Islanders) was to be 'pepperpotted' among a larger number of Pakeha-occupied houses. so that Maori could learn from Pakeha example.
Assimilation, and not integration where Maori were consulted, was the goal.
A few more schools taught Maori and Maori was taught at some universities, generally linked with Anthropology. Early work by Sir Apirana Ngata and the Ratana Church had helped preserve Maori identity. It accelerated in the 1970s with Ngati Tamatoa, Whina Cooper Land March and Eva Rickard's attempts to restore Maori ownership of Raglan's golf course.
Governmenent passed the 1971 Race Relations Act 1971, a
Race Relations Conciliator was appointed, the Treaty of Waitangi Commission established and a start was made on paying compensation for past land alienations.
In 1979, however, an incident demonstrated continuing Pakeha disregard for Maori values. This was the Haka Party Incident. He Taua protestors and the Auckland District Maori Council found the haka offensive and had made repeated requests over nine years that the haka, by Auckland University Engineering students, not be performed The students wore grass skirts, their words were a caricature of Maori. they 'were tattooed in lipstick with pictures of testicles, a penis and sexual but it was the protesters who were arrested and found guilty. The media had labelled them a 'gang', falsely claiming they were armed with softball bats, lengths of chain and metal rods!2
ACW
To be continued in Part II....
NOTE
1.. Hobson's Pledge also has its interpretation of the meaning the three Treaty articles. Ignoring later and more informed scholarhip, especially that by Dame Claudia Orange The Treaty of Waitangi (1987), they refer only to the late Sir Hugh Kawharu's work, based on his Oxford doctoral thesis which was not informed by later discussions on the meaning of kawanatanga and rangatiratanga.
It should also, perhaps, be mentioned that Ngati Whatua Sir Hugh opposed the occupation of Bastion Point and approved the forcible removal of protestors. His university office was close to mine and we argued the point on several occasions which others may have found strange. A Maori arguing against Maori and a Pakeha against Pakeha.
2. I am indebted to Prof Paul Spoonley for his description of this event, and to him, late Prof James Ritchie, and others for their ideas unacknowledged used in this posting and the the next posting in Part II.
No comments:
Post a Comment