By Chris Trotter*
At the conclusion of every Māori Language Week I’m always left pondering how little I know about Aotearoa-New Zealand.
It is not simply a matter of being unable to speak more than a few words of te reo Māori. Not understanding, not speaking, a language makes it exceptionally difficult to grasp the cultural essence of the people who made/make it. To dramatically improve the relationship between Māori and Pakeha, it seems sensible (at least to me) for the teaching of Māori to be made mandatory in all New Zealand primary and secondary schools. Only when the whole nation has achieved a measure of fluency in Māori will the full potential of New Zealand’s bi-cultural heritage be realised.
Imagine my surprise, then, when I heard the Minister for Defence, and Whanau Ora, Peeni Henare, tell Newshub Nation (17/9/22) that he was strongly opposed to making the teaching of Māori mandatory in schools. Not because he feared a Pakeha backlash, but because he was convinced that if all New Zealanders became proficient in Māori, then the spiritual power of the language would be fatally diminished. He did not appear to oppose individual Pakeha learning te reo – presumably because the manner in which the knowledge was transferred would remain under Māori control.
That would certainly not be the case were the teaching of Māori to become compulsory. Not only would there need to be a huge expansion in the number of Māori language teachers, but there would, inevitably, be a standardisation of both the content and instructional methodologies of the learning process. Textbooks would have to be written and examinations set, the whole paraphernalia of pedagogy would descend upon the Māori language – just as it does upon the teaching of French, German and Mandarin. Most alarming of all, from the perspective of Māori traditionalists, more and more non-Māori would necessarily become involved in the teaching of te reo.
Unsurprisingly, Te Taura Whiri i te reo Māori, the Māori Language Commission, takes a slightly different stance on te reo to Peeni Henare’s. Their aspiration is to, eventually, have all those living in Aotearoa-New Zealand proficient in the language – a million of them by 2040!
The Commission does not, however, advocate the mandatory teaching of the Māori language. Its stated goals vis-a-vis the Ministry of Education encompass only having more children and young people learning te reo Māori; more people progressing beyond basic knowledge of te reo Māori; and more people highly proficient in te reo Māori. Indeed, Commission CEO, Ngahiwi Apanui, cautions aspiring speakers that Māori is a challenging language to learn. Even the Commission’s goal of a million te reo speakers by 2040, encompasses only the projected Māori share of New Zealand’s population. So, yes, in practical terms, the differences between the Minister and the Commission are not very great at all.
Another idea in need of revision is the claim that learning to speak another language is the fastest and most effective way of grasping the essence of its native speakers’ culture. There are very few Māori living in New Zealand who are not fluent English speakers. Accordingly, my expectation has been that the core values of the English-speaking peoples would be well understood by Māori. Even more so, I assumed, in the case of Māori academics engaged in the fraught business of “constitutional transformation”. Disturbingly, this was not the case.
Matike Mai Aotearoa is the name of the investigative exercise, commissioned by the Iwi Leaders’ Group in 2010, to identify the challenges associated with transforming the constitutional framework of Aotearoa-New Zealand. Overseen and mostly written by Moana Jackson, Matike Mai represents the activist/scholar’s last great contribution to the struggle for indigenous peoples’ rights that defined and absorbed most of his adult life. Read alongside the document it clearly inspired, the He Puapua report, Matike Mai reveals clearly the revolutionary direction in which the quest for tino rangatiratanga has now begun to travel.
It is a feature common to all documents calling for revolutionary change to paint the motivations and practices of the ancien régime in the darkest possible hues. It is vital that the ideals and institutions of the new order offer the starkest and most favourable contrast possible with everything that came before. Even so, Jackson’s explanation of how the English-speaking peoples comprehend “sovereignty” was outrageous.
Reaching all the way back to the writings of the Sixteenth Century jurist, political philosopher, and enthusiastic witch-burner, Jean Bodin, Jackson argues that the European concept of sovereignty is one of “the most high and perpetual power over citizens”. Aware, perhaps, that citing a French demonologist might raise eyebrows when debating political ideas current at the time of the Treaty of Waitangi’s composition, Jackson modifies his absolutist definition by referencing the Westminster formulation of sovereign power as “the monarch in Parliament”.
Passed over entirely in Jackson’s discussion of sovereignty is what it took, in blood and suffering, to shift the Crown from its “most high and perpetual” throne, to the chamber in which the people’s elected representatives are “in Parliament assembled”. No mention, either, by Jackson, of the fundamental principle of our constitutional monarchy: that the monarch cannot act except upon the “advice and consent” of Parliament, and of the Cabinet appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister – who must, in turn, command a majority of Parliament’s members.
Jackson thus allows all the pomp and ceremony of the Westminster system to obscure the raw historical-political fact that, in the English-speaking Commonwealth, sovereignty resides not in the “most high and perpetual” but in living, breathing human-beings.
Tellingly, Jackson also overlooks the fact that less than ten years prior to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, Great Britain had teetered on the brink of revolution over precisely this question: Who are the people? The answer, according to the Great Reform Act of 1832, was – the better-off sections of the population. But, the answer kept changing – faster here in New Zealand that in the Motherland – right up until the full enfranchisement of adult British women in 1928.
Also missing from Jackson’s treatment of the concept of sovereignty, is the even more dramatic assertion of democratic ideals in North America and across Europe in the centuries since Jean Bodin was beseeching magistrates to show no mercy to witches. Indeed, the only serious reference to democracy in Matike Mai proves just how little Jackson either regarded or understood the concept. In his brief discussion of Athenian Democracy, he wrongly asserts that the lower classes – “the mob” – were barred from participating in political life. But, what made Athens different was precisely the innovation that all free citizens (i.e. all unenslaved males born in Athens) had a role to play in the life of the state.
That democracy gets such a bad rap in Matike Mai is, however, understandable. While Māori remain a minority in their own land, majority rule will always look suspiciously like tyranny. (Should Māori ever overtake Pakeha demographically, it will be interesting to see whether democracy undergoes a swift rehabilitation!)
As things now stand, however, it is this refusal on the part of Māori to acknowledge the strength of Pakeha belief in parliamentary democracy, and in the absolute sovereignty of “The People’s House”, that will render all attempts at constitutional transformation moot – in te reo Māori, or English.
To paraphrase the anarchist Emma Goldman: “If you have the revolution, and there’s no voting, I’m not coming.”
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
100 Comments
I think what everyone misses is that part of what makes NZ a special place is its Maori history and culture. They make the country and its way of being unique, interesting to visitors and immigrants alike. People come to NZ to experience that, not because it's just another English speaking British colony with some pretty scenery that feels just like every other. Visitors to NZ will tell you it's the laid back nature of the people, the Maori place names and intertwined languages, the respect of culture and it's flow on to the respect of nature etc that brings them here and and back again. Maintenance and enhancement of those things are what will continue to maintain NZ, the unique lived experience of its people and environment, the overwhelming attraction that NZ is.
That people want to minimise or erase that is short sighted. Wanting to remove what gives NZ a competitive edge in this world is truly, economically, unwise.
What is an 'ordinary' kiwi? One with nothing unique about them?
I have to admit I would much prefer being a unique kiwi than a non unique one. One that doesn't disappear in the crowd. Anything that gives you a edge in this world full on non unique people is an advantage.
To execute the apartheid of government services and the rest of it we will need to figure out the definition of a "Maori".
Is there a certain percentage of ancestral DNA required to qualify?
Or is it a social construct? You need to hold and espouse certain stone age superstitions and beliefs to qualify?
Perhaps a mixture of both according to some of the self appointed gatekeepers that are crawling out of the woodwork these days.
Or is one just a Maori when it's convenient to be?
Is there a precise definition that the government is using in order to formulate their policies that discriminate by race?
The whole premise seems to have a very artificial and nebulous nature about it.
I have not spread hate, you being an ignorant PoS is a statement of fact. Your ignorant bile masquerading as "questions" are not deserving of a response. You may be familiar with the saying "never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"
Who are you, the government or anybody else permitted to say who is Māori or not? That's preposterous. It's up to the individual and not dependent on some poorly rationalised 'blood quantum' measure thought up in a policy/academic setting with no relevance to Te Ao Māori.
Yours is trolling of the worst kind.
It depends Davo. I am part Maori. For the government services I have used it was simply a matter of also ticking the Maori (and tribe "unknown" if they ask) box. Your GP, for example, will get a greater government subsidy if you do this.
However if I wanted to access the full benefits of my ancestry I would need to find out what tribes I am and then approach them with evidence that I belong.
Yes you can. PHARMAC now have race based access to medicines. The antidiabetic medicines empagliflozin and dulaglutide are easier to prescribe (funded) to Maori and Pasifica peoples. The same applies to rosuvastatin, a statin that cardiologists have been asking to have funded for 10+ years. The new anti-virals for COVID-19 are easier to access for Maori by virtue of age-eligibility.
When PHARMAC was asked 'what defines a Maori,' their response was 'how the person self-identifies.'
As such I am now listed as 'Maori' under ethnicity within my medical records. I am happy to be corrected but I heard from a friend (radiographer, not radiologist) that additional points were awarded to Maori to determine eligibility for knee replacements at CMDHB. Unsure of the accuracy.
Wow that's true, if you're aged 50+ and catch the dreaded C, you can get free antivirals if you are Maori. Tough luck if you're non-Maori (unless you're 65+).
https://www.health.govt.nz/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-health-a…
"Who are you, the government or anybody else permitted to say who is Māori or not? That's preposterous. It's up to the individual"
If for example, a non-Maori person doesn't get selected into medical school, but there are quotas for Maori students, should one simply just tick the Maori box because it would be advantageous for them to do so and it is completely the individuals choice to decide if they are Maori or not?
(I know real world examples of people who have missed the cut for things like med school, only to find out Maori students were selected with lower grades).
To me, allowing the individual to choose if they are Maori or not seems as crazy as deciding if somebody is male or female based upon how they want to identify.
Maori health clinics were providing the COVID vaccine before other non-Maori groups - should everyone have just identified as Maori in order to get vaccinated before other parts of the population - even if they have zero Maori DNA and care about the culture? Seems like a pretty crazy concept to me.
Wouldn't this scenario be offensive to people who are Maori via blood and heritage? (if not, fine, but it may have many negative consequences that you haven't thought through yet).
Interest team, I am all for freedom of speech, but referring to my culture as "stone-age superstitions and beliefs" is extreme right bile that would be removed pronto from any serious publication.
If you're not going to monitor it, I suggest you don't allow comments (I'm assuming you don't subscirbe to it of course.)
Not trying to be a dork but I don't think Maori culture would equate to 'neolithic.' IIRC this has several requirements, one being domestication of animals and is associated with intricate and developed stone work i.e knapping (see 'Clovis USA').
Whilst recognising the beauty of greenstone workmanship, mesolithic might be a more accurate term.
No offence is intended.
This wikipedia article (corroborated with other sources) summarises as broadly neolithic from 1500AD onwards (and mesolithic beforehand).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_of_New_Zealand
It's not offensive, it's quite interesting.
Hear hear Te Kooti. It is a hurtful experience reading many of the comments on this thread. I find it reflective of greater society in NZ. The difference being people actually state their opinions here in an (ostensibly) public forum. Whereas out in public generally it has been my experience in the past 20 years or so that people do not openly make disparaging, poorly informed and casually racist statements. As was the case as I grew up in the 60’s and 70’s and when returning to the workforce in the late eighties. The anti Maori feelings are still there though. I recall the Don Brash Orewa speech and the local (New Plymouth) referendum for creating Maori seats on the council as examples of a silent majority. The only way I feel to alter these viewpoints lies in the proposed NZ History curriculum. If we can educate the younger generations about our shared experiences and for those students to gain a greater understanding of the lived Maori experience then with luck, in a couple of generations an article discussing any issues relevant to Maori might be a more informed debate. I am hopeful. Currently the debate quickly enters ugly territory. On the other hand there are several posters on this thread that ask enquiring questions and express some empathy for the Maori perspective. As I say I am hopeful.
Thanks WM. My time here is finished and I just logged back into wish you well brother. This website has developed quite an ugly anti-Maori undertone, no reputable website would permit those comments and I have better things to do with my time. Posters boasting about falsely identifying as Maori to get some benefit, absolutely disgusting. Actually sickening, bordring on me reporting this.
Ka kite ano.
That is me you are calling out. I’m happy to be labelled a racist F wit if it gets me improved medical care (and is within the funding statement).In contrast, you believe Maori are entitled to certain privileges based upon race. At least I’m honest in claiming to be a racist bald head. The irony is you do your own race a disservice but continually laying the blame for their failings (social, health) at the feet of others. Next time I see a Maori in the media accused of violent crimes with thin upper lips, smooth philtrum and epicanthal folds I will think “gee, that warning please don’t drink whilst pregnant should be in Te reo.” Fact- rates of FAS are a factor times higher than Euro/Chinese and Indian ethnicities.
Lo que esta diciendo es que eres una mierda y un racista ignorante, y encima un cobarde que puede decir qualquier insulto porque estas protejido por tu pseudo-nombre.
A fuera en un mundo verdadero tendrias que tener mucho mas cuidado - tendrias que correr como un cheetah para salvarte la vida - que asco das con tus opiniones!
EN
I'd say leave the extreme bile alone - it reflects very badly on those who say it and doesn't impact the target at all. Some American academic said 'she hoped the queen died in agony' - surely that says more about the academic than it does about the queen.
Maori culture is strong enough to ignore angry criticism from any source.
I think making the learning of Te Reo compulsory would be the quickest way to create more racial division in this country. There are a number of people in this country who already think anything to do with encouraging and supporting anything to do with Maori is separatism and therefore wrong. I do not support forcing reluctant people into anything unless it is to the benefit of the country as a whole. Lets keep it as an option for those who are interested. Of which there are a growing number. I do support the compulsory teaching of New Zealand/Aotearoa history in our schools. This move I think fits the description of ‘a benefit to the whole country’ as it would usher in a greater understanding of the history of the relationship between the indigenous people of Aotearoa and the new mostly Pakeha immigrants from ‘contact’ to where we stand today.
Making Te Reo available to everyone who wants to learn it - great idea. Introducing Te Reo words to pre-schoolers is fine. But forcing children to learn it will backfire - I speak from personal experience because in the UK at the schools I went to French was compulsory and despite aptitude for other subjects I found it hell and came near the bottom of the class. It has left me with an instinctive bias against France that I have to consciously resist.
Of course you are right about increasing understanding of NZ's history. I'm only an immigrant but I regularly read and hear major historical inaccuracies both pro and anti Maori. Not good for a harmonious future for NZ. The interaction of European and Maori in NZ has to be put into context. To understand the British in 1840 you need a knowledge of the cultures that they were derived from: Greece, Rome, Christianity. And how can you make sense of Maori without some grasp of 3000 years of Polynesian discovery and settlements. To understand the Treaty of Waitangi it has to be compared with European colonialism in Malaya, Sri Lanka, Australia, Fiji, Samoa, Tahiti, Papua, New Guinea, the Solomons, etc.
You make a very good observation about context. This I think is one of the challenges in developing the curriculum. Trying to place all events into context. Separating individual acts from group acts. So as not to confuse one with the other. As factually presented as possible. Then allowing the learner/reader to make up their own minds. The material presented will be the most debated as we all want the unbiased facts. I and I assume most others do not want to be manipulated in our thinking. One way or the other. From a personal point of view with whakapapa from Gisborne/Turanga the we went from the relative wealth of owning all of our land and resources to being impoverished with an act of Parliament. I would like this story known as a counterpoint to our ongoing high rates of despair as a people as evidenced by our poor health, education and crime statistics. As you say context is very important.
I would be interested in the history you describe. It does sound similar to the Highland clearances in Scotland. I believe some of the crime stats have been getting worse - why is it the farther we move in time from the unjust action the more the despair grows? Has there been any improvement or decline in the education and health stats? How do these compare between Māori living on their own land and urban Māori renting properties in cities?
The difference between the Scottish land clearances and the confiscation of Maori land is sad but simple. The people cleared from their clan lands in Scotland (I myself have Scot heritage from Clan Cameron among others) as I understand it did not own the land they lived upon and farmed. Their clan chiefs held title. Leaving their clan members in a perilous position legally. Whereas the land confiscated from Maori (Raupatu in Maori) was owned by the various tribes around the country. The various crime and health stats remain tragically poor. The intergenerational despair you speak of is a burden for our communities. This stems directly from the enforced impoverishment of a great number of our people by an Act of Parliament. For the crime of ‘rebellion’ against the government. Which amounted basically to not wanting to sell any more of our land.
That is a sad perspective. As I said toward the top of the comments...
"I think what everyone misses is that part of what makes NZ a special place is its Maori history and culture. They make the country and its way of being unique, interesting to visitors and immigrants alike. People come to NZ to experience that, not because it's just another English speaking British colony with some pretty scenery that feels just like every other. Visitors to NZ will tell you it's the laid back nature of the people, the Maori place names and intertwined languages, the respect of culture and it's flow on to the respect of nature etc that brings them here and and back again. Maintenance and enhancement of those things are what will continue to maintain NZ, the unique lived experience of its people and environment, the overwhelming attraction that NZ is.
That people want to minimise or erase that is short sighted. Wanting to remove what gives NZ a competitive edge in this world is truly, economically, unwise."
Often land was not worth 'a car' back then - large sections of land were often on-sold for pennies (there are even stories of swapping land for a pint of beer)... If I heard that your ancestor stole a beer off mine 100 years ago I would not have cared much back then, even less so now.
It is only because of what NZ has become through the hard work of consecutive generations that it has the value it now does. To be clear in my opinion NZ had the most value BEFORE any humans arrived here. It's always easy to look back with judgement and hindsight. Few people understand that things were often pretty desperate/dog eat dog back then. Often, they just superimpose our standards on those who were part of the transition from pre-european contact onwards. There were failure and opportunism on both sides - nature itself has the biggest burden to claim.
Western culture is not really like other cultures. What really makes Western culture unique is it merges with other cultures, digests the best stuff (the things Westerners perceive as good) and then disposes of the rest. No-one thinks like a true Maori anymore, that ended a looong time ago. The Maori revival will be a Maori-Western hybrid that is agreeable and digestible to the masses - how could it not be?
Surely if the learning of history is not accompanied by the language so presented in only one language it automatically picks up a bias.
I read some of the comments above, particularly the stone age ones and those that are too blind to see any injustice what so ever and just think f#$&em, force them. Poor reaction I know.
I read a lot of history set in the republican and post republican era-Josephus, Polybius, Cicero. I can't read Latin.
My Ancient Greek is zero/nada/zip but I can still enjoy a Loeb classic on Thucydides.
No bias there due to me not reading it in the original language,
This would require an exceptional degree of literacy which very few would have. If I read an account of Josephus's 'The Jewish Wars' I make the dangerous assumption that the translation is accurate otherwise there would be academic condemnation of the non-Latin version. To date I haven't seen any dissent. Happy to be educated/corrected.
Winston Peters has recently summarised this issue & it's implications for next years election in one of his better speeches.
A speech by Winston | Kiwiblog
Thanks CT and whole article basically summed up in 2nd to last sentence. How to reconcile one interpretation of Maori sovereignty with democracy. The go-to for some in 'tweaking' democracy isn't democracy anymore, its ethnocracy, which will always be rejected because it's racist and undemocratic. If that's all they can come up with, they need a new generation that can acceptably make this reconciliation. Tyranny of the majority doesn't work for everyone, but tyranny of the minority is absolutely worse. To paraphrase: Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
What a crock of BS
"Another idea in need of revision is the claim that learning to speak another language is the fastest and most effective way of grasping the essence of its native speakers’ culture."
I have a solid grasp of Spanish (Latin America). I have a near zero grip of the culture because I don't spend time in Bolivia, Peru, Chile or Venezuela. I understand some of the nuances of Argentina due to frequent travel and a latina wife. Language and culture aren't necessarily intermeshed. I'd argue many Maori understand their culture but do not speak the language.
I don't think I have ever felt this much racial tension in NZ as at present. And it is all whiteys fault: Gangs, violence, kids born with foetal alcohol syndrome (my pet hate), 50% of KO houses being taken by Maori. Infanticide (yep-all colonisation's fault).
OK-que Te Kooti....
I think the first question to ask before we get to "should we teach Maori to everyone?" is "what do we want Te Reo to be?". Is it an alternative everyday language to English? meant to be ever bit as utilitarian. Is a cultural language that contributes to our identity? only to be used ceremonially or when it relates to Maori (such as existing place names). Is it a tool for our intelligentsia to show their "virtue" by learning it? being on average more linguistically gifted they find this easier than most. And so on... I have seen all these goals.
I see many different conflicting views in the Media on this and they seem to be diverging rather than converging on an answer. I am not gifted with learning languages, it would be a struggle to learn, what would be the benefit to me and everyone else if I learn it? The example that makes me question the point is not being able to shorten Taranaki (tara means mountain peak, and naki is thought to come from ngaki, meaning "shining" [wikipedia first google link]) to Naki, this would be fine for English place names so it clearly not able to be an everyday alternative language. Society would be allowed to develop a normal language overtime to suit its needs.
If you are not gifted in learning a language prey tell how did you learn English, which is not an easy language. The only people unable to learn languages are those with diagnosable learning difficulties. There is a significant difference between being unable to and not devoting enough effort to it. I'm quite certain anyone who NEEDED to could if they can already speak and write another one fluently.
12+ years of regular English schooling and a life time of speaking it?
What possible justification and where would the resources be available for everyone to repeat this effort. People will start forget night classes within weeks of finishing them. Do you want it to be utilitarian language so it can see daily use? I have almost completely forgotten my primary and intermediate school Maori vocab (30-50 basic words left maybe) though lack of use. Just teaching people Te Reo so they know Te Reo is pointless (suffering) and without a further goal. This brings me back to my question of what the main goal or desire for the language should be?
If you want to argue against the sentiment of what I wrote there are some easier targets that I did not fully explain but please have a think first.
Part of the reason you have lost it is because you haven't had to use it. 'Use it or loose it" as the saying goes. Exposure and repetition are key to learning anything. Being exposed to it in daily life is key to helping support society learn as a whole. Greater/extensive use of the language in signage would support this.
If you were to go as an exchange student or move for employment to France you would quickly learn the basics of the language to support your daily life and survival. Most European students learn English as a mandatory second language and they don't appear to complain of 'suffering' for having done so.
Being multilingual is beneficial for your brain and neural pathway development just as other arts are. Making sure you seek out ways to practice your skills is the sign of an intelligent and well rounded individual.
I'm putting you down as solid number 3 on my "list" of reasons with the vise versa as well. I was worried I did not have an example.
There are not enough fluent speakers to go around for everyone, even if they all did want to participate in this. This is not remotely like learning a foreign language, the motives and required proficiency are different. I think it would be like doing multiple years of learning so we could go and visit the very few of us who speak Te Reo and have a lower proficiency in English than we learnt. There are other reasons to learn the language, though.
Just imagine hypothetically, if we suddenly go from 4% to population wide minimal conversational level and we were all trying to speak it amongst our selves we would try to use it like English and adapt the language to our abilities and culture so fast it would destroy it's current cultural value and dialects. Is this desirable?
I had to study French for 7 years. I did eventually scrape a minimum pass (a UK O'level) by treating it as a code to be broken. Fifty years later I still have a modest French vocabulary but what I don't have and never have had is (a) able to understand spoken French (b) able to speak French in sentences. I'm not otherwise dumb; my hearing is good; I never rebelled against my teachers. I even married a woman fluent in five languages. Please accept the fact that there are some people who unable to learn Te Reo unless it is taught from a very young age. About 20% of Kiwis are immigrants - are you condemning immigrants to learning Te Reo as adults?
Reading Sapiens 'A brief history of humankind' by Harari a few years ago has for me put these types of issues into much better perspective - and understanding the true nature of mankind.
Fighting over cultures is a fools game. Cooperation is the only thing that matters. How well a group works together ultimately defines how long it lasts and how successful it is going to be.
The more it fights itself the higher the probability that a foreign invader will arrive and destroy the culture that existed (this is true for the thousands of cultures that have existed over hundreds of thousands of years of human history - including homo sapiens destroying other human species because they weren't as cooperative as homo sapiens).
My understanding is that Te Reo has evolved to be a written language because the invaders of the country taught them how to read and write by enforcing their education and culture upon the local people. But happy to be corrected if wrong.
But this is typical of all invasions that have happened throughout the thousands of years. Often these languages die over time. Will this be Te Reo? Possibly...do I want this to happen? No.
Heck its quite possible in a few thousand years that we aren't speaking english if you look at history....and do I find that offensive? Not at all! Its simply the way human beings evolve.
To paraphrase the anarchist Emma Goldman: “If you have the revolution, and there’s no voting, I’m not coming.”
That doesn't sound like something an anarchist would say. Goldman even ridiculed women's suffrage because votes could be bought and sold.
A true anarchist would not vote even if they had the deciding vote that stopped a dictator.
I think you don't understand Anarchism well.
Anarchism is a political philosophy that is skeptical of all justifications for authority and seeks to abolish institutions that maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy.
Now you will notice, ONLY if you are looking carefully, the two operative words 'skeptical' and 'unnecessary'. They make ALL the difference.
Skeptical - Not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.
Unnecessary - not needed; more than is needed; excessive.
Goldman appeared to be opposed to voting so I am sceptical about that so called paraphrased quote. It's very common for quotes to get mixed up or misattributed. Not sure why it is paraphrased. I couldn't find anything on a search
Voting is a tool, often corrupted and manipulated, to impose authority, so opposing it fits with your "understanding". Anarchists are obviously not big on voting. Of course there are probably as as many understandings of anarchism as there are anarchists. That you capitalised it seems odd.
Odd? I don't believe so. Many are uneducated in finding the operative words which define the FULL meaning of a sentence. Many overlook them and their emphasis. Often it's done purposefully, to allow something to fit an ideological view of something rather than truth.
Do the Roman's still have a claim on the UK where the "British" now reside, or the Normans, or the Vikings?
But then you ask, who are the "British Empire" and these "British people"? They are just a group of merged people that are the result of a series of invasions of their own.....perhaps they too should be making claim for the hardship they have faced when people came across the channel and invaded them? But it is hard to figure out who they are because before that people were tribal and they to were invading on anothers tribes and taking their lands....and breeding with the woman (its not nice but its true).
It endless - and the further back in history you look you realise it is human nature (and Maori also have that same origin...i.e. they didn't just appear in New Zealand...they came from the original people that the British also did....tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago).
The important thing to remember is that the most cooperative groups (on a large scale) survive (and the scale of cooperation has to continue to increase as the population also does). Those that start to fight themselves internally end up being conquered by an external force with greater cooperation.
I think it's quite obvious that the 'British Empire' is not the British people as a whole. It's a small group of individuals who have safe guarded their wealth and power through the manipulation of hereditary and state laws, from the time of Athelstan and Alfred the Great. Although...they have managed to usurp the hereditary line several times and left the 'true' king England fending for himself in the outback of Australia.
https://knowledgenuts.com/2015/03/17/the-legitimate-king-of-britain-liv…
Ok - take the next step and ask who are the British people (because without the "British people" there is no British empire)? What is their DNA and where do they come from?
If you look back far enough, they too are the result of endless invasions and merging of DNA. So it isn't actually clear who the British are...nor the Monarchy, nor the 'Empire'. They too are a mixture of DNA's and cultures from a series of wars and invasions - where the least well organised group losses their rights to continue their culture and language unopposed.
Is this nice? No. Is it really happening. Yes.
It appears to be how the human species functions within the limited realm of earth/its host environment - if you look at the issue over thousands of years. And not just focus on the last minute on the world clock which can confuse what is really going on - and with a bias towards protecting whatever culture you identify with or have a majority of your heritage/DNA linked to in the recent period of time (i.e. hundreds of years as opposed to looking at the issue over thousands of years).
Most of the comments seemed to have missed the split that is developing between Maori, on what being able to speak Maori means.
On the one hand, we have this so-called precious taonga which by definition is more treasured by how rare it is, and can only be truly understood by an elite few, hence Peeni Henare saying 'its spiritual power being reduced.' and thus the more that can speak it the weaker it becomes.
On the other hand, we have a language that is just like any other language in that the more languages you know the better you should be able to communicate with each other, and the more people that can speak it the better.
And then we have a language like English which, for many reasons, as more people speak it, the more powerful it has become. And it does not care about your spiritual bias.
Intention is everything.
There are those who will use terminology to divide society. Anyone whose intention is to deliberately divide society, the benefit of which is top heavy has bad intentions. They should be ignored.
There are those who would use terminology to unite society. Anyone whose intention is to deliberately unite society, the benefit of which is equally distributed to all in society, should be assumed to have good intentions. They should be listened to.
Always analyse the implications in depth. Look for both the positive and negative uses, for all the consequences. Who is likely to benefit most within the current wealth and power structures, if we are to take on a belief, action, request or requirement.
An example: If someone is using Maori terminology within their business, what are the benefits for them of doing so? What are the benefits to Maori and society as a whole? Is there mutual benefit? Who might suffer for its use, culturally and/or economically? What form of suffering, how long will it last, is there a way to mitigate the suffering eg can those impacted be allowed influence in the business, be compensated via employment or economic reparations that is agreeable to them over the full lifetime of the business/action?
We have to stop looking at society as a place to get short term gains that only individuals benefit from, and want to create cohesion and better outcomes for all. Often cooperation and agreement from all stakeholders leads to greater input, productivity and returns, as more people are onboard with the outcomes of an action or enterprise.
CT's up to his neck in it this week. The never ending conversation here in the land of the long white cloud. The best that can happen is that we somehow work together to improve the standards for everyone living here, yes including Maori, but much more than that today. There are almost 200 cultures that call NZ home, it is a global thing. I understand Moari are still pissed at the Pakeha for taking over their lands, although a definition of their lands will differ depending on who you talk with. And that is within Maoridom. Indeed Maoridom are not singularly Maori either, they are Iwi & there are many of them & their differences, even amongst each other are many & ongoing. Look at Ngapuhi today. Still divided. To define a Maori is almost impossible, especially from within these lands. Easier from the outside, however.
The point about co-operation is salient. Without it we are doomed. I'm not totally against co-governance, I just don't understand what it is exactly, & how it would work without creating our very own apartheid here in the South Pacific. I could be wrong. I often am. But sneaking these things in under the radar by the current govt is nothing short of treason in my view. If you want to bring in co-governance, then, please, lets teach the people what it actually means first.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.