In a nutshell, she has argued (anne-salmond-time-to-unteach-race?) that the Treaty document itself is not a “racial” document, but a blueprint for how “ordinary people” – be they native born, or hailing from other parts of the world – can rub along together in these islands without pissing each other off too much. By pointing out that the concept of “race” is absent from both the Maori and English texts of the Treaty, however, Salmond has thrown a very large and inconvenient cat among the “co-governance” and “partnership” pigeons.
Why? Because this whole ‘partnership’ story began back in the late-1980s when Sir Robin Cooke and his fellow judges of the Court of Appeal ruled that the Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement between two races – Maori and Pakeha – and that the relationship it established was “akin to a partnership”. Actually, it did a wee bit more than that. According to Salmond, Cooke et al characterised the Treaty as a relationship between “Iwi” and the “Crown”. Except, by framing the Treaty in this way, what Salmond identifies as the democratic spirit of the document (on account of its focus on the rights and needs of ordinary human beings, the original meaning of “maori”) is eliminated, and replaced with a spirit that is in its essence aristocratic.
Superficially, this makes perfect sense, since it was indisputably the practice of the British colonisers to work with and through the existing power structures of the territories they came to dominate. In India it was the princes of the multitude of petty states which their (or, more correctly, the East India Company’s) armies had subjugated that the English, at least initially, did business with. In Africa and North America, it was with the people they assumed performed the same functions as princes – chiefs.
But the Treaty of Waitangi was a document conceived in a very different context from these earlier colonial expedients. For a start, the Foreign and Colonial Office – heavily influenced by the Church Missionary Society – wanted the colonisation of New Zealand to proceed on the basis of consent, not conquest. Add to this the fact that the Maori translation of the Treaty was made by men who grasped the impossibility of it being accepted if it did not conform to the tikanga (customs, protocols, processes) of the people being asked to sign it.
This is Salmond’s great insight. The Maori translation faithfully reflects the political and sociological realities of the indigenous culture. It is the needs of the people that the chiefs must serve – a democratic imperative. Illustrious bloodlines undoubtedly help, but a chief who fails to protect the interests of his people will not remain chief for very long. Salmond argued before the tribunal that sovereignty could not be ceded because it was inherent in all the ordinary people. Their chiefs could no more give it away than our government could give away the human rights that belong to every one of its citizens. The Treaty is not about the cession of one people’s rights to another; it is a recognition of those rights, and a guarantee that all who dwell in these islands will have those rights protected.
Herein lies the explanation for the fury Salmond’s posting has aroused. What she is saying, in effect, is that this Labour Government’s co-governance proposals, far from representing a fulfilment of the Treaty, are in fact a direct repudiation of it. Not only that (although that is more than enough!), Salmond is also declaring the very notion of a partnership between Maori and Pakeha to be inherently racist. To the utter consternation of the promoters and defenders of co-governance, Salmond is insisting that the whole concept of race is both scientifically and morally disreputable.
Humanity is a great cable, woven together out of numberless threads of DNA. To follow only those threads that lead back to “Maori” ancestors, as the Maori ethno-nationalists do, is to thoroughly misrepresent, and ultimately corrupt, the true meaning of whakapapa. The spiritual power that flows through one’s bloodlines cannot be constrained, either by time or place. We are descendants of the whole world and everything, and everyone, that has ever been in it.
Salmond’s heresy is enormously powerful – hence the anger and doubt it has spawned among those who only weeks ago had counted her among their greatest allies. Her interpretation of the Treaty as a document that speaks to and for everyone who lives here, undercuts the entire intellectual case for co-governance. Te Tiriti o Waitangi’s spirit is democratic and gloriously colour-blind. It was not written for, or signed on behalf of, a clique of aristocratic rulers who, like the Scottish lairds of the same period, believed themselves to have the right to replace their people with more profitable ventures. It was written to secure the future of “all the ordinary people of New Zealand”.
How can you set up a system of co-governance when we are all maori – with a small ‘m’?
Chris Trotter is a political commentator who blogs at bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz. Published courtesy of The BFD
Superficially, this makes perfect sense, since it was indisputably the practice of the British colonisers to work with and through the existing power structures of the territories they came to dominate. In India it was the princes of the multitude of petty states which their (or, more correctly, the East India Company’s) armies had subjugated that the English, at least initially, did business with. In Africa and North America, it was with the people they assumed performed the same functions as princes – chiefs.
But the Treaty of Waitangi was a document conceived in a very different context from these earlier colonial expedients. For a start, the Foreign and Colonial Office – heavily influenced by the Church Missionary Society – wanted the colonisation of New Zealand to proceed on the basis of consent, not conquest. Add to this the fact that the Maori translation of the Treaty was made by men who grasped the impossibility of it being accepted if it did not conform to the tikanga (customs, protocols, processes) of the people being asked to sign it.
This is Salmond’s great insight. The Maori translation faithfully reflects the political and sociological realities of the indigenous culture. It is the needs of the people that the chiefs must serve – a democratic imperative. Illustrious bloodlines undoubtedly help, but a chief who fails to protect the interests of his people will not remain chief for very long. Salmond argued before the tribunal that sovereignty could not be ceded because it was inherent in all the ordinary people. Their chiefs could no more give it away than our government could give away the human rights that belong to every one of its citizens. The Treaty is not about the cession of one people’s rights to another; it is a recognition of those rights, and a guarantee that all who dwell in these islands will have those rights protected.
Herein lies the explanation for the fury Salmond’s posting has aroused. What she is saying, in effect, is that this Labour Government’s co-governance proposals, far from representing a fulfilment of the Treaty, are in fact a direct repudiation of it. Not only that (although that is more than enough!), Salmond is also declaring the very notion of a partnership between Maori and Pakeha to be inherently racist. To the utter consternation of the promoters and defenders of co-governance, Salmond is insisting that the whole concept of race is both scientifically and morally disreputable.
Humanity is a great cable, woven together out of numberless threads of DNA. To follow only those threads that lead back to “Maori” ancestors, as the Maori ethno-nationalists do, is to thoroughly misrepresent, and ultimately corrupt, the true meaning of whakapapa. The spiritual power that flows through one’s bloodlines cannot be constrained, either by time or place. We are descendants of the whole world and everything, and everyone, that has ever been in it.
Salmond’s heresy is enormously powerful – hence the anger and doubt it has spawned among those who only weeks ago had counted her among their greatest allies. Her interpretation of the Treaty as a document that speaks to and for everyone who lives here, undercuts the entire intellectual case for co-governance. Te Tiriti o Waitangi’s spirit is democratic and gloriously colour-blind. It was not written for, or signed on behalf of, a clique of aristocratic rulers who, like the Scottish lairds of the same period, believed themselves to have the right to replace their people with more profitable ventures. It was written to secure the future of “all the ordinary people of New Zealand”.
How can you set up a system of co-governance when we are all maori – with a small ‘m’?
Chris Trotter is a political commentator who blogs at bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz. Published courtesy of The BFD
8 comments:
Brilliant!
I mostly disagree strongly with Chris - but on this one he has outlined a perfectly logical argument. Well done.
What would we do without you Chris - the voice of reason? It was such a totally STUPID idea though, wasn't it? Whoever thought you could establish ethnic co-governance in this country needed their heads read. What idiots! I seldom catch a glimpse of the proponents on screen, as I deliberately avoid doing so, but in those I can't avoid I do think they look discomfited.
Power to your elbow and thanks for keeping at it.
The Maori gave up or ceded soveriegnty to Queen Victoria forever.
Dame Salmon was either mistaken or a Liar before on the TOW.
I suspect a Liar, as she now has to find a way out of the Maori Apartheid Jacinda has enabled.
Hence the anger of the Maori Activists & the Left against her !
She Lied as did all the Judges & Academics with her.
The chiefs knew exactly what they were doing, as did the Tuhoe who refused to sign.
The mistake every co-governance exponent starts with, is in solely referring to one of the translated versions of the Treaty.
Its creation was in English, its intent was in English and it was written in English. All translated variants, and the over-egged interpretations, are inaccurate and the original English version must be the the sole reference document for any discussions and all disputes.
Trotter is finally writing commonsense. What pills has he been taking
What is overlooked by government, the Treaty was superseded by Queen Victoria's Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated 16 November 1840. It's New Zealand true Founding Document and first Constitution as it separated New Zealand from New South Wales dependency on 3 May 1841 and made New Zealand into a British Colony with a Governor and Constitution that set up our political, legal and justice systems under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed. See: http://onenzfoundation.co.nz/treaty-of-waitangi-superseded-by-queen-victorias-royal-charter/?print=print
Well said Chris and Ross. Having lived 90 years I have always had maori School-mates, friends, neighbours, colleagues and in-laws and considered myself one of them as they as they have always been part of the NZ family to us. Good will has always prospered on all sides. Together we are stronger than all this racist shit.
It is so important to be aware that the transfer of control to Maori is being done very methodically. Issues such as the Treaty, local government reforms, the RMA, Public Health, Conservation and others are being set aside until enough smaller issues are slipped into place under less public notice. Once enough items are locked in then the overreaching constitutional changes will go into place to reflect the components already locked in. It may take time but success is more ensured than starting with constitutional change and then adding all the other bits that are interrelated. We are being rorted but don’t want to face up to the obvious.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.