But the occupation and government's purchase unfortunately show something deeper: the tendency by a significant number of Pākehā —in and out of the media— to misrepresent Māori situations; to make connections where there are none (supposed implications for the Treaty of Waitangi), and ignore actual connections (the confiscation of the land in the 1860s); to talk of favoured treatment for Māori rather than the righting of wrongs. A rewriting of history, what can only be called racist interpretations, and just how intolerant some of us are of people of other cultures.
This is how Charlotte Muru-Lanning in the Spinoff sees these reactions. She says "for years now, people who should know better have been spreading misinformation about Ihumātao. Now that a deal has been made, it’s time to set the record straight on some of these repeated falsehoods."
She goes on with falsehood and response which I have labelled and abbreviated. To read her full article, click here, and see my endnote for the meaning of asterisked Māori words.
Falsehood 1. The iwi’ sold the land in the first place.
Response. The block was stolen/confiscated by the government in 1865, granted to the Wallace family in 1867, who sold the land to Fletcher Residential in 2016.
Falsehood 2. The confiscation of Māori land was justified. The tribes had rebelled against the Queen's authority
Response. The block was part of more than 1.2 million acres of confiscated land, from Auckland to the King Country under the New Zealand Settlements Act, of land belonging to any tribe who were judged to have rebelled against the Queen’s authority. At Ihumātao, 1,100 acres were confiscated. Some 260 acres were eventually restored to Māori deemed not to have engaged in acts of ‘rebellion’ against the Crown. Ihumātao is stolen land.
Falsehood 3. The settlement will undermine existing Treaty settlements.
Response. Ihumātao has never been subject to a Treaty settlement and government's settlement was not made through Treaty settlement processes. The Treaty settlement process, which offers meagre compensation to Māori in comparison to damage done and land taken, is safe and sound.
Falsehood 4. The settlement could mean that other settlements will be reopened.(see, for example, Heather du Plessis-Allan's Ihumatao "only the beginning")
Response. Since Ihumātao was never part of any settlement, there’s nothing to reopen.
Falsehood 5. This will create a precedent for Māori to start occupying land elsewhere.
Response. Māori have been occupying land as a form of protest for ages (e.g., Bastion Point and the Raglan Golf Course.), and are likely to keep on doing so where there's perceived injustice Occupying space has been a common form of protest and cause for social change throughout history. For example; the sit-in movement protesting racial segregation in the USA or the feminist sit-ins throughout New Zealand protesting men-only bars and restaurants in the 1970s.
Falsehood 6. This is an infringement of private property rights.
Response. No property rights have been infringed. Government is paying Fletcher $29.9 million for the land, over $10 million more than what they bought it for. Everything is legal.
When Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei closed their marae, which is private property, to the public during lockdown this year, they endured complaints and breaches by neighbours who were ‘annoyed’ they couldn’t use the marae as a shortcut. Weirdly, people like David Seymour, who have been so vocal about protecting Fletcher’s private property rights, were silent. Perhaps private property rights only take effect when Pākehā own land.
Falsehood 7. Soul (Save Our Unique Landscape) later called Protect Ihumātao, is a heritage protection group run by Pākehā radicals!
Response. Soul was founded by six cousins who whakapapa* to Ihumātao. While it has included tauiwi* supporters, the group has always been led by mana whenua* .
Partial Falsehood 8. Didn’t mana whenua agree to the Fletchers development in the first place?
Response. Who mana whenua* are for a piece of land is often complicated. Te Kawerau ā Maki originally fought to stop the the Fletcher purchase. When they lost in the Environment Court they attempted to compromise with Fletcher instead – essentially, trying to make the best out of a bad situation. Whānau of Makaurau Marae and the papakainga*, however, never agreed to the development. They are mana whenua and have always been against development.
Falsehood 9. This is just a case of young vs. old Maori.
Response. The myth that the Ihumātao protest was at its heart a split between young and old was repeated by the media. But as Prue Kapua said: “lhumātao is not a clash between kaumātua* and rangatahi*. It is a clash between those exercising kaitiakitanga* and those (older Maori) who have learned to live with compromise. Protect Ihumātao has always had the support of local kaumātua* and kuia*.
Falsehood 10. The site isn’t even historically significant! It’s the stonefields next to the site that are historically significant, not the block bought by Fletcher.
Response. This is not true. Ihumātao is one of the first places that Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau settled more than 800 years ago.
Before being confiscated, the fertile land, including the land on the block bought by Fletchers, was used for gardening by local Māori. Later, huge quantities of food and wheat were produced on the land and sold on to Pākehā settling in Auckland. According to historian Dave Veart, this is where Māori learnt to grow wheat. He told NZ Geographic: “It is the only remaining major piece of land adjacent to a stonefield system in Auckland, and it spans the complete history of Māori food production from the land… this is the only place we’ve got all of that on one site, and it provides a buffer to one of the most delicate, complex archaeological landscapes in New Zealand.”
Earlier this year Heritage New Zealand announced it had increased the area’s status from category 2 to category 1 – the highest listing available.
Falsehood 11. It’s a waste of our tax dollars!
Response. In the invasion of Waikato, 1.2 million acres of land, from Auckland south, were confiscated. It was prime, fertile land that supported a thriving Māori economy. The confiscation meant displacement and poverty for Māori while the Crown and many Pākehā farmers and property owners benefited financially from the land over the last 150 years – the price paid by the government to buy the land off Fletchers this week is next to nothing in comparison.
* End note, Glossary
Whakapapa. Line of ancestral descent.
Tauiwi. Non-Māori
Mana whenua. Right to an area of land.
Kaumātua. Elder.
Rangatahi. Young person.
Kaitiakitanga. Guardianship.
Papakainga. Ancestral home.
Related
https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/18-12-2020/the-story-behind-the-fight-to-save-ihumatao/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/17/ihumatao-sacred-site-bought-by-new-zealand-government-for-30m
https://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/editorial/pragmatic-ihumatao-responses
No comments:
Post a Comment