Assimilation, anyone?
Yesterday, I wrote that Brash’s Orewa speech “did more to damage our social cohesion and race relations than any other in many years, more dangerous than any of Winston Peters’ anti-Asian mutterings because this was a man who could be our Prime Minister.” I stand by that description.
Curiously, those who seek to defend Brash say his speech is not divisive and damaging to race relations because all he wants to do is make us all the same under the law. What could be more unifying than that? Even more than that: National’s stance on race will be good for Maori and non-Maori. David Farrar even cites statistics that he believes show Maori agree with Brash’s stance on race.
The “Maori agree with us, so we must be right” argument - if one can even call it that - is easily disproved. Any survey you care to look at of Maori voters finds party vote support for the Maori Party and Labour running at over 80%. National’s support is in the single figures. If National’s stance is so good for Maori, then why would Maori voters be overwhelmingly opposed to it? Are they simply stupid? Do they not know what’s good for them?
It’s this core of paternalism - Don Brash telling Maori what’s good for them, without consulting Maori and in a way that is unpalatable even to National’s only Maori MP - that I find most unsettling. If Brash was really interested in improving our race relations, surely he’d be attempting to bring Kiwis with him, regardless of the colour of their skin? Surely his speeches on Maori would not be overwhelmingly dominated by negative descriptions of Maori customs and cultures and practices?
Also, if you’re saying that the position “all New Zealanders should be the same” is not divisive, but unifying, then how are you different from those who proposed the assimilationist White Australia policies with regard that country’s aboriginal people? In what way is Brash’s position not assimilationist? Just to be clear what I mean about “assimilationist”, this definition from Wikipedia is useful:
Assimilation is the process of integration whereby immigrants, or other minority groups, are “absorbed” into a generally larger community. This presumes a loss of all characteristics which make the newcomers different.
Of course, in New Zealand’s case, Maori aren’t the “newcomers”. However, Brash does seem to be advocating that Maori should be completely subsumed into Pakeha culture - that there should be no unique, distinctive Maori culture because “we are all New Zealanders”. Indeed, when Brash describes Maori culture as “primitive”, and derides Maori spiritual beliefs in comparison to the respectability he bestows on Christianity, what is he saying other than that he would hope these “quaint” customs die out completely?
Meanwhile, polls taken soon after the Orewa speech found the vast majority of Maori believed that non-Maori attitudes towards them had worsened since Brash launched his race broadside. If National’s stance on race is so good for race relations, why isn’t it working? Is it, as Winston claims about the blow up over Muslims, all the media’s fault?
John Armstrong is spot-on when he says of Brash’s speech yesterday:
What is striking about the speech is the blithe disregard for the potential backlash of taking an axe to the bureaucracy and agencies through which Maori rights are expressed and upheld.
August 30th, 2005 at 9:32 am
“…the potential backlash of taking an axe to the bureaucracy and agencies through which Maori rights are expressed and upheld.”
I think the answer to this, and I’m pretty sure Don has said it himself on numerous occasions is that National Party policy is that there aren’t such things as Maori rights; just human rights, and other rights that adhere to all, equally.
August 30th, 2005 at 9:45 am
Maori are a repository of values, ideas, beliefs and attitudes which are unique to these islands. Many of them are shared with other peoples living here, but this ‘basket’ of treasures is also encapsulated in Maori electorate seats.
National must destroy these seats which fall outside their definition of ‘mainstream’, because they’re an obstacle to National’s plans to recolonise New Zealand with foreign capital, low wages, minimum social security and profit flows to their foreign backers.
Brash and his cohorts have no love for New Zealand or it’s peoples. They’re driven purely by greed and ignorance.
If Maori are disenfranchised, they’ll move their grievances onto the streets. This gives Brash the opportunity to crack down with new prisons, new laws and other freedom destructive measures.
In his attack on the Maori, Brash reminds me of Hitler’s attacks on Jews. It wasn’t long before most of the ‘mainstream’ as well ended up either in concentration camps or frozen dead on the Russian steppes fighting for a madman.
We don’t want that future here. By ignoring the lessons of the past, Brash tries to condemn us all to a future hell. Brash sold out years ago. We don’t need him.
August 30th, 2005 at 10:07 am
I just heard Tariana Turia on RNZ. She made it clear that Maori were first in NZ, and that the treaty was established to give them joint rule.
Her vision for NZ was Maori Government with veto rights on whatever the Pakeha come up with. She repeatedly made the point it was alright for other interest groups (Chinese, Pacific Islanders, Gay Community) to work through MMP, but not Maori as they were here first.
That does seem to be a valid method for protecting Maori culture, but at what cost? The next idiot to tell me that is not divisive can watch the Israeli’s moving out of the Gaza strip as a token of appeasement, and seeing how it simply isn’t enough. Now that has happened, the “next step” is becoming clearer.
I doubt “full and final” settlement of treaty claims is the end game. That’s something wanted by all NZ’ers. However, most are under the misguided notion that the word final would mean, final. It does not. Turiana just explained that, and Linda Clark did not pick up on it.
We all have a right in this country to understand the FULL vision of each of the players that determine or future. You are so busy re-interpreting National’s ideas, you are failing to listen to all the ideas with the same degree of criticism. I would very much like to hear more fro the Maori Party on these issues. Can you guys stop ranting so loudly about old news? I’m trying to hear what Turia is saying.
August 30th, 2005 at 10:24 am
ZenTiger,
I think we can listen to both. My interpretation of National’s policy is that it is divisive, that National knows it’ll never gain the Maori vote (it never has to my knowledge), so that section of the country can be written off. National is deliberately appealing to the 87% of the country that has no Maori blood.
The Maori Party is doing the same thing, from exactly the opposite angle. It too is divisive to my mind, and I believe it will fail for that very reason. It is only appealing to the 13% that have Maori blood, but will fail to reach many of them (it fails to reach me anyway). Like you I think that the Maori Party case of ’special rights for the firstcomers’ is wrong. I also think it’s doomed to failure.
The best answer (not the same as a perfect one) obviously lies somewhere in the middle. It incorporates a definition of ‘clear settlement of Treaty claims’, and I think this must include a clear settlement date. National’s dates are a little too close and unachieveable. Labours are a bit more realistic, if only because it’ll take years to sort this all out. Any real answer also gives Maori some support, to help them recover some of what was lost over the last 160 years. Govt support of Maori education and broadcasting is fine by me, to a certain point anyway.
My long-term view is that race relations in this country will sort themselves out, as people do what they’ve always done, and interbreed. Come back in 100 years, and all the current hooha over the Treaty will be gone. It’ll be like the English bitching about Normans vs Saxons. It’s just a pain for us that we’re the ones having to put up with this integration stuff.
August 30th, 2005 at 10:39 am
Tane, I agree, but it waters down my post to come across as reasonable and moderate. I do think much of the mouth frothing is overdone in this case, but with election fever upon us, a lot of people are going to a lot of effort to convince swing voters that the good vs evil showdown is upon us.
If people are going to give such a strong reaction to National, I think they need to keep a wee bit in reserve for those at the other end of the spectrum. This morning, the Maori Party via Turia, just eroded a fair amount of good will I had towards them. I doubt they care in the slightest. That worries me.
August 30th, 2005 at 10:40 am
Zen Tiger
I listened attentively to all of Linda Clark’s interview with Tariana Turia and Gerry Brownlee on RNZ National Programme this morning.
Were we listening to the same interview?
I thought Gerry Brownlee’s attitudes, ideas and (especially) behaviour “left room for improvement” but overall enjoyed the basically friendly inclusive “Kiwiness” of the debate …
Eredwen
August 30th, 2005 at 11:34 am
It is not a rubuttal to say that because most Maori do not vote National, they do not agree with the principles espoused by Brash. People do not generally vote on single issues, and other policies such as welfare, health have influence. Also traditional voting is strong for many people.
August 30th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
Eredwen, I had little issue with what Gerry Brownlee was saying. I had major issue with what Turia was implying. Did you not hear the bits where she was saying that Maori were first in NZ, and that the treaty was established to give them joint rule. That ruled out participation via MMP and they sought much more than protected Maori Seats.
Were we listening to the same parts of the interview? Did you not get that impression from Turia?
August 30th, 2005 at 12:42 pm
Agree Tane. Tariana is welcome to carry on as she is.. the day of the extreme Maori radical is ending and the treaty settlements process, govt depts etc have played a large role in undermining both the need and the mandate for the bluster.
Attempts by radicals to cast the Donna A-H’s of the world as martyrs will end up isolating the radicals within their own communities as their claims are so transparently ridiculous.. so let them run.. as long as the economy is strong it’ll be impossible to whip up enough dissatisfaction to be destructive.
otoh, there’s no denying that Maori politics has traditionally been tribally based and heavily rhetorical, and it’ll be interesting to see whether it’s capable of supporting a single Maori party within a westminster system without transforming itself in the process or splintering into ineffectual pieces in the process.
August 30th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
Heard the debate too.
Turia makes it very clear, and so will I: This state was established by an instrument of government called the Treaty of Waitangi. It is pretty basic and the understandings of what it entailed were fairly clear. Everything continues as before except for what the Treaty says, ie. Maori autonomy continues and Pakeha and the British are welcome on those terms. Maori didn’t agree with the British to establish co-existence so they could be told what to do in their own country by immigrants - isn’t that obvious? Maori did not agree to British meddling in their minutist internal affairs - quite to the contrary. Maori ability to organise themselves and practice the tenets of self-determination and non-interference implicit in the Treaty has been undermined, without consent and often by force, unilaterally by the power Maori entrusted to do exactly the opposite. They were supposed to guarantee the peaceful existence of Maori and the new immigrants - not try to force Maori to be like the new immigrants. And then, generations later, millions of immigrants later, non-Maori feel so threatened by Maori aspirations to assert a measure of the ideals of our founding undertakings that many of them still feel it is their job to carry out the colonialist goal of assimilation, and are so ignorant and prejudiced from years of lies and indoctrination of Pakeha mythology that they are willing to believe almost anything that is anti-Maori. When Maori get a single tokenistic “right” it is heavily criticised despite Pakeha having an effective veto over Maori via Parliament and local governments. It’s all rather sad and pathetic. Don Brash (in that context) is merely a product of that history. If he could reach out in inclusive terms without resorting to deliberate denigration of Maori he could be Prime Minister. But he has burnt those bridges. If Helen Clark could have reached out she could have gone from Prime Minister to Statesman. But she too, burnt those bridges.
It does not help that many of the ideas or notions from both “sides” are usually very vague. “One law…” Who’s law?
As Zen has said we face a quandry. We have a heavily centralised unitary state with a single-chamber parliament that can change any law, including the constitution, in a matter of hours with 87% of the population being a consequence of British colonial settlement and having a historical narrative and understanding of the country based on an immigrant/pioneer mythology where the local, indigenous minority are usually understood in terms of them being the vanquished backward outsiders with aspirations beyond their assumed cultural window-dressing position. If power-sharing is to occur in this context, ie. without a form of federalism or de-centralisation, then tension will be present amid the competing groups because the game (as it were) is a winner-take-all. And that suits the interests of the major parties and the Crown system of government as a whole.
Any discussion on changing our constitutional affairs can be had at http://www.aotearoaconstitution.blogspot.com - new agenda out tomorrow. Need some more input before then.
August 30th, 2005 at 3:55 pm
Zen Tiger:
I listened carefully to what both Gerry and Turiana said on RNZ National Programme this morning.
Unlike you, I have no “major issues” with what Turiana said.
I have to ask: How “well read” are you in our history?
To answer your points of concern (posted at 12:28 today):
Maori ARE Tangata Whenua in Aotearoa New Zealand.
They signed Te Tiriti as full partners, as the (then) majority people in this country.
The expressed intention was “joint rule” as you put it.
I assume that you are aware that the wording of Te Tiriti O Waitangi (not the English language version) is the official Treaty, and was the only copy signed by the then representative of the British Crown?
Kiwis of Maori descent already hold “more than the protected Maori Seats” in Parliament. (As has been pointed out, many people of Maori descent choose the General Roll.) I believe that Pakeha should leave the decision about the relevance of Maori Seats to Maori. They are the ones who “live in their skins” and know what that is like. Anything else smacks of “paternalism”.
If and when there are not enough enrolments on the Maori Roll to have a Maori Seat then everyone will be on the General Roll (and the suspicious among us can breathe again, provided they are not off on their next “conspiracy theory”.)
Meanwhile as a born New Zealander, I enjoy my full status in Aotearoa as a member of “Tangata Te Tiriti” (people of the Treaty), in partnership and friendship with “Tangata Whenua” (people of the Land: ie Maori) whom I trust and admire … including “Wahine Toa” like Turiana!
Eredwen
August 30th, 2005 at 4:38 pm
Eredwen, my point relates to the confusion I have in the full (undeclared) implementation of what the Maori Party seeks to achieve. We can all sit around and speak of partnership and settlement, and I am in favour of moving forwards on this. My expectation (right or wrong) was that the outcome would be where we can put New Zealand first, collectively.
It is becoming apparent to me there are people who believe a separatist approach is required. Such a solution has its dangers. I find the irony is that National is being told why one law for all” is divisive, the Maori Party are at the same time explaining how maintaining a divide is central to their strategy.
I am glad you enjoy full status as people of the treaty. I am wondering who grants this status, and if the people that follow Tariana will be in a position to use laws set up to divide us, to use it as a wedge. Bad laws for good reasons are still bad laws.
T Selwyn raises the point central to all of this. If we are to solve the grievances, we need to understand this is not going to be settled by a cash payout from the coffers of the “Pakeha” tax payers (given that any Maori Tax payers are recipients of an instant rebate). This problem will not be solved by mere money (although that is an essential part of the appeasement is it not?) The problem will be solved by who has what power moving forwards from “full and final” settlement.
For all of the Kiwis that have been amenable to “full and final settlement”, they now need to realise we are nowhere near that point, given the position the Maori Party has stated. That may be of no surprise (or worry) to you, but it expands the agenda to me, as that was the way the issue was framed to a lot of people.
At this point, I have no definite opinion as to the best way forward. I wrote a post on my own blog saying I was trying to listen. There’s a lot more to listen on.
I’ll take your points on board and educate myself further.
August 30th, 2005 at 6:52 pm
Zen Tiger
I don’t understand what you mean by “given that any Maori Taxpayers are recipients of an instant rebate”
… unless it indicates that you don’t know “who” and “what” the Waitangi Tribunal and the Settlement process is about?
If that is the case I suggest you have a great deal of “educating yourself further” to do (and will leave you to it.)
A few starting points:
“Maori” as a collective name came into use in Pakeha times.
Pre-Pakeha Aotearoa was settled by various Iwi and their Hapu etc.
These Polynesians ended up with their own tribal areas in Aotearoa.
In 1840 Rangitira of each of the groups signed the Te Tiriti individually, and thus current Treaty claims are made separately or collectively by each Iwi or Hapu and any agreed upon redress goes to these groups … not necessarily a monetary thing.
… and as to “the taxpayers paying for it” … we are talking about long unrighted, illegally acquired land, and grevous wrongs here as well.
Maori have been incredibly patient and money alone is not enough.
I apologise for my assumption that you haven’t actually read at least two (of the three) books that would be considered necessary to understand the issues, if indeed you have read them.
If you haven’t you have company … apparently Don Brash openly admitted that he hadn’t read them either!
Happy reading …
eredwen
August 30th, 2005 at 7:20 pm
Eredwen, I apologise for being gratuitous with the extrapolation. I am aware of the history, and some of the “recommended reading” from my NZ history courses at University (but I do not pretend to be across the whole picture) and have been deliberately “mainstream” in the couching of the situation. I still think this is an issue that “mainstream” do not have a handle on, but yet have a fair degree of goodwill over (from their perspective - after all I also have done a fair bit of reading of other experiences of land ownership in Europe, America, Africa and even our neighbours in Australia to understand the fuller significance of the Treaty of Waitangi).
There are lots of good people involved in sorting this out. My point is to accent the expectations appear to be diverging on what full and final settlement is all about. It was not well articulated in the Seabed and Foreshore debate, and (conceptually) I laughed at the unrelated issue over access over private access to crown land.
We are heading for a bit of a shakedown, I suspect. The danger is genuine grievance is replaced with widespread disbelief, as the objectives are reframed in an entirely different light.
The status of children of the treaty is not so clear to many of its children. Or do you disagree?
August 30th, 2005 at 11:03 pm
Zen Tiger:
If the status of the Treaty is “not so clear” to the “mainstream” is that not in part because it is used (as a vote seeking exercise) that encourages the ignorant(?) and the greedy(?) to “demand their rights” in a “we are all New Zealanders ” campaign? I’ve even met very new New Zealand migrants who hold that view.
In this way of thinking, the rights of Maori, apparently can be jetisoned because they are “a minority” (who don’t tend to vote National …)
Maybe we are heading for a shakedown, but I still have faith in the average Kiwi … and Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a matter of law and of fairness.
Having said that, the pushing the Seabed and Foreshore legislation through in haste was “not a good look” for my faith in the averfge Kiwi!
Eredwen
August 31st, 2005 at 12:15 am
There is no mention of the Maori seats in the treaty. The racist seats are not a treaty issue. It is wrong for any government to treat people differently based on their race.