The students’ thinking about identity, history and culture is recorded in a report about a campaign to have the flag flown permanently alongside the New Zealand flag on the Auckland Harbour Bridge.
Campaign supporters are reported as saying this would recognise Māori identity, history and “the dual heritage of Aotearoa”.
Campaign organisers aim to gather 80,000 signatures in support of permanently raising the flag from Waitangi Day next year.
The flag now flies on the bridge each Waitangi Day before being removed the following day.
St Stephen’s School principal Nathan Durie told RNZ the campaign provided an opportunity for young people to engage with the country’s history and future.
He noted that in Australia, the Aboriginal flag has flown permanently on Sydney Harbour Bridge since 2022 following a long-running public campaign.
“The point was made about the Australians have been flying the Aboriginal flag for a few years,” Durie said.
“That does not correct the past, but it’s a statement. In terms of this flag, as it’s known as the Tino Rangatiratanga flag, recognises the fact that we did not cede sovereignty and our sovereign voice needs to be heard.”
Is that what is being taught at the school?
The highly contentious issue of whether Maori ceded sovereignty when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi – or what sovereignty, if any, “the Crown” or Parliament are entitled to exercise – obviously has been settled by the headmaster.
Maori did not cede it – and that’s a “fact”.
A 16-year-old student at the school, Tāmati Bruce, is reported as saying that permanently flying the Tino Rangatiratanga flag would send an important message about Māori “belonging” in this country.
“It represents who we are as a country.
“Aotearoa is not just people from overseas, it’s the native people who are actually from this land.”
Hmm. The writer of this PoO article is entitled to describe himself as a native person who actually comes from this land.
That’s because the exact meaning of the term “native people” depends on the context, language, and whether it is used generally or as a synonym for indigenous peoples.
Google advised us:
- A “native” can simply mean a person born in a specific town, city, or country (e.g., calling someone a “Baltimore native” or a “New Zealand native”).
- When applied as “native peoples” or “Indigenous peoples,” it refers to groups who inhabited a country or geographical region before the arrival of later colonists, settlers, or dominant cultures.
But take note that the surname Bruce originated in Normandy, France. It was taken to England during the Norman Conquest of 1066 and later becoming famous in Scotland, thanks to Robert the Bruce.
His fellow student, Eli Rush, rejected calls for the New Zealand flag to be the only flag flown on the bridge.
“I think there’s definitely two cultures in New Zealand, and Māori should definitely be up there too.”
“Definitely two” opens the possibility that maybe there are more.
Indeed there are.
Google reckons New Zealand is home to over 200 distinct ethnic groups and people who speak more than 150 languages.
According to data from the Stats NZ 2023 Census, the population is divided across five major ethnic categories, alongside people identifying with multiple or other backgrounds:
- European: 67.8%
- Māori: 17.8%
- Asian: 17.3% (including Chinese, Indian, Filipino, Korean, and other communities)
- Pacific Peoples: 8.9% (including Samoan, Tongan, Cook Islands Māori, and Niuean)
- Middle Eastern, Latin American, and African (MELAA): 1.9%.
PoO suggests the students who talk of being indigenous dip into their history books.
Or they might read an article posted this week on The Conversation
How Did Early Māori Society Develop? New Research Reveals A Clearer Timeline
Fiona Petchey, from the University of Waikato, writes –
When the first Polynesian settlers arrived in Aotearoa New Zealand some 750 years ago, they found an environment very different to the lands they left behind.
To arrive here, they must have come from somewhere.
The Conversation article goes on:
Archaeologists have traditionally divided early Māori history into three broad periods. The first, from around 1250 to 1400, was marked by the establishment of settlements and hunting of moa and other native wildlife.
A less understood “transitional” period followed, before the emergence of “classic” Māori society around 1600, with more intensive food production, fortified settlements and distinctive cultural traditions.
Terms such as the “Māori Middle Ages” highlight the frustrating unknowns that still cloud this picture.
The article is about research which offers a more precise definition.
The definition of “indigenous” remains bemusingly elastic.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE.
7 comments:
Pauline Hanson has said the aboriginal flag ,along with welcome to country will be gone,should her party be involved in any coalition goverment!
Yet more revisionism. Acknowledging a flag that was first publicly displayed in 1990 - that purportedly recognizes Maori didn't cede sovereignty - over a country whose name has never been formally mandated by its citizens, not least used by its original Maori settlers - all for the recognition of a cohort who are all now only fractional descendants of those original Treaty subjects.
This is not unification, it's division! But nothing like filling young, impressionable minds with such bollocks. We reap what we sow.
This coming election, above all else, we need a leader that unites us and seeks equality for all. If you're honest and truly want that for our country, there's only one party leader who is expounding that - party vote ACT.
Pre the advent of Europeans Maori didn't have flags.
Good ol' Politically Correct Google AI says that there are "about 600 distinct tribes or nations" constituting the indigenous population of Australia and avoids answering the question as to how many distinct ethocultural indigenous groups there are in NZ by saying that the primary subunit is the 'iwi'. Let's just say that there is only one 'ethnic group' of Maori, although we could argue the toss whether to regard the Moriori as a distinct group or not.
The "or nations" above alludes to 'First Nations', a concept that originated in Canada in the late 19thC leading to the Canadian govt concluding 'treaties' with those 'First Nations' (Iroquoi, Cree, Blackfoot, etc).
People who claim Maori sovereignty over NZ imply that there was/is a single 'First Nation' here. There wasn't. The North and South Islands were treated as separate legal entities before May 1840 (ToW had hitherto been signed with North Island chiefs only). Even the NI could not be regarded as a First Nation as there was no overarching federal or even confederation-type governmental structure.
It is important to note that there was never a 'First Nations' treaty concluded with the Canadian indigenous peoples as a single entity. Each First Nations treaty was specific to a particular tribal nation.
In this context, Canada represents one extreme and Australia represents the other - a patchwork of mostly wandering tribes who do not satisfy a single criterion of nationhood and who may not even have common ancestry - Torres Strait Islanders are Melanesians, as different from 'real' Aborigines as are Dutchies and Indians. NZ fits in somewhere between Canada and Australia in this regard.
The status of the 'Te Rangatiratanga flag' surely depends on getting it right as to indigeneity and First Nation status. I'd say we were dealing with unresolvable issues here unless we completely rewrite the definition of 'nation'.
One of my cousins daughters now in her 50s and part Maori is married to a guy who appears to be white but might be part-Maori way back. His view is this country ''belongs to Maori'' End of. Any discussion the clubs come out. Maori rule. Full stop.
The original and proper definition of 'indigenous' was 'arising in a particular area'. That definition was deliberately changed, ultimately by the U.N., to enhance the power of groups overridden or displaced by more technologically advanced groups. This 'woke' definition (i.e. groups who inhabited a country or geographical region before the arrival of later colonists, settlers, or dominant cultures) does not provide a reliable service. It means that one group would be 'indigenous' if they arrived somewhere the day before another group. Using the term as a substitute for 'we were here first' adds undeservedly to any rights that might result from that circumstance, largely because the term 'indigenous' still sounds profound due to its original biological meaning.
It could be argued as reasonable to allow the term 'indigenous' to apply where a language or culture, as opposed to a species or sub-species, has arisen in a particular place. That is, when a language or culture has changed to become significantly unrecognisable from what it was in the place whence a group emanated.
Captain Cook used interpreter Tupaia from the Society Islands (including Tahiti) who had never previously stepped foot on the archipelago that became New Zealand. Nevertheless, Tupaia was able to interpret Maori language and customs. One can reasonably conclude that Maori language and culture had not changed much from what they were several hundred years earlier in their ancestral Polynesian islands. It was those islands, not New Zealand, to which Maori were indigenous. Several hundred years is generally nowhere near enough time for a language or culture to change sufficiently for any title of indigeneity.
A 2007 case at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Saramaka People v. Suriname) that muddies the waters concerning the meaning of 'indigenous' in international law involved the court holding that "the human rights protections regarding communal property and ancestral lands typically applied to indigenous peoples also extend to tribal peoples." The Saramaka being the descendants of Negroes who escaped slavery after being brought to the Americas, this finding is almost laughable. What would really liven things up would be an Amerindian group laying claim to that land. I mean, they're kosher 'indigenous', right?
If the Moriori were a separate race from the Maori, there may be a parallel between the Maori and the Saramaka with regard to claims of 'ownership'.
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.