In the third part of her examination of the Treaty of Waitangi and democracy, Dame Anne Salmond argues for a tikanga-based, rather than a race-based, approach to Te Tiriti.
In the 1987 ‘Lands’ case, Sir Robin Cooke argued that the Treaty of Waitangi created ‘a partnership between races,’ between ‘Pākehā and Māori’ or between ‘the Crown and the Māori race.’ While Parts One and Two of this series focused on the three Ture (laws) of Te Tiriti, the Preamble is also illuminating.
In the Preamble, it says that “in the Queen’s caring concern (mahara atawai) for the rangatira and the hapu, and her wish to preserve for them their rangatiratanga and their land, and to secure for them Rongo (peace) and Atanoho (undisturbed occupation), she considered it tika (right) to send to the indigenous inhabitants of New Zealand (nga tangata maori o Nu Tirani) a Rangatira as a kai-whakarite (literally, one who makes things equal or balanced), and for the Rangatira maori (indigenous leaders) to agree to the Kawanatanga (Governorship) of the Queen, because many persons of her tribe (he tokomaha ke nga tangata o tona Iwi) are living in this land, or are coming.”
READ MORE: * Te Tiriti and Democracy Part 1 * Te Tiriti and Democracy Part 2
As in Ture 1, 2 and 3, it is clear from the Preamble that there are many different parties involved in Te Tiriti, including the Queen and the ‘persons of her tribe,’ the rangatira, the hapū, ngā tāngata māori o Nu Tirani (the indigenous persons of New Zealand) and the Governor, and that this is a multi-lateral, not a bi-racial agreement.
The term ‘māori’ (ordinary, normal, everyday) is used throughout Te Tiriti as an adjective to describe indigenous individuals, rather than the term ‘Māori’ used as a noun to describe a racial grouping.
Contrary to these framings, however, the 1987 ‘Lands’ judgment has led to many practical strategies and approaches that treat ‘Māori’ and ‘Pākehā’ as two distinct ‘races’. Since the idea of ‘race’ is an imperial artefact with a destructive history, and the racial categories ‘Māori’ and ‘Pākehā’ arise out of colonial encounters rather than ancestral tikanga, this is problematic.
As the American Association of Biological Anthropologists noted recently, “the Western concept of race must be understood as a classification system that emerged from, and in support of, European colonialism, oppression, and discrimination. It does not have its roots in biological reality, but in policies of discrimination.
"The belief in races as a natural aspect of human biology and the institutional and structural inequities (racism) that have emerged in tandem with such beliefs in European colonial contexts are among the most damaging elements in human societies.”
While in Ture 3 of Te Tiriti, the Queen gives to ‘nga tangata maori o Nu Tirani’ (the indigeous inhabitants of New Zealand) ‘nga tikanga rite tahi’ (exactly equal tikanga, just and right ways of doing things) with the incoming settlers, the 1987 ‘Lands’ judgment draws upon the colonial idea of ‘race’ rather than indigenous, non-racial framings - whakapapa, for instance.
After 250 years of shared history in Aotearoa New Zealand, the lineages of indigenous persons and incoming settlers from many different backgrounds have tangled in ways that defy separation into two distinct ‘races’. In whakapapa, with its kin-based relationships among earth and sky, the winds and the sea, plants and animals as well as people, this kind of complexity is handled with admirable simplicity.
As different kinds of incoming settlers marry and have children with those who are already living in Aotearoa, they enter the whakapapa, bringing their lineages with them. These include persons described as ‘African,’ ‘Asian,’ ‘Pacific Islanders’ or ‘Pākehā’ in contemporary census tabulations. Here, where racial categories do not exist, these tīpuna (ancestors) are all described as tāngata, persons with their own origins and ancestral heritages.
Individuals may identify with the kin group of either parent, and kin groups define themselves by reference to an apical ancestor. As time passes, non-indigenous incomers may even have whānau named after them – the Manuels, the Stirlings, the Jacksons, the O’Regans etc.
In the logic of whakapapa, ideas of weaving, or binding, or currents flowing together in a river abound. The notion that these interwoven, ever-changing kin networks can be split into two distinct, timeless ‘races’ – ‘Māori’ and ‘Pākehā’ - does not fit well with this relational framing. Nor does the idea of ‘race’ have scientific credibility, as pointed out above.
While whakapapa weaves different descent lines together, difference is not a problem but a creative possibility, generating new forms of life. The promise of ‘ngā tikanga rite tahi’ (exactly equal tikanga) in Te Tiriti, which has never yet been realised, is one of equality between different ways of being. It is precisely ideas of ‘racial superiority’ that make this kind of weaving almost impossible, ripping the social fabric apart.
In Ture 2 of Te Tiriti, the promise of tino rangatiratanga over their lands, dwelling places and all of their taonga is made to rangatira, hapū and ‘all the persons of New Zealand.’
‘Co-governance’ arrangements to date have stayed close to this promise, focused on particular kin groups (often iwi, rather than hapū) and their ancestral rivers, mountains and territories (eg. the Urewera).
The 1987 re-writing of Te Tiriti as a ‘partnership between races,’ however, is another matter. If after more than 200 years of having to deal with colonial hubris, Māori leaders are arguing for parallel forms of governance, formally separating those with indigenous ancestry from all other New Zealanders, no one should be surprised. Its a sign that the promise of absolute equality promised in Ture 3 between tāngata māori and their tikanga, and the new arrivals and theirs has utterly failed.
Grounding constitutional reform on the idea of distinct ‘races’ has its challenges, however. As whakapapa become increasingly complex, including ancestors from many different origins, racial silos force individuals to make choices among tīpuna, affirming some while denying others.
As in colonial times, whakapapa networks of links among people and land were severed by cutting the land up into blocks, so whakapapa networks of links among different tīpuna and whānau are severed by cutting them up into ‘races’. As the saying goes,
Hūtia te rito o te harakeke, kei hea te komako e kō? Kī mai ki au, hei aha te mea nui o te ao? Māku e kī atu, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.
If you pluck out the heart of the flax bush, where will the bellbird sing? If you ask me, what is the greatest thing in the world, I will answer, it is people, it is people, it is people.
Constitutional reform based on the Ture 3 promise of ‘ngā tikanga rite tahi’ and relational ideas of whakapapa, whanaungatanga and balanced exchange might look very different.
The idea of the world as a great web of life in which all forms of life are linked by kinship, for instance, where earth and sky, rivers and mountains are more ancient and powerful than people, offers a real alternative to the extractive philosophies that are currently destroying living systems across the planet.
Legal systems infomed by ideas of tika (just, fair, appropriate, proper) and utu (reciprocity, balance) as well as Western jurisprudence, and health systems that bring together ideas of ora – health, thriving, well being – with the best medical insights might deliver very different outcomes to tāngata (persons) and whānau (families).
An education system grounded on love of learning, vigorous debate and rigorous inquiry, that draws upon the best of Western science and arts alongside the insights and artistry of wānanga and mātauranga might explore these philosophies more deeply, generating unique contributions to the wide world of knowledge.
Governance structures based on whakapapa and whanaungatanga, that recognise the fundamental links between hapū and their ancestral places and taonga while acknowledging the innate dignity of all tāngata, and the links forged over generations with those who came later, might offer a new kind of democracy that truly honours the promises of Te Tiriti.
These possibilities seem full of optimism, and hope. What destroys their life force, their mauri ora, is the toxin of racist thinking. If only for this reason, the idea of grounding the future of Aotearoa on ‘a partnership between races’ needs to be carefully re-examined.
Even in matters of process, the 1987 ‘Lands’ judgment is unhelpful. By defining the Treaty as ‘a partnership between the Crown and the Māori race,’ it assumes that the rest of the population can fairly be excluded from discussions of Treaty matters. This is highly undemocratic, and more likely to inflame than to heal racist sentiment.
If the arguments presented here are well founded, and other New Zealanders are also parties to the Treaty, a much more inclusive discussion is long overdue. This would have the merit of paying equal respect to the tikanga of open debate on the marae, and of democratic debate among citizens in Aotearoa New Zealand.
[Note: This article revisits reports commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal and drawing on collaborative research with Dr. Merimeri Penfold and Dr. Cleve Barlow in 1992, and 2010 a, b and c].
