PoO has been wondering about rewriting our history books for a New Zealand audience.
For example, when it comes to British history, our books say that – before the Roman invasion – Britain was a mosaic of different tribes, each with its own leaders, territory, and, in some cases, distinct customs.
These tribal groups, such as the Iceni, Brigantes, and Dumnonii, inhabited distinct territories across the island.
Tribal structures began to change significantly after the Roman conquest in AD 43.
After the withdrawal of the Romans in the 5th century AD, new, smaller Germanic tribes (Anglo-Saxons) began to settle in Britain.
The snag is the word “tribe”.
From Study.Com, we learn:
A tribe is a group of people that all have common ancestry or a common ancestor a common culture and live in their own enclosed society.
There are plenty of groups of that sort around New Zealand – but we are told they may take umbrage at the use of the word “tribe” or complain about being offended.
For the benefit of shaking off the yoke of our colonial past and minimising the offence we cause with our words, therefore, maybe we should write about Britain being populated by a mosaic of different iwi.
On the other hand, we could hold our ground and stick with “tribe”, because tribe and iwi are much the same thing according to this from the Encyclopaedia of New Zealand:
Iwi
The largest political grouping in pre-European Māori society was the iwi (tribe). This usually consisted of several related hapū (clans or descent groups). The hapū of an iwi might sometimes fight each other, but would unite to defend tribal territory against other tribes.
Iwi-tūturu (the homeland tribe) or tino-iwi (the central tribe) were groups living in a long-held location. They would take their name from a founding ancestor. Iwi-nui or iwi-whānui (the greater tribe) were groups tracing descent from the founding ancestor of the iwi-tūturu. They were often widespread and lived alongside people from other iwi.
Our thinking on these matters was sparked by an article on The Spinoff which advised us:
It might sound harmless, but for many indigenous people the term ‘tribe’ carries a colonial history of hierarchy and misunderstanding. So why do we still use it – and what changes when we say iwi instead?
For better or worse, the writer says, every culture defines human relationships by grouping people together in some way and naming them: nations, peoples, confederations, tribes.
As we all go about grouping each other, we apply our own perceptions and attitudes to that group of people. One of the ways Māori people were grouped by British arrivals to Aotearoa was by tribe.
But here’s the problem, if you want to be inoffensive:
The word tribe has an uncomfortable connotation for many indigenous people. British explorers used it to define the peoples they encountered.
…
Colonial settlers didn’t call themselves a collection of tribes. This gives us some insight into what the word meant, and maybe still means, to descendants of those settlers. Like many westerners, the British tended to refer to themselves as a race or nation, often qualifying it with adjectives like civilised and superior.
Maybe that’s because by the time the Brits turned up on these shores, the tribes which the Romans encountered had disappeared and Britain had become a nation.
Although – come to think of it – the Poms are apt to become tribal when it comes to football and gather to robustly demonstrate their support for Liverpool, Manchester City, Arsenal, or whoever.
As to words like civilised and superior, that’s what the settlers believed at the time.
Their descendants have been enlightened – or maybe not – by the likes of Māori Party co-leader Rawiri Waititi.
In an interview with TVNZ in September 2023, Waititi defended the statement:
“It is a known fact that Māori genetic makeup is stronger than others.”
The statement had been made to the Northland Age in September 2020 by Māori Party candidate Heather Te Au-Skipworth while outlining the party’s call for a $100 million fund to invest in “Māori sport.” It was then added to the party’s website and was removed only in 2022 after the ACT Party complained about it.
But let’s return to the article in The Spinoff:
Early settlers to Aotearoa described Māori communities as “barbarous and savage tribes” or “petty tribes, who possess few political relations to each other, and are incompetent to act or even to deliberate in concert”.
Is this surprising?
Probably the Romans thought much same thing about the tribes they encountered when they invaded Britain.
The article goes on:
There has been a noticeable reduction in the use of the word tribe in New Zealand English, with the word iwi taking its place….
We shouldn’t read too much into that.
There is a noticeable reduction in the media’ use, too, of handy English words like “work” (we busy ourselves with “mahi” nowadays) and broadcasters love to check out what is happening around “the motu” rather than the country.
The article then notes:
But some Māori don’t like the word iwi, believing it to have similar connotations to the word tribe…
I understand this, because some believe we didn’t coordinate ourselves by iwi in pre-colonial Māori society, as much as we grouped ourselves by hapū. So, for them, iwi and tribe go hand-in-hand.
The writer doesn’t agree that iwi is a post-colonial concept.
I also don’t agree that iwi is a harmful word just because it appears next to tribe in the dictionary – that is not decolonial thinking. Critiquing a Māori word for its relationship to an English one means privileging English to the detriment of Māori. Decolonial thinking, rightly, doesn’t allow for that.
Many people – even those adept in decolonisation and decolonial thinking – won’t care about the use of the word tribe at all. Some of us try not to spend too much time thinking about coloniser tools – if they’re occupying our minds too much, they’re still winning. If I hear the word tribe, I don’t cast judgement on the speaker at that point. I reserve that for when I ascertain the quality of the thought and the intent behind it. If the thought process is bigoted, that is when I’ll consider the word problematic.
Hmm. The challenge, then, is for the team here at PoO to take the quality of our thoughts and intent into account.
One thought (putting aside the “quality” component) is to favour “iwi” because it is shorter than “tribe”.
On the other hand, tribe is a one-syllable word.
Oh, the challenge of trying to offend nobody.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
Tribal structures began to change significantly after the Roman conquest in AD 43.
After the withdrawal of the Romans in the 5th century AD, new, smaller Germanic tribes (Anglo-Saxons) began to settle in Britain.
The snag is the word “tribe”.
From Study.Com, we learn:
A tribe is a group of people that all have common ancestry or a common ancestor a common culture and live in their own enclosed society.
There are plenty of groups of that sort around New Zealand – but we are told they may take umbrage at the use of the word “tribe” or complain about being offended.
For the benefit of shaking off the yoke of our colonial past and minimising the offence we cause with our words, therefore, maybe we should write about Britain being populated by a mosaic of different iwi.
On the other hand, we could hold our ground and stick with “tribe”, because tribe and iwi are much the same thing according to this from the Encyclopaedia of New Zealand:
Iwi
The largest political grouping in pre-European Māori society was the iwi (tribe). This usually consisted of several related hapū (clans or descent groups). The hapū of an iwi might sometimes fight each other, but would unite to defend tribal territory against other tribes.
Iwi-tūturu (the homeland tribe) or tino-iwi (the central tribe) were groups living in a long-held location. They would take their name from a founding ancestor. Iwi-nui or iwi-whānui (the greater tribe) were groups tracing descent from the founding ancestor of the iwi-tūturu. They were often widespread and lived alongside people from other iwi.
Our thinking on these matters was sparked by an article on The Spinoff which advised us:
It might sound harmless, but for many indigenous people the term ‘tribe’ carries a colonial history of hierarchy and misunderstanding. So why do we still use it – and what changes when we say iwi instead?
For better or worse, the writer says, every culture defines human relationships by grouping people together in some way and naming them: nations, peoples, confederations, tribes.
As we all go about grouping each other, we apply our own perceptions and attitudes to that group of people. One of the ways Māori people were grouped by British arrivals to Aotearoa was by tribe.
But here’s the problem, if you want to be inoffensive:
The word tribe has an uncomfortable connotation for many indigenous people. British explorers used it to define the peoples they encountered.
…
Colonial settlers didn’t call themselves a collection of tribes. This gives us some insight into what the word meant, and maybe still means, to descendants of those settlers. Like many westerners, the British tended to refer to themselves as a race or nation, often qualifying it with adjectives like civilised and superior.
Maybe that’s because by the time the Brits turned up on these shores, the tribes which the Romans encountered had disappeared and Britain had become a nation.
Although – come to think of it – the Poms are apt to become tribal when it comes to football and gather to robustly demonstrate their support for Liverpool, Manchester City, Arsenal, or whoever.
As to words like civilised and superior, that’s what the settlers believed at the time.
Their descendants have been enlightened – or maybe not – by the likes of Māori Party co-leader Rawiri Waititi.
In an interview with TVNZ in September 2023, Waititi defended the statement:
“It is a known fact that Māori genetic makeup is stronger than others.”
The statement had been made to the Northland Age in September 2020 by Māori Party candidate Heather Te Au-Skipworth while outlining the party’s call for a $100 million fund to invest in “Māori sport.” It was then added to the party’s website and was removed only in 2022 after the ACT Party complained about it.
But let’s return to the article in The Spinoff:
Early settlers to Aotearoa described Māori communities as “barbarous and savage tribes” or “petty tribes, who possess few political relations to each other, and are incompetent to act or even to deliberate in concert”.
Is this surprising?
Probably the Romans thought much same thing about the tribes they encountered when they invaded Britain.
The article goes on:
There has been a noticeable reduction in the use of the word tribe in New Zealand English, with the word iwi taking its place….
We shouldn’t read too much into that.
There is a noticeable reduction in the media’ use, too, of handy English words like “work” (we busy ourselves with “mahi” nowadays) and broadcasters love to check out what is happening around “the motu” rather than the country.
The article then notes:
But some Māori don’t like the word iwi, believing it to have similar connotations to the word tribe…
I understand this, because some believe we didn’t coordinate ourselves by iwi in pre-colonial Māori society, as much as we grouped ourselves by hapū. So, for them, iwi and tribe go hand-in-hand.
The writer doesn’t agree that iwi is a post-colonial concept.
I also don’t agree that iwi is a harmful word just because it appears next to tribe in the dictionary – that is not decolonial thinking. Critiquing a Māori word for its relationship to an English one means privileging English to the detriment of Māori. Decolonial thinking, rightly, doesn’t allow for that.
Many people – even those adept in decolonisation and decolonial thinking – won’t care about the use of the word tribe at all. Some of us try not to spend too much time thinking about coloniser tools – if they’re occupying our minds too much, they’re still winning. If I hear the word tribe, I don’t cast judgement on the speaker at that point. I reserve that for when I ascertain the quality of the thought and the intent behind it. If the thought process is bigoted, that is when I’ll consider the word problematic.
Hmm. The challenge, then, is for the team here at PoO to take the quality of our thoughts and intent into account.
One thought (putting aside the “quality” component) is to favour “iwi” because it is shorter than “tribe”.
On the other hand, tribe is a one-syllable word.
Oh, the challenge of trying to offend nobody.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
5 comments:
We refer to iwi so that the money that goes to Maori under the government's racist handouts goes to the Maori elite. If it didn't go to iwi, then ordinary Maori would benefit. Then the elite would lose their gravy train as well as lose their grounds for making complaints.
I am told that the literal translation of Iwi is (dead) body. Thus it really refers to a corpse or corporation or body corporate. And if you look at how iwi work in New Zealand, it is exactly what they are. And that is why the government likes them. Being a corporation itself, it can work with other corporations unlike those pesky real men and women.
Speaking of 'tribes' still makes sense where groups of people are distinct with reference to genealogy (often mythical), culture and language, and, importantly, sense of identity. In PNG, for instance, the tribal level of identity is generally the principal one. But once people start dispersing and living in large cities with members of umpteen other tribes, and developing a hybrid culture (and often pidginised language), the concept of 'tribe' becomes less relevant.
'Tribe' became a stay-away-from word in some quarters where it was considered 'racist', like the word 'native'. That's nonsense as the term can be, and is, applied to White peoples as well. Looking at my own lot (the Dutch), Google AI (not known for its political incorrectness) states the following:
"Core Historical Tribes: The foundation of the Dutch population rests on the Saxons, Franks, and Frisians, who established themselves after the Roman era.
Regional Diversity: Today, regional identities are often categorized by provinces or areas, including Frisians, Groningers, Drenten, Tukkers, Achterhoekers, Brabanders, Zeeuwen, and Hollanders.
Genetic Structure: Studies show that Germanic tribes like the Cananefates, Batavians, and Frisians (Fians) existed in the region.
Modern Dutch identity is a blend of these early tribes and regional identities."
One can see the same 'regionalisation' trend at work in developing countries where many people live in urban areas where they were born, and many have never actually seen their tribal homelands - a complication being that many are products of mixed-tribe liaisons that were not formally approved of and are claimed by neither tribe nor indeed wanted by either, especially where the child was illegitimate.
Why are we afraid of words?
And once we go down the path of fear of offending someone about a "word" we are essentially heading towards an Orwellian dystopian future where words are bastardized with double think logic.
A tribe is a tribe.
It can be referred to as "iwi" if you are referring to the first "indigenous" people of NZ.
The "concept of tribe" has been with us since all of recorded human history.
My ancestors were likely from some "Clan".
Once we succumb to the minority weak willed and feeble because of some imagined hurt feelings, we have already lost.
Those of us who claim descent from the Celtic/Anglo-Saxon/Viking tribal groups understand that integration of bloodlines is a core principle of nation building. It took those northern hemisphere tribes a millenium or two to adjust to that reality, so don't hold your breath waiting for Maori to get it. They've only had 186 years since Hobson declared "he iwi tahi tatou" generally translated as "We are now one people". But if that is not acceptible to the power-brokers down on the marae, then it's certainly being implemented in the bedrooms of the nation.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.