What does decolonisation of Aotearoa mean?

I’ve started to see mentions of ‘decolonisation’ over the last few months, a new term to me. Some comments associated with it have made me wonder what it’s about. What is it?

Decolonization (Wikipedia):

Decolonization (American English) or decolonisation (British English) is the undoing of colonialism, the latter being the process whereby a nation establishes and maintains its domination over one or more other territories.

The concept particularly applies to the dismantlement, during the second half of the 20th century, of the colonial empires established prior to World War I throughout the world. However, decolonization not only includes the complete “removal of the domination of non-indigenous forces” within the geographical space and different institutions of the colonized, but it also includes the intellectual decolonization from the colonizers’ ideas that made the colonized feel inferior.

The “complete removal of the domination of non-indigenous forces” sounds like fairly major, albeit vague, change.

The United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization has stated that in the process of decolonization there is no alternative to the colonizer but to allow a process of self-determination,[5] but in practice decolonization may involve either nonviolent revolution or national liberation wars by pro-independence groups. It may be intramural or involve the intervention of foreign powers acting individually or through international bodies such as the United Nations.

Decolonization of Oceania

The decolonization of Oceania occurred after World War II when nations in Oceania achieved independence by transitioning from European colonial rule to full independence.

New ZealandSamoa (1962)

That refers to New Zealand as a colonial power rather than a colonised country.

British Empire:

The Balfour Declaration of 1926 declared the British Empire dominions as equals, and the 1931 Statute of Westminster established full legislative independence for them. The equal dominions were six– Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, the Irish Free State, New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa. However, some of the Dominions were already independent de facto, and even de jure and recognized as such by the international community.

1931 – The Statute of Westminster grants virtually full independence to Canada, the Irish Free State, and the Union of South Africa when it declares the British parliament incapable of passing law over these former colonies without their own consent. This doesn’t take effect over New Zealand, Newfoundland, and the Commonwealth of Australia, until independently ratified by these dominions.

1947 – New Zealand ratifies the Statute of Westminster 1931.

1986 – Australia and New Zealand became fully independent with the Australia Act 1986 and the Constitution Act 1986.

So New Zealand is ‘fully independent” of the colonial power the United Kingdom, despite still being a Monarchy with the Queen of England as a head of state – albeit symbolic rather than wielding any power.

What about recent talk of decolonisation here?

Massey University:  What we can teach the world about decolonisation

This was one of the learnings for Massey PhD candidate Jodi Porter, Ngāi Tai, Whakatōhea, Te Whānau-ā-Apanui, Ngāti Porou who recently attended an international summer school that focused on decolonising knowledge and power at the University Autonoma de Barcelona in Spain.

Ms Porter says while it was great to be exposed to global schools of thought and leading academics from a range of cultures, it made her realise how far Māori have come in their journey to becoming more self-determining. “As Māori, we’re really quite advanced in terms of what we’re doing across a whole range of levels and sectors. Things such as our growing Māori economy and developments in education through kohanga reo, kura kaupapa and whare wānanga are just some of the examples of how we as Māori are actively working towards a decolonial agenda.”

Ms Porter however acknowledges there is still much more to be done. “I think there are significant strategic shifts we can make to allow us to actively participate on the global stage, whilst still being authentic to our Māori ways of being and knowing.

Our unique Māori identity is most definitely our greatest asset. At present, for many of our iwi, the tribal governance structures that we have colonially inherited through government legislation are dominating the way we do things. We really need to challenge the role these entities play in advancing our tribal agendas, because we can see that our iwi have become so corporatised.”

Ms Porter says she was fortunate to attend the summer school alongside another Māori delegate, Dr Jennifer Martin, Te Rarawa, who is currently a lecturer at the University of Auckland. As indigenous academics trying to contribute to discussions that were primarily focused on the global North, the pair felt that the New Zealand and wider Pacific context was very different to the colonised realities of other cultures throughout the world.

“At the end of the day Māori are actually doing things, rather than talking or theorising about change. We are actually living and breathing it by being self-determining.”

John Moore: The politics of anti-racism and decolonisation in Aotearoa New Zealand in 2017

Those who argue that Maori oppression is primarily a result of the pakeha colonisation of New Zealand, argue that “decolonialisation” is the way forward for Maori. Such a position has been articulated by Kassie Hartendorp, who spoke at the launch of new left think tank Economic and Social Research Aotearoa (ESRA). Hartendorp equates capitalism in this country with colonisation, and argues that Maori as a whole face a shared position in relation to “colonial” capitalism in Aotearoa New Zealand:

I don’t think if indigenous people were given a space to be able to think about what system would work for them, I don’t think that would look like capitalism… Capitalism as a social relation is not one that upholds mana, it is not one that upholds true connections, it is not one that upholds manaakitanga. The exploitation of surplus value is not on the basis of manaakitanga. That to me is not compatible in any sense… indigenous people did not come up with capitalism, and yet we are the people who bear the brunt of capitalism and colonization most of the time. And that capitalism has been a huge colonizing project, and still is to this very day.”

That is arguing that decolonialisation means somehow undoing capitalism – does that mean socialism? I don’t think that Aotearoa was a socialist society pre-colonisation. It had a number of tribal hereditary class based systems.

Our society is not simple, and there is not a clear delineation  between Māori and non-Māori.

Rather than Maori being a homogenous socio-cultural group, Maoridom is in fact made up of peoples with various worldviews, lived experiences, and in various positions of either relative privilege or positions of oppression within society. Reducing all Maori lived reality down to the single factor of being a colonised people, within a colonial capitalist system, fails to account for the growing divisions that exist within Maoridom itself.

I expect that decolonialisation may mean different things to different people who have Māori heritage.

Most people with Māori heritage will also have coloniser (United Kingdom) heritage. Does that create a conflict? Or can they choose the heritage that gives them the best advantages at any given time?

New Zealand now has a new Maori elite that wields significant economic and political power.

Using capitalism.

Maori academic Evan Poata-Smith argues that there is now an increasing income gap within Maoridom itself. His analysis brings into question the very direction of Maori social and economic development over the last few years. He asks the question of which Maori are benefiting from current ideas of Maori development, and which Maori are becoming further disenfranchised and marginalised. Clearly Poata-Smith’s critique is a damning indictment on Treaty politics, which has benefited only a few and left the majority of Maori economically disenfranchised and politically marginalised.

Dealing with treaty claims was supposed to be a form of decolonialisation, but while it may have addressed some things, and at least partially righted some wrongs, it has created different problems.

So, if anti-colonial politics and the politics of indigeneity has failed to benefit the majority of Maori, and has only enriched and empowered an elite of Maoridom, then what is the way forward? The answer lies in a rejection of the obsession with difference and with culture that has dominated leftwing and Maori political discourse over the last few decades, and the need for a leftwing renaissance that focuses instead on radical egalitarian and emancipatory politics.

That final paragraph takes a bit of getting your head around.

Another issue is a possible conflict between somehow returning to pre-colonial Māori power structures and equality – both gender and class. Pre-European Māori had a class system, including a slave class. No one will be advocating a return to this.

And what about moves towards gender equality?

Jessica Hutchings: Decolonisation and Aotearoa – a pathway to right livelihood

What I wish to share within this essay are some of my thoughts on decolonisation and why I believe it must be an essential part of unfolding learning societies. I focus specifically on decolonisation as it relates to Maori women, because I feel though we are of one cultural tradition, Maori women and Maori men have very different experiences and realities.

Colonisation has played a significant role in terms of shifts and changes in the status of Maori women. Pakeha men brought their own gender/race/class notions in regard to Maori women, and we experience/d the imposition of Pakeha worldviews that operated heavily within colonial notions. It is therefore important to look at how independence and sovereignty discourses among Maori, including decolonisation, have been informed by a distinctly colonial patriarchal hegemony.

As a Maori woman, I must assess whether these discourses are representative of a particular political vision, in which women feature only as “a metaphor for the [independent] state and therefore become the scaffolding upon which men construct national identity.”

To allow for a more just, inclusive and sustainable future, I profoundly believe that all aspects of our cultural reclamation should be critiqued. I see gender is a fundamental aspect to this critique. I feel that such critical insights into the concerns of Maori women will be valuable in understanding how decolonisation should manifest in learning societies.

Decolonisation can’t mean going back to how things were pre-colonisation, that is impossible. So it must mean a reassessment of many things in relation to power, money, race and gender.

I believe decolonisation is opening the minds of many Maori and non-Maori in understanding both a truer history of this country and generating new tools to create a more meaningful process of reflection and dialogue.

For non-Maori people, part of participating in decolonisation processes is about recognising their role as belonging to the dominant colonial grouping.

I have no idea what this means.

From my experience as a Maori woman attending decolonisation programs, and carrying out reading in this area,  it was a wake-up call of just how colonised I had become with regard to my culture and way of living. For example, I had become alienated from the Maori language and needed to re-learn the language.

Decolonisation is also about my right to determine how I will live with and within Maori communities; to reject non-Maori analysis of situations and events that concern me; and to value myself as a Maori woman. Decolonisation is an essential part of being a Maori woman; it recognises the colonial reality we still live in and provides space for Maori women to be visible, by valuing Maori women’s on-going analysis of all areas of life, such as education, language and health systems.

On ‘Decolonizing Our Lives as Maori’:

Within New Zealand, colonisation is alive and flourishing. It has embarked on a greater journey of alienating the Maori peoples from their lands, practices and fundamental freedoms, now with new and more powerful tools of oppression. Maori sovereignty activist Moana Jackson draws an analogy between the processes of colonisation and of film-making:

“Colonisation is about creating a suspension of disbelief, which requires that those from whom power is to be taken have to suspend their own faith, their own worth, their own goodness, their own sense of value, and their own sense of knowledge. Today, colonisation is a process of image-making, where we’re bombarded by Hollywood about what should be worthy in our lives, and today’s scriptwriters, today’s controllers of knowledge [and therefore research] are the descendants of the old scriptwriters of colonisation.”

The proliferation of base illustrations of Maori is one example of this colonial image-making. Maori are only portrayed in the media when there is something negative to report, and we are continually told our culture is inappropriate and heathen.

There are certainly aspects of this but “only portrayed in the media when there is something negative to report” must be false. And “we are continually told our culture is inappropriate and heathen” may be true in part but this seems to be overstating somewhat.

Genetic modification is also viewed by Maori as another wave of colonisation, as it tramples over Maori traditions and disregards Maori cultural and intellectual property. The New Zealand government has approved genetic engineering experiments, in which synthetic human DNA is injected into cows — despite Maori stating that this is a cultural obscenity in every way possible.

“Viewed by Maori” must surely be ‘viewed by the writer’ and perhaps ‘viewed by some Maori’. I would be surprised if all Maori have the same views on genetic modification.

Today, however, it is important to differentiate between theory and practice. While many Maori believe that the continued depletion of resources necessitates restrictions on human activity, and that a balance is required between development and sustainability for future generations, most do not have the resources or capacities to act on their beliefs. Or more tellingly, they are prohibited by colonial legislation to transfer this theory into practice at the iwi and hapu governance level. Decolonising our knowledge means recognising this gap between Maori cosmology and colonial practices.

Another article is referenced: A Pakeha (non-Maori) Male Perspective of Decolonisation in Aotearoa (Alex Barnes):

The emphasis was on the constructive roles young Pakeha can adopt in building real relationships with Maori, as opposed to blaming individuals, who had little to do with the current systems of oppression and inequality. We realized we had to be open to unlearning behaviours taught by the dominant system/paradigm. But I also understood that unlearning behavior is a hard and complex thing to do, especially when surrounded by an environment that actively discourages it.

What I learned in the decolonisation workshop is this: Being part of the dominant culture is not a bad or shameful thing. Instead, it creates an opportunity to make conscious, constructive steps in understanding the people of the land. It is obvious to me that the challenge starts with myself, with my pronunciation, practice, values and everyday thinking. Decolonisation brings with it the challenge of personal development, which will in time re-shape partnerships, families, communities and nations.

I think I’m only scratching the surface here. This is a starting point in trying to understand what decolonisation means in Aotearoa.

118 Comments

  1. Griff.

     /  January 6, 2019

    A bunch of deluded extremists and their longing for a mythical time .
    No different than your average Conservative and their desire for a past that never existed.
    Lets do colonization the maori way.
    Kill, cook then eat any maori who does not like their overlords.

    • Blazer

       /  January 6, 2019

      don’t forget…the..puha.

    • Pickled Possum

       /  January 6, 2019

      And the dough boys … dicks

    • PartisanZ

       /  January 6, 2019

      Can’t get much more reactionary extremist than that Griff …

    • adamsmith1922

       /  January 6, 2019

      Griff, I am afraid to admit it, but you might, but only might have a point here though made in an inflammatory way.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  January 6, 2019

        I wonder if my young, fit Maori neighbours were, in fact, making a point about colonisation when they cut a lot of large branches off a tree in my garden and threw them back over the fence for me, an older Pakeha widow to haul away and get rid of.

        You should have heard the language from the woman when I put a rubbish bag and green bin too near theirs to save the dustmen trouble. The rubbish was kicked out into the road and the recycling scattered and when she happened to see me in the street, I was treated to a lot of abuse with fuck/ing in almost every sentence and told what would happen if I did this again; also that I should have some respect. ??? This young woman works for a firm of estate agents, but you wouldn’t have guessed it.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  January 6, 2019

          Colonisation doesn’t excuse arseholes, Kitty.

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  January 6, 2019

            No, I suppose not or every Maori in town would be like this charmless wonder. They are not, of course, anything but.

            • Corky

               /  January 6, 2019

              ”I wonder if my young, fit Maori neighbours were, in fact, making a point about colonisation.”

              [deleted]

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  January 7, 2019

              Tut, tut, that must have been serious trolling.

  2. Ben Waimata

     /  January 6, 2019

    It is a shame some NZ citizens of Maori descent appear to see traditional tikanga as almost set in stone and a ‘correct’ way to live. Treaty of Waitangi era British culture is totally dead, it has moved on to become something different. Those of us descended from those who signed the TOW can happily reject the race, gender and social norms of our British 1840 era culture. I am descended from people both sides of the TOW signing, why should I be expected to believe my Maori cultural heritage is worth preserving intact, while my British heritage is garbage? Both British and Maori 1840-style cultures are dead and gone for ever.

    The truth is even the most radical Maori decolonialist is going to interpret this concept from a modern worldview. Female Maori academics do not want traditional tikanga gender roles restored. No one wants a return to tribal warfare. No one wants a very short life expectancy. In other words this debate is about modern race relations, not traditional culture. Personally I believe reducing this discussion to identity politics brings it into better perspective. Do I choose to identify as Maori due to a small percentage of Maori DNA? Or do I choose to identify as pakeha due to a small amount of English DNA? Or how about take the victim card to the next level, my majority DNA comes from Scotland, and man if my Maori ancestors think they had a hard time with my English ancestors, they should see what the English did to the Scots!!!!

    Actually it’s time we all grew up, stopped finger pointing and realised we are all one people.

    • Blazer

       /  January 6, 2019

      great post..Ben.

      • Gerrit

         /  January 6, 2019

        Agreeing with Blazers, great post by Ben.

        • PartisanZ

           /  January 6, 2019

          Ben’s on the button about several things there IMHO. Intelligent people shouldn’t even contemplate the issue being about a return to pre-1840 ways … Both cultures (we reduce it to such simplistic generalizations in order to discuss things) have evolved due to contact and interaction … ‘Stone Age’ culture is as dead as ‘Iron Age’ culture …

          But the last line, particularly the old “one people” epithet is a *CROC* and a giveaway IMHO … Sorry Ben … doesn’t wash with me …

          Do you relate to or ‘identify’ first and foremost with things like your maunga, your awa, your whanau-hapu-iwi – hence theirs and your whenua – your whakapapa and your marae?

          I don’t. Leastwise certainly not in the same way Maori people who live around my ‘community’ do … and many of them don’t have very much to do with [what I call] my community despite constituting 75% of the population … My community described on an old 1800’s map as “The Pakeha Settlement” …

          It is a lot about choice of identity …

          The two cultures [for simplicity’s sake again] could be seen as overlapping spheres, a pie diagram … They overlap to various degrees in various individuals, groups and circumstances depending on a multitude of factors … but one thing I would assert is that Pakeha have ‘largely’ [not entirely] controlled the degree of overlap …

          An example would be the original limiting of Maori seats in Parliament to four when at the time [1867] the Maori population warranted 14 – 16 seats on a per capita basis where Pakeha had 72.

          The so-called ‘Maori Renaissance’ has been, among other things, the beginnings of Maori taking much greater charge of that cultural overlap. Te Reo is steadily infiltrating into NZ English …

          So for me “let’s all grow up, stop finger pointing” and presumably “just get on with it” become questions: Let’s all grow up in what sense exactly? Who stop finger pointing at whom? And, above all: Just get in with WHAT?

          I’d suggest writing a new Constitution with “clarity and certainty” about the place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi enshrined in it is a pretty good ‘What’ …

          • PartisanZ

             /  January 6, 2019

            Should read “Let’s get ON with WHAT?”

            I have read and re-read your comment Ben and the more I do so the more most of it looks like an extraordinarily intricate and convoluted piece of obfuscation …

            It doesn’t matter one iota about “small percentages of DNA” … That’s actually an oft used ‘Right Brigade’ argument … “No-one’s a REAL Maori” …

            What matters is you CHOOSING …

            So, actually … it’s time we all grew up, stopped finger pointing, realized and acknowledged we are NOT all one people!

        • Pickled Possum

           /  January 6, 2019

          Don is that you? Ben Whymatter,

          Great way to root out all the racists alright.
          What a load of shit you write

          I don,t know of many if any Tikanga Maori who think or write what you wrote,
          I know this … you are not Maori and if by any slight chance you may be a potato
          (brown on the outside and white in the middle).
          then join the queue in the race to the bottom of the pile of delusional humans
          you may just overtake corky.

          “I am descended from people both sides of the TOW signing, why should I be expected to believe my Maori cultural heritage is worth preserving intact, while my British heritage is garbage?”

          Who said that English heritage is garbage?
          I hear English say that Maori say this
          Maori say individuals are shit,
          not the culture, bit like the round eye saga
          but every day I hear Maori heritage is..

          We Maori and I am speaking as the matriarch of my large whanau
          want to live our lives as humans not still slaves to the white man,s way.
          To live our lives as our DNA wants us to live
          Fat fucken chance I reckon when our borders are opened to the worlds worst racists.

          Look what happens when we eat pakeha food – diabetes
          drinks pakeha alcohol- abuse jail mental problems etc
          watch pakeha films-learning how to be a dick te me te me
          the list is long of the things
          we had to assimilate to the English way of living
          because they thought their culture was the be all.

          well,Ben whymatter IT ain’t ….you and your crew are power hungry
          we Maori have become different than what we were born to be.
          So thanks for nothing.

    • adamsmith1922

       /  January 6, 2019

      Ben, very well put and rational. Unlike many of the politicians and academic posers who prence and preen for effect.

    • Gezza

       /  January 6, 2019

      I don’t think we’re all one people but we’re all one nation. Maori culture nearly died out. It won’t now. Those who identify most as Maori and are determined to preserve their culture and identify as such will be able to do so. Marae will probably thrive in the future as centres for the preservation and promotion of Maori culture and tikanga will evolve over time in ways that support their continuation. There will be thousands of Maori who can walk & comfortably in both worlds, proud of who they are and that they can do this. Those are the ones I admire.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  January 6, 2019

        I don’t know which papers that person reads or which news they watch, but I certainly don’t only see negative views of anyone Maori. Look at the sportspeople, actors and actresses and so on who are celebrated in the news. Of course people like the two who killed the three year old will be portrayed negatively; but they would be if they were Pakeha.

      • PartisanZ

         /  January 6, 2019

        It might be said that Maori have little or no choice but to walk in both worlds?

        How many Pakeha make anything remotely approaching a reciprocal effort?

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  January 6, 2019

          Quite a lot.

        • alloytoo

           /  January 6, 2019

          I suppose do they self identify as Pakeha?

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  January 6, 2019

          All of us walk in many worlds with varying degrees of skill. It’s called Life.

          • PartisanZ

             /  January 6, 2019

            Crap Alan … Utter crap and useless, ineffective diversion … We’re talking here about Maori and Pakeha cultural worlds or ‘realms’ …

            You are purposely confusing Pakeha ‘roles’ with cultural worlds …

            There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that all individual human beings regardless of ethnicity, race or culture play various ‘roles’ in the Jacob Moreno psychodramatic sense.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  January 6, 2019

              There are many pakeha worlds and many Maori worlds. Life transitions through them. I’m unimpressed with attempts at simplification.

            • PartisanZ

               /  January 6, 2019

              Get off of here then Alan … This whole blog is about little else other than simplification … you included …

              It’s what we do … with language … in order to communicate and discuss things … We simplify …

        • Gezza

           /  January 6, 2019

          Well, a few make the effort but try being a pakeha and asking if you can marry one of Hone Harawara’s kids?

          • Gezza

             /  January 6, 2019

            *Harawira’s (soz, Hone)

          • Blazer

             /  January 6, 2019

            its totally irrelevant..Hone made a very good point.

            • Gezza

               /  January 6, 2019

              With baseball bats and lengths of pipe or sticks as I recall.

            • Gezza

               /  January 6, 2019

              Aw — I suppose it depends which point he was making that you are referring to. What point were you referring to?

            • Blazer

               /  January 6, 2019

              I am referring to his twist on..the european family who would be aghast at their precious offspring marrying a brown person..real.

            • Gezza

               /  January 6, 2019

              Members of my whanau have married Maori, Irish, Yanks. It’s just not an issue except for a few retards.

            • Blazer

               /  January 6, 2019

              @Gezza..your personal anecdotes in no way reflect the bigger picture..and your condescending attitude is starting to annoy.

            • Gezza

               /  January 6, 2019

              @ Blazer. Fuck me sideways. Lol.

            • Gezza

               /  January 6, 2019

              @Blazer, so, just to clarify (ignoring your condescending remark just above) are you saying you would object if your kids wanted to marry someone who is Maori? Or that your parents did?

            • Blazer

               /  January 6, 2019

              completely the opposite..you missed Hone’s point.

            • Gezza

               /  January 6, 2019

              Enlighten me then.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  January 6, 2019

            Why is the pakeha responsible for the Harawira family’s skill failures?

            • Gezza

               /  January 6, 2019

              Why are you asking me? I believe he was pretty handy with a baseball bat or something.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  January 6, 2019

              Because you wanted me to marry his daughter. Remember?

            • Gezza

               /  January 6, 2019

              No. I’ve just scrolled up. I wanted PZ to give it a go, not you.
              You’d have no feckin show. Probably be seen off with a baseball bat.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  January 6, 2019

              Dunno. What’s the daughter like? Might have her old man under her thumb if she’s anything like her Gran.

            • Pickled Possum

               /  January 6, 2019

              @Geezza
              No sticks just bats and hoses and from memory Hone just used his fists.

              “On May 1, 1979, 20 members of the He Taua protest group went to the engineering students’ common room to stop that year’s “haka party” performance.

              Despite a decade of complaints, students persisted in performing their own version of Ka Mate while drunk, with obscenities painted on their bodies and wearing hard hats, boots and grass skirts.

              At 9am, He Taua confronted 20 to 30 students, resulting in hospital admissions, stitches and broken bones”
              https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10569951

            • Gezza

               /  January 6, 2019

              @Possum
              Fair enuf sis. I reckon these days he’d probably see Al off with a taiaha.

            • Blazer

               /  January 6, 2019

              ‘In 1979 Harawira was part of He Taua, which confronted drunken University of Auckland engineering students who performed a parody of the “Ka Mate” haka. The group including Harawira assaulted them with baseball bats and hoses, resulting in several broken bones’

              https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2014/10/mike-butler-harawiras-murky-past.html

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  January 6, 2019

              Seems to run in the family:
              “Hone Harawira’s daughter, Anikaaro Harawira, and Anikaaro’s boyfriend, Stuart Harrison, were charged with arson and aggravated robbery over an incident on January 19, 2007 in Kaitaia. Police allege they took the car of someone they knew and set fire to it. They were released on bail and appeared in Kaitaia District Court on February 28, 2007. The pair faced a maximum of 14 years’ imprisonment if convicted. “

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  January 6, 2019

              To be fair, his other daughter is a lawyer.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  January 6, 2019

              (May get plenty of work from the whanau.)

            • PartisanZ

               /  January 6, 2019

              “Seems to run in the family” … My goodness Alan … Your cheapest shot ever!!!

              Then … to our amazement … you claim to be being “fair” by acknowledging his other daughter is a lawyer …

              “(May get plenty of work from the whanau.)”

              NO!!! IT WASN’T YOUR CHEAPEST SHOT EVER!!!

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  January 7, 2019

              Dunno, PZ. Thought it was quite appropriate and worth a chuckle or two from us Motherf.s in response to G’s taiaha threat.

  3. “For non-Maori people, part of participating in decolonisation processes is about recognising their role as belonging to the dominant colonial grouping.”

    Siggghhh… when does Parti normally wake up and start contributing? This post will send her/he/it into orgasmic flights of psuedo-intellectual ramblings… can’t wait!

    And yes I think its drivel – how are you going to tear down the structures you have right now with out destroying what little harmony we currently have?

    Why would 85% of the population, Maori made up 15% at the Census in 2013, tear down the current structure to suit a 2 % minorities viewpoint? (Percentage roughly equivalent to the pathetic voting scores achieved by Mana and the Maori Party totaled and ROUNDED up – that represents about 13% of Maori i.e. 2/15)

    When you look at this it is just more Marxist thought dressed up in new words. Its about extreme socialism. Its about the extreme Lefts hatred of anything that doesn’t have them as the leadership elite – most NZers, as reflected by election results, don’t want a bar of the extreme left or extreme right. And decolonisation is about as stupidly extreme as you can get…

    Capitalism – BAD!!! Never forget that as its the basic thought of your far left type.

    Even though the economic gains and the subsequent improvements in lifespan and quality of life derived from a harnessed Capitalism are undeniable (NOTE I said harnessed as in Western style mixed economies not in some hypothetical Hayekian completely free capitalism unfettered and unregulated)

    We have enough socialism – its already eroding peoples drive to look after themselves and we all ready have more than enough of this Far left victim culture bullshit. Maori understood free trade – they traded their woman, flax etc for things of value when they encountered Westerns – mostly nails, axes and guns, but land later on when they wanted more.

    Some of the articles quoted above alludes to some type of Maori socialist utopia pre-European times… what BOLLOCKS… Slavery, Cannibalism, constant warfare. Hell the whole Musket Wars era was driven by Maori societal constructs of Mana and Utu and Take. Maori destroyed themselves as soon as the could when they acquired the technology to do so – all driven by their own definition of what it meant to be Maori. I point you to one Hongi Hika and his cohorts from the Far North: they couldn’t wait to taste the blood of the Auckland based Iwi when they acquired muskets and did their level best to wipe the Auckland tribes off the world map.

    The ToW was willingly signed by many Maori Rangitira to gain protection from the homicidal, warped philosophy of people like Hongi and his Far North thugs and the depredations of Tainui when they acquired muskets. Go ask the actual tangata whenua tribes of Wellington what they think – oh you can’t because they got butchered in the 1820’s by Mutanga, Tama and their confederates Ngati Toa & Te Atiawa

    I’m all for fairness and completing a settlement process to address the most egregious of land issues. But its all going way to far and this type of stupidity will just drive further resentment and eventual conflict…

    University Social and Arts departments – producing idiots in escalating quantities since the 1960’s….

    • Blazer

       /  January 6, 2019

      ‘Even though the economic gains and the subsequent improvements in lifespan and quality of life derived from a harnessed Capitalism are undeniable ‘

      Common theme here=giving Capitalism credit for things it does not deserve.

      In a simplistic comparison-A Communist country put the first man in space.
      The powerhouse economy of the century is Communist China.

      • Duker

         /  January 6, 2019

        hardly anything is communist about Chinas economic growth.
        When they really were communist the economic growth was miniscule.

        I think you have just proved the opposite of what you were trying to do.
        BTW the difference in time between the’ capitalist first man in space and the communist one’ was a measly 3 weeks. Big deal

        • Blazer

           /  January 6, 2019

          a matter of definitions is what you’re really saying.

        • Duker

           /  January 6, 2019

          Not what Im saying – which is this . You are talking rubbish

          • Blazer

             /  January 6, 2019

            too bad ,thats your opinion.

            Capitalism seems to wear many hats these days…when it suits.

            You are the one talking rubbish opinion as if it has some factual authenticity.

            • alloytoo

               /  January 6, 2019

              Capitalism doesn’t wear any hats, it’s the invisible hand, it exists in the absence of formal economies, It has consistent observable laws
              and it even exists (by way of the black market) in communist economies.

              Communism/Socialism on the other hand does wear many hats, and unusually involves the vast majority losing their shirts.

            • Blazer

               /  January 6, 2019

              key word…’invisible’..can’t see it..alley.

  4. kluelis

     /  January 6, 2019

    For all people survival had been the main issue since 1800. But by the 1960’s it was then for the first time possible to consider quality of life above pure survival. But for many long held beliefs were ingrained and updating long held beliefs was like pulling teeth with out anaesthetic. Political rivalries, political opportunists, personal ambition, personal vendettas, misinformation, media opportunism and vast individual variations meant a complex array of “truths” being told and continue to be told. So was 1960 – 2020 a significant social evolutionary phase in NZ life?. Or is it vastly over rated. Did much actually change? Oversimplification has been a constant pain in the butter for me with regards any issue. Left v Right for instance when there is no such thing and there has never been any such thing. The 3 year elections cycle of them v us, right v left , Liberal v Conservative are the most hideous example of this prime evil need to simplify life into two groups. So tiring. But apparently still preferable to many. . As for decolonisation? A hundred years too late I am afraid the boat has sailed and like the Titanic is not worth raising because every one is dead and what’s left is not worth salvaging. But if that is your go don’t let me stop you trying. Apply to Loto for a grant maybe.

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  January 6, 2019

      It was possible long before the 1960s to consider things other than pure survival.

      • PartisanZ

         /  January 6, 2019

        Got SFA to do with the topic, but I tend to agree with Kluelis, the 1960s were when ‘quality of life’ entered the mainstream and became available to the masses in Western society … When it became ‘hip’ …

        The possibilities of this ‘re-volution’ is what Friedman and the neoliberals set out to destroy because it was so extremely threatening to ‘capitalist industrial orthodoxy’ …

        To assert that decolonisation occurred 100 years ago is patently absurd and utterly ludicrous.

        You mean at about the time the Pioneer Battalion went to France to dig trenches and not bear arms but were drafted into fighting because the White NZer casualties were so high?

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  January 6, 2019

          The mass production of items began long before 1960 and made things available to more and more people. The ads for labour-saving devices almost all talk about how easy they make life, and that was long before the 1960s. Read some old books and magazines. The latter are brilliant little time capsules & the ads are fascinating. My oldest single one is only about 100, but I do have some bound eds from the 19th century, one of a mag called Belgravia and one from the 1880s; a bound volume of The Family Herald. What is now called quality of life was, of course, prized as much then as it is now.

          Who said anything about decolonisation beginning 100 years ago ? Not me.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  January 6, 2019

          Two world wars separated by the Depression certainly required survival but I would say decolonisation is roughly marked by when the first Maori MPs became prominent and in some cases renowned.

          • PartisanZ

             /  January 6, 2019

            Miss Kitty, I’m talking about that consciousness reaching the masses … crossing the threshold into mass consciousness …

            When I was growing up in the 60s this still wasn’t the case for many of my parent’s generation.

            And Kluelis talked about decolonisation being 100 years too late … “That boat has sailed” etc … See his/her above comment …

            Oh Alan, you talk such crap sometimes, honestly … The first Maori MPs!!!

            Seriously? Who were they …?

            https://nzhistory.govt.nz/first-three-maori-mps-elected-to-parliament

            IMHO [modern] decolonisation began in earnest with the protests of the late 60s, early 70s culminating in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal … although even this is largely, once again, on Pakeha terms … a kind of ‘reverse’ Maori Land Court … plus Kohanga Reo, Maori Studies, Wananga o Aotearoa etc etc …

            Notwithstanding various previous attempts at genuine biculturalism like Kingitanga, Kotahitanga, Parihaka, Rua Kenana’s Maungapohatu etc …

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  January 6, 2019

              I was thinking more of Ngata, Pomare etc.

              Surprised to see those were elected so early though. The dreaded colonists were quite progressive, weren’t they?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  January 6, 2019

              The Waitangi Tribunal is irrelevant to decolonisation. To the contrary it represents a recolonisation of the ordinary Maori as serfs at the hands of their new elite.

            • PartisanZ

               /  January 6, 2019

              @Alan – “The dreaded colonists were quite progressive, weren’t they?”

              No, The dreaded colonists were quite SHAM progressive … and SCAM progressive …

            • PartisanZ

               /  January 6, 2019

              Oh no Alan, the Waitangi Tribunal isn’t irrelevant to decolonisation at all.

              It’s only that it is by no means the entire decolonisation story …

              ‘The phrase ‘Māori tribal elite’ really tells you something – about the person using it’ – Spinoff April 19 2017

              “From the belligerent right, the disdain emerges from an ingrained belief that a good Māori is one who assimilates without protest and who forgets the past to appease Pākehā guilt. From the hostile left, it emerges from a deficit belief that Māori are inherently poor and any prosperity or power re-gained renders them inauthentic dissidents in the struggle against oppression. We must be cautious of allowing non-Māori to dictate the authenticity of Māori identities and their place in the resistance.

              As Ani Mikaere writes, selective amnesia, denial and distortion of truth are too often presented to recast the beneficiary descendents of colonisation as the victims in the story and Māori as the ungrateful aggressors with unearned privilege to excessive influence.”

              https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/19-04-2017/the-phrase-maori-tribal-elite-really-tells-you-something-about-the-person-using-it/

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  January 6, 2019

              @PZ – spinoff – a load of crap. The Maori elite are in plain view in the Koru Lounge while the serfs hide out in prison, Mangare, Porirua or the back blocks.

            • PartisanZ

               /  January 6, 2019

              Alan, I guess you were thinking more of the Pakeha myths of Ngata and Pomare … Sir Peter Buck too no doubt …?

              “Protest at Waitangi

              In 1940 many Pākehā shared the views of Parry and Bledisloe (see link). Many Māori, however, including leaders such as Te Puea and the Māori King, Korokī, boycotted the 1940 Waitangi commemorations because of the raupatu, or land confiscations of the nineteenth century, which had not been settled. The celebrations were, one Waikato leader said, but ‘an occasion for rejoicing on the part of the pakehas and those tribes who have not suffered any injustices during the past 100 years’.

              Ngāpuhi attended the 1940 ceremony, but displayed red blankets in protest at the compulsory acquisition of what had been deemed ‘surplus lands’ in Northland. As Sir Apirana Ngata reflected – many Pākehā considered him as a Māori voice of reason and evidence of Māori progress, ‘I do not know of any year the Māori people have approached with so much misgiving as this Centennial Year… In retrospect what does the Māori see? Lands gone, the power of chiefs humbled in the dust, Māori culture scattered and broken.’

              The protests were largely ignored … Cheviot Bell, president of the New Zealand Founders’ Society, chose Waitangi Day 1940 to declare that ‘What we seek to mark today is the free entry one hundred years ago of the Māori race into the great privilege of membership of the Commonwealth of peoples that we are proud to call the British Empire.’

              Māori, it seemed, should be grateful, and not dampen Pākehā self congratulation.”

              https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/centennial/the-centennial-and-the-treaty-of-waitangi

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  January 6, 2019

              Progressive emancipation:
              he involvement of the indigenous Māori people in New Zealand’s electoral system is one of the most remarkable stories in this country’s political history.
              https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/maori-and-the-vote

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  January 6, 2019

              I’m sure the good Maori folk of Mangare and Porirua are delighted the Waitangi Tribunal has restored their Chiefs’ mana and wealth.

            • PartisanZ

               /  January 6, 2019

              Comparatively it’s “remarkable” … I suppose …

              I suppose compared to African and South American colonial genocides and North American Indian slaughter plus enforced relocation onto reservations and compared to Australian Aboriginal hunting parties it’s really ‘progressive’ …

              Not that there weren’t enforced relocations here … and slaughter too for that matter …

              It could have been a whole shitload better though – because it was largely on Pakeha terms – and it has been highly mythologized by Pakeha/Tauiwi …

  5. Duker

     /  January 6, 2019

    Thet polynesian societies that that were hardly changed by colonisation is best identified as Tonga. ( Tonga was a British protectorate where existing structures were maintained)
    An hereditary ruling elite with the majority of the population as subsistence villagers.
    Not to different to Hawaii before the Americans took over. Tahiti before the French had similar characteristics. Compare with the big changes in Fiji as the large scale sugar plantations required importing labour from India, but the tradistional ethnic Fijians still based on a villages with hereditary chiefs and an upper class of paramount chiefs.
    NZ would have been similar in the maori society before a the full British colonisation model

    • Gerrit

       /  January 6, 2019

      ” ….still based on a villages with hereditary chiefs and an upper class of paramount chiefs.”

      Can that form of tribalism exist in a democracy where one person has an equally weighted vote with the next?

      Fiji has had problems with democracy including two (or three) militaity coup d’etat’s.

      Problem for Maori is that at 15% of the population, they cannot have 50% of the voting rights as some believe Maori should have under the TOW..

      Democracy does not work like that.

      Keeping a tribal government with hereditary chiefs as we see in Tonga has allowed the worse kind of nepotism where by democratic means the people cannot remove wayward chiefs or the ruling elite.

      “Experts say South Pacific countries are increasingly being targeted by international organised crime groups who have found they can act with virtual impunity by bribing officials. In one case, the Speaker of the House – appointed by his colleagues in the nobility – was allegedly bribed by a Colombian drug boss but kept his seat in Parliament because of a reluctance to pursue serious charges against him.”

      https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/86197503/corruption-in-paradise-former-attorney-general-of-tonga-questions-nz-judicial-aid

  6. Alan Wilkinson

     /  January 6, 2019

    The question I raised yesterday: Does culture belong to the individual or the collective? We know socialists’ answer. Some Maori will identify with the socialists as will almost all academics. The rest will not and will want freedom to pursue their own paths and solutions. More power to them.

    • PartisanZ

       /  January 6, 2019

      There is an identifiable collective Maori ‘culture’ IMHO … Many Maori might argue that it exists at whanau-hapu-iwi level though …

      A definitive Pakeha culture is more difficult to identify …

      Everyone bar no-one has their own individual culture … family culture … household culture … small, medium and/or large group culture depending on what groups you belong to …

      The question is semi-irrelevant except insomuch as “More power to them” supports neoliberal culture … the cult of the individual …

      • Gerrit

         /  January 6, 2019

        “A definitive Pakeha culture is more difficult to identify …”

        There is not a single Pakeha culture. There are many Pakeha cultures. Dependent upon where the original immigrants came from. England, Scotland Germany, Russia, Baltic States, not to mention cross nation cultures such as dalmation, mediterranean, etc.,etc.,etc.,etc.

        Add to that the many other ethnic cultures such as Polynesian, Indian, Chinese, Korean, Veitnamese, etc., etc., etc., etc.

        You alluded to a Tauiwi culture in an earlier comment and that is correct. We are all Tauiwi if not Maori.

        It is long by the past it’s used by date to nominate the two cultures in New Zealand as Pakeha and Maori.

        It is 85% Tauiwi culture and 15% Maori.

        Long term there will be a 100% amalgamated New Zealand culture, possibly called the Aotearoa’n culture.

        • “It is 85% Tauiwi culture and 15% Maori.”

          It’s more complex than that. Some of the 85% Tauiwi share a bit of Maori culture, and all of the 15% 15% Maori share quite a bit of Pakeha, Polynesian and other cultures (like Dalmation).

          • PartisanZ

             /  January 6, 2019

            So it depends which or what culture people IDENTIFY with, right?

            • Gerrit

               /  January 6, 2019

              Correct. But how can you coin a term like “decolonisation” for the Maori culture when that culture has absorbed and has been absorbed by all the Tauiwi cultures?

              A seperation (or decolonisation) is no longer possible along racial grounds when the races are in a melting pot of cultures.

              In a democracy it is not possible to apportion greater power on cultural grounds irrespective of who came first.

              Democracy to me means one person one equal vote with the next person. You simple cannot grant greater power (or autonomy) to one culture over another. it will no longer be a democracy.

              If we look at Fiji, it is an its way to a one equal vote per person democracy but only after burying the long held communal policies favouring Taukei. Surely New Zealand does not want to go back in time to such undemocratic policies and racial division that Fiji is finally eradicating?

              Worth a read in full

              https://www.e-ir.info/2015/12/02/the-state-of-democracy-in-fiji/

              “In the final analysis, what can one say about the quality of democracy in Fiji? Certainly, the country can only benefit from the elimination, as far as possible, of an insidious form of communal politics that has wrought so much damage over the years and made almost entirely false promises to ordinary Taukei concerning their future prosperity. And the legal and political equality which all citizens now enjoy is clearly an essential basis on which to build a more democratic polity.”

            • Gezza

               /  January 6, 2019

              From my perspective it does depend on what culture people identify with. And if they identify with one at all, I guess. For some it’s not something that’s an issue – they just embrace & follow the general social and culture norms around them.

              There was an interesting discussion last week on The Stream about young African Americans who have returned to live in the African countries their ancestors came from because they chose to reject being African American and identify as Ghanaian or Nigerian.

              The Stream is hosted by and appeals to young people. It covers all sorts of issues relevant to young people today in different parts of the world. The main host is African American and her co-host is an American Muslim. They live stream real-time contributors from around the world using social media and Skype or Facetime apps.

              Two of their contributors underwent a major culture shock when they got to Ghana and Nigeria respectively because their idealised view of the culture was so far from any semblance of reality, and because, being Americans, they immediately proceeded to tell the locals how they weren’t properly living up to their own culture.

              Eventually they worked out that the local culture has evolved like others have done with history and material progress & have more or less adapted now; they’re still there, and they still say they’re happier there than they were back in America. Both the two main contributors (female) were well-educated university graduates.

              There was also a South African Zulu chap who they got into arguments with because he was saying far too many African Americans come to South Africa and do the same thing – think they belong to their African culture and they don’t.

            • PartisanZ

               /  January 6, 2019

              @Gerrit – “Correct. But how can you coin a term like “decolonisation” for the Maori culture when that culture has absorbed and has been absorbed by all the Tauiwi cultures?”

              Wow, that’s a whole new take on the old ‘Stone Age Culture’ argument … How utterly extraordinary …

              Because something is a continuum its no longer possible to innumerate its component parts?

              So, for instance, kapa haka performed on an essentially European raised stage illuminated by European stage lights with music amplified by a European sound system is NO LONGER kapa haka?

              You are really on the defensive clutching at straws, aren’t you?

              The whole ‘democracy’ question is so huge as to require enormous amounts of investigation and explanation.

              In the meantime, suffice to say that ‘one person, one equal vote’ takes no account of corporate-political influence … nowadays a globalized phenomena … which is in itself a kind of ‘culture’ … with a kind of ‘elite’ at its helm … guiding a kind of ‘serfdom’ of functionaries … albeit relatively well-off ones … whose poverty is of the non-financial kind …

        • PartisanZ

           /  January 6, 2019

          @Gerrit – “Long term there will be a 100% amalgamated New Zealand culture, possibly called the Aotearoa’n culture.”

          It’s certainly a possibility I suppose. This is essentially what Don Brash asserted at Orewa in 2004, isn’t it? Pakeha indigeneity … Hegemonous Homogeneity …

          Creeping assimilation … The great DNA ‘marketplace’ will eventually sort it out … in ‘our’ favour …

          Result = precisely the opposite. Cultural ‘polarization’ in the sense of stronger identification one way or the other … Iwi or Tauiwi … Not at all a negative thing …

          Now there’s a ‘tika’ Constitution, Matike Mai Aotearoa, every bit the legal rival of anything Westminster-Pakeha-Tauiwi [whatever you want to call it] can come up with …

          And it has almost nothing to do with 15% population, 50% say in how things are run … That’s just the scaremongers easy way out of making any attempt to understand it …

  7. Gerrit

     /  January 6, 2019

    Problem for Maori is the market place (the people) always sorts it out.

    When I had a read off Matike Mai Aotearoa (yes a quick read as I have read this document before and discussed it at length in other forums) the spheres model of influences are totally undemocratic.

    for example

    “A multi-sphere model consisting of an assembly of Iwi/Hapū and other Māori
    representation (the rangatiratanga sphere) and the Crown in Parliament (the
    kāwanatanga sphere). It also includes a relational sphere which would have two parts –
    a constitutionally mandated set of direct Iwi/Hapū/Crown relationships to enable direct
    Iwi/Hapu-Crown decision-making plus a unitary perhaps annual assembly of broader
    Māori and Crown representation.”

    http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/MatikeMaiAotearoaReport.pdf

    Where does one person one equal vote democracy come into these proposals?

    It doesn’t, that “constitution” is as bad as the early Fijian ones.

    “Pakeha indigeneity … Hegemonous Homogeneity …”

    There is no Pakeha indigeneity. That went out when Tauiwi immigration balanced the Pakeha (or English) culture.

    There is an Aotearoa indigeneity. That includes Maori.

    • Gezza

       /  January 6, 2019

      There’s definitely a separate and I reckon (now-thriving Maori culture). I see us as one nation but Maori and Non-Maori, because so many Maori see that as the difference between us.

      Maori culture is something more concrete. It’s a far more tikanga & family-based culture than most non-Maori ones, in the sense that family links and obligations extend far beyond even just the extended genetic family. And it’s iwi-based, so Maori families are inter-linked to other whanau groups who trace lineage back to first waka arrivals. And as time goes by and whanau spread out around NZ the links through kids to other iwi become even more extensive.

      So those who identify as Maori New Zealanders are simply being accurate when they see themselves as having a separate cultural identity. I don’t personally see why having a separate Maori cultural identity if you choose to should be objected to.

      • PartisanZ

         /  January 6, 2019

        As above: “As Ani Mikaere writes, selective amnesia, denial and distortion of truth are too often presented to recast the beneficiary descendents of colonisation as the victims in the story and Māori as the ungrateful aggressors with unearned privilege to excessive influence.”

        • Gezza

           /  January 6, 2019

          Yes I know. How does that relate to my comment?

          • PartisanZ

             /  January 7, 2019

            Because governments spend money on cultural identities, none moreso than non-Maori culture – roads, water, sewerage, rubbish collection and disposal, the ballet, symphony orchestra etc etc et al ad infinitum – but if Maori get government money to support their cultural identity it is labelled “race-based privilege” and the like …

            • Gezza

               /  January 7, 2019

              Roads, water, sewerage, rubbish collection and disposal are CULTURAL IDENTITIES? Are you BLOODY SERIOUS?

              but if Maori get government money to support their cultural identity it is labelled “race-based privilege” and the like …

              Well, yes, but only by SOME, mainly those who are typical Maori-bashers the Pakeha cultural supermacists, who I don’t think represent anything like the MAJORITY of PAKEHA in NZ anyway, most of whom don’t mind & plenty of councils also fund or otherwise support the re-emergence of the Maori cultural identity in both traditional and contemporary forms, and many Maori artists are commercially viable in their own right.

              In respect of roads water sewerage rubbish collection and disposal are you suggesting Maori shouldn’t use these services and should be allowed to organise and fund their own separate roads, water, sewerage and rubbish collection and disposal systems – or did you just get a bit carried away there?

            • PartisanZ

               /  January 7, 2019

              I was generalizing a bit wildly … Okay …

              Pouring sewerage into awa, whanga and moana on a nightly basis is a Pakeha cultural expression Gezza, IMHO …

              Most of what we see about us are Pakeha cultural expressions and no-one calls them race-based privilege, even if they are about as anathema to tikanga as it’s possible to be …

              Bearing in mind the overlap of cultures, of course …

              What did you think of my ‘Optimocracy’ comment second from bottom?

              This, of course, is what a culture that essentially trains its leaders from birth is aiming at … maybe?

              Just throwing ideas around … We’ll be doing a lot of that during our 20+ year Constitution building process … I hope Gerrit hangs in there eh?

            • Gezza

               /  January 7, 2019

              We’ve had millenia of Optimocracies, PZ. They eventually become hereditary kings emperors and royal families. Or theocracies. Or plutocracies. Or Corporatocracies. Governance by Optimocracies is a feature of many sci-fi novels and movies too. Changing the rulers becomes difficult when what they think is best for the people is not best for the people but they have control of the forces of law and order because they pay their wages.

      • Gerrit

         /  January 6, 2019

        No one is questioning any cultural group rights to a separate identity. What is questioned is the right for any cultural group to have precedent over another.

        If you believe in democracy where one persons vote is equal to another, There is no room for any culture to have superiority over another.

        Partisanz,

        What is unearned privileged and how does one earn privilege?

        • Gezza

           /  January 6, 2019

          Ok. Your use of the word indigeneity has first peoples, first settlers, original inhabitants meanings as its usual & most common interpretation and thus implies a different culture from any that follow. That’s why I describe myself as a native-born NZer rather than an indigenous NZer. And this country as my native land. I have no right of return to either Ireland or Norway as I’m not Irish or Norwegian although my ancestors came from there. Nor would I be seen as Irish or Norwegian in those places. I would be a New Zealander.

          But your main point is about democracy and the principle of one individual one vote, so no need for us to debate this.

          • Gerrit

             /  January 6, 2019

            Am a Tauiwi immigrant so can still be a cultural Viking as per my original place of birth. I dont claim any New Zealand status other then having been here for over 60 years and call this place home and hearth. My heart is here and here my ashes will be scattered to the wind and waves.

            However my children, grand children and now great grand children (you know you are getting old when your grand children start having their own children) are born here and I differ with you from the viewpoint they are born here and thus indigenous.

            • Gezza

               /  January 6, 2019

              You’re an immigrant to me. Your children and grandchildren born here will decide what they are.

            • Gerrit

               /  January 6, 2019

              Absolutely they will decide. Note the “I differ with you” statement? I personally see my offspring as indigenous.

              How they see themselves is, as you say, entirely up to them.

              Some have said thanks but no thanks and have moved to other lands and cultures, some have remained here in New Zealand and its varies cultures.

        • PartisanZ

           /  January 7, 2019

          @Gerrit – “If you believe in democracy where one persons vote is equal to another, There is no room for any culture to have superiority over another.”

          Of course there is! There’s ‘dominant culture’, unethical politics – such as the politics of race fear-and-hatred – and tyranny of the majority … to mention only three …

    • PartisanZ

       /  January 6, 2019

      @Gerrit – “There is an Aotearoa indigeneity. That includes Maori.”

      You amaze me, honestly. So now Tauiwi ‘own’ Aotearoan indigeneity and ‘allow’ it to include Maori!?

      “Where does one person one equal vote democracy come into these proposals?”

      That surely depends how Maori decide to choose, elect, name or otherwise appoint their representatives?

      No-one can put it better than Ani Mikaere:

      “For Päkehä to gain legitimacy here, it is they who must place their trust in Mäori, not the other way around. They must accept that it is for the tangata whenua to determine their status in this land, and to do so in accordance with tikanga Mäori. This will involve sorting out a process of negotiation which is driven by the principles underpinning tikanga, a process which Päkehä do not control.

      There is no doubt that many Päkehä will find this challenging: their obsession with control over the Mäori-Päkehä relationship to date could almost be categorized as a form of compulsive disorder. Giving up such control requires a leap of faith on the part of Päkehä. In my view, however, nothing less will suffice …”

      – Bruce Jesson Memorial Lecture, 2004

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  January 6, 2019

        Fatuous. Maori will no more determine my status than I will theirs.

        • PartisanZ

           /  January 6, 2019

          But Alan … You … we … Pakeha … Tauiwi … have largely [though by no means entirely] determined their status until fairly recently and still do to some significant extent …

          The tables are turning …

          It’ll be interesting to see how things go in the post-settlement environment with wealthy hapu-iwi doing business deals direct with Chinese and other overseas investors almost entirely independent of Pakeha …?

          The only things they’ll require from Pakeha governments are things like resource consents … which appear to be relatively purchase-able …

          • Gerrit

             /  January 6, 2019

            “Deal with Chinese and other overseas investors”…like selling Maori fishing quotas instead of developing their own fishing industries?

            Some like Ngai Tahu are doing very nicely without Tauiwi help. And so they should, there is no reason why they need Tauiwi help. Maori can do as well if not better then Tauiwi.

            Once they pay their taxers like every other New Zealand commercial entity does, the state would be able to lift even more out of poverty.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  January 6, 2019

              Have they decided whether they are a business or a charity?

            • PartisanZ

               /  January 6, 2019

              Gerrit, New Zealanders have sold a SHITLOAD of things, many of them originally paid for by the New Zealand taxpayer, instead of developing our own industries … Seems to be a global trend … You can’t really blame an iwi for doing it …

              You’d know about business decisions, surely? What have they done with the proceeds?

              Ngati Hine on the other hand are branching out from forestry into owning Kiwifruit orchards …

            • Gerrit

               /  January 6, 2019

              “Ngati Hine on the other hand are branching out from forestry into owning Kiwifruit orchards …”

              That was my point. No one is beholding to anyone.

              Will they pay their full commercial taxes or are they a charitable trust?

            • PartisanZ

               /  January 7, 2019

              I don’t know much about taxes …

              I understand that even Maori commercial enterprises pay less tax than non-Maori ones?

              But perhaps if they pay them in full it’s equal or more than non-Maori after tax avoidance?

              And what of Sanitarium and other Church ‘businesses’?

      • Gerrit

         /  January 6, 2019

        Jeez parti, you are putting words were I did not put any.

        Never did I say “So now Tauiwi ‘own’ Aotearoan indigeneity and ‘allow’ it to include Maori!? ”

        Aotearoan indigeneity is not owned by anyone. Not Tauiwi, not Maori. No one is allowing or disallowing anyone or anything. There are no controls. It will continue to evolve quite naturally.
        ————————————————————-
        So Ani Mikaere and you don’t believe in democracy as defined by one person one equal vote?

        ” They must accept that it is for the tangata whenua to determine their status in this land”

        No Tauiwi dont have to do any determining of their status in relation to Maori. In a democracy we all have equal individual status. There is no beholding by Maori to Tauiwi nor Tauiwi to Maori.
        —————————————————————–
        No one has to give up control in a democracy, Neither Tauiwi or Maori.

        “That surely depends how Maori decide to choose, elect, name or otherwise appoint their representatives? ”

        Absolutely. In a democracy their individual votes carry as much weight and value as the next person, be they Maori or Tauiwi.
        ——————————————————————–
        It would seem a hard concept to fathom but Freedom, Liberty and Fraternity simply cannot be divided by racial, cultural or “I was here first” boundaries.

        • PartisanZ

           /  January 6, 2019

          “Freedom, Liberty and Fraternity” are catch-cries, rather like ‘antislavery’ was the catch-cry of the American Civil War when in reality it had almost nothing to do with it …

          Freedom with Responsibility, Liberty with Interdependence, and Fraternity with Ubiquity [or Universality] is what makes sense to me …

          It’s not a matter of “I was here first” … That’s puerile fear-mongering again … It’s a matter of “I was here. You came to my place. I welcomed you. You signed a Treaty with me. You dishonoured that Treaty. You’ve established a form of government which may not even be capable of ever honouring that Treaty” …

          A true deliberative democracy does not allow the imposition of tyranny of the majority, it finds a place for minority voices … and in Aotearoa New Zealand’s unique circumstance that means finding the right, just, fair and ethical expression of the Treaty between hapu-iwi Maori and The Crown which founded our nation … yet to be made truly “great” …

          We have until 2040 to do that …

          Such an ethical expression may look a little peculiar from the “one person one equal vote” perspective … I’m not sure … We haven’t worked it out between us all yet … essentially because of Pakeha unwillingness to do so … Right Brigade reactions to CAP and ConstitutionAotearoa speak very clearly of this …

          Thankfully Maori-Pakeha [or Tauiwi] relations are not the only way our present-day flawed ‘democracy’ hasn’t really worked … Nor has it, for instance, created anything much like an egalitarian society, a particularly responsible populace, acknowledgment of interdependence through community nor much universality of [so-called] fraternity …

          Democracy, I conclude, is RIPE for improvement …

    • PartisanZ

       /  January 6, 2019

      Gerrit, The marketplace ‘sorts out’ anything if you’ve got the overwhelming numbers in your favour … ie 85% – 15% …

      This is not necessarily fair or just or right or ethical and is indeed often none of these things.

      So it’s hardly something to be held aloft as an ideal …

      • Gerrit

         /  January 6, 2019

        So you are comfortable with 15% of people having 50% voting rights versus 85% of the people the other 50%?

        That is democracy for you?

        Who has the casting vote?

        One of those spheres of Influences in the alternative constitution?

        Will we be able to vote for this constitution on a one equal vote per person?

        • PartisanZ

           /  January 7, 2019

          Word Origin & History
          1570s, from Middle French démocratie (14c.), from Medieval Latin democratia (13c.), from Greek demokratia “popular government,” from demos “common people,” originally “district” (see demotic), + kratos “rule, strength” (see -cracy).

          Rule of the Common People?

          We don’t have that. We’ve got rule by corporate-political elites …

          There won’t be a casting vote. There’ll be deliberation and cooperative debate in the direction of consensus …

          Perhaps a little like Cannabis Law Reform, once we’ve ‘done the mahi’ of Constitution building – which will be a long and involved process – and if we can prevent sinister influences acting upon the referendum outcome … as they are sure to attempt to do with cannabis … a new Constitution may be adopted by popular vote … I’m not sure …

          It may be some amalgum of [something like] Palmer & Butler’s with Matike Mai?

          The preamble … The Bill of Rights … Article 1: Te Tiriti o Waitangi … then what?

          I personally think that one day, which I doubt I will live to see, we will participate in governance by Optimocracy* – Rule of the Best People …

          These people will not be ‘politicians’ as we know them today, pandering to popularity, will almost certainly not be members of ‘Parties’ and, contrary to present-day suspicion of professional politicians, they may be highly trained and professional in the artscience* of ‘governance’ …

          Optimocracy – new word #3 for 2019 [191 altogether I think?] and definitely one of my best …

          Artscience – new word #4 [192]

  8. Gezza

     /  January 6, 2019


    Clutha-Southland MP Hamish Walker and clinical psychologist Penny Tipu on their wedding day yesterday.

    MP Hamish Walker has capped off an eventful week by marrying his soulmate at a ceremony in the deep south this weekend. The 33-year-old MP for Clutha-Southland married partner Penny Tipu, a clinical psychologist, in front of family and friends at Kaka Point – just south of Balclutha – yesterday.

    Walker accompanied the photo with a few simple but meaningful words: “Marrying my best friend and soulmate.” A woman who was there commented about the day, saying: “Thank you both for an absolutely beautiful day. You two were out of this world stunning!”

    Walker, who has Scottish roots, is pictured wearing a kilt. His 28-year-old bride is wearing a silky white sleeveless A-line dress.

    Their wedding day yesterday comes after Walker helped talk a distressed man off a ledge at the top of the Lake Hawea dam on New Year’s Day.
    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12186358
    . . . . . . . . .
    Still just not an issue for so, so many New Zealanders.

  1. Another trumped up ban at The Standard | Your NZ
  2. More on decolonisation | Your NZ