A very interesting discussion about maori on The Standard "Will Key fold"" post.
From the comments section
RedLogix
August 21, 2009 at 11:42 am
@Lew
Well in an earlier post you said something along the lines that the Treaty promise Maori a ‘hell of a freaking lot’.
It might argued that if Maori had remained a demographic majority in the country, then the Treaty, the establishment of the Crown, democracy and Parliament would have assured Maori all the representation they could want for.
But’s that’s not likely how it would have turned out is it? Tribal power was never about democracy as we know it. Certainly it had nothing much to offer the Maori slave class. Although the rangatira were never absolute autocrats in the sense of say the European monarchy, that probably because Stone Age technology limited their ability to impose their power without the wider co-operation of the iwi. But given the inevitable impact of the outside world, surely that would have changed, just as the advent of muskets in the hands of Hone Heke had already turned the Maori world upside down by 1840.
It’s interesting to speculate exactly how an Aoteoroa that had delivered to Maori the ‘hell of a freaking lot’ you have in mind, ie the full exercise of tribal sovereignty, might have evolved as a society. I imagine it would look more like the political landscape of Tonga, than what we currently have. There is no doubt in my mind that lingering in the back of some ‘upper class browns’ in this country, is a hankering for the restoration of the tribal powers they once enjoyed. (A theme not restricted to just Maori of course…)
Where do we go from here? There cannot be two competing sources of sovereignty in one nation, but neither can the currently dominant Pakeha model assume that it will remain unchallenged forever. Both sides will have to move.
Reply
Lew
August 21, 2009 at 12:00 pm
RL,
"Well in an earlier post you said something along the lines that the Treaty promise Maori a ‘hell of a freaking lot’. "
Yes, it did.
"It might argued that if Maori had remained a demographic majority in the country, then the Treaty, the establishment of the Crown, democracy and Parliament would have assured Maori all the representation they could want for. "
Yes. If the Treaty had been properly adhered to, tangata whenua would be in a very strong position compared to where they’re at now.
"It’s interesting to speculate exactly how an Aoteoroa that had delivered to Maori the ‘hell of a freaking lot’ you have in mind, ie the full exercise of tribal sovereignty, might have evolved as a society.I imagine it would look more like the political landscape of Tonga, than what we currently have. There is no doubt in my mind that lingering in the back of some ‘upper class browns’ in this country, is a hankering for the restoration of the tribal powers they once enjoyed. (A theme not restricted to just Maori of course…) "
It is interesting, but idle. And it seems like you’re drifting towards the sort of white man’s burden argument, that it’s a good thing the Crown didn’t adhere to the Treaty, because those dam natives would have just screwed it up and we’d all be living under a brown feudalism – or they would have just killed each other if the settlers hadn’t done so.
This argument, that natives were never going to be able to run a proper country because they couldn’t handle the responsibility is an awfully paternalistic line to take, although unfortunately not uncommon, even among people who ought to know better.
"Where do we go from here? There cannot be two competing sources of sovereignty in one nation, but neither can the currently dominant Pakeha model assume that it will remain unchallenged forever. Both sides will have to move. "
Indeed; an agreement will need to be struck and it will require deep compromise from all parties. What’s critical is that any agreement proceed from a position of goodwill, consent and with consideration to previous agreements. There aren’t two sources of sovereignty, though – in the strictest terms, the only thing (other than military force) which gives tau iwi the right to live here is the Treaty of Waitangi. If the settlers of the day had conquered Aotearoa and annexed it (as they did elsewhere) then that would give them the de facto right, but they chose to treat, and if there is to be rule of law in this country the crown must be bound by that decision and its consequences. So the first question of constitutional reform needs to be something like “why should tangata whenua accept a new agreement rather than simply insisting on adherence to the existing agreement?’
There are plenty of good possible answers, and this question being asked and considered deeply and in full is fundamental to the issue of consent, which is necessary before any change to the constitutional status of the nation and its people can really be considered.
L
Reply
RedLogix
August 21, 2009 at 12:15 pm
There was no magic force field bubble surrounding Aoteoroa keeping out the modern world. The whalers, sealers, loggers, missionaries , prostitutes, land-grabbers, farmers and soldiers were always going to arrive… and along with them was always going to come a technical, cultural, legal and poltical system that was frankly more developed and advanced than the Maori had.
This was reality, not paternalism. It does not say that the Maori were ever an inferior people, all it says is that their culture, evolved in relative isolation from the rest of the world was going to get a dramatic, and quite involuntary kick up the arse, in order to catch up with the modern world. That is not a statement of blame or guilt, it was a simple historic inevitability.
"because those dam natives would have just screwed it up and we’d all be living under a brown feudalism "
I take it that you aren’t defending feudalism, of whatever colour, white or brown? It’s not paternalistic to say that I object deeply to any form of feudal tribalism as a political system…. regardless of the skin colours involved.
Reply
Lew
August 21, 2009 at 12:29 pm
RL, the whole premise of ‘cultural evolution’, and especially ‘political evolution’ is paternalistic.
I’m certainly not defending feudalism; I’m saying that it’s wrong to assume that that’s what would have inevitably emerged from an alternate history where the crown adhered to the Treaty, and presuming such says a lot about your attitude toward tangata whenua. In addition, the argument you’re running here that the end (society as it is, rather than some made-up counterfactual) justifies the means (mass slaughter, resource alienation, cultural oppression, etc.) doesn’t wash, unless you accept that the Pākehā the means favoured are intrinsically more important than Māori that suffered from it. Naturally, you feel like you can argue from this position, since you’re one of those who benefitted – there’s no downside for you, really.
Māori have not been dragged kicking and screaming into democratic politics, as you suggest – they have been systematically barred and dissuaded and excluded from it, and have managed to wedge themselves in anyway.
L
Reply
RedLogix
August 21, 2009 at 1:04 pm
"I’m saying that it’s wrong to assume that that’s what would have inevitably emerged from an alternate history where the crown adhered to the Treaty "
Well at least the Tongan model I pointed to is a real one, not an assumption.
"the whole premise of ‘cultural evolution’, and especially ‘political evolution’ is paternalistic. "
Can’t accept that. If all progress and change is just ‘paternalistic’, I might as well be arguing with the dining room table. You claim not to be defending feudalism, but by your logic my rejection of it is just a paternalistic smear upon our own ancestors for whom that was the only way of life they knew. Sorry but you cannot hide behind cultural relativism all the time, at some point you have to make choices, between right and wrong, the status quo and change.
"In addition, the argument you’re running here that the end (society as it is, rather than some made-up counterfactual) justifies the means (mass slaughter, resource alienation, cultural oppression, etc.) doesn’t wash, unless you accept that the Pākehā the means favoured are intrinsically more important than Māori that suffered from it. "
By looking around I see very few Maori choosing to live in pre-European, Stone Age, tribal conditions. Most of those Maori families descended from their slaves (those who haven’t gone to Australia that is) seem to turn up the opportunity to return to their former chattel status. Many Maori avail themselves of modern foods, clothing, education, health care and so on. Many Maori become highly qualified professionals and use the technical, cultural and legal systems brought here by us ‘paternalists’ for their own desired and legitimate purposes.
Gone are the days of the summer war parties. Gone are the days of a life expectancy of less than 40, when you left behind a skeleton marked by stressful, often brutal life. Gone are the days when the life of those at the bottom of the highly rigid and finely graduated Maori class system, hung by the whim of those further up it.
So yes I conclude that for all the losses you mention, there were also gains. If you want to measure and weigh these up, then look about you and see what the people themselves have chosen.
In this respect Maori have made exactly the same journey as have us Europeans; no-one stands on any moral high ground, nor should lay claim to any special grievance… we all progress through history… each on our own path, each with it’s own turns, accidents and chance meetings.
Reply
Lew
August 21, 2009 at 1:31 pm
RL,
I should have been more clear: the idea that one culture, or political system, is objectively better or worse than another is paternalistic because these things cannot be objectively measures without a (culturally laden) set of benchmarks. My objection was to the equation of ‘evolution’ to ‘increase in quality’, rather than evolution as change which may or may not be beneficial, but usually is because deleterious adaptations die off – which is clearly and obviously the case. The reason it’s paternalistic is that it presumes purpose – a non-industrial (or pre-modern) civilisation when judged by industrial or modern standards will always be found lacking precisely because the question of what is valuable has been begged.
My point with all that is that it’s wrong for you to simply argue, as you have done, that imposing modern ways on the natives was justified and for their own good. If they are prepared to argue that, it’s another matter – and if they avail themselves of the social and technological changes manifest in those systems, it doesn’t necessarily follow that those systems are superior; especially in the NZ case, this argument is falsified by the fact that Māori were denied (by alienation, suppression of language, etc) their traditional ways of life and the modern evolutions which would develop and had no choice but to assimilate into the urban slums.
I’ve italicised that section to highlight your assumption that the Māori ways, unlike the civilised white man’s ways, would have remain unchanged all this time. This also is paternalistic – like those fools who say that Ngāi Tahu should be allowed to catch as much fish as they like with flax nets and bone hooks, but buying into Sealord is somehow cheating. The thing Māori were denied by the mass alienation and other breaches of the treaty wasn’t just the wealth of their resource – it was the opportunity and means to continue their cultural development and pursue change and reform on their own terms – as a matter of tino rangatiratanga. Instead, they have had to develop under terms imposed upon them by economic, political and military force – and people wonder why it’s so dysfunctional!
With due respect, to say that Pākehā and Māori have walked the same path ignores the fact that one was hungry, blindfold, barefoot and at gunpoint to the one behind, riding on a white horse and wondering what all the complaining is about. And to an extent, it remains thus. Talk of putting grievances behind us, forgetting the past and forging on as brothers is cheap and easy from those who haven’t borne the political, economic and cultural brunt of those grievances over eight generations. The grievances can only be shelved when Māori are prepared to shelve them, willingly and secure in the knowledge that things will be better.
L
Reply
RedLogix
August 21, 2009 at 2:54 pm
"The reason it’s paternalistic is that it presumes purpose – a non-industrial (or pre-modern) civilisation when judged by industrial or modern standards will always be found lacking precisely because the question of what is valuable has been begged. "
I understand the argument quite well, but in the end I have to reject it. While industrial civilisation has many obvious defects, it is preferred by most people to any alternative. Most people when faced with a life-threatening injury or illness choose retain access to some form of modern health care, as against solely committing to the ministrations of a tohunga for instance.
While it is easy to romantacise the putative freedom of the ‘noble savage’, the reality was a slavery to bad weather, poor and erratic food supplies, non-existent health care, and bad neighbours. The only rights and property one could lay claim to were those you or you whanau could defend or enforce by warfare.
"this argument is falsified by the fact that Māori were denied (by alienation, suppression of language, etc) their traditional ways of life and the modern evolutions which would develop "
As you say an idle argument. Even if left in total isolation Maori would probably have continued on much as they had for a thousand years prior. But that is not what happened, there was no magical bubble protecting them from change.
The simple, irrefutable fact is that the coloniser’s inevitable arrival imposed change, ipso facto. No good intentions could change that fact, no-one can be held accountable for denying the chance to allow Maori to create their own modern evolutions, because that became only a hypothetical possibility.
The only place where Polynesians had the opportunity to evolve their own modern adaptions in relative isolation was Tonga; and excuse me if I don’t wholly support the outcome.
"With due respect, to say that Pākehā and Māori have walked the same path ignores the fact that one was hungry, blindfold, barefoot and at gunpoint to the one behind, riding on a white horse and wondering what all the complaining is about. "
Not my family. Most of them fled persecution and poverty at home, arriving here after a dangerous, traumatic sea-voyage, with little more than what they wore. In one case that was literally true; she swam ashore with nothing. She later had a stand up argument with an armed Hone Heke himself and won the concession from him she wanted. She herself descended from families who had won freedom from serfdom through generations of a dramatic turbulent European history, and heritage that morally empowered her to stand up for what she wanted.
It was not the colonisers who imposed change on the Maori, it was the political and legal heritage they inevitably brought with them. "
It's well worth following these discussions because they highlight misconceptions that people have and also show depth of arguement without personal attack. The arguement is fierce but not nasty.
No comments:
Post a Comment