Maori Studies - Literature review Example

Maori Studies Maori Studies Contemporary New Zealand enjoys a major share of limelight for varied defining moments. Historically, the Māori have questioned the perception of kāwanatanga (governance) brought about by the contradictory transcriptions found in the Treaty of Waitangi. Throughout New Zealand’s past, Māori have battled colonisation to proliferate and maintain identity. Evidently, this occurred in several channels, with the outstanding being Parihaka pacifist movement. The debate surrounding the use of kāwanatanga lies in translation of the Treaty of Waitangi. Ministry of Culture and Heritage (2007) gives Māori leaders te kāwanatanga katoa (the right of governance) to the Queen over their land. Nevertheless, the English text states that Māori chiefs surrendered "all the rights and powers of Sovereignty" to the Queen (Orange 1987, p. 258 cited in Hayward 2004, p. 157). Kāwanatanga has been familiar to Māori, as missionaries from ‘kāwana’ (governor) derived it. Warbrick (2010) links its use in the Bible to explain Pontius Pilate and the governor of New South Wales expounded the meaning (Beverley 1997, p. 61). Conceivably, it was also castoff in the 1835 assertion of Independence, which proposed that New Zealand should be led into the contemporary world as a Māori-led nation (Durie 1998, p. 3). However, this was a mistranslation of sovereignty, as the idea did not exist in Māori society. Even though Maori chiefs enjoyed authority over their own jurisdiction, no central ruler in the country existed (Ministry for Culture and Heritage 2007). According to Paterson (2004, p.163), the concept of sovereignty originated from European kingdoms characterised by devolved sovereignty. It is "complex in English legal documents related to power of jurisdiction at national as well as meanings at international levels that kāwanatanga did not cover" (Fenton & Moon 2002, p. 34). Perhaps, a better correspondent for sovereignty is the concept of ”mana” (power) as used in the Declaration to infer Māori sovereignty (Walker 1972, cited in Fenton & Moon 2002 p. 34). Subsequently, Tino rangatiratanga (absolute chieftainship) is another term that estimates better sovereignty than kāwanatanga. It implies the "Māori control of all things", same to Māori control (Takitimu Weather Modification 1993). In the Treaty of Waitangi, Māori grant kāwanatanga to the Crown, hence giving partial power to regulate new settlers. Equally, it guarantees tino rangatiratanga, to the visitors an assertion that Māori had no wish to give away (Takitimu Weather Modification 1993). Kaitaia Chief Napera Parakareao further vibrates this idea by saying that "the shadow of the land goes to Queen Victoria but the substance remains with us" (Adams 1977, p. 235, Fenton & Moon 2002, p. 34). In essence, the hope to retain rangatiratanga (chieftainship) was an important factor; however, the British saw this inversely. Certainly, both had diverse prospects from the Treaty, trusting they had authority over New Zealand (Beverley 1997, p. 61). Māori thought they had reserved it while the British believed it had been given to them (Hayward 2004, p. 159). From this perspective, Kāwanatanga got lesser interpretation than the English meaning and the mistranslation disputed the Declaration, hence ceasing the likelihood of a Māori-led state (Durie 1998, p. 3). Eventually, history forced Crown to allow absolute power in New Zealand with this form of "kāwanatanga", replacing the tino rangatiratanga of Māori (Takitimu Weather Modification 1993). Under no circumstance, 200,000 Maori had no need to grant any power to just 2,000 settlers. Such an idea would never have been tolerable to Maori although they signed the Maori text assuming they knew what it meant. In the process, their tino rangatiratanga was retained (Takitimu Weather Modification 1993). The inconsistent interpretation of kāwanatanga led to various contests touching the new Government from 1840 to 1940, linked to the adoption of the Treaty of Waitangi (Boyes 2010). This was mainly because of retaining Māori identity while resisting the progression of colonisation with anticipations of the Treaty contributing to land occupation challenges (Boyes 2010). Using the Treaty of Waitangi, to impose its will on Māori and assume governance, the British Government arrived with the purpose of instituting a new colony and acquiring land (Durie 1998, p. 176). The treaty led to loss, confiscation and illegal purchasing of Māori’s land (Boyes 2010). Māori holds land possession and the kaitiakitanga (responsibility) of protecting land to pass on to the descendants as a worth (Williams 2010). Durie (1998) terms this land as "necessary for spiritual growth and economic survival" and "strengthens whānau and hapū solidarity" (Durie 1998, p. 115). Furthermore, he indicates that Māori identity gets secured by land, connected to the past and present to the future. Māori had a strong attachment and link with land, hence the urge to fight for their land, pupuri whenua (retaining land) (Boyes 2010). Notably, Māori lost much of their land by seizure or sales to the Government (Paterson 2004, p. 167). Crown concentrated on lower level rangatira (chiefs), to which deals sailed very quickly and without the approval of their iwi (tribe) or ariki (paramount chief) (Boyes 2010). Year 1865 saw the foundation of Native Land Court, envisioned to facilitate land transactions to Pākehā, by the Administration (Paterson 2004, p. 167). Deceitful strategies were regularly hired against Māori to force them sell their land. For instance, they fronted expensive legal courses that obligated Māori into debt (Paterson 2004, p. 167). Additionally, Crown employed creeping confiscation, which is sequestration of land on paper by the Government followed by seizure (Boyes 2010). The process attracted Taranaki, in the late 1800s to confront Crown in Parihaka (Boyes 2010). Te Whitio Rongomai and Tohu Kakahi Parihaka established Parihaka to end the struggle without conceding their land (Scott 2008, p. 28). Te Whiti championed for non-violence in line with the Pai Mārire ("Good and peaceful") faith, attracting over 2000 residents who sought the teachings (King 2003, p. 220). He pioneered the village of concord on the lower areas of Waitotoroa. The places acted as resistant points to to battle the unending sequestration policies by the Crown administration (Boyes 2010)., Te Whiti declared March 17th, 1869 te tau o te takahanga (year of trampling underfoot) of kings, queens, and the political administration. Evidenly, it was to follow systems by fighting peace, without the submission of land or lossing independence (Scott 2008, p. 36). The process ensured unity among the Māori people thereby avoiding military alternative. Subsequently, the purpose of establishing Parihaka was to limit colonisation of culture while uplifting Māori back to their original roots (Māori) (Paterson 2004, p. 168). Moreover, the peaceful technique involved capitalizing on land, denying children attendance to Native Schools, and go slow in a symbolic show of ownership (Savage 2002, p. 13). Subtle negotiations occurred between the 1870s and 1880s; however, John Bryce, the then minister of Native Affairs wanted to eject the Parihaka prophets off the land through surveying (Whitmore 2010). Surveying of the Waimate plains began Under the Government of Sir George Grey, in July 1878 with the objective for sale and without assets for local Māori (Riseborough 2002, p. 25). The process led to an end in Te Whitis indulgence towards the Government hence ordering his men to remove the surveyors (Riseborough 2002, p. 25). The Parihaka Māori began resistance to obstruct surveying by sporadically removing the pegs (Whitmore 2010). In response, the initiation of the "Final Solution" was prompted by Bryce to renounce Parihaka in February 1879 (Boyes 2010). On Sunday May 25th 1879, Tohu and Te Whiti sent their ploughmen to till up the confiscated land held by the settlers and farmers from Pukearuhe to Hawera, to assert their rights to the land (Riseborough 2002, p. 27). The men were continually unarmed and disciplined; ploughing figurative furrows into the land to the amazement of settlers (Riseborough 2002, p. 27). The period was known as "the year of the plough" and often colonizers feared war from the pacifistic Parihaka (Whitmore 2010), defining them as "hostile natives" to the Government (Riseborough 2002, p. 27). Grey ultimately ordered all Parihaka ploughmen to be detained only after deciding that their actions may drive immigrants to bloodshed in their ferocity and disturb the peace (Riseborough 2002, p. 28). The apprehension began on the 29th June and an aggregate of 200 ploughmen were jailed under the Māori Prisoners Trial Act, which was an infamous piece of legislation hastily passed through by the Grey Government for Māori to be arrested and held without trial (Boyes 2010). The government also suspended habeas corpus (legal action to pursue relief from unlawful imprisonment) for the men as the Government dreaded that if the trials botched conviction, it would do nothing but upsurge the power and provision of the prophets once the men were released (Riseborough 2002, p. 28). Certainly, appears rational considering the fact that Te Whiti ordered only those men of mana to be taken prisoner while those who had humbled themselves by siding with the Government to continue in his protection at Parihaka (Riseborough 2002, p. 28). He continued to speak of these ploughmen, whom he had sent to "strike deep at European passions and emotions" (Riseborough 2002, p. 28). It was both tactical and figurative that Te Whiti had thought of compounding this by preparing his men with the plough and not the kō (traditional digging stick). For Europeans, the plough had symbolised ascendancy over the land; something Te Whiti took lead of to add weight to his declaration and show the courtesy of Māori (Riseborough 2002, p. 29). The cost of fighting Te Whiti by 1880, reached over £1 million (Boyes 2010). In the process of losing patience and public backing, 19th October saw a fourteen day condition sent to Te Whiti. It instructed him to accept the allocated reserves and acquiesce to the law of the Queen (Riseborough 2002, p. 35). Though, this was the first time Te Whiti heard of reserves for him while all the adjacent land got surveyed and sold, he did not trust there would be any land at all (Riseborough 2002, p. 35). Interestingly, on the morning of November 5, 1881, Bryce led 1500 volunteers and armed constabulary members into Parihaka to chase the community and claim the land (Boyes 2010). In response, they were met by over 2000 Parihaka people settled on the marae ātea (courtyard), dancing and singing children (Parihaka Management Trust 2010). Parihaka created no resistance and the people were carried off (Boyes 2010). Te Whiti and Tohu got placed in a mock trial, and incarcerated in the South Island prisons (Parihaka Management Trust 2010). In the following two weeks, Parihaka was pillaged, crops and buildings burnt down and the women raped (Parihaka Management Trust 2010). Parihaka slaves got relocated and held indeterminately in Portobello, Dunedin (Boyes 2010). The prison mostly held men, wives and children to assist them, but at a great price. They lived in poverty and in poor living conditions leading to many deaths during the years of exile (Parihaka Management Trust 2010). Notably, the events at Parihaka played a crucial role in influencing New Zealand society. In this light, the suffering felt by those at Parihaka signifies one part of the destruction felt by Māori with the arrival of Pākehā (Parihaka Management Trust 2010). Parihaka shows the gluttony of Pākehā leaders and their enthusiasm to use irresistible force to impose both their will and authority over the inertly resistant Māori. Te Whiti and Tohus leadership were vivacious in safeguarding that Māori did not enter a full-scale war in which they had no advantage of winning (Savage 2002, p. 13). They, guided their people through the volatile period of history while upholding honour and integrity (Savage 2002, p. 13). Notably, their teachings and methods are influential political, spiritual, and moral (Savage 2002, p. 13-14). The perception can be seen in the various media portraying Parihaka such as the historical novels “Ask That Mountain” and “Parihaka” by Dick Scott and John Hinchcliff (Parihaka Management Trust 2010). In 2000, the Wellington City Gallery acted a major exhibition of art, films, photographs, and music related to Parihaka as a stratey of recognising Te Whiti and his followers endeavours (Parihaka Management Trust 2010). Additionally, there is a Parihaka International Peace Festival, held since 2005, dedicated to honouring the spiritual insights of living in harmony with the land and humanity (Parihaka Management Trust 2010). Most importantly, it is about a certainty in the peaceful co-existence between Māori and other races through pacifist methods and a celebration of Te Whiti and Tohus teachings (Parihaka Management Trust 2010). In conclusion, the Treaty of Waitangi and the confusion arising from many translations played a fundamental role in shaping Māori’s history. kāwanatanga had challenges in understanding the treaty hence leading to land ownership disputes, which deprived the Māori not only their land but also the peace, culture and the traditional heritage. Arguably, movements such as Parihaka have been important in to resisting colonisation and maintaining Māori cultural identity. The peaceful strategy employed by the group is unforgettable in history. The message also assists in a continued resilience against Crowns of the contemporary world. References Beverley, P. 1997, ‘The incorporation of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi into the ResourceManagement Act 1991,’ Journal of Environmental Law, vol 1, no 1, p. 59-75 Boyes, S. 2010, Challenges to Kāwanatanga, MAOR102: Māori Society, Dunedin: University of Otago. Durie, M. 1998, Te Mana Te Kawanatanga: The Politics of Maori Self-Determination, Auckland:Oxford University Press. Fenton, S. & Moon, P. 2002, The Translation of the Treaty of Waitangi: A Case of Disempowerment. In: Tymoczko, M., Gentzler, E. (eds) Translation and Power, Amherst/Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, pp. 25-44. Hayward, J. 2004, Te Tiriti o Waitangi - The Treaty of Waitangi. In Kaai, T.M., Moorfield, J.C., Reilly, M.P.J. & Mosley, S. (eds) Ki te Whaiao: An Introduction to Māori Culture and Society, Auckland: Pearson Education, pp. 151-162. King, M. 2003, The Penguin History of New Zealand, Auckland:Penguin Books. Ministry for Culture and Heritage 18-Apr-2007, Differences between the texts - read the Treaty, [Online] http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/differences-between-the-texts, (Accessed: 16th September 2010). Parihaka Management Trust 2010, About Parihaka, [Online] http://www.parihaka.com/About.aspx, (Accessed: 16th September 2010). Paterson, L. 2004, Mana Māori motuhake - Challenges to kāwanatanga 1840-1940. In Kaai, T.M., Moorfield, J.C., Reilly, M.P.J. & Mosley, S. (eds) Ki te Whaiao: An Introduction to Māori Culture and Society, Auckland: Pearson Education, pp. 163-170. Riseborough, H. 2002, Te Pāhuatanga o Parihaka. In: Hohaia, T.M. & OBrien, G. (eds) Parihaka: The Art of Passive Resistance, Wellington: Victoria University Press, pp. 19-42. Savage, P. 2002, Parihaka: The Weighty Legacy of Unfinished Business. In: Hohaia, T.M. & OBrien, G. (eds) Parihaka: The Art of Passive Resistance, Wellington: Victoria University Press, pp. 12-15. Scott, D. 2008, Ask That Mountain, Auckland:Raupo Publishing (NZ) Ltd Takitimu Weather Modification 1993, Tino rangatiratanga. [Online] http://twm.co.nz/Maori_tino.htm, (Accessed: 16th September 2010). Warbrick, P. 2010, Treaty of Waitangi, MAOR102: Māori Society, Dunedin: University of Otago. Whitmore, R. 2010, Parihaka, [Online] http://history-nz.org/parihaka.html, (Accessed: 17th September 2010). Williams, J. 2010, Attitudes to Land, MAOR102: Māori Society, Dunedin: University of Otago. Read More