Indeed, we are at a difficult crossroads in New Zealand, where we are being pushed into accepting a new order and a new name for our country that has not undergone a referendum. It seems to me a form of bullying. Of course, Māori and other indigenous people across many countries were oppressed for several centuries but often were not themselves kind to others and indeed gained much from colonialism. The world has made great progress over the last half-century but we are undoing that progress very rapidly.
Others have observed that Three Waters is a very problematic idea that runs counter to the notion of democracy. Though many of us, including myself, should admit to not understanding in full the ramifications of enhanced involvement of particular groups in domains such as governance of water supply and regulation, we have fears that putting any one demographic constituency in a position of greater political and economic power than others (even if only in a single domain – water supply and quality, in this instance) will do harm because it is fundamentally anti-democratic and potentially very divisive over the long term as a constitutional precedent.
He Puapua is one of the most alarming documents I have ever read. It will sow the seeds of discontent and division for decades to come. We must oppose the current ideology while embracing equality and the rights of minorities, and commit ourselves to assisting all people on the basis of disadvantage rather than of race. We are not a bicultural society but instead a multicultural society that today includes people from all parts of the world.
On the question of the demarcation of science and indigenous or traditional knowledge - most probably it is true that many scientists know little of indigenous or traditional knowledge and may undervalue the genuine wisdom to be found there. Some Māori and others have made this point forcibly and quite correctly. But proponents of indigenous or traditional knowledge often betray an even greater ignorance of science. Recently I attended a meeting at which many scientists and researchers were present. We heard several Māori speeches, self-introductions and songs (wiata) from non-Māori and Māori people alike. Actually, it was very pleasant! But is it getting a little too much when it comes persistently from non-Māori and even from people born in other countries? Do they all mean it? Why do people born in Europe and the UK in particular now wear greenstone pendants and talk about their waka and their whanau?
On one level we may quite enjoy it but on another level we may find it deeply troubling. We hope that they comport themselves this way of their own volition and out of genuine respect for Māori. We hope that they do not feel under duress to comply in this manner. Are some of them virtue-signalling? We cannot know unless they tell us truthfully and we have no right to ask. Here in New Zealand we have significant Pasifika and Asian populations and a growing population of immigrants from North Africa and the Middle-East. Should we not have introductions and songs in their languages too and, if their indices and measures of health and wellbeing are as poor as those of Māori (which they are in the case of Pasifika and other small groups), then do we not have an argument for dedicated health ministries for those demographics too?
Towards the end of the meeting two Māori women stood up and called for decolonisation of science. Is science colonial and, if so, how exactly are we to decolonise it and whose science are we to decolonise? We can understand where they are coming from in relation to past oppression and their need to resurrect pride in their culture, language and traditional knowledge. However, I and many others have grave concerns about the He Puapua report, which recommends that mātauranga Māori (Māori traditional knowledge) be valued equally and resourced equally to “Western science”. Indigenous people, including Māori, and other minorities make valuable contributions in many areas in which science and technology play a part. Surely, all traditional knowledge ought to be valued and preserved but no traditional knowledge of any cultural group, anywhere in the world, should be taught as science until tested and shown to be valid through the methods of science. Nor is there the slightest justification for resourcing traditional knowledge equally to science, however valuable that knowledge may have been in the past.
Many Māori and other activists are doing what they consider to be the right thing for their people and we can admire their idealism. We recognise Dr. Ella Henry, for example, as a strong advocate on behalf of Māori, and her efforts should be appreciated. We should not doubt her good intent (and the positive intent of many others) and her most valuable efforts to empower Māori. However, assertions to the effect that indigenous science is equally valid and equally important as “Western science” are very worrying (for example, Henry, 2022). In specific cases they can be as valid but, unfortunately, mostly they are not, and the notion of “Western science” is demonstrably mistaken.
It is not a criticism of traditional knowledge or of the communities or societies that produced it that such knowledge cannot compare with the centuries of advances and investments that lie behind the modern physical and life sciences; for example, randomised controlled trials in medicine, molecular and atomic physics, evolutionary biology and developments in energy and climate science. We have duty of care to define clearly what sits within the ambit of science and that which lies beyond, just as we have a critical obligation to exercise the utmost rigour when we test the efficacy of newly-proposed cancer drugs and other treatments.
The idea that in any country traditional knowledge should be regarded as fully the equal of science and be resourced equally is astounding and, as a person who trained originally in physics and mathematics, and who worked in research evaluation for Government (for funding decision-making), I find it deeply disturbing that people buy into it, however well-meaning they may be. Similarly, incorporation of traditional knowledge into any national science curriculum is potentially very detrimental to the education of young people.
We should remember the following sentiments from the US Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.Though the US has achieved many good things for all of its people, including its minorities, it has not always got it right and is only recently coming to terms with its racist past and addressing the inequities that emerged from that past. However, one critical message of the US Declaration is that every person is fully equal with every other – no more and no less. Every citizen should have equal opportunity of access to education, healthcare and to political and economic power. Here in New Zealand we include Asians, people from North Africa and the Middle-East, people of European origin and, of course, Māori and everyone else.
A second lesson is that we can take affirmative action by removing a Government that is causing damage to its people. Perhaps in New Zealand we can still do something about the current absurdity. We have a duty of care to our country to remain kind, embracing and inclusive - but to stand firm against a Government that may be well-meaning but that has lost its way.
References:
Butler, Mike (2022). Three Waters constitutional racism
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2022/11/mike-butler-three-waters-constitutional.html
Grant, Damian (2022). Like it or not, we've got a new democracy. https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130375041/damien-grant-like-it-or-not-weve-got-a-new-democracy
Henry, Ella (2022). https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=447018240680029
Dr David Lillis trained in physics and mathematics at Victoria University and Curtin University in Perth, working as a teacher, researcher, statistician and lecturer for most of his career. He has published many articles and scientific papers, as well as a book on graphing and statistics.
7 comments:
Thank you indeed David. You have described the racist situation in which we find ourselves in completely factual terms. You have not failed to make clear the injustice which is suggested to all people who are not Maori.
You have done this very clearly without any use of words such as hypocrisy, profound historical ignorance, corporate greed, tribalism, nepotism - and so many more, for which I truly congratulate you.
I am ashamed that most of us are so apparently helpless in the face of this travesty, but I don't give up hope. Cometh the hour, cometh the man.
The modern hi tech industrialized culture we all currently are having to navigate our way through has been evolving for many centuries. Coping with the constant change lies with us all, regardless of our and our ancestors past ways of living. The luxury of resurrecting a past culture could apply to all. Unfortunately its like time travel, its an impossibility.
The promotion and embedding of an ancient culture into the here and know will lead inevitably to disaster as is obviously the case here in New Zealand currently. The only way forward us is to respect were we came from and move forward as one multicultural unified people.
Even in 1840 the post stone age world distinguished as best it could between "proven" science and folklore, and the state of each at that moment is recorded in writing. Maori had only folklore and not all written down then or later. "Consultants" have been paid real money to "research" the matauranga of placing old bones etc at the base of kauri to forestall or reverse die back, a phenomenon new to all. A superb con, the likes of which the early maori would have been very proud. (EJ Wakefield)
Any multicultural society faces the challenge of weaving together a societal fabric that all can identify with and relate to. This will never be ultimately achieved, it will always be a work-in-progress because the world and the society are always in the throes of learning and changing. It is not hard to look back over the last century to see the early manifestations of this fabric that could be seen as illustrating what it means to be a kiwi. The shape and colors and patterns of this fabric comes from the grass roots of our society as we go about our daily lives. Some of this is intentional, some isn't. The current push for He Puapua is very intentional. It comes from a relatively small constituent part of the fabric. The rest of the fabric can step aside and let it have its way, or can engage with it and in so doing, become more involved in the ongoing societal weaving process. There don't have to be sides and goods vs bads or rights vs wrongs. But there does need to be a constructive discussion about the fabric that is being woven. The current emphasis on trying to thwart that discussion needs to be intentionally highlighted as destructive to the common weaving process. The idea of kiwi has some strong threads and some weak threads. The fabric can be made stronger or weaker by the response that comes out of this He Puapua intervention. Its up to all of us.
Hello Silverfox.
Thank you for your positive and perceptive comments. We can only agree with you for the need for constructive dialogue - from both sides of the debate.
Actually - there is much in He PuaPua that we can agree with in relation to respect for Maori and other people and in equality of opportunity for everyone. Though there is adverse reaction to He Puapua and other initiatives, I was not aware of an attempt to thwart the discussion but you could be right here. Certainly, there was an attempt to cancel certain professors some 18 months ago when they drew a line between science and traditional knowledge but, indeed, everyone should have a fair chance to articulate their position without fear of censure.
A reasonable concern is that we are headed in a direction that could harm the country as a whole (my concern too) and it is only reasonable to voice such a concern. Other issues raised within He Puapua to be debated include:
1. mātauranga Māori to be valued equally and resourced equally to “western science”
2. Tikanga Māori will be functioning and applicable across Aotearoa
under Māori (national, iwi, hapū, whānau) authority and also, where
appropriate, under Crown/kāwanatanga authority
3. Māori will be providing for Māori
4. The public service is bicultural and understands the ways in which it must support rangatiratanga
5. Law, policy, processes and entities will support a successful bicultural
joint sphere of governance and management of resources, taonga and Crown lands
5. A bicultural, mātauranga-informed state service/kāwanatanga Karauna
6. Māori co-govern and/or co-design deliver services
7. Law, policy, processes and entities will support a successful bicultural joint sphere of governance and management of resources, taonga and Crown lands
Are such objectives (and others) right for the people of New Zealand? Many of us fear that they are not because we are a democratic multicultural society rather than a bicultural society - but we should remain open to constructive dialogue. I am willing to change my mind if I hear compelling arguments, but to me and others it seems that we must think of the good of New Zealand as a whole rather than mainly of one cultural or ethnic group.
David Lillis
Hello David,
"I am willing to change my mind if I hear compelling arguments, but to me and others it seems that we must think of the good of New Zealand as a whole rather than mainly of one cultural or ethnic group."
I couldn't agree more. Aiming for the good of New Zealand as whole, must surely be a starting point that we can all agree is self-evident. It is surely reasonable to view interventions such as He Puapua in that light, especially given that it is not an organic grass-roots development, but rather a top-down political innovation.
So far, I haven't seen compelling arguments for how He Puapua can improve the lot of New Zealand as a whole. For that to happen "He Puapua-ists" need to first shine a light on their vision of the good of New Zealand as a whole. If such a vision can be widely agreed upon, then we have a basis for evaluating the provisions in He Puapua and how they will contribute to that good. It is not obvious to me how that case can be made, but like you, I remain open to being persuaded.
If we can agree on what is the good of New Zealanders as a whole, what I think of as the kiwi fabric, then perhaps we can come up with more widely acceptable innovations that could even better meet the concerns of those who currently see He Puapua as the only possible way forward.
Currently, we appear to be in a dilemma. It seems to me that if He Puapua is instigated in its current form in the current climate, this will create a substantial tear in the kiwi fabric. Given the weight and momentum behind it in some circles, a different tear will be created if it's shelved. Perhaps one of those tears is inevitable, but I think there is an opportunity for the texture of the fabric to be strengthened by getting to the heart of the matter and resolving it together. I have seen enough in my life to hold out hope that we can do that. Wouldn't that be great. It just doesn't get any more kiwi than that.
None of that is intended to take away anything from you have written. On the contrary. From your content and your tone, I sense a sincere desire for constructive dialogue. Let's hope for that.
Thank you, Silverfox. We and others agree on the need for calm and measured discussion on the issues. If we agree that all people are created equal then something is not quite right here in New Zealand. I quote from a review of He Puapua by Professor James Allan (THE REPORT OF PROFESSOR JAMES ALLAN ON HE PUAPUA: The radical prescription for undermining democracy and the rule of law) when on page 13 he talks of the Rule of Law and differential treatment of individuals based on inherited, immutable characteristics:
"It is equally plain that the Report implicitly seeks, at times, the differential treatment of individual citizens based solely on inherited, immutable qualities . . . "
"That sort of differential treatment of individual citizens is hard to square with the core elements of the Rule of Law – general rules, known in advance, applied to everyone, able to be understood and complied with . . ."
"The Report recommends or asks for special, differential treatment by group. And if there is differential treatment by group then that pre-supposes (or ensures) that there will correspondingly be differential treatment at the level of the individual. The law will treat two individuals differently due solely to some inherited or immutable characteristic. This is not what most observers would consider to be in keeping with Rule of Law values or indeed with the wider liberal worldview. Nor would voters likely vote for this if they were explicitly asked."
While undoubtedly not every recommendation or objective of He Puapua is intended to be implemented, nevertheless I agree with Professor Allan on these points and on the dangers of elevating International Law (The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) above the law of the country.
I feel that we do need to consider how to empower Maori and other groups more than at present but we should do so in a balanced way, taking account of the specific considerations of each case (e.g. ownership or decision-making power over particular waterways, enhanced socioeconomic status and improved education and health outcomes). But, as we know, other demographics are disadvantaged too - even certain low-income white subgroups - and all require particular assistance.
But we are right to debate He Puapua because, even if only realised partially, it could prove to be a very dangerous way forward for New Zealand. We live in the here and now - the twenty-first century - an age of enlightenment, advanced civilization, high technology and science. This is an age in which the world, though fractured and divided in places, is nevertheless arguably in some ways more connected than at any previous time in history and humans are more aware than ever of inequality, malnutrition and child mortality and environmental issues. Any movement that threatens New Zealand's place in this world must be held open to discussion and any negative, divisive or retrograde aspects resisted firmly.
David
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.