Posts by Manakura
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Heather said:
So why is it that this only seems to be expressed by white kiwis; that is, the feeling that they're no longer part of the legacy that conceived them?
It's fitting you should pick Latin America as a comparison - this whole denial of 'legacy' seems very much a colonial settler nation thing. I think that deep in the heart of this "I am an ethnic NZer" thing is an insecurity over one's claim to belonging. And I say that as a Maori who is also Pakeha.
Back to the census, Sonal said:
I think you can tick as many boxes as you please.
I think that is the problem right there - the box. Clearly many/most people's identity matrix is much to complex to be reduced to small boxes that one can tick. Perhaps that section should be a very on very large box that you can fit, say, 500 words in? We could turn it into an essay competition and give out prizes.
Che said:
because if you accept that you are a member of a nation then you are also buying into being a member of the majority ethnicity.
Really? I must be misunderstanding you, but I can't see a lot of Maori agreeing to the premise that because they are NZ citizens then they are Pakeha. Many would point to the fact that although the Pakeha tried their very best to force just that assimilation for nigh on 100 years, most Maori still insist on being Maori, or Tuhoe, or Tainui etc.
-
it does still look, walk, smell, swim and quack like good ol' postcolonial Pakeha to me
Post-colonial? I didn't realise colonisation in Aotearoa was over, when did that happen? Maybe that was what all that horrendously loud fireworks in the vicinity of Mt Eden was about on Saturday night.
-
You should be easily able to compare the navigational accuracy of several craft departing from the same point whose pilots use different techniques.
All that method would do is test the relative validity of various navigational techniques. I was thinking more about scientific explanantion of how said techniques actually work, which I think may be beyond todays science.
I'm not really sure if what I was talkng about re:navigation techniques were supernatural abilities. I suggest a lot of this intuitively known to work, and their is likely a 'natural' explanation for it, science just hasn't quite got there yet.
Stephen I think you are putting the cart before the horse somewhat. So much traditional indigenous knowledge is known to be effective (not all of course), practicing it acheives desired results time and time again. Sometimes practitioners don't know the how and why of it - I feel the same way about the internet - and then scientific investigation validates traditional knowledge within a western paradigm.
Spend a half hour investigating some common pharmaceuticals and you'll see what I mean. And this is by no means limited to indigenous cultures - there are many things Westerners do that work but nobody has the faintest idea why just yet. Look back over history and you can see that story play out over and over.
Furthemore factuality does not equal validity by any means. Or is it the other way round?
Deborah, yes agreed: the grotesque applications are a political problem too, but there are also fundamental structural problems with the way posivitism views the world, knowledge and the position of humanity in it that exacerbates and gives rise to those political problems. That's to say nothing of the ethical limitations (or more correctly lack thereof) of the posivitist model.
This is so far off topic I can't even remember what the original blog post was about. :-)
-
I'm curious to know, if you aren't impressed with positivism and scientific proof
Its not that science or positivism doesn't impress me, often it does, such as right now: I am posting this from the top of an Auckland mountain surrounded by bush with not a telephone jack in sight! - I just don't regard it as a master discourse, as many seem to. There are many things that science is unable to do or explain - it has a long way to go before it catches up alot of even basic indigenous concepts (see above).
But science has its place, an important one, especially in tribal and indigenous communites, and it always has. Leanie Pihama, in critique of 'Once Were Warriors' said this: "Once were poets, once were philosophers, oncer were scientists..." (thats me paraphrasing heavily).
I just think the way scientific discourse is structured needs to be altered so that it harnessed more for the needs of specific communties. There is far too much science and technology that facilitates the ruthless exploitation and degradation of people and places.
Is that the new Mel "but some of my best mates are Jewish" Gibson's new film?
-
Hmmm, is Manakura making such a literal claim?
That is something I will neither confirm nor deny, but I will say that there are complex levels of metaphors operating in every aspect of te ao Maori (the Maori world). Even a single word can have such a dense array of meanings that are highly dependent on context - any language has this quality but the reo Maori seems particularly metaphor rich.
Furthermore many 'spiritual' concepts and practices of Maori, and other indigenous peoples almost always have a solid grounding in pragmatism, and often a scientific knowledge. I always say that Maori, at their best, are the most pragmatic people in the world - you don't get from South East Asia to Aotearoa on stone technology if your beliefs aren't practical.
In fact, in many ways 'spiritual' knowledges or concepts and more practical knowedges are inseperable. For example there are apsects of polynesian navigation techniques which are clearly scientifically proven to work - reading wave patterns, using stars to plot course - but others, which are integral to the whole navigation method, are well beyond the abilities of scientiist to 'prove' - the way navigator often work with their eyes closed, navigating by feeling into 'unknown' waters, some will even navigate while facing in the opposite direction to where the waka was heading. It will be a while before sciences catches up with those sorts of abilities.
quote>Here's the rub. If someone wants to believe in Tane or Krishna or Jesus Christ, that's just fine. But they can't then use that belief to justify political claims, like who belongs in this country.</quote>
Happily I don't think anyone here is attempting this, least of all me. I would suggest that a sense of connection, whatever form it may take, should play a role in who does belong (in that loose social sense), but never in who does not belong. Fortunately this will never be empirically measurable, so it will never be used to deport or bar people.
I'm quite happy to run with the idea that Maori have a particular type of connection with this land, but actually, so do I. It's just different from the Maori connection, but no less morally valid.
Exactly! I don't really care what the nature of someones connection is, as long as they are not being lazy and trying to poach someone else sense of identity and belonging and their type of connection to the whenua compels them to protect it, and treat it in a sustainable manner.
Although we could bring up the GE debate and look at how whakapapa was possibly used to make an anti-GE moral claim superior to pro-GE moral claims. That would be a one hell of a can of huhu grubs to open.
-
Deborah,
Fair nuff, it seems you are operating out of a completely different paradigm to me, i.e. one that places faith in posivitism. I wont get into a critique of posivitism, as much as I would love to - I'm a former post-structural discourse junky and I still get the cravings now and again. I am less concerned with 'Truth' or scientific proof(if I was less lazy I would dig up some references to robust critiques on Positivist constructions such as those) than with what works for me and for the land. I prioritise strategic social and cultural objectives over scientific objectives. Which is not to say science has no value to me, the interface between science and soul is a growing and fascinating concern, just that I more concerned with the kinds of truths or narratives of life that will empower Maori, sustain the whenua, and ensure knowledge and identity is passed on.
But I do think you should respect other peoples belief's, and not just their right* to have them. By respect I mean having a substantial undestanding of these 'spiritual' belief's as a prereq to commenting on them. Respect doesn't exclude questioning them at all, or placing them on a glorious pedestal, it just means you have a good idea of what you are questioning.
To put the shoe on my foot - i would never dream of critiquing let alone dismissing Quantum Physics, because i don't know a damn thing about it. Thus anything i have to say about its validity is coming out of total ignorance.
Also, kei te pai on making blankets claims, there's too much bland generalisation out there. I tend to be guilty of it myself.
On another topic: it seems there is a lot of interest in this sort of topic. How much interest would people here have in a blog that provides a healthy and lively forum for cross-cultural, identity and Treaty issues, but has a stronger emphasis on Maori and indigenous perspectives than is currently availiable? I have been thinking for a while of setting up a blog of this nature with a variety of Maori, indigenous and Pakeha voices on the roll.
-
Deborah, reading over my retort to you I realise I was a little harsh, and I don't want to alienate someone who shows some willingness to support Maori.
So, when I say you remarks are patronising, i mean it is unfair to just dismiss what I and many many people hold as core beleifs out of hand. You should have a fairly comprehensive knowledge of thses things before you call them 'nonsense'. To do this is perceived as disrespectful, especially as the 'nonsense' you refer to was integral to the greatest naval exploration in the history of the world. People who believed the natural world is their ancestor(s) sailed across the largest body of water on Earth and lived with a breathtaking range of environments at a time when Europeans were mostly too scared to sail out of sight of land. These fraidy cats were, however, building something frickin amazing temples, cathedrals, and aqueducts.
The first step in a the equal partnership between Maori and Pakeha that you support is to respect our different ways of structuring our world. We don't have to agree, and perhaps we should not, but we should have a sound knowledge and respect of these different systems. Then we can disagree intelligently.
-
Apologies, this is going to be a very long post as I can’t resist but reply to so many of today’s posters.
Kent Parker:
I think you are loading it with too much of your meaning, so it is losing 'objectivity' and thus universal utility.Perhaps, I think you will find that most of the world’s peoples who self-identify as indigenous have ancestral relationships to land, the UN definition of indigenous says as much, when it refers to “ancestral lands”. Linda Smith, probably the world’s foremost scholar on indigeneity, as regarded by indigenous peoples themselves conflates ‘indigenous’ with ‘tangata whenua’ (1999: 6). To me ‘tangata whenua’ very succinctly denotes the sort of ancestral relationship to land I have suggested is integral to indigenous identity.
Also, if I have 1/8th Maori can I consider myself indigenous? Or if I am accepted by an iwi as a member of a tribe but have no Maori at all, can I then call myself indigenous?
In answer to this and a number of other similar questions from Heather, Don et al.: The amount of Maori ancestry you have is totally irrelevant to most Maori, as the furore over Dr Brash’s blood quantum analysis demonstrates. If you have whakapapa then you’re Maori, regardless of your lifestyle, beliefs, where you live, whether you engage with your iwi or not. It’s this simple: if you got a Maori ancestor, you’re Maori – you may get challenged to ‘prove’ it, as has happened to me regularly as a particularly pale (we prefer the term ‘beige’ thanks!), and if you know your whakapapa then all good. To what level you do ‘Maori things’ whatever that might be has no effect on your status as being Maori, it has an effect on your mana – your value and prestige as a member of a Maori community.
Stephen Judd:
Thus the urban Maori can reclaim their indigenous status because other indigenes acknowledge them, whereas you and I can speak te reo fluently, and point out that generations of our ancestors also lie buried in this land, and never be acknowledged.Well, not acknowledged as indigenous no, but unacknowledged period? Definitely not, if tauiwi, Pakeha, or whoever choose to engage with Maori communities in a way acceptable to those communities, and if they play a role in benefiting those communties, then they will be acknowledged and honoured. Capt. Gilbert Mair is an excellent example of that – Te Arawa bestowed upon him some of the highest honours possible in the form of gifts, letting him speak on the pae, and having him buried in their whenua. Of certain other iwi equate him with the boogie man, as they should, because although he was ‘good’ for Te Arawa he was monstrous to others.
Weston:
Manukura, you are playing with fire.Um, no. I am quoting a world respected Professor – I may not agree with her tone, which is a little confrontational for me, but I certainly agree with her underlying point. That being, colonisers come from somewhere else and the vast majority of their understandings of the world come from outside of the colony. This is both a negative and a positive thing at times, but fundamentally Pakeha culture is different from Maori culture and to a large degree Pakeha culture comes from Europe. If you are questioning the power and privilege aspects of Prof. Smith’s statement then I suggest you read a bit of NZ’s colonial history and take a look at the socio-economic and health stat – the differences between Maori and Pakeha are a legacy of colonisation.
Tom Beard:
Are you saying that Maori <i>must</i> feel a spiritual connection to the land? Can a Maori be an atheist or (for want of a better word) aspiritual without renouncing ceasing to be Maori?No, the single marker for being Maori is whakapapa, which by the way is far more complex than ‘ancestry’ or ‘genealogy’. I agree that there is what Jeff Sissons calls an “oppressive authenticity” (2006), whereby certain notions are enforced upon indigenous peoples and used to exclude them in various ways, particularly from their own communities. The way urban Maori are marginalised in the treaty settlement process is a case inpoint. So no, you can be an atheist and be Maori, but Wairua Maori is in your whakapapa, and is a fundamental part of your cultural history. Just as you have European atheists whose culture has a strong Christian influence and history. The interesting thing for me here is how Wairua Maori and Christianity are very much a part of our whakapapa, but that something else entirely.
Heather … arohamai sis! Don’t ever feel guilty about your whakapapa - kia kaha e tonu! I can totally understand these things you struggle with, being Pakeha as well as Maori myself - i.e. the realisation I had the other day that statistically I will live 4 years longer than cousin who is ‘more Maori’ was pretty shit! But, never let those feelings or any other narrow p.o.v stop you from celebrating the beauty and strength in your whakapapa Maori! Might have to email you and have a less public korero about that if you don’t mind?
Deborah:
And that's before I even start worrying about how it is that someone can justify their claim by reference to ghosties. Claiming that you are descended from a mountain is just a nonsense, and nodding your head in agreement when someone makes the claim is just a cultural cringe. If on the other hand, Manukura, you are making a metaphorical claim about spiritual connection, that's fine. You are welcome to your sense of spirituality. I just don't see how you can use it to justify excluding me from belonging here in a way that I can belong to no other place on this planet. I may not belong here in the same way that you do, but I really do belong here, and nowhere else.
I mean this in the nicest possible way: please don’t patronise me and belittle the concepts and values that consitute me as a person. Eurocentric notions of the world are not the universal truths many seem to think they are, particularly notions of reason and rationality, they are cultural constructs invented to make sense of the world, which means they are no better or worse or valid/true than any other way of making sense of the world.
Please go back and read what I have thus far, and hopefully you will realise I am not arguing to exclude non-Maori. I am trying to make it clear that yes, Maori are the only group who can claim an indigenous relationship to Aotearoa. But!!! Indigeneity is only one type of relationship - Pakeha have a different one; acknowledging that does in no way mean I, or any Maori, want you and all non-Maori to pack up and sail back to wherever you may have originally came from. Arguing that would be an insane move for me – my Mum is Pakeha, do I send her off? Even advocating that divisive sort of talk would earn me a good clip around the ears from here!
And finally Che:
I think there is scholastic precedent for conflating ‘indigenous’ with ‘tangata whenua’, and when anyone talks of indigenous peoples in an Aotearoa/NZ context, clearly Maori are being referred to. So regardless of what is occurring trans-nationally, (and I think definitions as used internationally are similar to mine) indigeneity in our local context is inextricably bound up with an ancestral relationship to land, as much as it is bound up in colonial relationships. No not all Maori are animists, but as said above, that way of connecting to land is in the whakapapa of all Maori, its part of the fibre of their cultural history. You may not believe it, but it forms a part of who you are as a modern Maori because your ancestors believed it.
Really need to get some of my Maori brothers and sisters to contribute a Maori voice(s) to this thread, I can't keep up, so many questions and ideas.
To end, hell yeah, awesome thread... imagine trying to have a discussion like this on some of Aotearoa's other popular current affairs blogs! I have no doubt Godwins Law would have been invoked by page 2.
Cheers Public Address team.
-
We do need another,less loaded, term to define people who do have that attachment to the placeness of a place
Agreed, lets hijack the word of the year thread with that very quest! The best those boring bastards have come up with is 'cancerous'. Yawn. (while lol... almost painful).
-
But indigenous isn't the word that springs to mind to descibe that relationship with the land.
Well, no, thats probably because those French farmers don't see the land they farm as their ancestor(s) as much as they haven't been colonised.
It seems fairly obvious too me, indigenous is used to refer to colonized peoples, but to me, and many of the Maori I know, it laso denotes a particular kind of relationship to land, i.e. an ancestral one, summed up nicley by the term 'tangata whenua'. As i understand it, since the 1970s 'indigenous' has come to be a kind of international shorthand that describes those ancestral relationships to land as well as the condition of being colonized.
Yes there is a relationship between the coloniser coming to the place after the colonized, but I place far less weight on that than I do the values and relationships of those two broad groups of people. I think adhering to that sort of linear history is a bit narrow, and it doesn't take into account that the values and relationships will change over time, hopefully gradually in a direction which will see the aforementioned colonised/coloniser dissovle.
Time is important in the sense that if i was to bump into in the streets of insane bloggersville, and you suddenly claimed, "Hey, contrary to what i said 12 hours ago, I now claim Taramaki is my ancestor, therefore I am indigenous now, how bout them law school quotas" I'd come over in big red splotches and try very hard not to get up in your grill over it.