Site Search

Response to the Story of "Little Turtle" An Aotearoa/New Zealand Perspective

By

Kimball Robert Murphy-Stewart

 

 

Abstract

This paper is prepared as a response to “Cultural Resilience in North American Indian First Nations: The Story of Little Turtle” by G. Brent Angell, Ph.D. published in issue one of the Critical Social Work.

The response is a series of essay type response on various issues, which arise out of this paper. The key examples are:

On Social Work
On First Principles
On New Zealand History
On Being This Pakeha
On Academic Knowledge.

The paper is an attempt to generate discussion on first-nations issues and concerns between non-first-nations writers and thinkers. It is also an attempt to present a Aotearoa/New Zealand perspective on these issues and the nature of these issues in the context of Aotearoa/New Zealand.

On Greetings[2]

        To you Glinda I offer my greetings for the strength of your story and your courage in it’s telling. It is an acknowledgment of all who have gone before you and their contribution to the present and for many generations to come. What you speak of is a great teaching to those outside your world both within your native land but also within all the lands of the world.

        To you Brent I greet you for this writing and supporting Glinda to share her story. It is important that we stand beside the doorway and make sure that it opens and stays open for those who have been ignored so often. To enter, to speak and in turn contribute their wisdom. In so doing generate change in the stories of the past our kin have created.

        To my wife Jeanette I acknowledge you and all your support for me in what I do. Without you none of this would be achieved. To my family because no matter what happens to me in life I am still yours and what I am is because of what you have given me. To my teachers and mentors for the learning which you have shared with and the access to other worlds outside of my own which you have allowed me to enter.

        I acknowledge and salute you all because without you there would be no story.

        I give my greetings to you and to all who have gone before you. To the lands from which we came and into which we will return. It is this strength that guides us in all that we do.

On Structure

         Glinda and Brent it has not been easy to prepare this paper being in a land far removed from yours. My approach to writing this paper will be in addressing my telling directly to you as though it were a conversation you and I were having[3]. The writing however is open and the reader who can be party to this and therefore is able to enter this conversation as these themes develop. In this way our speaking may influence others and in turn prompt them to become part of this process.[4]

On Reasons

        In all that we do we have reasons and desires, which we seek to flow from our actions.

        My writing this response is motivated by: -

  • My current attempts to enter the field of social policy. A particular emphasis in developing policy for me is the relationship between cultures. In the New Zealand context this is about the relationship and disparities[5] between Maori and non-Maori. This has been the subject of one of my papers,[6] which forms one of my policy pursuits. Hence this writing here is a means to clarify my thinking and position on this work.
  • An awareness that Maori and North American first nations' people have been in conversation with each other. This is in their support of each other in their various struggles and achievements in overcoming those very things you describe in your story. What does not happen so much is non-Maori and non-First Nations people speaking. Hence this is an attempt to generate and further this conversation. After all it was we who created the situation and have a consequent responsibility to make it different.
  • An understanding that your mighty nation has little awareness of New Zealand and the things it has achieved (and what it still has to achieve) in this field. This conversation is quite simply also promotional. Despite our shortcomings I have pride in what we have achieved in social work relating to the recognition of culture, particularly of Maori.

On Stories

        I find the whole process of story telling fascinating. Quite clearly our story is a very important aspect of what makes us and what gives us strength. It draws out themes or ‘lines in the sand’, which we can see stretching far back into time and which we ourselves continue to draw as we create the future.

        The issue for me is that stories are a two edged sword. They can give us great power and resilience but they can also lock us into remaining exactly where we are now, creating our future out of the past so we end up with more of the same rather than generating the future we would desire. Also the ‘writing’ of the story may not be only of our own making. If others are ‘writing’[7] the story for us we become that rather than acting out and developing our own story. This is something I have had to deal with personally and every day in my social work practice. I suppose what I want to highlight here is that the story that we are is not immutable. It is more the themes or ‘lines in the sand’ that gives shape to us with which create our story of the future.

        Why I find this so important is that in many people I meet is that they are locked into the story of the past[8]. Instead of looking for the themes of strength they take the whole story, remain within it and create a present and future written out of the story. Glinda it is clear from what you have discussed with Brent that you are drawing upon these themes, which give strength rather than burying yourself in it and creating a present and future that is more of the same.

On Being This Pakeha

        Pakeha is the word in Maori generally used for non-Maori of European descent. The word has caused much dissension as to its origins and what it exactly means. For me that’s what I am, a non-Maori of European descent. European is a misnomer as all on my descent is from the British Isles namely Scotland, numerous parts of England and Protestant Ireland. So with all that mixture I am quite happy if not proud to be called Pakeha.

        I am an interesting mixture of religious conservatism, liberal gradualism and through to radical socialism.

         My maternal grandparents were farmers involved closely during the thirties in the Labour Party. My grandfather could have been a Labour MP. Certainly my mother as a child remembers all the early Labour political stalwarts coming through their home. My grandmother was the local pianist for the church, movies and other social events in the area and as the story goes she set the Communist ‘Internationale’ to waltz time to which all the local conservative farmers danced. Another story is that my mother was offered £100 by these self-same farmers to get her father to change his vote. They were involved people. My grandfather set up farm co-operative schemes whilst my grandmother set up local branches of the Workers Education Association among many other community projects.

        My paternal grandfather on the other hand came from religiously conservative Scottish family. Somehow he had managed to make himself the odd one out. This came about in part from his first marriage and exposure to the ‘liberal’ thinking of the late nineteenth century. My father however was the result of his second marriage to a rather plain country girl from Taranaki. Unfortunately my grandmother and much of her family were extremely conservative if not down right racist colonial farmers[9]. My father reacted to this, becoming a socialist during the Depression after he witnessed his mothers' relatives camping on his parents’ front lawn when they arrived in town to act as special constables to quell the Queen Street riots. It was Second World War that allowed him to escape this environment and to meet my mother.

         My existence in this nation goes right to the heart of our colonisation for both good and ill[10]. All the families from whom I am descended participated in the making of New Zealand. The connection for me to things Maori comes through my father and paternal grandfather. This arises from a period around the turn of the century when it was acceptable to value things Maori[11]. My grandfather in his liberal mind had no issue with things Maori indeed he read widely and participated in the Edwardian art of photography in which Maori were among his subjects. In a sense to my grandfather Maori were no threat and could be subject of liberal thought. On this basis my father adopted similar liberal ideals. What he did was to take this a step further by making more than a passing attempt to learn the language and mythology of Maori people. Indeed what he attempted was to create for himself a new mythology, which included both Pakeha and Maori stories[12]. This thought was translated for them both into the way they did business with Maori people on a more equal footing than others of their community around them were.

        Notwithstanding this background I have to take ownership of all parts of my story. In doing so move past the story and to create anew. This is to move from a colonist to being a supporter of the promises made by my ancestry in their signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.

        This is just but a snap shot of being Pakeha.

On Social Work

        Social work is a fascinating profession. It’s the only profession that is the ‘jack of all trades and master of none’. There is a magnificent quote used by Anne Opie[13]

Because social work arises in response to problems of everyday living, its expertise rests in gaining a thorough and sensitive understanding of ordinary matters. The catch for social workers is that if the technical base and strength of occupation consists of a vocabulary that sounds familiar to everyone, it will have difficulty in claiming a monopoly of skill or even roughly exclusive jurisdiction over its working environment. To the onlooker, the practices of social workers do not appear markedly different from those of ordinary social intercourse.”

        The paradox is that whilst everyone else is doing extraordinary, extraordinarily well we in social work are doing ordinary, extraordinarily well. To do this effectively, social work requires an eclectic range of knowledge. Herein lies the power of social work.

        This begs the question “what is social work?” In my teaching I suggest that the first myth that has to be scotched is that social working is about helping people. Helping is a by-product of social work. The primary objective of social work is the creation of change.[14]

        To me the simplest answer to the question “what is social work?” is that: -
Social work is a series of transactions that creates transcendence.

        The following are my definitions of these components, which make up social work.

  • A transaction is any ethical or professionally appropriate conversation or action designed to cause transcendence.
  • Transcendence is an alter state of being in which the individual or couple or family group or neighbourhood or community or society moves past the present state of being which is of concern into a state of being such that the concern is ameliorated or reduced or eliminated.
  • Transcendence occurs in both the giver and receiver of the transaction. This is my definition, as it seems to encapsulate all that I have experienced in what is social work.

On First Principles
 

        This principle originates from the concept of ‘tangata whenua’. The literal meaning of these words maybe put simply as ‘the people of the land’ their actual meaning however is much, much deeper. In 1840 the Crown signed a treaty (The Treaty of Waitangi) with the Maori people as represented by large families or clusters of families linked by kinship[15]. Maori through the Treaty gave permission so that the Crown had a right to be here so long as they promised to “confirm and guarantee”[16] that they would protect everything that was Maori and that they would treat Maori as ‘British subjects’. As is well known those promises have not exactly been kept and it is only now that the Crown is trying to make good on them.

        Returning to the first principle certainly for social work if not for our society in general, it is an acknowledgment and moreover more than that, an ownership of the Treaty promises to protect and to ensure equality. Hence the first principle is to the Treaty and the acceptance and protection of ‘rangatiratanga’. Here the words of the Waitangi Tribunal[17] are instructive.

        “The Treaty promised protection in order that Maori would fully benefit from the settlement of Europeans to which they had generously agreed” and “that the first important principle is the principle of rangatiratanga which requires the Crown acknowledgment of Maori control over tikanga, or Maori custom and values. Maori communities are entitled to identify themselves, and to manage their affairs, in accordance with Maori customs and values. Furthermore, if the rangatiratanga exercised by a community in respect of welfare services requires additional Crown protection, in the form of support services for significant Maori groups, it should be delivered so as to enhance the capacity of the group to determine the programmes most needed and how they should be managed.” (Waitangi Tribunal Report WAI 414 p. 15-16) (Emphasis added)

        The unique position for New Zealand is the paramountcy of the Treaty. Nonetheless there are significant parallels for other post European colonial nations such as the United States, Canada and Australia. This is that they either entered treaties, which allowed occupation and guaranteed protection or in the case of Australia where no treaty was signed it only now that such a treaty process has been called for. To me all these nations should be included in the discussion and acceptance of the first principle of ‘rangatiratanga’. Certainly for no other reason than the point of analysis, which could be made that none of these nations have become truly independent. This is in that the original colonising power has not returned sovereignty to those from whom occupation was obtained.

        For me the debate is not about multi-culturalism or diversity rather it is about recognising the first principle of ‘rangatiratanga’. The challenge to my kindred nations is to recognise and act upon this principle. In effect all the wealth (or poverty) that we are now is because of what tangata whenua (first nations) allowed, gave or surrendered. Hence for social work the first principle is that all those other problems are of our subsequent making and we are not going to sort these out until we recognised, accepted and fixed things from first principles. Quite simply until we right things with first nations none of the other problems will be resolved.

 

On New Zealand History[18]

        The process of colonisation of New Zealand followed what maybe a similar path of many other nations. This for us has been a history of warfare, chicanery and deceit maybe only tempered slightly by a Victorian sense of the ‘noble savage’ which placed the Maori ‘race’ as a slightly better class of native.

        Central to this history is the Treaty of Waitangi, which has been variously seen as a nullity, as a fraud and as in our present day the founding document of our nation somewhat akin to the Magna Carta or the Constitution. Whilst it's signing[19] in the context of the moment, was I believe well intentioned it was soon consigned to the status of a nullity. This was as the designs of the colonial powers in New Zealand were to get control of the basic asset namely the land. To do this and achieve a sufficient degree of control, the first mechanism was warfare coupled with confiscations of land and the political process of consigning the Treaty to oblivion.[20] This period is often referred to as the ‘Maori’ wars,[21] which occurred from the 1840’s through the 1860’s.

        What these wars achieved was sufficient control of the asset and of its original owners such that the development of the infrastructure for ‘British Empire (South Pacific Division) Ltd.’[22] could begin. During this time the roads, the railways and the ports were built whilst the land was stripped of millions of acres of native forest to be converted into farmland. In terms of colonisation Maori could now be by and large ignored or because there was a belief that they were a dying race and could be subject of benign interest[23]. In essence the myths of New Zealand’s so called racial equality stems from this time where Maori could be safely consigned to history and of little import to colonial development. By the turn of the century Maori had not conveniently died off and hence was a population to be disestablished[24], managed and in some measure taken into account. The process established from the turn of the century almost up the 1970’s was one of the Crowns establishing pakeha institutions with Maori names. This came in the form of ‘Native Schools’, ’Maori Committees’ and Trust Boards. In effect colonisation was be by external means.

        The Second World War brought Maori into the forefront of the popular mind with the formation of the Maori Battalion, which fought with exceptional distinction in North Africa and Italy. What it did in effect was to rob Maori society of the cream of its future leadership, a high price to pay for citizenship. Following the war the first waves of massive urbanisation began. By the 1960’s government policy was one of assimilation where Maori housing and other programmes were pepper potted through out the community. The effect of this has been that Maori have become the most highly urbanised indigenous people in the world[25]. The consequent dislocation has wrought massive disruption upon Maori society with the breakdown and dislocation of kinship. The outcome of this process is now recorded in the serious disparity between Maori and non-Maori in all the social statistical indicators.

        In the 1970’s a Maori renaissance began to emerge. The timing of this according to one commentator[26] was signalled at the funeral of one our Prime Ministers. The coffin was draped as is traditional with the korowai (cloak) and the New Zealand flag. In this event the korowai was over the flag rather the flag over the korowai as depicted during the signing of the Treaty. From here the breaches of the Treaty have been exposed and the Crown has been challenged both by protest and by court action to keep its promises made in 1840. Nonetheless the process of colonisation remained. The mechanism now adopted has been to assume control of Maori concepts through the manipulation of meaning. In this event to colonise internally.

        This process however created the possibility of a shift as it brought more Maori into the policy and provision process and for the first time allowed for a greater Maori presence in development and delivery of services[27]. It also saw significant claims against the Crown relating to the major tribal and other breaches of the Treaty by the Crown to be heard both in the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal. These are such as the landmark claims of Ngai Tahu and Tainui tribes among others and the settlement of the Maori fisheries claim[28]. The other landmark claim in the context of social policy was the Waipareira (WAI 414) claim against the Department of Social Welfare relating to the Crown’s Treaty relationship with Maori. This challenged and over turned the Crown’s position that its relationship with Maori was purely through traditional Iwi (tribes). This has massive significance in terms of recognising urban groups as representative and as Treaty partners[29].

         The other significant change in the New Zealand political landscape has been the introduction of Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) representation[30]. What this has done is to change the political representation for Maori and has for the first time given Maori people a very significant political presence in Government[31]. This representation has increased again following the 1999 election of a centre left coalition of Labour and the Alliance supported by the Green Party. Certainly in the last ten of so years we are in a position where we as a nation have little option other than to make good on the promises made in the Treaty. Notwithstanding much remains to be done in achieving a social equality for Maori in New Zealand.

          As you will note it could be said that much has been achieved in terms of Treaty recognition. Unfortunately it has taken one hundred and sixty years to get there.

On the Treaty from 2000

Whilst the differences between Maori and Pakeha remain the way they are all the achievements that we say we have made might as well be as nothing. Certainly the expressed intention of the new Government to develop a “new and comprehensive framework between the Crown and the treaty”[32] has to be welcome. The way forward however I suggest is to focus on what are the fundamentals in depth, which create the divisions and disparities in our society. Hence it is not simply that there should be a policy of width but also a policy of depth. By this I mean, width is in what we know as provision and by depth I mean the identification of key questions upon which we need to create reconciliation.

        For me the three fundamental questions in this context upon which we need to create reconciliation are: -

  • The differences between urban and traditional Maori structures concerning their defined relationship to the Crown and the demographic fact that Maori predominantly reside in urban areas.
  • The addressing of a proper balance between Article 2 responsibilities of the Crown to protect Maori structures in maintaining their own self development and the Article 3 responsibilities of the Crown in providing services which deal with Maori needs as citizens.
  • The manner in which restoration of kinship is addressed, as it is often stated that the breakdown of kinship structures is central to Maori social divergences from non-Maori.[33]

        Until we achieve some reconciliation of questions such as these in depth all the provision of services will make little difference.

On Academic Knowledge

        I have one significant problem with academic writing in that it requires that knowledge be defined in the context of what is academic. Brent in your telling of Glinda’s story as a means of supporting what she tells as a contribution to social work knowledge you have had to precede her telling with reference to academic knowledge. It is an unfortunate reality that in order to validate Glinda’s knowledge it has to be backed by these references. Somehow we don’t seem able to allow for the possibility of knowledge in an academic context being anything other than that of other academics.

        I think the challenge for us as writers is to accept and validate knowledge from all sources equally.

 

References

People

 

Guthrie Cuthbertson Stewart father
Alice Mary Stewart nee Silcock mother
Alice Mary Silcock nee Webb grandmother
George Johnston Silcock grandfather
Naida Glavish Chief Advisor Tikanga
Auckland HealthCare
Tame Rameka kaumatua and healer
Mike Tipene kaumatua
John Tamihere Former CEO Te Whanau o Waipareira Trust
MP for Hauraki

 

 

Books and Authors

Best, Elsdon. Maori Religion and Mythology, Dominion Museum 1924.

Chesterton, G.K. Father Brown Stories.

Dept. social Welfare, Puao Te Ata Tu, 1986.

Guthrie, Arlo. Alice Restaurant live recording , Colombia Records.

Opie, Anne. Beyond Good Intention: Support Work with Older People. 1995.

Small, Vernon. N.Z. Herald.

Stewart, K.R. A Policy Paper etc. 1998.

Te Puni Kokiri. Closing the Gaps Report, 1998.

Waitangi Tribunal. Te Whanau o Waipareira Report, 1998.

Links

On Closing

        To me the two greatest means of teaching are in the use of paradox and parables. It has been from my reading of G.K. Chesterton that exposed me to paradox. Somehow by seeing things back to front we can see them the right way round. From Maori people and my reading about other tribal peoples that the power of parable has been demonstrated. That the telling of a story holds up a mirror to show what we can not otherwise see. In seeing things differently we see what is truly there.

        In closing I make this as an offering to you Glinda and to you Brent for the telling and writing of your story. I have attempted to give you something of myself, my thoughts about our profession and some snap shot of our nation in the context of its bi-culturalism. I hope my offering is able to contribute to the ongoing discussion and in a small way to the resolution of the many issues that face us.

Appendix

THE TREATY OF WAITANGI 1840

[English text of the Treaty]
Her Majesty Victoria Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland regarding with Her Royal Favour the Native Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and anxious to protect their just Rights and Property and to secure to them the enjoyment of Peace and Good Order has deemed it necessary in consequence of the great number of Her Majesty's Subjects who have already settled in New Zealand and the rapid extension of Emigration both from Europe and Australia which is still in progress to constitute and appoint a functionary properly authorized to treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her Majesty's Sovereign authority over the whole or any part of those islands.

Her Majesty therefore being desirous to establish a settled form of Civil Government with a view to avert the evil consequences which must result from the absence of the necessary Laws and Institutions alike to the native population and to Her subjects has been graciously pleased to empower and to authorize "me William Hobson a Captain" in Her Majesty's Royal Navy Consul and Lieutenant Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may be or hereafter shall be ceded to Her Majesty to invite the confederated and independent Chiefs of New Zealand to concur in the following Articles and Conditions.

ARTICLE THE FIRST

The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which the said Confederation or Individual Chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess, over their respective Territories as the sole Sovereigns thereof.

ARTICLE THE SECOND

Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.

ARTICLE THE THIRD

In consideration thereof Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects.

[Signed] W Hobson Lieutenant Governor

Now therefore We the Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand being assembled in Congress at Victoria in Waitangi and We the Separate and Independent Chiefs of New Zealand claiming authority over the Tribes and Territories which are specified after our respective names, having been made fully to understand the Provisions of the foregoing Treaty, accept and enter into the same in the full spirit and meaning thereof in witness of which we have attached our signatures or marks at the places and the dates respectively specified Done at Waitangi this Sixth day of February in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty.

TIRITI O WAITANGI 1840

Maori text of the Treaty
Ko Wikitoria te Kuini o Ingarani i tana mahara atawai ki nga Rangatira me nga Hapu o Nu Tirani i tana hiahia hoki kia tohungia ki a ratou o ratou rangatiratanga me to ratou wenua, a kia mau tonu hoki te Rongo ki a ratou me te Atanoho hoki kua wakaaro ia he mea tika kia tukua mai tetahi Rangatira--hei kai wakarite ki nga Tangata maori o Nu Tirani--kia wakaaetia e nga Rangatira maori te Kawanatanga o te Kuini ki nga wahikatoa o te Wenua nei me nga Motu--na te mea hoki he tokomaha ke nga tangata o tona Iwi Kua noho ki tenei wenua, a e haere mai nei. Na ko te Kuini e hiahia ana kia wakaritea te Kawanatanga kia kaua ai nga kino e puta mai ki te tangata Maori ki te Pakeha e noho ture kore ana.

Na, kua pai te Kuini kia tukua a hau a Wiremu Hopihona he Kapitana i te Roiara Nawi hei Kawana mo nga wahi katoa o Nu Tirani e tukua aianei, amoa atu ki te Kuini, e mea atu ana ia ki nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani me era Rangatira atu enei ture ka korerotia nei.

KO TE TUATAHI

Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake tonu atu--te Kawanatanga katoa o ratou wenua.

KO TE TUARUA

Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangatira ki nga hapu--ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenua--ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona.

KO TE TUATORU

Hei wakaritenga mai hoki tenei mo te wakaaetanga ki te Kawanatanga o te Kuini--Ka tiakina e te Kuini o Ingarani nga tangata maori katoa o Nu Tirani ka tukua ki a ratou nga tikanga katoa rite tahi ki ana mea ki nga tangata o Ingarani.

[signed] William Hobson Consul & Lieutenant Governor

Na ko matou ko nga Rangatira o te Wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani ka huihui nei ki Waitangi ko matou hoki ko nga Rangatira o Nu Tirani ka kite nei i te ritenga o enei kupu, ka tangohia ka wakaaetia katoatia e matou, koia ka tohungia ai o matou ingoa o matou tohu. Ka meatia tenei ki Waitangi i te ono o nga ra o Pepueri i te tau kotahi mano, e waru rau e wa te kau o to tatou Ariki.

 

 

Notes

[1] Qualifications: -Trained Teacher Certificate, Diploma in Applied Social Studies (Social Work). Certificate in Health Economics. Sometime student Master of Social Work and Social Policy at Massey University. Twenty-two year veteran of the social work profession.

[2] It is usual in Maori cultural practice to greet people at the opening of a meeting. This greeting acknowledges the land, the people and all those who have gone before us.

[3] This is a sort of extended E-mail.

[4] See “Alice’s Restaurant” sung by Arlo Guthrie. “If you want to end wars and stuff you have to sing louder than that” or words to that effect.

[5] See “The Closing the Gaps Report” published by the Ministry of Maori Development 1998.

[6] “A Policy Paper Recommending an Alternative Approach to the “Closing of the Gaps” Report between Maori and Non-Maori” 1998 published on the New Social Movement web site.

[7] This is the challenge for third parties in interpreting our story for us and also of outsiders overlaying their own ideas of who and what we should be according to their own perceptions.

[8] This has been something I have had to tackle personally, to separate out the themes from the story. Of being the story rather than creating a present and future derived from these themes that create strength.

[9] This is not quite the overt sort seen in the US. It is more covert and dishonest. For example my grandmother if she brought vegetables from a Maori or some other race she would put gloves on in order to wash them.

[10] My maternal great, great grandfather came from Tasmania to serve in the Waikato militia during the ‘Maori’ Wars.

[11] This is seen in the images of photographers such as the Burton Brothers, in the writings of anthropologists such as Elsdon Best and in the incorporation of Maori images in popular design.

[12] This is demonstrated in his writing of wartime stories, his attempts to learn the language and produce copies of Maori carvings.

[13]This is quoted in her book “Beyond Good Intentions: Support Work with Older People” 1995.

[14] After all is that not what we do each day. What’s counselling? Or what are all you therapists out there doing?

[15] In Maori these are defined as whanau (extended family), hapu (sometimes called sub-tribe) and iwi (tribe or people generally).

[16] These are the actual words in the Treaty. See appendix for full text in English and Maori. This is important as the Maori or indigenous text holds precedent in international law.

[17] The Waitangi Tribunal was set up in 1975 and judicial mechanism to hear and recommend on breaches of the Treaty by the Crown.

[18] This is a personal view developed from perspective’s passed onto me by several elders, from my own reading and observations.

[19] The Treaty was first signed on 6 February 1840 at Waitangi in the Bay of Islands.

[20] Indeed the original document lay for many years hidden in the bowels of some archive only now to be rescued in a much-damaged state.

[21] It is interesting that wars are usually named after the so-called losing side.

[22] This is in reference to New Zealand being described as the Britain of the South and our farm products being supplied more or less solely to Britain.

[23] Reference is made to the statement of the colonial powers as the “dying bed maker”.

[24] See Tohunga Suppression Act 1907, which sought to undermine traditional mechanisms of Maori knowledge and learning. Seen by some elders as central to disestablishing Maori structures.

[25] Reported as being as high as 85%. See WAI414.

[26] Naida Glavish Chief Advisor Tikanga Auckland Health Care.

[27] Seen in such programmes as Matua Whangai and in such reports as Puao Te Ata Tu.

[28] The fisheries claim is still subject to ongoing debate due to the unresolved mechanism of how the assets are to be divided between Iwi on one hand and urban Maori on the other.

[29] See Waitangi Tribunal Claim No.414 and subsequent court actions relating to the division of fisheries assets.

[30] This system is directly similar to that introduced in post war Germany.

[31] Since the 1930’s through an historical link with the Ratana Church Maori have more or less exclusively voted Labour. In the 1996 election under MMP this voter support was broken with a huge swing of Maori voters to New Zealand First brought about by Tau Henare. NZF went into coalition with National and hence a significant number of Maori MP’s were depended upon to maintain National’s grip on office.

[32] See N.Z. Herald February 23 2000 page A10. Report by Vernon Small on “MP (John Tamihere) draws line over gulf bill’s stance on treaty”.

[33] A Policy Paper Recommending an Alternative Approach to the “Closing of the Gaps” Report p 8 and 9.

 

 

Kimball Robert Murphy-Stewart can be contacted via e-mail:
kim.murphy-stewart@paradise.net.nz

 

Authors intending to cite this work please access this link: Citation Project

 

[Return to top]