Showing posts with label Nga Kaimahi Maori. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nga Kaimahi Maori. Show all posts
9/10/10
Day of Action planned for October 20 2010
The Maori organiser for the Council of Trade Unions is encouraging Maori workers and their whanau to get involved in the union movement’s national day of action next month. Helen Te Hira says low income Maori workers have been hit hard by government actions. She says they will get a chance to speak out on what’s being called 20-10 2010. “So on the 20th of October there will be actions up and down the country led by unions but also whanau who are really feeling what’s been a cascade of attacks on working rights,” Ms Te Hira says.
7/16/10
Crash Nationals Party
The overwhelming MAJORITY of Maori /Pasifika are workers. Attacks on workers are attacks on Maori & Pasifika peoples.
5/1/10
Ngaa Momo Whakaritenga Maaori
Captures Tangata Whenua experiences and approaches to union organising. Discusses future pathways for growing Maaori worker voices and explores the challenges before the Maaori workforce.
11/6/09
Maori Job Loss Outstripping Rest of Society
Source
New figures show Maori are suffering the brunt of job losses caused by the recession.
The Household Labour Force survey shows in the past year Maori unemployment has rocketed from 9.6 percent to 14.2 percent.
That’s an increase of almost 10 thousand out of work.
Pakeha unemployment has only gone from 3.1 to 4.5 percent.
Council of Trade Unions secretary Peter Conway says the recession has hit hard in the construction and manufacturing sectors, which employed large numbers of Maori.
“Maori are also a younger population on average and youth unemployment is now above 25 percent so part of it is that and there also may be still some discrimination in the labour market. I’m not saying it’s there but others say it’s there and hitting Maori hard,” Mr Conway says.
The CTU says the government needs to take specific action to fight Maori unemployment or the social consequences will be around for generation.
see also: Household Labour force Survey
New figures show Maori are suffering the brunt of job losses caused by the recession.
The Household Labour Force survey shows in the past year Maori unemployment has rocketed from 9.6 percent to 14.2 percent.
That’s an increase of almost 10 thousand out of work.
Pakeha unemployment has only gone from 3.1 to 4.5 percent.
Council of Trade Unions secretary Peter Conway says the recession has hit hard in the construction and manufacturing sectors, which employed large numbers of Maori.
“Maori are also a younger population on average and youth unemployment is now above 25 percent so part of it is that and there also may be still some discrimination in the labour market. I’m not saying it’s there but others say it’s there and hitting Maori hard,” Mr Conway says.
The CTU says the government needs to take specific action to fight Maori unemployment or the social consequences will be around for generation.
see also: Household Labour force Survey
10/24/09
MAORI MADE EARLY CONTRIBUTION TO WORKERS’ RIGHTS
A trade union educator says Maori should use Labour Day to celebrate their contributions to workers' rights.
Helen Te Hira of Unite says the day marks the world-leading efforts of workers in this country for the eight hour working day, starting with carpenter Samuel Parnell's protest in Petone in 1840.
She says the momentum grew through the 19th century, and Maori were attracted to the collective nature of unions.
The first recorded wages dispute happened in the Bay of Islands in October 1821, when Maori sawyers went on strike for the right to be paid in money or gunpowder.
3/12/09
Save Sealord Workers
SAVE SEALORD WORKERS
Put people before profits!
Put people before profits!
More than 160 workers at Sealord’s fish processing plant in Nelson are to lose their jobs through restructuring.
The announcement came within days of the Job Summit called by NZ Prime Minister John Key to work out how to save jobs!
At a time when unity and collective cooperation between unions, employers and the Government is making headlines, Sealord have demanded that their employees must accept a reduction in wages to increase profits or face dismissal.
“Sealord intends to lay off around 160 staff immediately, and have indicated to us that they may close the processing plant in the near future unless staff agree to what is effectively a $70 a week cut in wages across the board.” says Neville Donaldson, SFWU Assistant National Secretary.
“At a time when most businesses are saying they are prepared to make less profits in order to secure employment, Sealord have demanded that workers increase the company profits by $1.8 million through wage and condition cuts.”
“If staff don’t agree to the proposed cut in wages and conditions within the three week consultation process, Sealord management have advised us that the board may take an option to close the processing facility in Nelson which currently employs over 500 workers.”
The company plans to process fish on factory ships out at sea.
Send an email to Sealord Chair Robin Hapi here
2/11/09
JOIN THE RAT PATROL AGAINST UNFAIR DISMISSALS
From March '09 workers in small businesses will be able to be sacked for any reason, or no reason at all, in their first 90 days of employment. The RAT PATROL has been launched by unions and community groups to make sure no worker get unfairly dismissed under the new law. The Rat Patrol received a great response in Coyle Park last weekend, with hundreds of workers taking leaflets for the demonstration on 28 February. There is loads of anger in the community about the new law, and people love the idea of bringing the giant inflatable rat to shame their own rat bosses. Come along over the next few weeks to give us a hand with the leaflets and sign-ups:
SATURDAY 14 FEB - MANGERE MARKET. Mangere Community Law Centre have reserved a joint space for the Rat Patrol and the campaign to defend Community Law Centres. Meet 9am Unite Office or 10am at Mangere Market, Mangere Town Square off Waddon Place (meet next to the Maori Wardens building).
SAT 14 FEB - CROSS ST CARNIVAL - DETAILS TBC
SUNDAY 15 FEB - AVONDALE MARKET (MORNING) - DETAILS TBC
SATURDAY 21 FEB - OTARA MARKET (MORNING) - DETAILS TBC
Let us know which events you can can help out at, and which other events you'd like to take the rat to. The leaflet can be DOWNLOADED - you can use them anywhere, so sign up your friends and workmates, and send the names back in so we can keep building the RAT PATROL. If you can't find the rat when you get to the event, text me on 0210 358 513 and we'll try to locate you... Hope to see you all tomorrow, Nicola
REGISTER AS A RAT PATROL MEMBER to join the emergency solidarity pickets against unfair sackings. Our goal is to have several hundred people registered as willing and able to respond to appeals for help on short notice. Register with your email address and/or mobile number for text messages. To join email wewontpayforyourcrisis@gmail.com or
REGISTER ONLINE http://www.unite.org.nz/?q=contact
DOWNLOADABLE POSTER here:
http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/76759/index.php
SATURDAY 14 FEB - MANGERE MARKET. Mangere Community Law Centre have reserved a joint space for the Rat Patrol and the campaign to defend Community Law Centres. Meet 9am Unite Office or 10am at Mangere Market, Mangere Town Square off Waddon Place (meet next to the Maori Wardens building).
SAT 14 FEB - CROSS ST CARNIVAL - DETAILS TBC
SUNDAY 15 FEB - AVONDALE MARKET (MORNING) - DETAILS TBC
SATURDAY 21 FEB - OTARA MARKET (MORNING) - DETAILS TBC
Let us know which events you can can help out at, and which other events you'd like to take the rat to. The leaflet can be DOWNLOADED - you can use them anywhere, so sign up your friends and workmates, and send the names back in so we can keep building the RAT PATROL. If you can't find the rat when you get to the event, text me on 0210 358 513 and we'll try to locate you... Hope to see you all tomorrow, Nicola
REGISTER AS A RAT PATROL MEMBER to join the emergency solidarity pickets against unfair sackings. Our goal is to have several hundred people registered as willing and able to respond to appeals for help on short notice. Register with your email address and/or mobile number for text messages. To join email wewontpayforyourcrisis@gmail.com or
REGISTER ONLINE http://www.unite.org.nz/?q=contact
DOWNLOADABLE POSTER here:
http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/76759/index.php
2/9/09
National/Maori Party honeymoon smashed on Waitangi Day
a guest commentary I wrote for Socialist Aotearoa dedicated to John & Wikatana Popata
The National/Maori party honeymoon was smashed on Waitangi Day. The brave actions of two young warriors definitely dispelled the pro government propaganda that the National and Maori Party were desperately trying to cement on Waitangi Day. Mrs Harawira’s reaction is complete hypocrisy. Each generation has a right to oppose their oppression. Just because some are sitting at the table with or holding onto the arm of the oppressor that gives them no right to crush dissent when it doesn't suit their own political purposes. Whether our Maori leader’s or Maori elite like to admit it or not there is a groundswell of anger and disappointment that our grassroots have been sold out, again, and wait to get kicked in their teeth by their own.
The Maori Party is a right wing party, make no mistake about that. Hiding behind the rhetoric of advancing all Maori, they have shown that they are willing to sacrifice the vast majority of Maori for the enrichment and advancement of a few. Our so-called Maori leaders were unwilling to even discuss huge unemployment amongst our people at Waitangi, yet jump at the chance to be involved in privatisation. These neo tribal capitalists are transparent in their greed and their neoliberal modus operandi. These elements have much to gain from the privatisation of public services and their turning over to Maori business interests in the name of “self determination”.
This is exactly what was intended way back when the treaty settlement process & fiscal envelope were touted and subsequently implemented. Maori have already been kicked in the guts from the recession; disproportionally we have already the highest percentage of recently unemployed. Turia’s prescription for recently unemployed Maori is to study as a way to ride out the recession, which is patronising and out of touch as you can get. Expect to see more of the same as nowadays it seems you are not a real Maori if your a worker, gang member or on a benefit.
The Maori Party has already started to demonise other Maori that don’t “fit with the program”. This is a ploy to soften up and slam into our own disenfranchised & dispossessed and to squash dissent by Maori to the National gubbaments agenda. Our elite will gladly take up the role of the native police to keep the more rebellious and those resentful of these polices in line. At the end of the day, the mokopuna of Roger Douglas will have their say. The mass of our flax roots, our workers, our youth, our gang members and all our whanau at the bottom of the heap struggling to survive. We are the sleeping taniwha that will rise up and take back the future that our Leaders & elite have already sold.
Sina Brown-Davis
Ngati Whatua ki Kaipara
References:
Iwi present Key with wish-list for action HERE
SOE shares part of Maori Party 'budget HERE
Gordon Campbell on the challenges that the RMA changes pose for the Maori Party HERE
8/29/08
Maritime Union criticizes Myanmar connection in free trade deal
The Maritime Union of New Zealand says a free trade deal signed with ASEAN nations including the military dictatorship of Myanmar is bad for workers. Maritime Union General Secretary Trevor Hanson says a free trade deal including Myanmar will boost the violently anti-worker regime in Myanmar and threatened workers rights.
He says the Maritime Union has many concerns about the treatment of Burmese maritime workers, some of whom work in New Zealand waters, and who have been mistreated and abused in the past.The Maritime Union has previously spoken out about the murder of Ko Moe Naung, a Seafarers' Union of Burma (Myanmar) organizer in the Ranong region, who was killed by Burmese military forces on 19 May 2005.
The Seafarers' Union of Burma is a fellow affiliate with the Maritime Union of New Zealand to the International Transport Workers' Federation.
Ko Moe was tortured to death over three hours during interrogation at 8-Mile Village Army Base LIR 431 in Kawthaung, Burma.
Ko Moe was targeted by the Myanmar regime as he was a dedicated trade union leader, who was organising Burmese fishermen and migrant workers from Burma at the Ranong area.
Mr Hanson says free trade deals mean that New Zealand is now effectively endorsing dictatorships such as Burma which murder workers such as Ko Moe Naung.
He says the Maritime Union has a long history of opposing repressive regimes, refusing to work on American nuclear warships in New Zealand harbours and supporting the struggle against apartheid.
"New Zealand waterfront workers refused to load pig iron for Japan before World War 2, which they were denounced for, but shortly afterwards the pig iron was coming back towards us as bullets."
Mr Hanson says sometimes doing the right thing comes with a cost.
He says the Maritime Union is extremely concerned that free trade deals will mean the use of short term, casual labour imported across borders to drive down wages and conditions, a problem that is now occurring around the world.
ENDS
For further information please contact Maritime Union General Secretary Trevor Hanson on 021390585 or 04 801 7614
He says the Maritime Union has many concerns about the treatment of Burmese maritime workers, some of whom work in New Zealand waters, and who have been mistreated and abused in the past.The Maritime Union has previously spoken out about the murder of Ko Moe Naung, a Seafarers' Union of Burma (Myanmar) organizer in the Ranong region, who was killed by Burmese military forces on 19 May 2005.
The Seafarers' Union of Burma is a fellow affiliate with the Maritime Union of New Zealand to the International Transport Workers' Federation.
Ko Moe was tortured to death over three hours during interrogation at 8-Mile Village Army Base LIR 431 in Kawthaung, Burma.
Ko Moe was targeted by the Myanmar regime as he was a dedicated trade union leader, who was organising Burmese fishermen and migrant workers from Burma at the Ranong area.
Mr Hanson says free trade deals mean that New Zealand is now effectively endorsing dictatorships such as Burma which murder workers such as Ko Moe Naung.
He says the Maritime Union has a long history of opposing repressive regimes, refusing to work on American nuclear warships in New Zealand harbours and supporting the struggle against apartheid.
"New Zealand waterfront workers refused to load pig iron for Japan before World War 2, which they were denounced for, but shortly afterwards the pig iron was coming back towards us as bullets."
Mr Hanson says sometimes doing the right thing comes with a cost.
He says the Maritime Union is extremely concerned that free trade deals will mean the use of short term, casual labour imported across borders to drive down wages and conditions, a problem that is now occurring around the world.
ENDS
For further information please contact Maritime Union General Secretary Trevor Hanson on 021390585 or 04 801 7614
8/13/08
Tino Rangatiratanga and Capitalism
by Teanau Tuiono
Firstly I’d like to say that this my opinion on what is Tino Rangatiratanga, acknowledging that there are many different meanings for Tino Rangatiratanga and the concept itself is part of a rich and ongoing debate in Maori society. So I think the debate/dialogue/discussion surrounding Tino Rangatiratanga is an organic/dynamic thing so in that vein of thought my own views are also dynamic and changing. So yeah that’s all the disclaimer shit out of the way [in case I change my mind: and someone quotes me out of context.]
I feel that no one person has all the answers but that there should be parameters where the korero is contained, so that the korero is relatively in the same discussion ballpark. I also think that some of the issues surrounding Tino Maori and Maori alone to debate/decide. (How that decision is made is another thing completely). I think there are some aspects of Tino Rangatiratanga that non-Maori can engage on but there are some aspects that are for Maori only. This is consistent with principles of self-determination, meaning it’s not self-determination if someone else is determining it for you.
A DEFINITION
A good definition of Tino Rangatiratanga can be found on the Tino Rangatiratanga website. (http://aotearoa.wellington.net.nz) The word tino is an intensifier and the word rangatiratanga broadly speaking relates to the exercise of chieftainship.
Its closest English translation is self-determination although many also refer to it as absolute sovereignity or Maori independence. Such a concept embraces the spiritual link Maori have with Papatuanuku (Earthmother) and is a part of the international drive by indigenous people for self determination.
TINO RANGATIRATANGA FROM BELOW
(as opposed to the courts, parliament, the universities, and other talking heads.) How this broad definition fits in with what is happening in Maori society, the sorts of parameters it throws up and the extent of those parameters, I think is determined, at the flaxroots level. Treaty principles (and other similar attempts thrown up by this and that government and this and that court and then mulled over by the academics in the learning institutions) have all been reactions to direct action at the flaxroots level. For example the setting up of the Waitangi Tribunal and the establishment of the Maori Language Commission culminated with actions from the 60s, and 70s.
I think the struggle for Tino Rangatiratanga happens on a number of levels, a part of the struggle is the retention and revitalisation of our language and customs. In that sense every volunteer in every kappa haka group and Kohanga reo (and other similar groups) is in some way contributing to the struggle of Tino Rangatiratanga. Where I think the most clarity and direction happens for Tino Rangatiratanga is on the direct action frontline (as opposed to parliament, the courts, the classroom). The Movement has traditionally been an extremely heterogeneous social force encompassing a considerable variety of political strategies, campaigns and participants. But this is where the parameters of Tino Rangatiratanga are set (or not set ). Like most movements the Tino Rangatiratanga movement has a tradition and a history.
This tradition is rooted in conflicts over the Treaty of Waitangi, Maori resistance in the Land Wars, inspired by the Prophet Warriors Titokowaru and Te Kooti Arikirangi, the philosophies of Te Whiti and Tohu Kakahi, the strategies of the Kingitanga, the resilience of Rua Kenana, and the foresight of Ratana, and those countless ancestors whose blood soaks this land. In the modern context this tradition has been held up by new groups and individuals such as Nga Tamatoa, WAC (Waitangi Action Committee), Te Kawariki, Black Women, Te mana motuhake o Tuhoe, Te Kawau Maro, (the list goes on and on) who in turn drove and were inspired by the Occupations of Bastion Point (Takaparawha), The Land March and the countless Marches on Waitangi, resistance to the infamous fiscal envelope and the Occupations it set off, Pakaitore,Takahue, etc. The establishment of the Tuhoe Embassy, the Occupation of Waikaremoana, resistance to Free Trade and Genetic Engineering. It is here where I think the parameters of Tino Rangatiratanga are debated /digested /formulated.
CAPITALISM AND TINO RANGATIRATANGA COLLIDE IN THE CULTURAL NATIONALIST DIVIDE
(the divide between rich Maori and poor Maori.)
Yup nasty old capitalism. I think that one of the parameters that needs to be set is a Maori based analysis of capitalism. Placing white settler colonisation of Aotearoa within its historical context, it can be seen as a part of the global process of capitalist expansionism based on the destruction of the territorial and cultural integrity of the indigenous populations by the expropriation and commodification of their lands and human resources. From a tikanga perspective capitalism began in Aotearoa with the commodification of Papatuanuku, that is the individualisation of whenua, disrupting the collective connection that Maori had with the whenua.
This is the nature of colonisation so the struggle against colonisation is the struggle against capitalism. Capitalism is class struggle, that is, capitalism, by its very nature, forces people to work for a wage. For example, by stealing communal lands and resources, causing the indigenous peoples who relied on those lands and resources for survival, causing them to move to the cities to work as wage slaves.
The struggle against colonisation and capitalism also has contemporary manifestations, but there are also things that happened relatively recently that we can be learn and build on. The Tino Rangatiratanga movement in the 60s and 70s drew on other social movements of that time period that identified with the left, specifically the Anti-Racist Movement, the Womens Liberation Movement, and the Trade Union Movement (a lot of shit was going down at this time eg the biggest amount of strike activity in the history of colonial New Zealand, the Mangere Bridge lockout in 1978, the Kinleith strike in 1980 etc). The political turbulence of this period culminated ( for the Tino Rangatiratanga movement ) in the 1975 land march on parliament, Bastion Point, Raglan and the regular protests at Waitangi.
In the 80s, a lot of energy was focused on winning Maori studies and language programmes in the education system. For large parts of the movement the emphasis on the rediscovery of culture came to be the objective of the movement itself and a substitute for practical struggle. Although I think struggle for the revitalisation of te reo Maori and tikanga are good things I think they need to seen as just a part of the fabric of Tino Rangatiratanga. By focusing on cultural issues this allowed the co-optation of a Maori elite within the structures of the state forced many Maori leaders to straddle the uneasy gulf between pushing the Maori struggle forward and maintaining the existing state of affairs. The prestige and wealth that went with such privileged positions in the settlement process meant that Maori leaders became increasingly removed from the concerns and vitality of the flaxroots Maori struggle. Tino Rangatiratanga could be then seen as economic independence because we were free to enter the free market. Capitalism with a smiley (Maori) face. Bullshit. Watching our rangatiratanga go up and down on the stock exchange is not a good thing, especially if someone flies a plane into it.
Tino Rangatiratanga should be a radically democratic alternative to capitalism in which the flaxroots, local community would be constantly and actively involved in making the key decisions about the allocation of societies resources in a collective, co-operative and open manner rather than behind the closed boardroom doors of large corporations (be they tribal or otherwise). It would involve communities making these important decisions and running the economy and society as a whole on a day-to-day basis.
Tino Rangatiratanga should embrace a system in which our entire economy is geared up to satisfy the needs of human beings our tikanga, cultural values and aspirations not the profit margins of a tiny elite. (i.e. human need, not greed!) It would encapsulate our role as kaitiaki, guardians of the earth and the eco-system. It would be based on a vision of society free of racism, class exploitation, women’s oppression, homo-phobia and the oppression of indigenous peoples.
This helps us to understand the nature of Maori corporations, corporate warriors, the brown table, tribal capitalists, who by cashing in the momentum created by Tino Rangatiratanga advocates, have managed cash up generations of Maori struggle for only a small fraction of what the land, fisheries and other resources were worth (and for some Maori assigning a $$ value to Papatuanuku or Tangaroa is obscene). Tino Rangatiratanga needs to be rescued from corporate warriors, tribal executives and Maori businesses along with the ideologues of the New Right to define Tino Rangatiratanga in a way that seriously threatens the living standards of the vast majority of working class Maori whanau.
I think a way of acting on all of this is recognizing that the struggle for Tino Rangatiratanga is part of a broader international struggle simply because the system that were fighting against is an international one. This seemed to be picked up on in the 60s, 70s, and 80s (and some people still got the afros, and leathers looking like Black Panthers). Our struggle against capitalism depends on building a movement that has an organic connection with Aotearoa and an analysis of the system here. It is simply dangerous to assume that what happens in Britain or Europe can be simply applied to NZ. While there are broader trends that are the same, we need an indigenous analysis of class struggle and capitalism in NZ not the borrowed writings of British authors applied mindlessly and indiscriminately to a country 12,000 miles away. The
Polynesian populace is overwhelmingly working class (for those of us lucky enough to have a job)...our values and outlook are not the same as British workers. We need to build an indigenous analysis and political strategy that relates to the realities of surviving capitalism in our own little part of the world. –
Ka whawhai tonu matou ake ake ake - Rewi Maniapoto
1864. (We will fight on forever, ever and ever.)
1864. (We will fight on forever, ever and ever.)
Firstly I’d like to say that this my opinion on what is Tino Rangatiratanga, acknowledging that there are many different meanings for Tino Rangatiratanga and the concept itself is part of a rich and ongoing debate in Maori society. So I think the debate/dialogue/discussion surrounding Tino Rangatiratanga is an organic/dynamic thing so in that vein of thought my own views are also dynamic and changing. So yeah that’s all the disclaimer shit out of the way [in case I change my mind: and someone quotes me out of context.]
I feel that no one person has all the answers but that there should be parameters where the korero is contained, so that the korero is relatively in the same discussion ballpark. I also think that some of the issues surrounding Tino Maori and Maori alone to debate/decide. (How that decision is made is another thing completely). I think there are some aspects of Tino Rangatiratanga that non-Maori can engage on but there are some aspects that are for Maori only. This is consistent with principles of self-determination, meaning it’s not self-determination if someone else is determining it for you.
A DEFINITION
A good definition of Tino Rangatiratanga can be found on the Tino Rangatiratanga website. (http://aotearoa.wellington.net.nz) The word tino is an intensifier and the word rangatiratanga broadly speaking relates to the exercise of chieftainship.
Its closest English translation is self-determination although many also refer to it as absolute sovereignity or Maori independence. Such a concept embraces the spiritual link Maori have with Papatuanuku (Earthmother) and is a part of the international drive by indigenous people for self determination.
TINO RANGATIRATANGA FROM BELOW
(as opposed to the courts, parliament, the universities, and other talking heads.) How this broad definition fits in with what is happening in Maori society, the sorts of parameters it throws up and the extent of those parameters, I think is determined, at the flaxroots level. Treaty principles (and other similar attempts thrown up by this and that government and this and that court and then mulled over by the academics in the learning institutions) have all been reactions to direct action at the flaxroots level. For example the setting up of the Waitangi Tribunal and the establishment of the Maori Language Commission culminated with actions from the 60s, and 70s.
I think the struggle for Tino Rangatiratanga happens on a number of levels, a part of the struggle is the retention and revitalisation of our language and customs. In that sense every volunteer in every kappa haka group and Kohanga reo (and other similar groups) is in some way contributing to the struggle of Tino Rangatiratanga. Where I think the most clarity and direction happens for Tino Rangatiratanga is on the direct action frontline (as opposed to parliament, the courts, the classroom). The Movement has traditionally been an extremely heterogeneous social force encompassing a considerable variety of political strategies, campaigns and participants. But this is where the parameters of Tino Rangatiratanga are set (or not set ). Like most movements the Tino Rangatiratanga movement has a tradition and a history.
This tradition is rooted in conflicts over the Treaty of Waitangi, Maori resistance in the Land Wars, inspired by the Prophet Warriors Titokowaru and Te Kooti Arikirangi, the philosophies of Te Whiti and Tohu Kakahi, the strategies of the Kingitanga, the resilience of Rua Kenana, and the foresight of Ratana, and those countless ancestors whose blood soaks this land. In the modern context this tradition has been held up by new groups and individuals such as Nga Tamatoa, WAC (Waitangi Action Committee), Te Kawariki, Black Women, Te mana motuhake o Tuhoe, Te Kawau Maro, (the list goes on and on) who in turn drove and were inspired by the Occupations of Bastion Point (Takaparawha), The Land March and the countless Marches on Waitangi, resistance to the infamous fiscal envelope and the Occupations it set off, Pakaitore,Takahue, etc. The establishment of the Tuhoe Embassy, the Occupation of Waikaremoana, resistance to Free Trade and Genetic Engineering. It is here where I think the parameters of Tino Rangatiratanga are debated /digested /formulated.
CAPITALISM AND TINO RANGATIRATANGA COLLIDE IN THE CULTURAL NATIONALIST DIVIDE
(the divide between rich Maori and poor Maori.)
Yup nasty old capitalism. I think that one of the parameters that needs to be set is a Maori based analysis of capitalism. Placing white settler colonisation of Aotearoa within its historical context, it can be seen as a part of the global process of capitalist expansionism based on the destruction of the territorial and cultural integrity of the indigenous populations by the expropriation and commodification of their lands and human resources. From a tikanga perspective capitalism began in Aotearoa with the commodification of Papatuanuku, that is the individualisation of whenua, disrupting the collective connection that Maori had with the whenua.
This is the nature of colonisation so the struggle against colonisation is the struggle against capitalism. Capitalism is class struggle, that is, capitalism, by its very nature, forces people to work for a wage. For example, by stealing communal lands and resources, causing the indigenous peoples who relied on those lands and resources for survival, causing them to move to the cities to work as wage slaves.
The struggle against colonisation and capitalism also has contemporary manifestations, but there are also things that happened relatively recently that we can be learn and build on. The Tino Rangatiratanga movement in the 60s and 70s drew on other social movements of that time period that identified with the left, specifically the Anti-Racist Movement, the Womens Liberation Movement, and the Trade Union Movement (a lot of shit was going down at this time eg the biggest amount of strike activity in the history of colonial New Zealand, the Mangere Bridge lockout in 1978, the Kinleith strike in 1980 etc). The political turbulence of this period culminated ( for the Tino Rangatiratanga movement ) in the 1975 land march on parliament, Bastion Point, Raglan and the regular protests at Waitangi.
In the 80s, a lot of energy was focused on winning Maori studies and language programmes in the education system. For large parts of the movement the emphasis on the rediscovery of culture came to be the objective of the movement itself and a substitute for practical struggle. Although I think struggle for the revitalisation of te reo Maori and tikanga are good things I think they need to seen as just a part of the fabric of Tino Rangatiratanga. By focusing on cultural issues this allowed the co-optation of a Maori elite within the structures of the state forced many Maori leaders to straddle the uneasy gulf between pushing the Maori struggle forward and maintaining the existing state of affairs. The prestige and wealth that went with such privileged positions in the settlement process meant that Maori leaders became increasingly removed from the concerns and vitality of the flaxroots Maori struggle. Tino Rangatiratanga could be then seen as economic independence because we were free to enter the free market. Capitalism with a smiley (Maori) face. Bullshit. Watching our rangatiratanga go up and down on the stock exchange is not a good thing, especially if someone flies a plane into it.
Tino Rangatiratanga should be a radically democratic alternative to capitalism in which the flaxroots, local community would be constantly and actively involved in making the key decisions about the allocation of societies resources in a collective, co-operative and open manner rather than behind the closed boardroom doors of large corporations (be they tribal or otherwise). It would involve communities making these important decisions and running the economy and society as a whole on a day-to-day basis.
Tino Rangatiratanga should embrace a system in which our entire economy is geared up to satisfy the needs of human beings our tikanga, cultural values and aspirations not the profit margins of a tiny elite. (i.e. human need, not greed!) It would encapsulate our role as kaitiaki, guardians of the earth and the eco-system. It would be based on a vision of society free of racism, class exploitation, women’s oppression, homo-phobia and the oppression of indigenous peoples.
This helps us to understand the nature of Maori corporations, corporate warriors, the brown table, tribal capitalists, who by cashing in the momentum created by Tino Rangatiratanga advocates, have managed cash up generations of Maori struggle for only a small fraction of what the land, fisheries and other resources were worth (and for some Maori assigning a $$ value to Papatuanuku or Tangaroa is obscene). Tino Rangatiratanga needs to be rescued from corporate warriors, tribal executives and Maori businesses along with the ideologues of the New Right to define Tino Rangatiratanga in a way that seriously threatens the living standards of the vast majority of working class Maori whanau.
I think a way of acting on all of this is recognizing that the struggle for Tino Rangatiratanga is part of a broader international struggle simply because the system that were fighting against is an international one. This seemed to be picked up on in the 60s, 70s, and 80s (and some people still got the afros, and leathers looking like Black Panthers). Our struggle against capitalism depends on building a movement that has an organic connection with Aotearoa and an analysis of the system here. It is simply dangerous to assume that what happens in Britain or Europe can be simply applied to NZ. While there are broader trends that are the same, we need an indigenous analysis of class struggle and capitalism in NZ not the borrowed writings of British authors applied mindlessly and indiscriminately to a country 12,000 miles away. The
Polynesian populace is overwhelmingly working class (for those of us lucky enough to have a job)...our values and outlook are not the same as British workers. We need to build an indigenous analysis and political strategy that relates to the realities of surviving capitalism in our own little part of the world. –
8/12/08
The veneer is radical, but the substance is not
PACIFIC JOURNALISM REVIEW 11 (1) 2005 211
THE INDIGENOUS PUBLIC SPHERE
DR EVAN TE AHU POATA-SMITH
is a lecturer in the School of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Canterbury here he reviews Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou: Struggle Without End (Revised Edition), by Ranginui Walker. Auckland: Penguin Books, 2004. 462 pp. ISBN 0143019457.
RANGINUI WALKER’S history of the Maori struggles for tino rangatiratanga (self determination) was first published during New Zealand’s sesquicentennial year. The 150th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi provoked intense public debates around issues of nationhood and the place of the Treaty of in managing contemporary relationships between Maori communities and the Crown.
Ka Whawhi Tonu Matou represented a challenge to the more sanitised versions of history that tended to present New Zealand as a harmonious and progressive nation in a world otherwise characterised by incessant ethnic conflict, racism and division. This romanticism, originally encapsulated in Hobson’s decree at the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi that New Zealand was ‘one nation, one people’, had become firmly entrenched in the consciousness of many New Zealanders.
Walker clearly demonstrates that underlying this patriotism and rhetoric of national unity is a more sinister version of our national history, predicated on notions of European superiority, racism and the destruction of the territorial and cultural integrity of indigenous communities.
With the proliferation of revisionist histories in the 1980s, there were those who objected to the re-evaluation of New Zealand’s past on the basis of contemporary moral standards and political perspectives. These critical histories were depicted by some as ‘bullying books…in which the past [was] ransacked to provide illustrations in support of a position in our current debates about either racism or sexism’ (Stead, 1989, p.124). Others argued that racism was no longer a central factor shaping the lives of Maori in contemporary New Zealand society. The violent history of colonisation, the systematic dispossession of Maori land and resources were the product of the 19thcentury and not the enlightened present.
As the celebratory activities planned by the government-appointed 1990 Commission became a rallying point for both Maori and Pakeha protesters, Maori were often accused of being ‘hypersensitive’ or of using racism as an ‘excuse’. In this way, an ill-informed general public increasingly viewed the upsurge in Maori anger and discontent from the late 1960s onwards as being stirred up by a few Maori extremists on the fringes of an otherwise harmonious society who were simply acting against the ‘national interest’. ‘Ordinary New Zealanders’ on the other hand, were presented as passive victims whose rights were being trampled on in this process. The popularity of this view demonstrates how a direct appeal to nationalist sentiments is an enduring feature of contemporary public de bates that depict Maori claims for greater autonomy as being inherently divisive. Indeed, the infamous shibboleth, ‘we’re all New Zealanders’, has frequently been employed to deny legitimacy to Maori struggles for the return of land, a greater share of society’s resources and an active role in formal decision-making.
These political sentiments have been resurrected more recently by the National Party leader, Don Brash. In a move clearly designed to tap into public resentment, Brash has claimed that the Treaty of Waitangi is an archaic relic of the past and on that basis should possess no more than a symbolic role in contemporary society. He has argued that references to the Treaty in government legislation represented ‘a dangerous drift to racial separatism’ which undermined ‘the essential notion of one rule forall in a single nation state’ (Brash,2004).
In advocating a return to the ‘one nation, one people’ paradigm for ‘managing’ national issues in NewZealand, Brash has articulated, ‘a prevailing view, and one that is still widely held … that majority groups conduct their public and private lives according to universally held and superior systems and values. The institutions of which they are part, what they believe, and how they act are not culturally bound, but are viewed as natural, normal, and necessary ’(Fleras & Spoonley, 1999, p. 81).
Walker has clearly demonstrated throughout his book, however, that New Zealand’s societal institutions are not culturally or politically neutral with respect to iwi, hapu and urban Maori communities. Indeed, New Zealand society is inescapably rooted in Eurocentric, capitalist values that are reflected in, and perpetuated through, the major institutions of the state. Significantly, Walker’s book did not represent a new history of New Zealand. Its initial success lay in the way it collated a disparate series of historical events that had shaped Maori communities into an assessable, thematically coherent, single volume. Up to that point the struggles of indigenous communities were largely confined to the margins – either in oral histories that were inaccessible for a wider public audience or in relatively obscure publications for small, academic readerships –rather than the general, popular histories of New Zealand that make the best sellers’ lists.
Like many of the Maori students mentioned in Walker’s preface to the revised edition, I navigated the turbulence of my undergraduate years at university eagerly clutching my copy of Ka whawhai tonu matou as if it were a kind of literary antidote to the pervasive Eurocentrism that characterised campus life and wider society! The overwhelming strength of Walker’s account lay in its emphasis on the rediscovery of the role of Maori in history, not just as victims but as active agents who consciously contributed to the making of New Zealand history – even if they did so in circumstances not of their own choosing.
For those of us who had spent our secondary school history classes in a quest for a deeper understanding of Elizabethan England or the Battle of Britain – this was a refreshing, exciting and even subversive history. It was our own history of struggle and resistance. While Walker successfully shatters the assimilative ideologies that have underpinned government policy with respect to Maori for well over a century, he has constructed his own mythology in its place. This is particularly apparent in the revised edition which includes two additional chapters that extend the coverage of events beyond 1990 to the present day. Although it appears as a simple(at times disorganised) narrative of key events, the focus of the additional chapters has been clearly constrained by the analytical assumptions and ideological values of ‘cultural nationalism’ – one of the competing factions that exists within the broader Maori political milieu.
The notion that all Maori share an overpowering and innate attachment based on blood, culture and language, is a critical ingredient in ‘cultural nationalist’ political ideology and practice, which emphasises the fundamental commonality of Maori interests in contemporary capitalist society. Throughout his book, Walker tends to present the political interests of Maori as if they are unitary despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. For instance, Walker has claimed that essentially both ‘radical’ and ‘conservative’ elements of the Maori protest movement pursued the same objectives although the methods they used differed (Walker, 2004,p. 243).
This interpretation, how ever, simply ignores the political realities that continue to shape contemporary Maori communities. In fact, Maori protest politics embraces a range of conflicting political ideologies, which are informed by radically different assumptions about the causes of racism and Maori inequality in wider society, and in turn, different sets of strategies for ameliorating and transcending that inequality.
Far from being the subject of political unanimity then, tino rangatiratanga is a fundamentally
contested concept. Who exercises this power and to what end? While it is certainly an expression of pride and revolt against society’s assimilative pressures, it is significant that tino rangatiratanga has meant quite different things to different people. While some have drawn radical Maori nationalist conclusions, others have interpreted the idea quite differently. Indeed, the slogan as it evolved over the last two decades has become the catalyst for both a move to the left and a sharp move to the right. In the period from the early 1970s onwards, four interconnected interpretations were to emerge: tino rangatiratanga as Maori capitalism (intribal or individual form), tino rangatiratanga as Maori electoral power (primarily through the orthodox parliamentary system), tino rangatiratanga as cultural nationalism, and tino rangatiratanga as involving more radical far-reaching strategies for change.
Throughout Walker’s historical narrative, the existence of the conflicting political ideologies, contradictory class interests and the inequalities of wealth and political power that are entrenched within and across iwi, hapu and urban Maori communities have been conveniently disregarded in favour of an approach that emphasises the primacy of cultural conflict between Maori and Pakeha. Maori communities have, therefore, been typically portrayed as cultural communities united in their resistance to hostile ‘Pakeha’ values or ‘Pakeha society’ (Greenland,1991).
There is also an implicit tendency throughout the book to assume the existence of a unitary, homogeneous Pakeha society that confronts Maori and in doing so is fundamentally hostile to what is rather loosely framed ‘Maori interests’. For Walker, the organisational policies and practices of the state operate in the interests of Pakeha in the struggle against Maori for control over social, economic and cultural resources because, ‘Pakeha values and assumptions underlie all procedures and practices’ (Nairn &Nairn, 1981, p. 117).
The insistence that Maori are a culture, united in their resistance against Pakeha, ignores the critical divisions that have arisen within and between iwi, hapu and urban Maori communities over the allocation and distribution of the benefits of the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process, a process that has resulted in a substantial shift in resources and compensation to those sections of Maori society already wealthy and powerful.
While Walker is correct to assert that successive governments have been responsible for establishing a settlement framework that locks Maori self-determination into a free market, capitalist economic framework, he fails to recognise that this strategy has been effective precisely because it has appealed to the material interests of those representing tribal corporations and Maori businesses whose profitability has been enhanced by such reforms.
The book tends to be uncritical, therefore, of the neo-traditionalist ideologies that present these developments as reviving traditional, non-exploitative communal relations of production within iwi and hapu (seeRata, 2000). This ignores the way the Treaty settlement process has concealed the underlying exploitative class character of tribal capitalism and institutionalised the inequalities of wealth and political power that exist within and across contemporary Maori society.
Unfortunately, the conflicting interests that exist within contemporary Maori communities and the radically different ways Maori life experiences have been shaped through the complex articulations of racism, colonialism, ethnicity, class, and gender vanish from Walker’s narrative. In his discussion of the government’s ‘Closing the Gaps’ initiative for instance (pp. 319-321), Walker either ignores, or is unwilling to acknowledge, the fact that the neo-liberal reforms and the growing social inequalities in New Zealand society have not affected all Maori equally. Those Maori representing tribal corporations and commercial interests have directly benefited from the pro-business, neo- liberal agenda that was implemented to restore the conditions for profitable capital accumulation in the New Zealand economy from 1984 onwards.
They have benefited from the reduction in corporate taxation levels that was achieved through large cuts in welfare expenditure, the commercialisation of health, housing and education.
On the other hand, the dismantling of the welfare state, the cuts to benefit levels and the introduction of market rents for state housing in the 1990s brought increasing hardship and poverty for many New Zealanders.
Working class Maori have had to face the prospects of increased poverty, falling real incomes, unemployment, deteriorating employment conditions and job security, social welfare cuts and user-charges for education and health services. So, while those Maori representing tribal corporations and commercial interests have directly benefited from the economic policies of successive governments, the over-representation of Maori in the working class has meant that the vast majority of Maori families have borne the brunt of the economic restructuring.
With the growth of inequality and social polarisation within Maori communities it is increasingly difficult to sustain this notion that Maori communities are classless communities that share the same sets of experiences of inequality and the same political aspirations. Nevertheless, Walker presents the interests of wealthy Maori entrepreneurs, private businesses and tribal corporations on the one hand, and the interests of Maori beneficiaries and unemployed on the other hand, as if they are politically, philosophically and culturally the same. He does not seem to appreciate that while the compensation provided as part of the settlement process and the state’s patronage of Maori capitalism resulted in an expansion of opportunities for middle class Maori professionals and entrepreneurs, for the vast majority of Maori families these concessions have never compensated for the repressive anti-working class policies of governments since 1984 that have dramatically widened the social and economic inequalities in New Zealand society.
It is critical to acknowledge that Maori struggles over the past 15 years have not simply been directed against Pakeha and the state, but have involved the struggles of ordinary Maori families for a greater degree of control over resources within iwi, hapu and urban Maori communities.
Indeed, the revitalisation of militant Maori struggles in the 1990s represented a direct challenge to the Treaty settlement framework and the narrow commercial interests of tribal authorities. It revealed profound levels of discontent with the adoption of corporate models for the management and distribution of settlement assets and exposed the failure of cultural nationalist strategies to provide a real solution to historical grievances and Maori inequality in wider society.
References
Brash, D. (2004). Nationhood. A transcript of an address by the Leader of the National Party to the Orewa Rotary Club, January 27. Retrieved March 3, 2004:
http://w w w . n z h e r a l d . c o . n z /storyprint.cfm?ID=3545950
Fleras, A. and Spoonley, P. (1999). Recalling Aotearoa: Indigenous politics and ethnic relations in New Zealand. Auckland: Oxford University Press, 1999.Greenland, H. (1984). Ethnicity as ideology: The critique of Pakeha society.
In Spoonley, P. et al. (Eds.), Tauiwi:racism and ethnicity in New Zealand.Palmerston North, Dunmore Press.Nairn, M. and Nairn, R. (1981). The racism of economics and the economics
of racism. In P. Davis (Ed.), The challenge of the third depression. Auckland: Ross.Rata, E. (2000). A political economy of neotribal capitalism. Lanham:
Lexington Books. Stead, C.K. (1989, February). The new Victorians. Metro, pp. 119-124.
THE INDIGENOUS PUBLIC SPHERE
DR EVAN TE AHU POATA-SMITH
is a lecturer in the School of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Canterbury here he reviews Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou: Struggle Without End (Revised Edition), by Ranginui Walker. Auckland: Penguin Books, 2004. 462 pp. ISBN 0143019457.
RANGINUI WALKER’S history of the Maori struggles for tino rangatiratanga (self determination) was first published during New Zealand’s sesquicentennial year. The 150th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi provoked intense public debates around issues of nationhood and the place of the Treaty of in managing contemporary relationships between Maori communities and the Crown.
Ka Whawhi Tonu Matou represented a challenge to the more sanitised versions of history that tended to present New Zealand as a harmonious and progressive nation in a world otherwise characterised by incessant ethnic conflict, racism and division. This romanticism, originally encapsulated in Hobson’s decree at the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi that New Zealand was ‘one nation, one people’, had become firmly entrenched in the consciousness of many New Zealanders.
Walker clearly demonstrates that underlying this patriotism and rhetoric of national unity is a more sinister version of our national history, predicated on notions of European superiority, racism and the destruction of the territorial and cultural integrity of indigenous communities.
With the proliferation of revisionist histories in the 1980s, there were those who objected to the re-evaluation of New Zealand’s past on the basis of contemporary moral standards and political perspectives. These critical histories were depicted by some as ‘bullying books…in which the past [was] ransacked to provide illustrations in support of a position in our current debates about either racism or sexism’ (Stead, 1989, p.124). Others argued that racism was no longer a central factor shaping the lives of Maori in contemporary New Zealand society. The violent history of colonisation, the systematic dispossession of Maori land and resources were the product of the 19thcentury and not the enlightened present.
As the celebratory activities planned by the government-appointed 1990 Commission became a rallying point for both Maori and Pakeha protesters, Maori were often accused of being ‘hypersensitive’ or of using racism as an ‘excuse’. In this way, an ill-informed general public increasingly viewed the upsurge in Maori anger and discontent from the late 1960s onwards as being stirred up by a few Maori extremists on the fringes of an otherwise harmonious society who were simply acting against the ‘national interest’. ‘Ordinary New Zealanders’ on the other hand, were presented as passive victims whose rights were being trampled on in this process. The popularity of this view demonstrates how a direct appeal to nationalist sentiments is an enduring feature of contemporary public de bates that depict Maori claims for greater autonomy as being inherently divisive. Indeed, the infamous shibboleth, ‘we’re all New Zealanders’, has frequently been employed to deny legitimacy to Maori struggles for the return of land, a greater share of society’s resources and an active role in formal decision-making.
These political sentiments have been resurrected more recently by the National Party leader, Don Brash. In a move clearly designed to tap into public resentment, Brash has claimed that the Treaty of Waitangi is an archaic relic of the past and on that basis should possess no more than a symbolic role in contemporary society. He has argued that references to the Treaty in government legislation represented ‘a dangerous drift to racial separatism’ which undermined ‘the essential notion of one rule forall in a single nation state’ (Brash,2004).
In advocating a return to the ‘one nation, one people’ paradigm for ‘managing’ national issues in NewZealand, Brash has articulated, ‘a prevailing view, and one that is still widely held … that majority groups conduct their public and private lives according to universally held and superior systems and values. The institutions of which they are part, what they believe, and how they act are not culturally bound, but are viewed as natural, normal, and necessary ’(Fleras & Spoonley, 1999, p. 81).
Walker has clearly demonstrated throughout his book, however, that New Zealand’s societal institutions are not culturally or politically neutral with respect to iwi, hapu and urban Maori communities. Indeed, New Zealand society is inescapably rooted in Eurocentric, capitalist values that are reflected in, and perpetuated through, the major institutions of the state. Significantly, Walker’s book did not represent a new history of New Zealand. Its initial success lay in the way it collated a disparate series of historical events that had shaped Maori communities into an assessable, thematically coherent, single volume. Up to that point the struggles of indigenous communities were largely confined to the margins – either in oral histories that were inaccessible for a wider public audience or in relatively obscure publications for small, academic readerships –rather than the general, popular histories of New Zealand that make the best sellers’ lists.
Like many of the Maori students mentioned in Walker’s preface to the revised edition, I navigated the turbulence of my undergraduate years at university eagerly clutching my copy of Ka whawhai tonu matou as if it were a kind of literary antidote to the pervasive Eurocentrism that characterised campus life and wider society! The overwhelming strength of Walker’s account lay in its emphasis on the rediscovery of the role of Maori in history, not just as victims but as active agents who consciously contributed to the making of New Zealand history – even if they did so in circumstances not of their own choosing.
For those of us who had spent our secondary school history classes in a quest for a deeper understanding of Elizabethan England or the Battle of Britain – this was a refreshing, exciting and even subversive history. It was our own history of struggle and resistance. While Walker successfully shatters the assimilative ideologies that have underpinned government policy with respect to Maori for well over a century, he has constructed his own mythology in its place. This is particularly apparent in the revised edition which includes two additional chapters that extend the coverage of events beyond 1990 to the present day. Although it appears as a simple(at times disorganised) narrative of key events, the focus of the additional chapters has been clearly constrained by the analytical assumptions and ideological values of ‘cultural nationalism’ – one of the competing factions that exists within the broader Maori political milieu.
The notion that all Maori share an overpowering and innate attachment based on blood, culture and language, is a critical ingredient in ‘cultural nationalist’ political ideology and practice, which emphasises the fundamental commonality of Maori interests in contemporary capitalist society. Throughout his book, Walker tends to present the political interests of Maori as if they are unitary despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. For instance, Walker has claimed that essentially both ‘radical’ and ‘conservative’ elements of the Maori protest movement pursued the same objectives although the methods they used differed (Walker, 2004,p. 243).
This interpretation, how ever, simply ignores the political realities that continue to shape contemporary Maori communities. In fact, Maori protest politics embraces a range of conflicting political ideologies, which are informed by radically different assumptions about the causes of racism and Maori inequality in wider society, and in turn, different sets of strategies for ameliorating and transcending that inequality.
Far from being the subject of political unanimity then, tino rangatiratanga is a fundamentally
contested concept. Who exercises this power and to what end? While it is certainly an expression of pride and revolt against society’s assimilative pressures, it is significant that tino rangatiratanga has meant quite different things to different people. While some have drawn radical Maori nationalist conclusions, others have interpreted the idea quite differently. Indeed, the slogan as it evolved over the last two decades has become the catalyst for both a move to the left and a sharp move to the right. In the period from the early 1970s onwards, four interconnected interpretations were to emerge: tino rangatiratanga as Maori capitalism (intribal or individual form), tino rangatiratanga as Maori electoral power (primarily through the orthodox parliamentary system), tino rangatiratanga as cultural nationalism, and tino rangatiratanga as involving more radical far-reaching strategies for change.
Throughout Walker’s historical narrative, the existence of the conflicting political ideologies, contradictory class interests and the inequalities of wealth and political power that are entrenched within and across iwi, hapu and urban Maori communities have been conveniently disregarded in favour of an approach that emphasises the primacy of cultural conflict between Maori and Pakeha. Maori communities have, therefore, been typically portrayed as cultural communities united in their resistance to hostile ‘Pakeha’ values or ‘Pakeha society’ (Greenland,1991).
There is also an implicit tendency throughout the book to assume the existence of a unitary, homogeneous Pakeha society that confronts Maori and in doing so is fundamentally hostile to what is rather loosely framed ‘Maori interests’. For Walker, the organisational policies and practices of the state operate in the interests of Pakeha in the struggle against Maori for control over social, economic and cultural resources because, ‘Pakeha values and assumptions underlie all procedures and practices’ (Nairn &Nairn, 1981, p. 117).
The insistence that Maori are a culture, united in their resistance against Pakeha, ignores the critical divisions that have arisen within and between iwi, hapu and urban Maori communities over the allocation and distribution of the benefits of the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process, a process that has resulted in a substantial shift in resources and compensation to those sections of Maori society already wealthy and powerful.
While Walker is correct to assert that successive governments have been responsible for establishing a settlement framework that locks Maori self-determination into a free market, capitalist economic framework, he fails to recognise that this strategy has been effective precisely because it has appealed to the material interests of those representing tribal corporations and Maori businesses whose profitability has been enhanced by such reforms.
The book tends to be uncritical, therefore, of the neo-traditionalist ideologies that present these developments as reviving traditional, non-exploitative communal relations of production within iwi and hapu (seeRata, 2000). This ignores the way the Treaty settlement process has concealed the underlying exploitative class character of tribal capitalism and institutionalised the inequalities of wealth and political power that exist within and across contemporary Maori society.
Unfortunately, the conflicting interests that exist within contemporary Maori communities and the radically different ways Maori life experiences have been shaped through the complex articulations of racism, colonialism, ethnicity, class, and gender vanish from Walker’s narrative. In his discussion of the government’s ‘Closing the Gaps’ initiative for instance (pp. 319-321), Walker either ignores, or is unwilling to acknowledge, the fact that the neo-liberal reforms and the growing social inequalities in New Zealand society have not affected all Maori equally. Those Maori representing tribal corporations and commercial interests have directly benefited from the pro-business, neo- liberal agenda that was implemented to restore the conditions for profitable capital accumulation in the New Zealand economy from 1984 onwards.
They have benefited from the reduction in corporate taxation levels that was achieved through large cuts in welfare expenditure, the commercialisation of health, housing and education.
On the other hand, the dismantling of the welfare state, the cuts to benefit levels and the introduction of market rents for state housing in the 1990s brought increasing hardship and poverty for many New Zealanders.
Working class Maori have had to face the prospects of increased poverty, falling real incomes, unemployment, deteriorating employment conditions and job security, social welfare cuts and user-charges for education and health services. So, while those Maori representing tribal corporations and commercial interests have directly benefited from the economic policies of successive governments, the over-representation of Maori in the working class has meant that the vast majority of Maori families have borne the brunt of the economic restructuring.
With the growth of inequality and social polarisation within Maori communities it is increasingly difficult to sustain this notion that Maori communities are classless communities that share the same sets of experiences of inequality and the same political aspirations. Nevertheless, Walker presents the interests of wealthy Maori entrepreneurs, private businesses and tribal corporations on the one hand, and the interests of Maori beneficiaries and unemployed on the other hand, as if they are politically, philosophically and culturally the same. He does not seem to appreciate that while the compensation provided as part of the settlement process and the state’s patronage of Maori capitalism resulted in an expansion of opportunities for middle class Maori professionals and entrepreneurs, for the vast majority of Maori families these concessions have never compensated for the repressive anti-working class policies of governments since 1984 that have dramatically widened the social and economic inequalities in New Zealand society.
It is critical to acknowledge that Maori struggles over the past 15 years have not simply been directed against Pakeha and the state, but have involved the struggles of ordinary Maori families for a greater degree of control over resources within iwi, hapu and urban Maori communities.
Indeed, the revitalisation of militant Maori struggles in the 1990s represented a direct challenge to the Treaty settlement framework and the narrow commercial interests of tribal authorities. It revealed profound levels of discontent with the adoption of corporate models for the management and distribution of settlement assets and exposed the failure of cultural nationalist strategies to provide a real solution to historical grievances and Maori inequality in wider society.
References
Brash, D. (2004). Nationhood. A transcript of an address by the Leader of the National Party to the Orewa Rotary Club, January 27. Retrieved March 3, 2004:
http://w w w . n z h e r a l d . c o . n z /storyprint.cfm?ID=3545950
Fleras, A. and Spoonley, P. (1999). Recalling Aotearoa: Indigenous politics and ethnic relations in New Zealand. Auckland: Oxford University Press, 1999.Greenland, H. (1984). Ethnicity as ideology: The critique of Pakeha society.
In Spoonley, P. et al. (Eds.), Tauiwi:racism and ethnicity in New Zealand.Palmerston North, Dunmore Press.Nairn, M. and Nairn, R. (1981). The racism of economics and the economics
of racism. In P. Davis (Ed.), The challenge of the third depression. Auckland: Ross.Rata, E. (2000). A political economy of neotribal capitalism. Lanham:
Lexington Books. Stead, C.K. (1989, February). The new Victorians. Metro, pp. 119-124.
8/1/08
Tears flow at Feltex Foxton
Press Release: National Distribution Union
Following a meeting inside the disused carpet production hall at which Godfrey Hirst and union representatives spoke, the workers received their final pay slips and gathered for a farewell group photo.
The rain, which had been falling in the Horowhenua all week, came back again, but with it arrived more than a hundred local school children and also some Feltex old-timers.
The children had been planning to form a “guard of honour” from the gate of the factory to the RSA where the company had put on a farewell lunch (and a few dollars on the bar).
But with the rain pouring down, the workers invited the students and retirees into the plant, followed by local and national media, after the company, quite rightly, relaxed its ban on media entering the premises.
A speech by the local kaumatua and kuia acknowledging the history of the mill and those who had worked their over the years. A karakia and then … a waiata from the children. The rain outside was matched by the tears inside.
A break in the rain, and the guard of honour was re-established and the sound of the haka echoed over Foxton as Feltex workers took their final steps out of the factory gate.
Kia Kaha Foxton Feltex workers
Kia Kaha Foxton.
Although today is a sad day, your children have shown us that the future is bright.
ENDS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)