Apartheid alive & well. In NZ.

[kerikiwi]

Why the 'official, systematic way' clause?

I know because, being less than 5m away, I heard and saw the whole sorry episode

The 'official,systematic clause' because it is important.
If there were a case of a child being punished for having an apple instead of a banana for lunch, and this was put forward as evidence of a bad system, one would want to know whether the punishment was part of a policy, or whether it was the act of a rogue teacher.

Can you give a script for the episode?

 

[Carnivore]

The Waitangi tribunal has recorded evidence of children being punished for speaking Maori in school in the early years of the 20th C, though it was never official Education Department policy.
The belief was that it was in their interests to become fluent in English. The means of achieving that were questionable, as were the means of teaching times tables.
I remain highly skeptical that such methods were used in the 70s in any official, systematic way.

How do you know the children were strapped for speaking Maori, rather than for some other misdemeanour?

I for one am making no claim of there being official, systematic punishment of kids speaking Maori in the 70s. I am
saying there is ample evidence of racist attitudes among individuals - more so in the past than in the present - who display anti Maori prejudice in the course of their daily lives. I would be amazed if none if them were teachers. I have had some superb teachers, many good ones and a few appalling ones.

 

[kerikiwi]

I for one am making no claim of there being official, systematic punishment of kids speaking Maori in the 70s. I am
saying there is ample evidence of racist attitudes among individuals - more so in the past than in the present - who display anti Maori prejudice in the course of their daily lives. I would be amazed if none if them were teachers. I have had some superb teachers, many good ones and a few appalling ones.

I agree totally.
But the stories of children being punished for speaking Maori are often used as some sort of evidence of systemic, institutionalised racism.
Many of the stories are the stuff of urban legends.

 

[gumboot]

Well lets see. The Maoris are there hanging out doing stuff they always did until someone invented Rugby

Settlers arrive, the Maoris notice all this commerce going rather than resist it they play the game, and make some pretty shrewd choices.

The British ultimately get tired of this game, and proceed to attempt to spank the naughty Maoris. The Maoris also like this game, and find (like Rugby) they are pretty good at it as well, and spank back

The British get tired of this and decide to make a deal with the Maoris. You give us New Zealand, and we will pomise you can be represented in the government of the land, and catch fish.

Have I missed anything?

Yeah pretty much everything. The Treaty of Waitangi actually came before any serious spanking commenced. The reason for the Treaty was fairly straight forward.

1) There were quite a few Britons in New Zealand yet they could only enjoy the protections of their government if their government took possession of the country.

2) Other European countries were starting to take an interest in the country and the British didn't want a repeat of the disasters that occured in Africa, North America, and elsewhere where multiple European powers claimed dominion over the same land. How serious the interest of those foreign powers was is up for dispute - in reality the French were probably only mildly interested but at the time the rumour and mood was that NZ was a day away from being violently annexed by the French.

Now on to the spanking... the New Zealand Wars were sparked after the Treaty, when various Maori groups breached the Treaty (sometimes with pretty decent justification). James Belich did a very popular history of the New Zealand Wars in which he pushed the claim that Maori did exceptionally well, basically won, and invented all sorts of highly advanced military tactics in the process. He's completely wrong, and from a military perspective his history of the New Zealand Wars is awful (Belich is a Social Historian).

Military Historian Chris Pugsley gives a very different account, and his work is far superior.

For a good example, James Belich claims that Maori invented "modern trench warfare", however Maori employed trenches solely in a defensive way - something that has been common in warfare for thousands of years (Roman legions entrenched their camps every single night, for example). The distinction of modern trench warfare is the use of trenches in an offensive way - a technique called sapping. Ironically, during the New Zealand Wars the British used sapping extensively.

That's just one example of where Belich's account of the New Zealand Wars is in fact the exact opposite of reality.

 

[gumboot]

The Treaty of Waitangi itself has absolutely no legal standing whatsoever. What is required is that the government abides by the spirit of the Treaty. There is, of course, no legal definition of what that spirit is.

However, what is firmly established legally, and what is irrefutable is that the preeminent law in New Zealand is the Bill of Rights Act. Everything is required by law to adhere to and comply with the Act. That Act explicitly forbids discrimination on grounds of race. Therefore race-based legislation in New Zealand and parliamentary seats based on race are in direct and blatant violation of New Zealand law.

Call it what you want, it is racism, plain and simple. The sooner we get over it the better.

 

[gumboot]

This has been a major point of legal contention since the 1840s.

One big problem is that Soveriegnty over New Zealand has to have been transferred at some point from Maori to the British Crown in order for modern New Zealand to exist as a legal entity.

It's not quite that simple. Modern New Zealand, as a legal entity, only came into existence in 1947.

To further complicate things, the United Tribes of New Zealand only ever applied to the North Island - the South Island of New Zealand was always claimed by the British by Right of Discovery.

If the treaty is not NZ's founding document, then a fair question would be to ask what is?

The faulty assumption is to think that New Zealand must have a founding document. Many countries, in fact most countries have no founding document. The notion that the creation of a country should be vested in a piece of paper is ridiculous, IMHO. Worst yet, if that piece of paper is give too high importance the country becomes anchored to out of date ideals and notions, unwilling or incapable of adapting and changing to address a different world.

1840 New Zealand is vastly different to 2009 New Zealand, and to think that the Treaty can be literally applied today is ridiculous.

Today, in this modern world, it is a strongly held and regarded belief that it is wrong to discriminate against people based on mere accidents of birth. Surely that principle takes precedence over a vague and hideously poorly written treaty written 170 years ago in a racist, sexist, and generally immoral world.

 

[six7s]

The 'official,systematic clause' because it is important.
If there were a case of a child being punished for having an apple instead of a banana for lunch, and this was put forward as evidence of a bad system, one would want to know whether the punishment was part of a policy, or whether it was the act of a rogue teacher.

Can you give a script for the episode?

It was a 'rogue teacher staff-room chair-warmer'

The two kids weren't angels... they were just kids (cousins) talking to each other in the playground... the 'teacher' was an arse, feared by all of us kids...

I'm pretty sure that some parents got involved - probably 'off the record', this was Godzone, after all

Anyhoo... the 'teacher' wasn't there much longer... my guess is they got 'transferred'

 

[gumboot]

There seems to be multiple topics in this thread so I thought I would be clear on where I stand regarding the various issues:

1) The Treaty of Waitangi
The Treaty of Waitangi is an important document in our history, and of particular note because it was a very rare example of colonial powers approaching native populations with some degree of equality in mind. I think that attitude of equality is a proud and important part of our history and constitutes a unique part of our culture. There's a reason we refused to join the Australian Federation because it would have meant taking the vote off Maori. There's a reason we were first to give women the vote.

Like every other country, we had to transition from an unequal society towards an equal one. That transition isn't complete, but I am proud that we have generally been well ahead of the rest of the world in that regard.

The Treaty is a symbol of an early commitment to that ideal, and as such should be valued. That, I think, is the "Spirit" of the treaty which James Belich refers to (his military history is woeful but his work on the Treaty is excellent).

2) Status of Maori in New Zealand society.
It is irrefutable that Maori have been poorly treated for most of the history of this country. It's true that Maori were far better treated than minority groups in many other countries around the world, but by the standards of today it was nonetheless disgraceful. We can be proud that things have improved so much, but we should nonetheless recognise that we haven't achieved perfection yet. We need to keep working on not just reaching equality but in maintaining it.

3) Separation on grounds of Race
I've addressed this, and I will address it again. It's morally and legally reprehensible, and we should be working to stop it, not encouraging more of it. No matter that the intent behind it is to address point 2) above, the simple fact is it isn't addressing 2) but making 2) worse, and it is in direct violation of 1), which takes precedence.

Maori seats in parliament, Maori-only prisons, special access to fishing and beaches for Maori, all of this is in violation of the principles of the Treaty.

Let's not forget that the Treaty was not between Maori and Europeans. It was between natives and foreigners.

I was born here, on this earth. This is my home, and I will never have another. I am as much a part of this land as any other native New Zealander. Te Mata is my mountain. Tutaekuri is my river. When I die my body will return to the earth and I will become Tangata Whenua.

 

[kerikiwi]

Gumboot,I think I love you!

 

[The Atheist]

Unofficially, until fairly recently sections of NZ society have openly treated Maori as second class citizens of their own country.

I don't accept that, and I've lived in the most Maori areas of the country, from South Auckland to Porirua to Rotorua.

(Another anecdote, my best friend's dad used to get the strap for speaking Maori in the playground at school in the 1970s. Maori is one of the official languages of the country!)

See 6*7's story. All that proves is that some teachers are filth. I've seen kids strapped and caned for less.

It is within living memory that some hotels and restaurants had open policies barring Maori guests.

Nope. I'd need to see some hefty proof of that.

Even today I hear (European) New Zealanders call for the Treaty to be "scrapped" and when I ask what they mean it sometimes boils down trampling New Zealand's unique indigenous culture and language into non existence.

Again, that's completely wrong. Nobody wants to trample them, but lots of people want to see equity.

I agree totally.
But the stories of children being punished for speaking Maori are often used as some sort of evidence of systemic, institutionalised racism.
Many of the stories are the stuff of urban legends.

And see how that one turned out. A reliever, clearly some inadequate dick. Proof of lousy teacher standards.

The Treaty of Waitangi itself has absolutely no legal standing whatsoever. What is required is that the government abides by the spirit of the Treaty. There is, of course, no legal definition of what that spirit is.

Correct. And to make it even better, like the bible, it's been translated from words that nobody is 100% sure what they meant when they were written.

However, what is firmly established legally, and what is irrefutable is that the preeminent law in New Zealand is the Bill of Rights Act. Everything is required by law to adhere to and comply with the Act. That Act explicitly forbids discrimination on grounds of race. Therefore race-based legislation in New Zealand and parliamentary seats based on race are in direct and blatant violation of New Zealand law.

Call it what you want, it is racism, plain and simple. The sooner we get over it the better.

Marvellously put!

Geoffrey Palmer should be kissing your feet!

 

[plumjam]

Okay, as much as I don't want to get in the middle of a fight between two Kiwis (both of whom I like BTW), do either of you have practical solutions to what are serious problems within the Maori community?

Well, I know very little about the Maori community. That said, though, I'd suggest that if practical solutions are going to be found (which will work long-term) they need to come from the Maori community itself.
It's a bit like if you try your utmost to help an individual, maybe it'll help a bit in the short-term, but that person really needs to want to change themself, from the inside, if it's going to stick long-term.
I think TA has a point, in that paternalism and dependency morph into this negative cycle which keeps people, as it were, down.
I'd guess that the strong, resourceful individuals in the Maori community need to show some leadership, form self-help organisations and that kind of thing.

 

[lionking]

Well said plumjam.

 

[Carnivore]

I don't accept that, and I've lived in the most Maori areas of the country, from South Auckland to Porirua to Rotorua.

Well, I have lived in one of the least Maori areas of the country and I have seen occasional examples.

Lets look at NZ's immigration policies as an indicator of historical attitudes to race. In 1920 Prime Minister William Massey said of the the Immigration Restriction Amendment Act:

‘

the result of a deep seated sentiment on the part of a huge majority of the people of this country that this Dominion shall be what is often called a “white” New Zealand.’

Under New Zealand immigration rules, race and religion were criteria for judging an applicant's suitability for immigration until 1974. Chinese immigrants were unable to become naturalised citizens until 1952. White was explicitly regarded as preferable to any other skin colour for a New Zealander. This official attitude can hardly help but reflect that of New Zealand society as a whole to race relations.

See 6*7's story. All that proves is that some teachers are filth. I've seen kids strapped and caned for less.

What it proves is that some teachers are (or were) racist. Those individuals each make up a minute section of NZ society. The question is, how widespread were those attitudes at various stages of NZ history?

Nope. I'd need to see some hefty proof of that.

Referenced in social histories like Mark Sheehan's "Maori and Pakeha: Race Relations 1912-1980" (1989) or Redmer Yska's "All Shook Up : The Flash Bodgie And The Rise Of The New Zealand Teenager" (1993) and NZ History.net. Anecdotally, my great uncles report that in their youth (they are WWII veterans) their local pubs had signs up to the effect: "Native Ladies will not be served."

Again, that's completely wrong. Nobody wants to trample them, but lots of people want to see equity.

And again, I assure you, some people do want exactly that. I have had conversations with intelligent upstanding citizens who insisted that Maori had "sold" New Zealand in the Treaty of Waitangi therefore Maori culture should completely assimilate with the dominant culture.

Also I wonder what you mean by equity? European dominance in New Zealand has been a fact for over almost a century and a half, often established or extended by Europeans systematically exploiting Maori. The way land confiscations were conducted after the wars of and the Native Land Court are two examples. A belated effort to recognize the original principles of the ToW scarcely seems like a huge injustice to pakeha?

I may be misinterpreting you, but you seem to be implying that racism in New Zealand barely exists, and if it has in the past it is no explanation for long term Maori disenfranchisement.

 

[The Atheist]

I'd guess that the strong, resourceful individuals in the Maori community need to show some leadership, form self-help organisations and that kind of thing.

Ain't gonna happen. As soon as one starts thinking that way, he is dismissed as an Uncle Tom by the faction that insist on "poor us" as an attitude.

There might be one shining light on that horizon, Pita Sharples, co-leader of the Maori Party. His co-leader is a stupid bitch who has compared Maori history to the Holocaust and the party is littered with scum masquerading as politicians, but Pita is a strong bloke who has developed a sound relationship with the PM, so who knows?

Under New Zealand immigration rules, race and religion were criteria for judging an applicant's suitability for immigration until 1974. Chinese immigrants were unable to become naturalised citizens until 1952. White was explicitly regarded as preferable to any other skin colour for a New Zealander. This official attitude can hardly help but reflect that of New Zealand society as a whole to race relations.

Not really relevant to Maori. Also, it refers to a long-past time.

What it proves is that some teachers are (or were) racist. Those individuals each make up a minute section of NZ society. The question is, how widespread were those attitudes at various stages of NZ history?

There will always be racists, and as I noted earlier, they've had different targets over the years, but I haven't ever seen Maori on the end of racism through their simply being Maori.

The teacher anecdote doesn't even prove racist teachers, because we don't know that the kids getting the strapping weren't complete little scumbags themselves. Bloody hilarious how we're all of a sudden swapping anecdotes, though. Christians have a whole religion based on anecdotes and I don't buy any of them.

Referenced in social histories like Mark Sheehan's "Maori and Pakeha: Race Relations 1912-1980" (1989) or Redmer Yska's "All Shook Up : The Flash Bodgie And The Rise Of The New Zealand Teenager" (1993) and NZ History.net. Anecdotally, my great uncles report that in their youth (they are WWII veterans) their local pubs had signs up to the effect: "Native Ladies will not be served."

More anecdotes, excellent.

As to the written histories, I'll have to take your word that those claims are made, but without some substantial proof, I will not believe that institutionalised anti-Maori racism took place here since WWII at least. Just because some people may have been anti-Maori, it doesn't equate to institutionalised racism.

We certainly had institutionalised sexism until 1975/6, but I don't see women starting hikoi to make up for past injustices.

And again, I assure you, some people do want exactly that. I have had conversations with intelligent upstanding citizens who insisted that Maori had "sold" New Zealand in the Treaty of Waitangi therefore Maori culture should completely assimilate with the dominant culture.

Those loonies are more than counter-balanced by the Maori who demand total separation and sovereignty.

I may be misinterpreting you, but you seem to be implying that racism in New Zealand barely exists, and if it has in the past it is no explanation for long term Maori disenfranchisement.

I don't imagine there's any less racism here than anywhere else, but anti-Maori racism just doesn't exist outside of a small number of idiots. I can show as many anti-Asian racists as you like.

Take racial attacks and violence - I cannot recall a single instance of a Maori being assaulted for being a Maori, but there have been plenty of cases of Maori attacking migrants solely because they're migrants.

 

[six7s]

Unofficially, until fairly recently sections of NZ society have openly treated Maori as second class citizens of their own country.

I don't accept that, and I've lived in the most Maori areas of the country, from South Auckland to Porirua to Rotorua.

The most Maori areas of the country include Paremoremo, Mt Eden, Arohata, Paparua, etc... (prisons)

So... TA... master of logic...

If Maori aren't 'second class citizens', please do explain the point that you raised in post #19:

it's resulted in a people comprising 14% of the population to occupy 51% of the prison cells

Maybe its because Maori are evil savages; worshipers of false gods

Or maybe Maori really are just stoopid savages; devoid of art and ignorant of nature

 

[kerikiwi]

There will always be racists, and as I noted earlier, they've had different targets over the years, but I haven't ever seen Maori on the end of racism through their simply being Maori.
....

More anecdotes, excellent.

Certainly racists exist,among Maori and non-Maori.
Allow a personal anecdote,long forgotten.

Many, many long years ago,in my carefree youth my friends and I were at the local fish-and-chip shop when another teenager invited us to her house as they were having a party.
On arrival her mother screamed at her : ' get those @$*&ing pakeha out of my house.'
I was totally gobsmacked because 1. people didn't use that word and
2. I had genuinely been oblivious to the different skin tones.

 

[kerikiwi]

If Maori aren't 'second class citizens',

Can you explain in what way Maori are 'second class citizens?
What rights and privileges do others have which are denied to Maori?

 

[The Atheist]

The most Maori areas of the country include Paremoremo, Mt Eden, Arohata, Paparua, etc... (prisons)

I don't think even the inmates would claim to "live" in the jails, no matter how much time they spend there.

If Maori aren't 'second class citizens', please do explain the point that you raised in post #19:

Maybe its because Maori are evil savages; worshipers of false gods

Or maybe Maori really are just stoopid savages; devoid of art and ignorant of nature

I'll just leave you and your strawmen to keri, who seems to have your number.

 

[six7s]

Can you explain in what way Maori are 'second class citizens?
What rights and privileges do others have which are denied to Maori?

Yeah... fairy nuff... nothing important... just theft of their capital (land and fisheries), inadequate health, inappropriate education...

 

[six7s]

I don't think

Its becoming increasingly obvious

You said you were prepared to discuss

You haven't responded (constructively) since you told that lie