*Warning* Maori sovereignty thread *Warning*

[Clivoris]

Law;

Straight off the Vic website:
· A supplementary admission process is also run to assess tangata whenua students for entry into second year law courses if they would not otherwise be considered. 10% of available places in each second year course are reserved for Maori students applying under the Maori Admissions Process.

Sorry, I struggle to believe how Maori have a hard time competing in University? do you mind explaining how they would find it any harder than an asian, a european, a mature student, someone who has just moved towns to study........

I'm more than happy to speak about my experience. My whanau couldn't afford to support me through Uni (pre student loans and after). More Maori are poor=less access to education even with student loans cos they still have to be paid back. More Maori are from low education or working class households=less role models, less understanding of what it takes to succeed and less expectation that education or professional careers are available. I know that this doesn't only apply to Maori, and it doesn't stop people like me from getting through the system.

Once I got into Uni I experienced something of a culture shock. I was used to having almost daily contact with extended whanau and having a feeling of being actively involved in something bigger than me. Something that was more important than my personal priorities. An example of this would be me dropping everything to assist an extended family member experiencing health problems or having to stop and visit extended family if I was passing through their town. I better have a good excuse if I didn't.

Being away from this was really hard for me. Luckily I had a GS1000 and home was just a fast trip away. I also struggled with the rigidity and individual, competitive focus at uni. This totally blew me away as I knew I was Pakeha (and very happy about it), but I was like a Hillbilly fresh from the boonies. I was raised to be humble (whakaiti) and a weird off-shoot of this was that getting good grades would make me feel like I was being whakahihi (big headed and showing off). Ever cruised through papers or held back in tutorials so your class-mates wouldn't feel belittled? It happened. When with non-Maori I learnt to watch what I said for a whole bunch of reasons. If I spoke of my beliefs about topics like why Maori do things the way we do, I would often end up having an argument I didn't want to have with people that I liked. So it was hard to be myself in a relaxed way. I'd get little oases and recharge myself by being involved with other Maori at Uni and getting home often. If an extended family member died I would be torn between attending the tangi ( often a several day commitment with travel time) and attending to my study.

The courses I studied often contained asumptions that didn't gel with the way I thought the world worked e.g. the professional boundaries of psychology, wellness being measured as an individual's issue without reference to others, the emphasis on the measurable and observable and the minimising of things like traditional belief systems (I think an understanding of both is important and has value. In my work, what I believe isn't half as important as what my client believes). When I was studying, I wasn't just doing it for me. My whanau had an investment in my performance as well. Everything I do reflects on my family. If I fuck up, they have fucked up. That can make it scary to try because failing is so shameful. And I know this one might get an incredulous reaction, but I carry my ancestors with me. I have a responsibility to behave in a way that doesn't discredit them. This produces an interesting tension for me. I don't seriously believe that the ghosts of my Grandparents are standing at my shoulders, but they are. Doesn't make sense eh? Everybody responds to these kinds of presure in different ways and obviously not all Maori feel them, but trust me, get a bunch of Maori together and the large majority will know what these things are like, regardless of background and how traditional their upbringing has been.

I'm probably not providing enough information and it is very subjective, but the best summary I can give is that I really felt like an outsider, probably not just because of my mixed ethnicity but also because of my socio-economic background; and I also had commitments and stressors that non-Maori didn't have . I obviously adapted and survived, and believe that I am the better for it. Those that succeed do have to get through this system or other systems that come out of a "Western" world-view. This world-view dominates because it's very effective at what it does. But I would rather live in a world where there is more room for expression. I really like being a part of things Maori and encourage anyone to obtain an experience of the positive side of things Maori.

These debates use a strange mix of general statements, specific examples, and leaps of logic that are often contrary to other arguments we might make. I know that I will say things like people shouldn't make generalisations, then go ahead and make some of my own. Or get angry about people making "us and them" statements, then do exactly the same thing. I don't know how to resolve this especially with a topic that seems to trigger an emotion-charged self-protection mechanism. These issues don't have a single truth. All aspects of the debate have truth. Those who use resources should pay for them, but a society that cares for others without access to resources is a good society. All of us are paying for things through taxes that we don't derive direct benfit from but I am pretty sure that the whole country will benefit from an ongoing Maori renaisance.

We should all be held accountable to a single set of laws, but we should also be able to express our identities and beliefs if we aren't hurting others. I want to live in a community that encourages and accepts diversity without being threatened. This will mean accepting some things that feel counter-intuitive like admission quotas, and there will be people that will rip the system off (from all ethnic groups). Maori don't have a monopoly on struggle but for what it's worth we have a treaty that hasn't been honored. Statements about this being history and we should all move on, feel like a total invalidation of my experience and who I am. I don't think this is people's intention but that is what it feels like. Nobody sensible wants the clock wound back and many people are getting on with it. It's the only way. But it would be good to have my history and experience validated. Another good one is "It's the law get over it". That's pre-adolescent level reasoning and all of us can think of examples of when the law is an ass. Speeding or Greg Carvel anyone? It's also ok to say "I don't get it but I know that it's real for you", or "I don't get it, but what's it really going to cost me?". I also think that there are shitheads in all groups within NZ, but the Good C***ts out-number the fuckers.
I figure that I have to set an example of being open about an important issue like this and walk the talk. I also appreciate that people on this thread have had the courage to express honest opinions. In saying that, I'm pretty tired of the energy required and I think this will be my last lengthy post in this thread. The OP rum calls. Congratulations to anyone that had the stamina to read this. I hope it made some sense.

[Clivoris]

Yep I'm paying more than my share why should my girls get no student allowance because wev'e been frugal which brings us back to the poverty level of those that do get the allowance (Probably proping up Finn) So he can get a refund but I haven't got enough energy at the end of it to make a stand not like some of them who don't have anything to do except protest at what they could have had if you get my drift.

That law fucking sucks. Free education for all.

[Ixion]

.. An example of this would be me dropping everything to assist an extended family member experiencing health problems or having to stop and visit extended family if I was passing through their town. I better have a good excuse if I didn't.

Or, maybe , like the Biker Law. You ALWAYS stop to help a biker in distress. Maybe it's not such a uniquely Maori thing?

,, Ever cruised through papers or held back in tutorials so your class-mates wouldn't feel belittled? It happened.

Ever heard of the gentleman's C

,, I don't seriously believe that the ghosts of my Grandparents are standing at my shoulders, but they are. Doesn't make sense eh? ,,

Do you think only maori experience such things? Genuine question.

[elle-f]

Your whanau that have passed on are always there watching...................*twilight zone music*

[candor]

Not just watching - they force me to do stuff. It's like possession. Steven King soundtrack.

[Clivoris]

Or, maybe , like the Biker Law. You ALWAYS stop to help a biker in distress. Maybe it's not such a uniquely Maori thing?


Ever heard of the gentleman's C


Do you think only maori experience such things? Genuine question.

I wouldn't claim that these are unique to Maori. I think the Biker Law is a great example. It's something that we do because of the culture of biking. Get a bunch of bikers together and we have something unique and intangible that joins us despite our differences. Non-bikers might or might not get it. But I enjoy that difference and it doesn't stop me participating in other cultures. If I'm a biker does it doesn't stop me being a New Zealander. I just have a slice of experience that I know others are missing out on. Never heard of gentleman's C, but it makes sense. I've always thought that there are great areas of overlap between cultures, but it is the tensions or differences, sometimes subtle, that become the focus of how we define ourselves.

[Deano]

This statement really just shows that you don't understand the values that underpin the non speaking tradition in some places (not for me to explain either) - FYI I have seen ancient kuia do haka and oratory of the highest order which is largely theatrical including a sort of mime on the odd marae, which do not have that protocol also

Regardless, I believe in civil rights - for a culture to dismiss women's right to speak seems draconian to me.

My 'culture'/ancestors used to burn witches at the stake, but wev'e moved on I think.

I would bloody hope not. Maori attained the rights of Brits only - not became British subjects - kind of like us if we had a dual US / Kiwi passport letting us have protection of US laws when in the US.

Not a very good comparison I reckon. USA and NZ weren't at war like the British and Maori were at the time.

And personally, I would respect the USA flag while there - Tama Iti and the like don't do Maori any favours shooting the NZ flag on TV, which undoubtedly influences a lot of Kiwi's thinking.

History is one thing, but personal experiences leave more of an impact. I think in a lot of cases, Maori grievances have taken things too far - it's all good settling previous injustices, but keep it real or lose credibility.

Maybe another case of a few spoiling it for the rest ?

[candor]

The brits / maori were not at war but bloody friendly at the treaty time! Same as it was with the French - a French treaty was considered too.

Agreed Iti may have got some offside with that, its not respect 2 ways.

Re women not speaking being draconian - that is from a European perspective. There are checks and balances you likely know nothing of to keep everyones rights being met.

Maori can equally point at our culture and say 'hey thats obviously wrong' in a spirit of half seing the big picture then misunderstanding. Example is I am often judged for letting rellys go in to rest homes. Maori don't get it till I explain that my nans etc get driven mad by having ytoo many family around - we have a greater individuality and need for space. Also Nana would HATE for anyone to not work or advance their interests / career in order to loojk after her as she likes more than anything to hear of success. To her it would be extremely selfish and plain wrong t have kids give up work - they must do it to pay for their kids educations etc. My nana loved going to a home where 50 year friends were - they had gone through wars etc together.

On so many levels rest homes are right in and for our culture but to most maori I know they see it as elder abuse. The difference is CULTURE.

Women not speaking on the marae does not put them below men or mean they have less rights - when you take in account the whole raft of checks and balances and values taken into consideration that we know nothing of.

It was in fact for the protection of women and the whole tribe that women lost speaking rights in some tribes - much earlier they did have them when the paepae was the front porch or land outside a hut.

The laws of tapu as comprehended and laid down by ancestors and the need for 'energy balancing / protection' for lack of a better word, and historic events led to the transference of the speakers role to men as I understand it. Speech was punishable by death at one poiny as it was seen as reducing the chiefs power to foresee attacks on settlements - therefore a risk to the community.

Women however had great dominance over men in general in life - they said what goes, who gets land, if visitors were received or rejected, prisoners given to them to torture, some were warrioresses too. Women transmitted mana and priestess types could take it away reducing you to a persona non gratis by stepping over you.

Impressions are not always accurate. Its my belief that a lot of Maori guys are still carrying chips on their shoulders as they failed to defend the mother (land) - the females don't have to crry the guilt as they had the control of the land but not the defending role.

[Ixion]

I would bloody hope not. Maori attained the rights of Brits only - not became British subjects - kind of like us if we had a dual US / Kiwi passport letting us have protection of US laws when in the US.

Which brings things round in a circle to my original point about the Maori radicals always demanding 'rights' and refusing to accept 'duties'.

I will not venture to speak for what Maoris of 200+ years ago may have thought. But I have made some study of 18C Britain, and I can say with certainty that the notion of someone obtaining the "rights" of British subjects without becoming British subjects would have been utterly incomprehensible to any British soldier or civil servant of the day. The Maoris undertook to swear allegiance and fealty of the Queen. You CANNOT have fealty without duty.

When they signed the treaty the became British subjects. End of story.

Atre you arguing that Maoris today should have all the rights of New Zealand citizenship, but should not be obliged to accept any of the duties and responsibilities of citizenship? Because if so, then I think that the non-radicals need to start arming immediately, there is an unfinished war to deal with.

[gypsy]

One for all and all for one.

[avgas]

Again a good point, but if you are going to look into the history do it properly. The Waitaha and others were in NZ for more than 1000 years before the Maori arrived and began slaughtering those who did not agree with them. There is evidence of early civilisations up to 150,000 years ago in NZ, and most likely Celtic origins.
The claim of Maori being the 'indigenous people of the land' is false and nothing remotely similar to that of the Aborigines who have been in residence for around 40,000-70,000 years. I am sick of the deliberate misrepresentation of history to suit activists ends, all it takes is 30 seconds to search Google for 'pre-maori' history in NZ, mountains of information and research. Try it.

Try that agument all you like - people wont listen to you. I did and i have given up.
The country is a pile of hoo-haa when it comes to ancestry, if it predates tasman then only the tuatara knows.
Lets all completely ignore the chinese junks and the celtic barges.......nothing to see here.

[Clivoris]

Which brings things round in a circle to my original point about the Maori radicals always demanding 'rights' and refusing to accept 'duties'.

I will not venture to speak for what Maoris of 200+ years ago may have thought. But I have made some study of 18C Britain, and I can say with certainty that the notion of someone obtaining the "rights" of British subjects without becoming British subjects would have been utterly incomprehensible to any British soldier or civil servant of the day. The Maoris undertook to swear allegiance and fealty of the Queen. You CANNOT have fealty without duty.

When they signed the treaty the became British subjects. End of story.

Atre you arguing that Maoris today should have all the rights of New Zealand citizenship, but should not be obliged to accept any of the duties and responsibilities of citizenship? Because if so, then I think that the non-radicals need to start arming immediately, there is an unfinished war to deal with.

There's huge debate about what those old-time geezers thought they were signing. But there's no doubt that even if the treaty is taken out of the equation, we all have duties and obligations as New Zealand citizens. I hope that those duties and obligations don't prevent us (I really mean us) from expressing who we are within the bounds of the law.

[Deano]

The brits / maori were not at war but bloody friendly at the treaty time!

There wasn't fighting pre treaty, hence the need for a treaty ?

Re women not speaking being draconian - that is from a European perspective.

I don't believe that is a European perspective, but a civil rights perspective.

Who are we then to say female circumcision in some countries is wrong ?

Like I said, traditionally the English used to burn witches at the stake. Times change.

Personally, I have had too many personal experiences of racism growing up and also in my job - I shouldn't be made to feel responsible for something my (and your) ancestors did or didn't do.

Too many nonsense grievance claims have reduced credibility IMO.

[candor]

Where does it say in the treaty they swore fealty and allegiance? The rights they sought was for the Brits to keep their people under control. So naturally if a settler offended against Maori they wanted the same rights as brits had to be a witness etc and hoped after the treaty the CCrown could deal with its solely English origin subjects in their own wee import kangaroo court which was to be used for them.

Far as I know there ws no presumption Maori would fight for the crown which had very little relevance to them before or post the treaty. I'm not aware any went as Jacks to any conflicts England was engaged in - tho I'm not a historian. I am aware some tribes refused war service pretty consistently as they did not feel treated as brit subjects or any obligation.

From what most Maori have told me the bulk of Maori (excluding Ngai Tahu) had no belief they had become subject to foreign sovereignty. Governorship yes - as explained per the bibles use ogf the word that dd not mean they would be ruled or governed by the other signatory. A Governor was merely a chief mediator should issues need resolving - the role Gray and others were well understood as having played.

Again - from what most Maori (with heaps of education also confirmed by oral tribal history transmitted to them) have told me the decision to accept the concept of a sovereignty change as implied in the English version, did not come from the majority of tribes till the very belated Kohimarama conference, and even this was apparently very manipulated and almost under duress.

The Crown Lawyers generally talk of Kohimarama as being where sovereignty was orally ceded by most chiefs - not by the original treaty.

What late put a spanner in the works and gave the so called radicals more impetus was the UN in more recent times ruling that indigenous language treaty versions are always to take precedence over settler language ones.

Where it is at now then is a compromise situation. The Crown agreed to devolve some aspects of sovereignty in practise to Maori - without really letting pakeha EVER know the true state of play.

You will find that in Waitangi Tribunal papers the Crown / Maori have divided sovereignty into 4 seperate components (can't remember all of them). I just remember that legal sovereignty was one of the 4 parts. Oh "mana whenua" or land guardianship was another. Anyway they agreed to hand over about half the parts to Maori and keep the other half. So it was a compomise.

[candor]

Deano - no they were friendly. Treaty is not always for war. The Maori had sought one so that pisshead traders / whalers etc could be kept under control by the Brits as they were a problem and headache. They also thought a treaty would bring some settlers which they wanted - but in a contrlled way not like a flood. Also some tribes were pretty pissed about arms dealing as other tribes were running round wiping tribes out, so they wanted this nipped in the bud but could not deal with it using their own usual mechanisms.

PS - I wonder if some horrible circumcision ritual is how that poor little Charlene girl was murdered in CHCH?

Civil rights are a European concept - they are based on the underlying core value of autonomy - this is cultuarally traceable to Western civilisations.

"Personally, I have had too many personal experiences of racism growing up and also in my job - I shouldn't be made to feel responsible for something my (and your) ancestors did or didn't do."

I call that 'revenge racism' - like a relative of mine says - he joined the gangs and raped heaps of pakehas and burgled heaps of rich pakehas - but it didn't make him feel better. The point is not to feel responsible as you aren't for the past but it helps to understand why stuff happened and how it was uncool or as the cliche goes we ae in danger of repeating.

Racism is not doning a white hood and going out to burn crosses and terrorise darkies - it is much more insidious than that. It can be as subtle as what I saw yesterday. Indiabn daiy owner watching maori teen like a hawk and telling him not to handle items unless buying. I myself often pick up then change mind and put down again. People can also be racoist or discriminate against themself.