Treaty of Waitangi

**H00dz** · 21st September 2007, 06:20

Fairly said....thanks for your response I could not for the life of me understand the reasoning until now......am I a New Zealander ABSOLUTELY !!! like you and others ......there is no difference!! only in our minds

**scott411** · 21st September 2007, 08:15

Originally Posted by Ocean1

My hand’s up here. It's a matter of comparing apples with apples. You've called yourself a Maori, so allow me to explain why I call myself a New Zealander.

Like you my genetic background is hugely mixed. In my case it's a blend representing pretty much all of Europe, and that more than 7 generations ago. Genetically I'm Caucasian. Genetically you're almost certainly Caucasian/Mongoloid. You'll notice that doesn't define either of our cultures.

If you identify yourself as Maori it's because you feel an affinity with those of that culture. I feel an affinity with New Zealanders, all of 'em, so culturally I’m a New Zealander. Simple really.

The suggestion that my heritage might be worthy of disgrace is provocative, designed I suspect to demean or belittle. I’ll not take that bait, other than to suggest that such is the way of the insecure.

X2

well said,

**Bass** · 21st September 2007, 08:16

In discussions of this type, much is made of the fact that the use of the Maori language was at one time, firmly suppressed in our schools. I see it mentioned again in this thread.
However, I am led to believe that this measure was instituted at the request of senior Maori of the time, because they saw fluency in English as necessary for their people to progress in the world that had overtaken them.
I don't know whether this true or not, but I suspect that it is and let's assume for a moment that it is. I have read the names of those purported to have requested it.
If so, why is it almost never mentioned??
I suspect because it would destroy the arguments of those who use this piece of history for their own ends.
Further, is it also not possible that those Maori were right about English in the context of their time?

**MSTRS:Me** · 21st September 2007, 09:14

Originally Posted by Bass

In discussions of this type, much is made of the fact that the use of the Maori language was at one time, firmly suppressed in our schools. I see it mentioned again in this thread.
However, I am led to believe that this measure was instituted at the request of senior Maori of the time, because they saw fluency in English as necessary for their people to progress in the world that had overtaken them.
I don't know whether this true or not, but I suspect that it is and let's assume for a moment that it is. I have read the names of those purported to have requested it.
If so, why is it almost never mentioned??
I suspect because it would destroy the arguments of those who use this piece of history for their own ends.
Further, is it also not possible that those Maori were right about English in the context of their time?

I thought it was a natural progression (of subjugation perhaps) after outlawing the Tohunga system...

**MSTRS:Me** · 21st September 2007, 09:19

Originally Posted by H00dz

Fairly said....thanks for your response I could not for the life of me understand the reasoning until now......am I a New Zealander ABSOLUTELY !!! like you and others ......there is no difference!! only in our minds

Precisely, brother.
Ethnically, I am overwhelmingly Caucasian (primarily Scottish) with a little Negro thrown in about 5 generations ago.
On my father's side (of Scottish stock), my NZ family goes back to Wellington 1840. My father raided Scotland for a wife in 1955. I was born here. That makes me a New Zealander before any other consideration.

**terbang** · 21st September 2007, 09:57

Originally Posted by H00dz

What surprises me is how many of you have identified yourselves as New Zealanders Why is this?.....

Good question and I had to think about that. Firstly, lets not forget that all people living in NZ have some sort of migrant history. Mine being from Scotland and Maori being from Asia through Polynesia. Many others are now settling from elsewhere in the world too. Back when they were nailing JC to a cross the place was empty and up for grabs. Maori got here first but however the Europeans came along later with their conquer the waves, conquer the world view. The Maori for many reasons, including the sheer number of European migrants, just couldn't stop them and the Euros stayed. So here we all are with a 160 year old treaty as well.
Like a lot of us, I went and had an OE in the UK. Took a one year contract flying for British Airways and was initially based out of Edinburgh. On one trip the Scottish copilot that I was flying with asked me 'So how do you see yourself now, a Scotsman who has returned or a New Zealander visiting?'
I remember feeling a bit miffed that he had little concept of a New Zealander and his patronizing tone hinted to a view of his own superiority. We looked the same, spoke a similar language but in many ways we were quite different and I realized that time, location and perhaps the osmosis of mixing with other cultures had indeed made a difference. A New Zealand difference perhaps. So why do I call myself a New Zealander and not a Scotsman? It is because I was born here, my parents were born here but more importantly, I wish for a future here. To have a successful future we need to be all looking forward using the knowledge of our history as a lesson rather than dwelling on it and squabbling over what happened and going backwards. Fix the rip offs? Yes, but we must remember that the past is just that, the past. Its done, lets move on!

**idb** · 21st September 2007, 10:10

Originally Posted by Bass

In discussions of this type, much is made of the fact that the use of the Maori language was at one time, firmly suppressed in our schools. I see it mentioned again in this thread.
However, I am led to believe that this measure was instituted at the request of senior Maori of the time, because they saw fluency in English as necessary for their people to progress in the world that had overtaken them.
I don't know whether this true or not, but I suspect that it is and let's assume for a moment that it is. I have read the names of those purported to have requested it.
If so, why is it almost never mentioned??
I suspect because it would destroy the arguments of those who use this piece of history for their own ends.
Further, is it also not possible that those Maori were right about English in the context of their time?

There were likely Maori that were in favour of this.
There were probably also Maori that liked eating sausages, which proves that all Maori would rather eat European food.
There would have been Maori that wore hats, others that rode horses, some that lived in houses, others learned to read poetry, cook with pots, use kerosene lamps etc.
Because of this it is clear that all Maori wanted to ditch their culture and heritage and become Europeans.

**MSTRS:Me** · 21st September 2007, 10:30

Anyway...what we call ourselves is slightly moot. We all must have a passport to travel the world. I don't see anyone described on one of those as being Maori/Pakeha/Whatever. We are New Zealanders. Except for Dover, of course.

**u4ea** · 21st September 2007, 10:53

Originally Posted by duckonin

EUROPEAN, Maori are not indigenous at all, the treaty is no longer valid,and never should of been, there were never any bounday pegs the mongrels just waved their arm's and said we own that to the top of the hill and out to the sea, that is all ours BRO there are no Maoris left in this country , most are European but some are as brown as throw backs, those wanting the treaty rectified are a bunch of bludgers wanting to increase their own stake in life, they couldn't give a shit about anyone else,the brains of a white man and the cunning of a black are a bad combination.....

yer it has just created the GIMME attitude..the thought of being hard done by and the idea to just sit back and wait for someone to hand over the goods as its easier to complain than go out and make a life.For me the treaty means NOTHING.I was born in New Zealand and am not english nor pakeha.My ancestors are nordic.I am very proud of my heritage but get pissed off when I am expected to respect someone elses rights and rituals and mine are totally disregarded.We are all governed by the 'crown' however so those laws ultimatly dictate.

**oldrider** · 21st September 2007, 16:43

Originally Posted by surfchick

pakeha - moved to NZ in the late 1980's from northern ireland
I lecture in Otara - Vis. arts. The treaty is a huge part of our job interview process (its one of the 6 interview questions) and inflects or daily teaching reality in many ways becuase of the strongly PI and Maori make-up of our classes. I percieve the treaty to be a extremely important document - (although there is debate around the details and circumstances of the signing and working inconsistancies...) for diffferent reasons than the kiwi norm. probably. I believe it to be so super duper important as it is a site of discussion and negotiation between government and Maori. Some of the ***massive and inconcievable attrocities committed in the land wars, in the systematic destruction of the Maori language (ie not able to learn in Maori at school) and in other land confiscation were always going to create generational pain, passed on and on. The treaty has meant there is a forum of negotition in place in NZ -a situation which was never ever the case in Northern Ireland. With the troubles there was no sustained "site" for dialogue and money compensation in the way the treaty is the basis for dialogue here (so we instead had civil war...which has now quited back to an environment in which there is nothing BUT argument and dialogue... you can't win...). I actually believe it is the treaty that has brought us back from the brink... a valve if you like

In terms of the treaty's application at work it's main implications allow in supporting Maori social structures in an otherwise european university structure of learning- including having whanau present at certain art-crits (which has also facilitated other ethnicities bring in their support people) etc and also being flexible about the use of maori language in essays and seminar presentations (which we support by getting in a Maori language speaking assessor since my te reo Maori is basic!) pretty low key and easy to manage in alot of ways.

I must say I'm surprised at some of the blank dismissals in this thread

as it's a complex legacy the treaty has had... but I guess the arts have been wrangling with the ins and outs of representation (as in art images) of Maori in many ways that other professions don't... as we've got some pretty **cken fab Maori artists about like Lisa Reihana working with how Maori are imaged in a broader sense... thinking of the recent Digital Marae series

Don't pull that bullshit about the loss of the language being because of the Pakeha, with me, I was here and I had my arse kicked along with the Maori kids for talking Maori!

Not by Pakeha but by Maori parents and Komatua, they wanted their kids speaking "English"!

Latter day Maori and immigrants just love to rabbit on with that bullshit as if they want us pakeha to go off on some bullshit guilt trip, well you don't know what you are talking about. Pissed off, John.

**Ocean1** · 21st September 2007, 17:12

Originally Posted by oldrider

Don't pull that bullshit about the loss of the language being because of the Pakeha, with me, I was here and I had my arse kicked along with the Maori kids for talking Maori!

Not by Pakeha but by Maori parents and Komatua, they wanted their kids speaking "English"!

Latter day Maori and immigrants just love to rabbit on with that bullshit as if they want us pakeha to go off on some bullshit guilt trip, well you don't know what you are talking about. Pissed off, John.

Settle dude.

I do remember getting caught fishing instead of learning history by one of the local Maori wardens when I were a nipper. He kicked my arse all the way home, giving me a history lesson of his own on the way.

Do I see a pattern here? Is it the academics that seem to be defending the treaty and the rest ambivalent or hostile? Interesting, should have set it up as a poll, with profession and perhaps age included...

**idb** · 21st September 2007, 17:17

Originally Posted by Ocean1

I do remember getting caught fishing instead of learning history by one of the local Maori wardens when I were a nipper. He kicked my arse all the way home, giving me a history lesson of his own on the way.

Sure he wasn't discussing your whakapapa???!!!

**idb** · 21st September 2007, 17:25

Originally Posted by oldrider

Don't pull that bullshit about the loss of the language being because of the Pakeha, with me, I was here and I had my arse kicked along with the Maori kids for talking Maori!

Not by Pakeha but by Maori parents and Komatua, they wanted their kids speaking "English"!

Latter day Maori and immigrants just love to rabbit on with that bullshit as if they want us pakeha to go off on some bullshit guilt trip, well you don't know what you are talking about. Pissed off, John.

Crikey Pissed Off John!!!

People have to be careful about assuming their own experiences or acquired "facts" to be universal truths.
That has got to be a huge part of the problem with the whole debate.

**Ocean1** · 21st September 2007, 17:32

Originally Posted by idb

Sure he wasn't discussing your whakapapa???!!!

No doubt about it. The provenance and exact attributes of my ancestors was most certainly covered in some depth. Although he somehow managed that in a way that failed to raise my mother’s ire. She thanked him, took to my arse some more with a wooden spoon and delivered yet more educational gems. All this a mere prelude to the main course, administered by the old man when he got home from work. My arse was sore for days but I learned a great deal about the true nature of crime and punishment.