So I'll do it here instead.
No, no but seriously and much and all as I'd gain a degree of personal satisfaction from a bit of undignified name calling, I must resist that temptation and accord those who indulge themselves in this way the respect their activities don't deserve and reluctantly resist any temptation to cater to my baser instincts.
Where to begin? Well I suppose I have to concede (reluctantly) that the practice of renaming New Zealand 'Aotearoa' will gain some traction during the lifetime of its supporters. But once they've moved on from the foothills of their present intellectual pursuits and the next faddish vogue occupies their ever increasing spare time, it will gradually wither away, eventually to be seen by history as yet another modish curiosity, to be studied by sociology undergraduates, in much the same way as flared trousers will be or the current vulgar practice of filling vast acres of bare flesh with inky graffiti.
There are a number of reasons for this, but chief among them is its lack of any immediate legitimacy. It has been seized on by platoons of enthusiastic amateurs, eager to clamber on board this particular bandwagon, rather like the deployment of the adjective 'awesome', now being used as a synonym for thank you. If a spiritual vacuum exists then plugging it with cultural play dough isn't going to help.
As far as I know, no-one has ever suggested that there's anything wrong with the current name: one which has been happily used by generations over many years. There was no previous name that has been banished from international usage. The native pre-european population didn't refer to the three islands of our country as Aotearoa. It was apparently the original maori name for the North Island. It's only in recent times that it's been adopted and expanded to refer to the whole country, with a bit of help along the way from William Pember Reeves.
Countries whose names have been successfully changed, generally after the collapse of empires following two world wars, are ones where self-rule has been adopted once the colonisers have departed. Consonant with the constirutional shift of power after the departure of european authority the countries concerned have jettisoned the name imposed on them and adopted another as part of the process of forging a new identity. Examples are legion: Rhodesia/ Zimbabwe, Burma/Myanmar, Bechuanaland/ Botswana and so on.
This hasn't always been the case of course. Two of the largest land masses which in the twentieth century broke free from foreign hegemony, apparently felt confident enough in their identities to retain their existing names: India and South Africa (both names, incidentally, imposed by british imperialists).
None of these conditions applies to New Zealand though. A country which, geographically and politically, continues to exist in the same way it always has done has no need to proclaim any new identity to the world, because it doesn't have one. Much and all as dinner party liberals would like to think otherwise, New Zealand will continue to be populated and governed by much the same people as always, the vast majority of whom, I venture to suggest, entertain no urgent desire for change.
Dropping New Zealand as our name in favour of some confected alternative looks suspiciously expedient: a convenient pretext for a different programme. Its current usage is redolent with the whiff of political opportunism rather than being carried out to rectify any past wrongdoing or to correct any current misapprehension.
There are also some pretty good practical reasons why re-naming our country Aotearoa should be a non-starter.
1. Lack of popular acceptance: the world and its institutions knows this country as New Zealand. Unless and until there is a formal rebranding by the powers that be (and there's no sign of that occurring) the status quo will continue. Those seeking to introduce change will seem like a faint chorus of disaffected malcontents.
2. We are unique. In an ocean of mushy vowels in the South Pacific we are a nation of gritty consonants. Otherwise we'll just join a long list of similar sounding archipelagos ending with yet another obsequious vowel.
3. Aotearoa has no easy demonym. New Zealand has New Zealanders, Aotearoa has....what? When was the last time you heard some whey faced newsreader refer to Aotearoans? Never, that's when. They're forced to fall back on that good old standby 'Kiwis'. Oh dear, is that what we want?
No give up while you can I say. Quit while you're behind. Operation Aotearoa is a lost cause, a fizzer, a deceased member of the mallard family. It's DOA.
None of this should be taken as an indication that I harbour any blimpish opposition to a name change, because I don't. It's simply that those who wish to do so are going about it in the wrong way. As with the use of Te Reo in everyday conversation, it can't or shouldn't be introduced by stealth. To attempt to do so demonstrates a lack of conviction by its supporters which will only serve to reinforce their opponents' resentment at seeming to be dragooned into change rather than persuaded. If you wish to change our country's name, present your case and be prepared to support it. To do otherwise will simply encourage opposition rather than reasoned debate. If you succeed in your argument the change will be legitimate and permanent. If you don't, then New Zealand it is. That's the way democracy works.
There are a number of reasons for this, but chief among them is its lack of any immediate legitimacy. It has been seized on by platoons of enthusiastic amateurs, eager to clamber on board this particular bandwagon, rather like the deployment of the adjective 'awesome', now being used as a synonym for thank you. If a spiritual vacuum exists then plugging it with cultural play dough isn't going to help.
As far as I know, no-one has ever suggested that there's anything wrong with the current name: one which has been happily used by generations over many years. There was no previous name that has been banished from international usage. The native pre-european population didn't refer to the three islands of our country as Aotearoa. It was apparently the original maori name for the North Island. It's only in recent times that it's been adopted and expanded to refer to the whole country, with a bit of help along the way from William Pember Reeves.
Countries whose names have been successfully changed, generally after the collapse of empires following two world wars, are ones where self-rule has been adopted once the colonisers have departed. Consonant with the constirutional shift of power after the departure of european authority the countries concerned have jettisoned the name imposed on them and adopted another as part of the process of forging a new identity. Examples are legion: Rhodesia/ Zimbabwe, Burma/Myanmar, Bechuanaland/ Botswana and so on.
This hasn't always been the case of course. Two of the largest land masses which in the twentieth century broke free from foreign hegemony, apparently felt confident enough in their identities to retain their existing names: India and South Africa (both names, incidentally, imposed by british imperialists).
None of these conditions applies to New Zealand though. A country which, geographically and politically, continues to exist in the same way it always has done has no need to proclaim any new identity to the world, because it doesn't have one. Much and all as dinner party liberals would like to think otherwise, New Zealand will continue to be populated and governed by much the same people as always, the vast majority of whom, I venture to suggest, entertain no urgent desire for change.
Dropping New Zealand as our name in favour of some confected alternative looks suspiciously expedient: a convenient pretext for a different programme. Its current usage is redolent with the whiff of political opportunism rather than being carried out to rectify any past wrongdoing or to correct any current misapprehension.
There are also some pretty good practical reasons why re-naming our country Aotearoa should be a non-starter.
1. Lack of popular acceptance: the world and its institutions knows this country as New Zealand. Unless and until there is a formal rebranding by the powers that be (and there's no sign of that occurring) the status quo will continue. Those seeking to introduce change will seem like a faint chorus of disaffected malcontents.
2. We are unique. In an ocean of mushy vowels in the South Pacific we are a nation of gritty consonants. Otherwise we'll just join a long list of similar sounding archipelagos ending with yet another obsequious vowel.
3. Aotearoa has no easy demonym. New Zealand has New Zealanders, Aotearoa has....what? When was the last time you heard some whey faced newsreader refer to Aotearoans? Never, that's when. They're forced to fall back on that good old standby 'Kiwis'. Oh dear, is that what we want?
No give up while you can I say. Quit while you're behind. Operation Aotearoa is a lost cause, a fizzer, a deceased member of the mallard family. It's DOA.
None of this should be taken as an indication that I harbour any blimpish opposition to a name change, because I don't. It's simply that those who wish to do so are going about it in the wrong way. As with the use of Te Reo in everyday conversation, it can't or shouldn't be introduced by stealth. To attempt to do so demonstrates a lack of conviction by its supporters which will only serve to reinforce their opponents' resentment at seeming to be dragooned into change rather than persuaded. If you wish to change our country's name, present your case and be prepared to support it. To do otherwise will simply encourage opposition rather than reasoned debate. If you succeed in your argument the change will be legitimate and permanent. If you don't, then New Zealand it is. That's the way democracy works.
Chris McVeigh is a retired KC living in Christchurch. He was previously President of the Canterbury District Law Society and, in an earlier life, a scriptwriter and performer for the satirical TV programme ‘A week of It’. This article was first published HERE
9 comments:
Those that promote this fictitious name Aotearoa, clearly identify as paid up members of the woke brigade. It’s also a favourite for the shapers of public opinion, none other than our deplorably corrupt MSM.
Thank you Chris McVeigh for a delightful read on this dreary mid-Canterbury morning. You have managed to cloak serious arguments in humour. Always a good way to get a point or three across especially when dealing with the woke brigade who have no sense of humour and will be incensed.
Users of the A word immediately identify themselves as indoctrinated.
I get to the A word, or any substituted English word, and stop reading, knowing that the rest of it will be contaminated.
Herald, Stuff etc - take note.
Nice piece that even had a word I needed to look up. I learned that demonyms have nothing to do with devils except perhaps for our many departed Hellytes.
I note that the countries given as examples of changing their names after their heartwarming liberation from colonial powers all became social and economic basket cases. New Zealand is currently doing the name-change part out of sequence but might well be heading in the same direction.
Great stuff Chris. Those much-loved junior bureaucrats absolutely dedicated to the elimination of Colonialism (and incidentally their own jobs) will be sad about your predictions. They will get over it, and the mocking phrase ‘Outer Roans’ will become a nostalgic expression of the time that they dreamed of real influence, just ahead, but permanently out of reach.
Inflicting amori names is a major source of anti colonict Brownies points, the more obscure and complex the name the more points.
I will never ever be an Outer Roan and those who use the ruddy A word make me sick, sick of woke tomfoolery and all who play that stupid game. Sorry, I'd like to be respectful but it is simply not possible when plagued by fools.
Chris, did you happen to notice in Gary Judd KC's excellent post on 29 May titled "India FTA - The Sting Beneath the Sting" that even the New Zealand Government is using the "new name" in its official pronouncements? He says "The latest statement to the UN of New Zealand’s position was Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: New Zealand National Statement on 21 July 2023" and he quotes the opening lines: "Aotearoa New Zealand is committed to upholding the rights affirmed in the Declaration.... "
I have nothing against name changes: as long as IWI pays for it.
NO dual naming please. That for motorists in places not familiar to them is very dangerous.
Go to Brittany in France and try it out.
More than 2 placenames on a direction sign and you get lost.
% on a direction sign on a round about and you HAVE to go around at least twice to take the correct exit.
Highly dangerous.
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.