So, what she is saying is that even when customs, laws or treaties impinge on your daily life, you cannot hold any views on these matters if you are unable to read the relevant documents in their original form.
It is safe to say that this view would come as a bit of a surprise to biblical scholars who are not well versed in all of Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew and Latin. Clearly no Hindu or Buddhist can have any views on their own religion if they cannot read Sanskrit. And no one can say anything about Islam if they are not familiar with Arabic.
Immigrants to countries like France or Germany can express no views on tax or social welfare policies if they cannot read, write or speak the language!
This is obviously ridiculous and highly parochial. I have a feeling that even Dame Anne understands that frivolity of her argument.
What Dame Anne is engaging in is what the philosopher Harry Frankfurt calls “bullshit”.
This is where intellectuals and policy makers, who have no good answers to valid questions from regular people, essentially resort to using jargon to sidestep the matter.
The message is: We are smarter than you, we know better. You are not smart enough to understand how things work. So, shut up and sit down while we tell you exactly what is true even if what we are telling you differs dramatically from what you are experiencing in your own lives. We will be your one single source of truth.
But it is difficult to remain silent in the face of events that affect our lives fundamentally. For instance, in all of the talk about co-governance and Māori sovereignty (or lack thereof) where exactly do the quarter of the population that are neither Māori nor Pakeha fit in?
If and when the Labour Party comes back to power and empowers the worst excesses of the Te Pati Māori, their favoured coalition partners, what happens to this group of people? Do they have a future in what is now often referred to as Aotearoa rather than New Zealand?
I recently spoke to a journalist who asked me how concerned I was that New Zealand may fall into all out sectarian warfare where the property rights of some groups are no longer guaranteed. I responded by saying that I think the probability of this happening is not high, but it is clearly not zero.
Countries do reach tipping points when the old norms are set aside (see the events in the US currently for an example). It seems to me that in New Zealand we may be at one of those pivotal moments in history where New Zealand needs to choose between being a liberal democracy or an ethno-centric nation.
The same journalist asked me my views on righting historic inequities. I understand this. But the problem is that many commentators like Dame Anne are arguing for righting historic inequities via creating current inequities. How is this any better?
The best answer to addressing historic inequities is a liberal democracy, where same laws apply to everyone, where everyone counts equally, and everyone gets the help, and the opportunities proportionate to their needs.
As David Lange, not a white supremacist, as far as I know, pointed out in a 2000 speech (paragraph 9):
"Here I come back to the government’s aim of closing the gaps between rich and poor, and the way in which it was overtaken in public understanding by the subsidiary goal of closing the gaps between Māori and the rest. I don’t describe the second goal as lesser than the first out of any wish to minimise the effect of growing inequality on Māori people. What I mean is that from the point of view of a democratic government, the first goal can encompass the second, but the second can’t encompass the first. If the government’s goal is to reduce inequality, it follows that it will do whatever it can to improve the position of Māori.
Democratic government can accommodate Māori political aspiration in many ways. It can allocate resources in ways which reflect the particular interests of Māori people. It can delegate authority and allow the exercise of degrees of Māori autonomy. What it cannot do is acknowledge the existence of a separate sovereignty. As soon as it does that, it isn’t a democracy. We can have a democratic form of government, or we can have indigenous sovereignty. They can’t coexist and we can’t have them both."
If your response to people seeking equality among citizens is to suggest that one cannot ask questions if one does not understand te reo Māori, then your argument is not particularly strong, and you have likely lost the debate already.
Immigrants to countries like France or Germany can express no views on tax or social welfare policies if they cannot read, write or speak the language!
This is obviously ridiculous and highly parochial. I have a feeling that even Dame Anne understands that frivolity of her argument.
What Dame Anne is engaging in is what the philosopher Harry Frankfurt calls “bullshit”.
This is where intellectuals and policy makers, who have no good answers to valid questions from regular people, essentially resort to using jargon to sidestep the matter.
The message is: We are smarter than you, we know better. You are not smart enough to understand how things work. So, shut up and sit down while we tell you exactly what is true even if what we are telling you differs dramatically from what you are experiencing in your own lives. We will be your one single source of truth.
But it is difficult to remain silent in the face of events that affect our lives fundamentally. For instance, in all of the talk about co-governance and Māori sovereignty (or lack thereof) where exactly do the quarter of the population that are neither Māori nor Pakeha fit in?
If and when the Labour Party comes back to power and empowers the worst excesses of the Te Pati Māori, their favoured coalition partners, what happens to this group of people? Do they have a future in what is now often referred to as Aotearoa rather than New Zealand?
I recently spoke to a journalist who asked me how concerned I was that New Zealand may fall into all out sectarian warfare where the property rights of some groups are no longer guaranteed. I responded by saying that I think the probability of this happening is not high, but it is clearly not zero.
Countries do reach tipping points when the old norms are set aside (see the events in the US currently for an example). It seems to me that in New Zealand we may be at one of those pivotal moments in history where New Zealand needs to choose between being a liberal democracy or an ethno-centric nation.
The same journalist asked me my views on righting historic inequities. I understand this. But the problem is that many commentators like Dame Anne are arguing for righting historic inequities via creating current inequities. How is this any better?
The best answer to addressing historic inequities is a liberal democracy, where same laws apply to everyone, where everyone counts equally, and everyone gets the help, and the opportunities proportionate to their needs.
As David Lange, not a white supremacist, as far as I know, pointed out in a 2000 speech (paragraph 9):
"Here I come back to the government’s aim of closing the gaps between rich and poor, and the way in which it was overtaken in public understanding by the subsidiary goal of closing the gaps between Māori and the rest. I don’t describe the second goal as lesser than the first out of any wish to minimise the effect of growing inequality on Māori people. What I mean is that from the point of view of a democratic government, the first goal can encompass the second, but the second can’t encompass the first. If the government’s goal is to reduce inequality, it follows that it will do whatever it can to improve the position of Māori.
Democratic government can accommodate Māori political aspiration in many ways. It can allocate resources in ways which reflect the particular interests of Māori people. It can delegate authority and allow the exercise of degrees of Māori autonomy. What it cannot do is acknowledge the existence of a separate sovereignty. As soon as it does that, it isn’t a democracy. We can have a democratic form of government, or we can have indigenous sovereignty. They can’t coexist and we can’t have them both."
If your response to people seeking equality among citizens is to suggest that one cannot ask questions if one does not understand te reo Māori, then your argument is not particularly strong, and you have likely lost the debate already.
Ananish Chaudhuri is Professor of Experimental Economics at the University of Auckland. Besides Auckland, he has taught at Harvard Kennedy School, Rutgers University, Washington State University and Wellesley College. This article was first published HERE
11 comments:
A very thoughtful piece and very truthful. Thank you.
From what ive read, moari had less than a thousand words in the Nga Puhi dialect at the time of cooks arrival....so the vast majority of the "Te Reo" foisted upon us is a recent invention by the likes of Salmon and her ilk.
Indigenous sovereignty would be breaking the treaty. Again I say....under the treaty Maori became British subjects, the British did not become Maori subjects. Because it was a pact between 2 peoples, both versions are relevant, not just the Maori one.
Salmond opines that "you cannot hold any views on these matters if you are unable to read the relevant documents in their original form"- well the original former for the original form is the Littlewood draft. No back translations needed as it is a very clear document which tracks the Maori signed one word for word. If our education 'system' taught reading, 'riting & 'rithmatic properly maybe more would be able to sit down, read and understand that what the revisionists are spouting is the biggest load of cods wallop ever invented. In my experience, the vast majority do not appear to have the basic analytical skills to work this out. Conclusion, we are probably stuffed.
If a response is to suggest that citizens cannot ask questions if they do not agree with your arguement then that makes you nothing more or less than a neo-marxist fascist.
One wonders where Dame Anne or people like Rose (decolonise the curriculum) Hipkins thinks they and people like them will sit in the 'pecking order' of the new etho-state of tribalised, decolonised socialist fascism?
Think the worst case scenario where unlese you are an elite Maori you are a rent slave (including non elite maori). It is feudalism on steroids and people like Dame Anne seemingly do not get that which makes her academia and intellegensia nothing more than usefull idiocy to those with their hidden (and now seemingly not so hidden) agenda .....
Aren’t we fortunate then to have Busby’s final draft dated the 4th February 1840 and the official 1869 back translation of the treaty done by Mr T E Young of the Native Affairs Department then Ms Salmond.
One used to construct the tangata Maori treaty, and the other, (because the final draft had gone missing and the “English version” of the Treaty of Waitangi, printed by order of the House of Commons, 1st May, 1841, was not correctly translated, or did not agree with the native version), requested by the government of the day nineteen years later to clear up confusion created by the “English version” being used.
And what do you know, this official back translation proved that the “English version” being used as the ‘true version’ of the treaty was false, and 120 years later in 1989 when the final draft was found, was virtually word for word and length to the final draft and to the tangata Maori treaty.
So, Ms Salmond, we the people do not need to speak te reo to know and understand the TRUE meaning of the tangata Maori treaty when we can refer to these two historical documents.
I would encourage readers to review Chris Newman's (newmanpress.com) presentations on youtube on the true meaning of the treaty if they want to understand what the Treaty actually meant prior to the 1970's and what the final English Draft and Official pre-20th Century English Translations of the Treaty say. Hint: the Treaty is a common law agreement between the Queen, the Chiefs and the Ordinary people of New Zealand. in the 19th Century maori meant ordinary. Anyone who is claiming special rights for Maori (a legal fiction created in the late 20th century) over the maori (ordinary) people of New Zealand works against the interests of all New Zealanders. No surprises that this fiction has been created and built upon by elites in parliament and the legal profession to acquire money and power. This con has gone on for way too long.
Salmond has been feted by maori for ages. She has clearly come to enjoy the homage. She does not seem to realise that maori deference is entirely self serving and will abruptly stop should she write anything very objective and so prove no longer useful.
Salmond IMHO is the very epitome of a useful idiot.
And where and when did the veritable blown-in, Salmond, learn her te reo? What utter arrogance on her part that she professes to know better than others like TE Young, who was around when te reo was being invented in written form. One only has to look at Kawharu's translation attempts in 1988 to appreciate how the language is being twisted to gain advantage. She deserves our contempt for the nonsense she spouts.
Sorry, but you miss the point. Te Reo is the language of the slaves. If you have brown skin and speak Te Reo then you are a slave owner. If you have white skin and speak Te Reo then you are a slave and to be treated as such. This is their intent and already well on the way to completion thanks to the many useful idiots.
Post a Comment