Hard News: Right This Time?
378 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 16 Newer→ Last
-
Yup and Tom is suggesting that we could fail to consent to it.
No I am not.
What i am saying to say is the way we interpret it and the way apply it has to evolve along with the evolution of the people and nation of New Zealand, or it will become a faultline in our history that will eventually cause a massive earthquake when it gives way.
-
Magna Carta was an agreement between the Anglo-French ruling elite which didn't include the conquered Anglo-Saxons.
Sure, if you subscribe to the whole Ivanhoe Norman-Yoke-Conquered-Saxons theory of medieval England, which is...somewhat divorced from the reality. For starters, you're assuming the existence of France as a country and French as an identity in the twelfth century.
-
Even if you do believe in the Norman Yoke, the rights in Magna Carta are merely the ancient rights, liberties, and privileges of Britons. (In fact under that schema Magna Carta is not a grant of rights but a recognition of rights, this is important, because the king can't take that back. But no matter! We are not Gothics.)
Magna Carta was extended by people who owned it. The Crown doesn't own the Treaty in that way.
-
No I am not.
What i am saying to say is the way we interpret it and the way apply it has to evolve along with the evolution of the people and nation of New Zealand, or it will become a faultline in our history that will eventually cause a massive earthquake when it gives way.
OK then. So you consent, even if that earthquake is bound to happen? I don't and I don't think any government is bound to that path by any morality that makes sense to me. I don't care if that makes me an oathbreaker, because I'm not afraid of any curse in English or Maori binding my immortal soul to some fucking document from that long ago.
-
Ah, perfidious albion lives!
(Isn't it odd that the idea that the Treaty might be outdated tends to come up when Maori assert their rights under it? I say, do you think there's something happening there?)
-
I don't care if that makes me an oathbreaker, because I'm not afraid of any curse in English or Maori binding my immortal soul to some fucking document from that long ago.
I... don't even know what to say to that. If you subscribe to that sort of weirdly ahistorical mindset, bully for you, but 1840 is not 'that long ago' by any stretch of the imagination.
The point, Danielle, is that in another hundred years from now no one and everyone will be a "Maori".
Thanks for that, Nostradamus. Look, lots of our own families are the product of cultural blends - no one's denying that. (I myself own a portion of some cold and windy land in Tuatapere that I share with dozens of other people in my hapu.) But you can't assume that Maori-ness itself will disappear just because some people intermarry and you think it would be a peachy keen idea. Ethnic groups are able to co-exist in the same country for hundreds and hundreds of years without holding hands and singing 'Melting Pot'. Why should they have to?
ETA: Oh Keir, that is such a *cynical* view of the matter. The 'Treaty is outdated' folks are just trying to forge a wonderful future for All New Zealanders (TM). :)
-
(Isn't it odd that the idea that the Treaty might be outdated tends to come up when Maori assert their rights under it? I say, do you think there's something happening there?)
Damn those drums, Carruthers.
-
I... don't even know what to say to that. If you subscribe to that sort of weirdly ahistorical mindset, bully for you
And if you find historical agreements more important than ones made by the people who are expected to uphold them, bully for you. But I expect that's a strawman - your historical perspective argues that the obligations created by this historical meeting have transferred in a step by step fashion, rather than leaping over time from then to now? My point about the dead ruling the living is just to counter that historical leap of obligation. I accept no obligation to people who died well before anyone who now lives was born.
-
I never did British History, seeing the family name mentioned in relation to the Magna Carta gives me Tamaki like pretentions to grandure.
-
What i am saying to say is the way we interpret it and the way apply it has to evolve along with the evolution of the people and nation of New Zealand, or it will become a faultline in our history that will eventually cause a massive earthquake when it gives way.
Um, isn't this what we are doing by entering into discussion about the principles of Te Tiriti ? The evolution is a real partnership between Crown and Maori, implemented at iwi and hapu level.
Tom, what is wrong with the Crown being respectful to Maori ? What is wrong with Maori being treated as the stakeholders they are ?
As Pita Sharples says, "we're here forever", and bi-culturalism is our way of resolving the "faultline" you mention. The subtext seems to be that Maori have no place in shaping the future our our state.
As for your imagined future, I would refer you to that plaque on One Tree Hill which spoke of "smooth[ing] the pillow" of the dying Maori race, except the council saw fit to censor that rancidly racist rant some years ago.
I accept no obligation to people who died well before anyone who now lives was born.
You've just chucked out common law. I agree with the sentiment that how we implement the intention of an historical agreement is contingent upon current exigencies, however, you and Tom both seem to be arguing for mono-culturalism. Dude, that's the problem, not the solution.
-
your historical perspective argues that the obligations created by this historical meeting have transferred in a step by step fashion, rather than leaping over time from then to now
Because the Treaty is the contract that gives our current laws legitimacy, the obligations have transferred BOTH step by step and in leaps over time from then til now. Both parties to the contract are still extant.
-
And if you find historical agreements more important than ones made by the people who are expected to uphold them, bully for you.
But this is rather dodgy for you are not proposing to make a new agreement between the Crown and Maori --- and if you were, Maori would have the perfect right to tell the Crown to leave and return to the status quo ante pakeha --- but rather to simply renege on the previous agreement and stick a new one you like more in its place.
That's not fair. You are quite happy to benefit from the Treaty, but not to fulfil your side of the bargain.
-
The four million New Zealanders elect the government known as the "crown" and are hence party to the treaty, just as the eighteen million Brits were in 1840.
The treaty is not, and never was, a personal treaty between the Windsors and Maori. It was a treaty between the British government (and it's successors, e.g. the government of NZ) and Maori.
But as Maori elect and and are elected to that government aren't the lines between the 2 parties to the Treaty blurred to the point where it is no longer useful as a 'constitutional' document. (Which in no way denies it's historical relevance or the need to address all historical wrongs). The Declaration of Independence is an example of a culturally significant historical document used as a reference point but not carrying legal weight.
-
You worship them because they're powerless to chop your head off?
Oh, for God's sakes, Ben, no. I was just pointing out that it's often the shiny people who promise to sweep away the past with AWSUM! new ideas who turn out to be the real menaces. Not the "ghosts" of our ancestors.
Oh, and: those who have most to gain from arguing that ghosts exist and are scary are professional exorcists.
Tom: reactionary, flying straitjackets aside, what are you implying? Because it sounds an awful lot like Deuteronomy 33:17 combined with the first part of Jeremiah 30:11 to me. In other words, not good.
-
Um, isn't this what we are doing by entering into discussion about the principles of Te Tiriti ? The evolution is a real partnership between Crown and Maori, implemented at iwi and hapu level.
I'm glad you said that, because I think there's a danger here of brooking no qualms. Yes, the relationship flows via iwi and hapu -- it was they who signed the Treaty with the Crown, after all -- but it's reasonable to talk about how things might change, and exactly what role the bicultural Treaty relationship plays in the future.
It's not hard to envisage a situation where iwi and hapu represent themselves and their histories, but may not really represent everyone who claims Maori heritage. Look at yesterday's news story on Ngai Tahu -- kaitiaki of the South Island, or a bunch of brawling capitalists?
We do -- all of us -- have to be able to talk about these things.
-
Mikaere
Um, isn't this what we are doing by entering into discussion about the principles of Te Tiriti ? The evolution is a real partnership between Crown and Maori, implemented at iwi and hapu level.
I'd hope so. Although to be honest I'd rather it was between the government of NZ, representing the people, than the Crown, and that Maori might have representation that doesn't depend on good family ties and connections.
You've just chucked out common law.
I've chucked out one reason for adhering to common law, yes. I don't adhere to it because of any agreements that were entered into by long dead people on another island on the opposite side of the planet with other long dead people. I adhere to it because it makes some sense. I adhere to it because NZ police will put me in jail if I don't adhere to it. I fully reserve the right to advocate change to it. I especially believe that the government of NZ could chuck it out if such a thing seemed necessary at any time.
Mrs Skin
Because the Treaty is the contract that gives our current laws legitimacy, the obligations have transferred BOTH step by step and in leaps over time from then til now. Both parties to the contract are still extant.
The Treaty doesn't really give our laws legitimacy at all. A proper honoring of the Treaty would be a massive and fundamental change to the legislative makeup of this country, since the Maori version does not actually cede sovereignty clearly at all. If anything, the Treaty gives our laws illegitimacy.
Keir
But this is rather dodgy for you are not proposing to make a new agreement between the Crown and Maori --- and if you were, Maori would have the perfect right to tell the Crown to leave and return to the status quo ante pakeha
Actually, I think a new agreement would be a bloody good idea. I don't follow your 'revert to 1700' conclusion from such an event, though. I'm not optimistic that any government of NZ will ever have the balls to forge a new agreement, but I would love to be surprised.
--- but rather to simply renege on the previous agreement and stick a new one you like more in its place.
It's possible that Maori might also like a Treaty that would actually be honored too. Personally I'm reasonably happy with the status quo - the existence of a multiply interpreted and dishonored Treaty doesn't do Maori much good, but it doesn't affect me at all. I'm not a farmer or a fisherman anyway. Neither, for that matter, are the 30-odd Maori that I know personally.
That's not fair. You are quite happy to benefit from the Treaty, but not to fulfil your side of the bargain.
I never made any bargain.
Caleb
Oh, for God's sakes, Ben, no. I was just pointing out that it's often the shiny people who promise to sweep away the past with AWSUM! new ideas who turn out to be the real menaces. Not the "ghosts" of our ancestors.
It's both. Personally I'm not a fan of violent revolution, nor have I proposed it. I'm also not a fan of inherited power, however ancient its roots may be. What I am a fan of is people striking bargains for themselves, and then honoring those. By "themselves", I'm not ruling out collective bargaining, but neither do I think that is superior. It is simply a necessity for powerless people.
-
fuck those greedy ngai tahu cunts. they're as much indigenous to the sth island as my early irish ancestors.
and yes it's sad but alot of maori are defined and stuck in an 1840's mindset. i think it would have been better if maori never signed the treaty at least in the form of hapu and iwi cos it institutionally factionalised them and never allowed for new hapu or iwi while fixing disputable tribal boundaries into pakeha law allowing the good ol divide and conquer tactic to prevail. it stopped maori from becoming one people and one nation.
ngai tahu are a perfect example. they wont help anyone not descended from their register of families from the 1800's and did a number on alot of the smaller iwi and hapu allowing them to claim kaitiakiship over large swathes of the sth island they never had sovereignty over then de facto assimilate the smaller iwi into the greater tribe and renege on the deals.
just look at that wally in his suit and tell me what culture he's representing while talking about his family?
-
fuck those greedy ngai tahu cunts. they're as much indigenous to the sth island as my early irish ancestors.
Um... is there a button I can press on PAS to rate this statement as 'totally not cool'?
did a number on alot of the smaller iwi and hapu
If you don't think that happens all over the country you're a bit deluded. The government loves to negotiate with large groups. The East Coast right now is a prime example of that problem.
-
But this is rather dodgy for you are not proposing to make a new agreement between the Crown and Maori --- and if you were, Maori would have the perfect right to tell the Crown to leave and return to the status quo ante pakeha
Oh for goodness sake ... Maori are not about to propose ethnic cleansing, and they would have no "right" to do so. Where, pray tell, would members of the "Crown" without the appropriate whakapapa go? Would there be an exemption for pakeha family members? Even in a legalistic sense, this sort of statement is profoundly unhelpful.
-
Um... is there a button I can press on PAS to rate this statement as 'totally not cool'?
It certainly wasn't cool. It might add some context, though, to note that dubmugga is brown-skinned himself.
And, while I might wish he'd express it with some better measure, the rest of his argument does represent questions we should be allowed to consider. Ngai Tahu is not beyond criticism.
If you don't think that happened all over the country you're a bit deluded. The government loves to negotiate with large groups. The East Coast right now is a prime example of that problem.
Yes, the government's desire (and, in a practical sense, need) to negotiate with large groups has certainly played a significant part in the development of what we now know as iwi. But don't those iwi have some responsibility for their own actions now?
-
By Crown I don't mean the pakeha population, but rather the government exercised by the Crown --- that is, we'd get a particularly complete and radical implementation of tino rangatiratanga.
(But of course it is ridiculous and rather abhorrent; that's the point, that what Ben and Tom are talking about implies some very very disturbing things.)
-
@Russell:
Sorry for the OT-ness, but did you catch Target's *cough* fascinating for all the wrong reasons piece on 'piracy'. Methinks they should stick to hidden camera 'gotcha!' exposes of workmen rubbing one off in laundry hampers, but I'd look forward to your more expert fisking.
-
sorry danielle but at least the east coast maori probably did have family ties to their surrounding iwi. ngai tahu just managed to beat the pakeha to the sth island and wipe out alot of the indigenous people here then claim ownership. cuntish behaviour in the extreme if you ask me .
if history is written by the victors and the victors can carve up the spoils of war as they see fit, then perhaps maori iwi and hapu should accept they lost and as has been suggested move on from an 1840's mindset about who owned what and when.
-
Hmmm ... interesting. It has just been suggested to me that Labour's new, liberal intake helped dissuade some older hands from the idea of "doing a Brash" over the issues at hand.
-
Where, pray tell, would members of the "Crown" without the appropriate whakapapa go? Would there be an exemption for pakeha family members?
As someone noted back in the era of Donna Awatere's Maori Sovereignty polemic, it'd get pretty crowded between the Tigris and Euphrates if some of her fantasies came to pass.
Ngai Tahu is not beyond criticism.
They certainly appear to have a rather feudal way of doing things, in that little tangible benefit seems to reach the wider Iwi. It's an approach that seems to integrate a little too well with the existing establishment. And the site of the old King Edward barracks is still a dismal carpark.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.