The Treaty of Waitangi
Here are some notes from a recent paper entitled 'Some Speculations on Māori Identity in the New Zealand of tomorrow'. Available from www.charles-royal.com
In advocating for a new identity 'post-settlement' of historical Treaty of Waitangi claims, it might be helpful to offer some thoughts on the Treaty. In my view, the Treaty was never designed as an instrument for the alleviation of grievance. Rather its purpose was more forward looking, guaranteeing and entrenching certain rights to those representing 'tino rangatiratanga' and establishing new rights for those representing 'kāwanatanga'. I do not believe that my ancestors, who signed the Treaty upon Kapiti Island and elsewhere, would have signed the Treaty if they truly believed that their rangatiratanga was soon to be seriously compromised and undermined. Rather I think they saw the Treaty as a way of entrenching their position as well as introducing some order into relationships with the newly arrived Pākehā of the time.
As we know, they did indeed come into serious conflict and their rangatiratanga was deeply compromised. Once this took place, the Treaty became entrapped in a conflict between Māori and the Crown, Māori and Pākehā, as Māori naturally appealed to the Treaty of Waitangi both to articulate grievances and to seek compensation. This began in the middle of the 19th century and continues today. Hence, it is possible to say that we have been robbed of the potential of the Treaty by our experiences and trauma of 19th and 20th century colonisation.
A second concern relates to what might be called the 'ethnicisation' of the Treaty. On many occasions the partners to the Treaty are referred to as Māori and Pākehā whereas the partners are the British Crown and those iwi and hapū whom we have subsequently grouped and labelled as 'Māori'. But this may not have been and may not be appropriate . For example, it is not too much to suggest that those iwi that were in conflict with my ancestors at the beginning of the 19th century (and remained so in 1840) would be quite unhappy to be lumped into a group called 'Māori', a group which included my ancestors! I think conflicting rangatira of the time signed the Treaty not so much that they felt that they were all 'Māori' but rather they believed that the Treaty recognised their rangatiratanga.
Colonisation and its outcomes entrenched the Māori/Pākehā paradigm into our thinking about the Treaty. Thus ethnicity contests arose rather than encounters between entities which are more 'constitutional' in nature. The people of Ngā Puhi, for example, have been consistent in their view that the Treaty created a relationship between them and the British Crown first, prior to any relationship with the New Zealand Government. This idea is held in numerous other iwi as well. Hence, my preference is to use identities communicating tino rangatiratanga on the one hand and kāwanatanga on the other. I prefer to think about the Treaty as a relationship between tino rangatiratanga and kāwanatanga as I find these terms more meaningful than Māori and Pākehā.
With respect to moving forward, once again I hope that with the settlement of Treaty of Waitangi claims we can evolve our thinking about the Treaty. Before the settlement of a claim, we regard the Treaty as an instrument for the alleviation of grievance – and this will continue for some time yet. After settlements, however, I hope that we can relate to the Treaty more in the light of its original creative intention. I hope that we can begin to relate to the Treaty as a creative intersection between tino rangatiratanga and kāwanatanga rather than as a competing and traumatised relationship such as we have been accustomed to. This will entail liberating tino rangatiratanga and kāwanatanga out of a constricting ethnic and cultural paradigm.
I think we have a long way to go yet to fully realise the potential of the Treaty of Waitangi. As I have suggested, we have been robbed of the potential reality of the Treaty by our colonial history. In thinking about the 'fundamentals' of an Aotearoa-New Zealand of tomorrow, the Treaty will offer guidance and a source for these fundamentals if it is seen in the creative light such as I have described. To move forward and prepare a written constitution for Aotearoa-New Zealand without due recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi would be perilous and inadvisable.
In advocating for a new identity 'post-settlement' of historical Treaty of Waitangi claims, it might be helpful to offer some thoughts on the Treaty. In my view, the Treaty was never designed as an instrument for the alleviation of grievance. Rather its purpose was more forward looking, guaranteeing and entrenching certain rights to those representing 'tino rangatiratanga' and establishing new rights for those representing 'kāwanatanga'. I do not believe that my ancestors, who signed the Treaty upon Kapiti Island and elsewhere, would have signed the Treaty if they truly believed that their rangatiratanga was soon to be seriously compromised and undermined. Rather I think they saw the Treaty as a way of entrenching their position as well as introducing some order into relationships with the newly arrived Pākehā of the time.
As we know, they did indeed come into serious conflict and their rangatiratanga was deeply compromised. Once this took place, the Treaty became entrapped in a conflict between Māori and the Crown, Māori and Pākehā, as Māori naturally appealed to the Treaty of Waitangi both to articulate grievances and to seek compensation. This began in the middle of the 19th century and continues today. Hence, it is possible to say that we have been robbed of the potential of the Treaty by our experiences and trauma of 19th and 20th century colonisation.
A second concern relates to what might be called the 'ethnicisation' of the Treaty. On many occasions the partners to the Treaty are referred to as Māori and Pākehā whereas the partners are the British Crown and those iwi and hapū whom we have subsequently grouped and labelled as 'Māori'. But this may not have been and may not be appropriate . For example, it is not too much to suggest that those iwi that were in conflict with my ancestors at the beginning of the 19th century (and remained so in 1840) would be quite unhappy to be lumped into a group called 'Māori', a group which included my ancestors! I think conflicting rangatira of the time signed the Treaty not so much that they felt that they were all 'Māori' but rather they believed that the Treaty recognised their rangatiratanga.
Colonisation and its outcomes entrenched the Māori/Pākehā paradigm into our thinking about the Treaty. Thus ethnicity contests arose rather than encounters between entities which are more 'constitutional' in nature. The people of Ngā Puhi, for example, have been consistent in their view that the Treaty created a relationship between them and the British Crown first, prior to any relationship with the New Zealand Government. This idea is held in numerous other iwi as well. Hence, my preference is to use identities communicating tino rangatiratanga on the one hand and kāwanatanga on the other. I prefer to think about the Treaty as a relationship between tino rangatiratanga and kāwanatanga as I find these terms more meaningful than Māori and Pākehā.
With respect to moving forward, once again I hope that with the settlement of Treaty of Waitangi claims we can evolve our thinking about the Treaty. Before the settlement of a claim, we regard the Treaty as an instrument for the alleviation of grievance – and this will continue for some time yet. After settlements, however, I hope that we can relate to the Treaty more in the light of its original creative intention. I hope that we can begin to relate to the Treaty as a creative intersection between tino rangatiratanga and kāwanatanga rather than as a competing and traumatised relationship such as we have been accustomed to. This will entail liberating tino rangatiratanga and kāwanatanga out of a constricting ethnic and cultural paradigm.
I think we have a long way to go yet to fully realise the potential of the Treaty of Waitangi. As I have suggested, we have been robbed of the potential reality of the Treaty by our colonial history. In thinking about the 'fundamentals' of an Aotearoa-New Zealand of tomorrow, the Treaty will offer guidance and a source for these fundamentals if it is seen in the creative light such as I have described. To move forward and prepare a written constitution for Aotearoa-New Zealand without due recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi would be perilous and inadvisable.
Comments
Post a Comment