In another world of conversation recently, the question came up, in my words, Why didn't evangelical historians see ahead and predict the emergence of Trump and evangelical support for him? There are some obvious answers about that: historians look back not forward; history never repeats itself exactly; since when was it a moral indictment on an historian to not also be a clairvoyant?!
A simple case in point involves Trump himself in the past month or so: suppose you had predicted ten or twenty years ago that a Trump would burst onto the US political scene and [many] evangelicals would swoon at his anti-abortionist feet. Well done you! But would you have predicted this year's turn of events in which Trump has suddenly and (as far as I can tell) unexpectedly changed tunes on abortion, stating a position closer to the centre of US politics, and pretty obviously designed to pick up (if possible) a bunch of votes otherwise likely unavailable to him in November. Cue angst and dilemma for a section of US Christian (Protestant and Catholic) pro-life voters: where does the lesser of two "evils" now lie when going into the polling booth?
Down Under, have we ever seen what is coming in respect of relations between Maori and Pakeha?
Marsden in 1814 could have foreseen the arrival of European settlers. He would not have foreseen the Treaty of Waitangi in the form it actually took.
The Treaty itself was the outcome of a variety of hugely interesting factors, from the local (the role of the likes of Bushby, Hobson, the Williams' family, Maori chiefs) to the wider movement of people (the interests of and interests by British, French, American settlers, sailors and sealers in carving out better lives through farming and trading), to the distantly international considerations of the British offices of state overseeing colonial developments and how they were, in their view, often a deeply evangelical Christian view, best shaped and supported by agreements such as the Treaty of Waitangi - all admirably told in various histories of our Treaty, most recently in respect of "big books" by Ned Fletcher, The English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi, and in terms of "small books" by Alistair Reese in He Tatou Pounamu .
I think I am right in saying that on 6 February 1840, no one signing the Treaty in with the English or Maori versions could see coming some 135 years later [1975], through till the present, and, no doubt beyond today, that having the Treaty in two versions would be highly controversial!
Also on that day, I assume that what the signers assumed was that the Treaty would be a document acknowledged appropriately as European settlement of Aotearoa developed through the decades ahead. Not so. Fairly quickly the Treaty was ignored. Its relevance to the settlement of our country died away as the document settled into a comfortable (for the settlers and their political leaders) existence in the bottom of the bottom drawer of the Premier's desk!
At the lowest point in the general fortunes of Maori (when illness decimated numbers of Maori in the late 19th century), no one foresaw the reviving of the relevance of the Treaty in 1975, let alone the revival of the number of Maori in our society (so that the general reckoning now is that 1 million of 5 million NZers identify as Maori).
And that initial reviving of the fortunes of the Treaty as a foundation document of our nation, through the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal, was not in 1975 a predictor of how as a society, including churches, educational institutions, local and central government, and departments of such governments, we would develop principles of the Treaty to guide us in giving effect to the Treaty. Or, more simply, that we would make actual big strides as a bicultural nation. We are far from becoming what the Treaty envisaged we might be; but we have moved on a long way from days when Maori were refused entry to some pubs and public facilities, and when we would go along with South African requests not to bring "coloured" players on All Black tours to that country.
We do, of course, see that in 2040 we have opportunity to celebrate 200 years of the Treaty. Sixteen years to make further progress? Sixteen years to wind back the clock (per current machinations by the ACT Party)? While I am committed to not winding the clock of history backwards, I am not going to make a prediction about where we will be in 2040. (I would be 80 by then, so I am not even predicting I will be alive to ruminate on the state of Aotearoa New Zealand in that year!!)
Although last week's ADU post was not directly about the Treaty, a long string of comments were about the Treaty and related matters of relationship between Maori and Pakeha. The following are some ruminations on such matters (but not intended to be a point by point response to points made in the thread of comments).
There is no definitive understanding of the Treaty, there may never be, but there is a definitive state of affairs, namely, the present situation we face as a nation, as a society, as a series of community and whanau networks, and we have a choice to face the present with the Treaty informing us and influencing us, or to sideline it, to put it back into the bottom of the bottom drawer of the Prime Minister's desk. Like many - I suggest most - Kiwis, I think it better to keep on working out the meaning of the Treaty for life today, than to give up, to seek some other basis for how we honour and respect one another as the mix of indigenous and non-indigenous people that we are.
Nevertheless, even if there is no single definitive understanding of the Treaty, there are claims as understandings which are at best unhelpful and at worst injurious to our moving forward as a nation to a better state of affairs than we currently experience.
One such claim is the notion that the Treaty makes us all "equal" with the consequence that there should be no special advantage to Maori as measured by, say, some medical treatments being available to Maori ahead of Pakeha, or some other forms of material assistance in life. This is an odd claim to make when on a bunch of significant statistics, from prison population to academic achievement to life expectancy, it is very clear that in the warp and woof of life and how it unfolds for each NZer, Maori are not treated equally. Perhaps when we are statistically equal we could propose that everyone, irrespective of racial/cultural identity, is treated "equally." In the meantime we have a long way to go and we are only just beginning to understand the effects of colonization on Maori - let alone how those effects might be undone.
Another claim being advanced today is that the Treaty amounts to nothing more than property rights: I as a Pakeha have rights as to how I use and what I do on my suburban city property; a Maori (individual, whanau, hapu, iwi) also have property rights for lands and waterways to which there is clear title. But - the kicker - that is all: stay out of attempts to co-govern, say, the quality of water in the rivers of Canterbury; do not aspire to have specific Maori representation on city and district councils; and so forth. There is a lot to discuss about the meaning of the Treaty, and we may never settle on one single, agreed definition of what the Treaty means for each nook and cranny of these islands, but there is agreement by most scholars - historians, legal boffins - that the Treaty is not reducible to property rights. We need - I suggest - an approach to the Treaty which respects and assists Maori seeking to be Maori.
On Saturday I was at a bicultural event in one of the pa of the Canterbury district. A Maori leader made the simple point about this particular place (calling it a "reservation" - reserved from being for sale to settlors): It has allowed Maori to be Maori. How might our approach to understanding and applying the Treaty do this across our nation?
There are lots of questions to ask, discuss and find answers to. There are and will be proposals that need testing. For instance, also over the weekend, I saw a social media post along these lines: In institution X, a law professor teaches that there are and always have been two legal systems, Maori and Pakeha; this is a bad thing because there must be one law for all, and only one law for all. This sounds like something that needs testing: there can be two legal systems within one nation (the church has canons!!!!!!!), but can there be two wholly parallel systems without one system being available to appeal to when within either system a matter needs a final arbitration? (Even the church operates within its constitution and canons on the basis that potentially an appeal can be made to the secular legal system.)
Similarly, as we discuss concepts of sovereignty/rangitiratanga/kawanatanga, can we find a way to a single parliament within which are two houses, Maori and Pakeha, with all important decisions being agreed by both houses? The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia has something to offer on this possibility.
Yesterday I spoke at a service on Micah 6:6-8, the threefold summary (in my view) of all the teaching in the OT: do justice, love kindness, walk humbly with your God.
At the heart of all debates on the Treaty, can we Christians engaging in the quest for the meaning and application of the Treaty today press for justice to be done and kindness to be shown? To do otherwise is incompatible with walking humbly with our God, is it not?
Might we be open to futures we cannot yet see which fulfil intentions in the Treaty and requirements of Scripture?
Postscript: a different topic
Also in the thread of comments to last week's post, this comment was made:
"People don’t go to Church anymore because they simply do not believe in the supernatural - outstanding claims require outstanding evidence. People need to be taught the deeper meanings within scripture if any form of Christianity is to survive. Science has beaten back the grey haired man in the sky that parts seas and raises the dead."
No doubt this is so for many people, even though I hardly ever hear people frankly express such explanation for non-involvement in church. People are polite!
Yes, there is "deeper meaning" within Scripture to find and to expound. John himself ensures this is so when he takes the kinds of miracles we now apparently object to (Feeding the 5000, Walking on Water, 6:1-21) and makes them the occasion for Jesus to offer "deeper meaning" about himself as the bread from heaven.
But may we so deftly set aside all testimonies to the supernatural within Scripture, whether Parting the Red Sea or Walking on Water, Healing the Sick or Raising the Dead?
On the one side of this question is the fact that "something(s) happened" which in OT times fuelled Israel's conviction that the "god" of Israel was like no other "gods" and in NT times fuelled Christian conviction that Jesus was more than another itinerant rabbi. Miracles, supernatural acts, call them what you will, were critical to the case advanced, whether in preaching the gospel to Jews or to Gentiles, that God's acts of power in and through Jesus, and supremely in raising him from the dead underscored the claim that Jesus was both son of David and son of God.
On the other side of this question is the result of "deeper meaning" as we engage with Scripture: that God is Being (not just a Supreme Being, or the Supreme Being), the very life and power of the universe able to work within the universe to do marvellous things. The distinction between "nature" and "supernature" can be argued to fade away when we dig deep into the meaning of God as Being itself.
And then, perhaps as a third side of this question, is the matter of many Christians' own testimonies: that the Jesus we have met and who has met us, is precisely the powerful Son of God as well as the vulnerable, mocked, humiliated, executed son of Mary.
29 comments:
"marvellous things"
your essay is a marvellous thing, Bishop Peter!
many thanks ~Liz
On Sunday we ended our service singing an African song, supported by some African members of our congregation. The minister helpfully explained the dance steps for the song - two steps forward and one step back - symbolize our journey of faith.
As a nation, at the government level, we seemed to be currently in the 'one step back' phase. In matters of culture and diversity, NZ often spends a long time in this phase.
But there is hope! Such as the perspective and ideas outlined in Peter's post! I hope this present time represents a gathering of energy for further bold steps forward - such as a bicultural upper house of Parliament - as we find creative ways to adapt and change our Western traditions to ensure the coming of the kingdom in which 'all shall be well'.
In terms of Peter's interesting postscript:
Dipping into philosophy for a moment, "naive realism" claims our knowledge of the world occurs by passive acceptance of "external reality" and inputs. I see a tree by the fence because there is objectively a tree by the fence "Critical realism", on the other hand, argues that although we don't (entirely) hallucinate the world, our minds, brains, and bodies actively dialogue with and *co-create* our knowledge of the world. This happens through interaction between what is other and what is self (including memory, pattern recognition, gestalt perception etc).
Shadows in the corner of the room are perceived as an incoming - perhaps familiar, perhaps threatening - human presence. The tuft of grass in the field is interpreted as a rabbit. I walk into a room terrifically thirsty (or angry, or hungry, or horny, or bored) and immediately am drawn to what I most need and want, and completely ignore/background other elements of "reality". Our brains are bonvarde, internally and without, with a vast stream of complex perception, and work actively hard to select, prune, shape, and organize it. I know: after brain surgery the works was too much.
As with 'natural perception' so too with religious experience (nature and supernature have perceptual processes in common): a piece of reggae music, a sermon on Ephesians 1, the brief document called the Treaty of Waitangi in English, might all be experienced by one person in terms of the background of God's loving presence and action in the world; by another as having no such transcendent element or meaning.
And we *do* - across space, time, culture, *and religions* - experience aspects of our world and self that feel "real" (inwardly and more-than inwardly) and which seem to defy naturalistic explanation. Miracles, extraordinary coincidences, peak experiences, humans beings of amazing presence and grace, "ordinary" awe and love.
Its wrong to take out the human contribution: as in certain "high" theologies of biblical (or papal etc) authority and interpretation and certain doctrines of salvation in which God seems to do everything! It is more than curious that patriarchal societies favour patriarchal images of God.
It also foreshortens the fullness of our experience to suggest all faith is just humanly-constructed - it is a hallmark of religious (and supernatural) experience to be in the presence of something or someone that is Other-and More-than ourselves.
Even "supernature" (the miracle of the loaves and fish) gives way to greater depth of experience and meaning, as Peter notes, if we have "eyes that see" and "ears that hear".
Thomas writes:
"People need to be taught the deeper meanings within scripture if any form of Christianity is to survive."
But can such deeper meanings - can faith - be "taught"? That's often been the project in the West, the project of theology: faith as propositional truth that can be taught and must be memorized and assented to (naive theological realism?). I think this is doomed and needs to die. Faith is active experiencing - what John Hick calls "cognition by presence", as opposed to "cognition by absence". "Eyes that see" and "ears that hear" are *cultivated* through spiritual practices, rather than taught or adopted or possessed through agreeing to certain creeds or doctrines or interpretations.
I am very sorry this post is so long, but it's a big important topic!
Hi Mark.. thanks for sharing your thoughtful reflection, I enjoyed it very much. I'd like to add a personal thought about faith and can it be "taught".
In my conservative evangelical upbringing with a preacher dad, I got to hear plenty of scripture and teaching! Fast forward to 2022 - I read an interesting essay by Jemar Tisby titled 'The People Who Don't Have Any Questions'. He recalls how a friend of his, referring to White Evangelicals said, "They are the people who don't have any questions".
Tisby proceeds to explain such an environment.. "Go ahead and ask the question. But you need only ask once because there is an answer to every question, often with a Bible verse to back it up.
Once you have asked all the questions and gotten all the answers, what’s left? You have become one of “the people who don’t have any questions.”
That brought back memories! (tbh I've probably shared this story on ADU before).
"Faith is active experiencing" - yes Mark, I agree. It's not that I don't value my childhood learning but the problem was the proscriptive manner of it - which inhibited my curiosity and restricted my willingness to be open to "more" - i.e. more than what I'd been taught with all the accompanying certainty and biblical authority! Basically I was boxed in.. and it's hard then to break out.
I love that quote, Liz - "the people who don't have any questions". I know that will be helpful for me with clients. Thanks!
Peter writes:
"One such claim is the notion that the Treaty makes us all "equal" with the consequence that there should be no special advantage to Maori as measured by, say, some medical treatments being available to Maori ahead of Pakeha, or some other forms of material assistance in life. This is an odd claim to make when on a bunch of significant statistics, from prison population to academic achievement to life expectancy, it is very clear that in the warp and woof of life and how it unfolds for each NZer, Maori are not treated equally."
Were you serious when you wrote this, Peter? Did you mean the decision whether or not to give medical treatment to a person should depend on his or her race? I think that was tried in central Europe in the 1930s and South Africa in the 1960.
As for "unequal treatment" in the prison population, did you mean Maori are being sent to prison for crimes of violence but white, Chinese and Indian people guilty of the same crimes are not being sent to prison?
On "academic treatment", did you mean Maori pupils and students are given poorer grades for the same work as everyone else?
On "life expectancy", did you mean Maori are not being allowed to live as long as white, Chinese and Indian New Zealanders?
Just who are these terrible people meting out this "unequal treatment"?
Or perhaps you really meant to write:
"Poverty, alcohol abuse, domestic violence and broken homes lead to a cycle of school failure and intergenerational poverty."
"Excessive alcohol and drug use leads to domestic and other violence, including globally high records of child abuse, leading to imprisonment."
"Smoking, drinking and poor diet cause obesity and shorten your expected lifespan by seven years."
Do you think unequal life outcomes are the result of "unequal treatment" (by whom exactly?) or of different life decisions?
You conclude: "Perhaps when we are statistically equal we could propose that everyone, irrespective of racial/cultural identity, is treated "equally.""
And when exactly will we see this glorious dawn? Have you ever considered how it is that people may, from generation to generation, escape from poverty - as well as fall back into it? How did poverty-stricken Jews, Irish and Italians exit poverty in America? How did the Irish exit poverty in NZ?
And how and why did some people in NZ who were actually improving materially in the 20th century start to slip into poverty and dependency?
Look at the history and you will find that family breakdown, a massive rise of illegitimacy and female-led households, the absence of good role models for boys and the decline of cohesive larger communities (such as churches) have all accelerated in the past 50 years. Then contrast that with realtively prosperous Maori communities such as among the Mormons (or even Destiny Church) and consider why you see different outcomes. These are the real - if very uncomfortable - questions the religiously-minded individual should be considering (not whether an 1840 treaty about extending British sovereignty can be artificially "reimagined" to change the social and political economy of New Zealand).
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Hi William
Life is complex. I am not arguing that (say) a Maori convicted of a parking fine should be let off and a Pakeha not [to simply state one example when many and more complicated ones can be discussed]. I am arguing that the way we organise our society, our economy, our education, our health and our community services has not yet cumulatively and corporately delivered statistically measurable outcomes in which (e.g.) the proportion of Maori and Pakeha in prison are the same; ditto achievement in NCEA Level 2. There is no easy or quick fix here (and that includes not assuming that if only each Maori grasped the opportunities that lie before them in our free, liberal society, then they too will get ahead like the rest of us) because the effects of colonization are multi-generational, insidious, and badly understood [by me at least] by those of us who have not been colonized. There is progress (e.g. Maori do live longer on average than 100+ years ago) and there is a way to go (e.g. nevertheless Pakeha on average live longer than Maori). When we are more equal as a society of two peoples, then perhaps we could entertain some of the simple mantras of the ACT Party.
There are many ways out of poverty and resource deprivation. God bless. It's important to be curious: how is such poverty created and sustained? How come certain cultural groups seem to do better and others terribly worse? The New Testament asks us to think systemically as well as individually about the world, suffering, liberation, and the kingdom.
If the 'spirit' of Waitangi means anything it is at the very least a willingness to consult, to dialogue with the other, to listen, to work in partnership. Love, as enunciated in the New Testament, asks us to extend this to our neighbour *at the very least*. Whatever we think of our systems of society (legal, political, educational, medical, familial) we often hear Māori say: "in critical ways, they fail us. In many ways they help, and in critical ways they fail us. We do some vital things differently."
To which most of us, blue or red, catholic or reformed, seem to reply: "so how can we work together, how can we creatively adapt the best of our systems and cultures to create the best outcomes so that 'all shall be well'."
My brother works on a "co-governance" project for the restoration of Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere. It is a joint venture between Environment Canterbury and Ngāi Tahu in which governance is equally held. It is the first of its kind in the country - a new way of doing things, a departure from the usual Pākehā local government way. Local council chose to set the project up this way - they weren't required to by central government. There is a common good, a common willingness to work together, and a willingness to consult with Māori and Pākeha at every stage of the process, and to use both Western scientific knowledge and values and traditional matauranga Maori cultural values and knowledge. A lot of my brother's time is spent in "cup of tea diplomacy" - going around to local farmers, communities, and papatipu runanga to ensure everyone is being consulted and heard.
Basically, the degradation of Waihora/Lake Ellesmere is such that we can't afford to be divided and singular in finding solutions.
As Peter said, "Life is complex". Experiences of Pakeha and Maori are very different - historically (say, land confiscation) but even in our modern era - day-to-day racism hasn't vanished! What we *were* doing in this nation was exploring differences and working positively toward closer relationship (for mutual benefit of all). But now powerful forces see gain for themselves in fomenting division. Same old playbook. The best thing for the common good in NZ is to resist divisive influences and support the many people who strive to do the *actual* hard work of promoting *real* fairness and equality. This requires wisdom, respect, kindness, trust and very importantly.. time! As Peter said, "There is no easy or quick fix here".
I have a wonderful little book called "Aroha" by Dr Hinemoa Elder; one of the wisdom sayings she shares is (in English translation):
"The corners of a house may be seen and examined; not so the corners of the heart."
Dr Elder's last sentence in that chapter is, "How can we find avenues where it is safe to reveal those hidden heart spaces, at the very least to shed light for future generations?"
As Christians, are we striving to find safe avenues? Are we listening? Are we reaching across boundaries? Are we seeking to understand? Are we loving our neighbour?
ARE we shedding a light for future generations?
Hi Mark! I'm delighted to read about the project your brother is involved in, this is a tremendous thing. As soon as Nigel's back home I'll let him know. When he did his landscape architecture studies at Lincoln I've a feeling he studied that situation, and anyway, he's going to be super interested to learn what you've shared.. thanks so much for telling us about it.
Oh glad you found it interesting. An amazing project...which David Seymour knows nothing of, I'd guess.
https://tewaihora.org/regeneration/whakaora-te-waihora/
Y'all can enjoy learning about the Lake Ellesmere project - there's a beautiful movie (30min) - scroll down on the website home page - enthusiastic co-operation from so many lovely (diverse) people. This really *does* shine a light for future generations!
The home page is https://tewaihora.org/
Peter, you know we are not talking about trivial things like parking tickets but imprisonment. The overwhelming majority of men in prison in NZ are there for four categories of offence: in order of numbers, violence against the person (21%); sexual assault (21%); burglary (11%); drug offences (9%).
Can you explain why 53% of the male prison population is Maori, but self-designation as 'Maori' (this includes David Seymour) is only 19% of the population as a whole? Why is the recidivism rate so high among Maori? Why is the Asian prison population in NZ only 5%? Do you want this proportion to increase?
I put it to you that the differences in education, health and criminality have little to do with vague and evasive talk about "the effects of colonization" and an awful lot to do with the dynamics of family life in the past two generations. Look at the stats and you will see that by most indices of education, health and wealth, the lives of most Maori were steadily improving through the twentieth century (Michael King has documented this well in his 'Penguin History of New Zealand') and then failed to keep up after the 1960s.
What happened then? Many things, of course - but most noticeable is the proliferation of ex-nuptial births which has continued to the present. This is the elephant in the living room that you've been ignoring.
Until about 1970, about 13% of births were ex-nuptial. Now it's 50% and among Maori it's 80%. (Among Asians the figure is about 12%.) It is hard to exaggerate the effect of unstable (even violent) fathering on women (and the absence of fathers) and the development of their children, especially in the urban underclass.
At the same time there has been a huge drop-off in Maori affiliation to Christianity, making Maori by census self-description ('none') probably the least religious people in the country (I mean, of course, in belonging to a self-consciously religious community). The contrast with Pacific Islanders is very stark here.
In short: if you don't address the problems of male violence (particularly against women), failures in fathering, and the abuse of alcohol and drugs, no amount of abstract talk about "the effects of colonization" will make any difference to people's lives.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Gosh, "nuptial births" is the saviour for Māori?
Hi William,
I am trying to understand the many and pervasive ways in which colonization has affected Maori, including affecting family life, which you assess as responsible for all statistical disparities. We need better understanding of cause of cause of cause ... of cause then effect, before we pronounce on "cause then effect" as though the final cause in the sequence is the only matter to consider.
That last paragraph of yours, Mark. Gosh I admire your summary. Might I add that the State has undermined the mana of tribal leaders (e.g. by upholding the right of corporate interests to install liquor stores in communities where the community leaders have made it perfectly clear the liquor store is not welcome). Such struggles happened for many decades, and on into the current era. Legal power/corporate interests have disempowered Maori leaders from being in a position to determine what's best for their community.
Really, Mark, have you never studied New Zealand history and the changing fortunes of Maoris through the latter 19th and 20th centuries? The story of severe numerical decline followed by renewal and recovery in the 20th century? The enormous achievements of James Carroll and Apirana Ngata and countless others (including the Anglican and other churches) who worked without fame, to improve Maori health and education? And a story that moved onto rockier terrain as rural Maoris moved to the cities after the war, to be dislocated from traditional extended family bonds, and then the unintended (but highly foresseable) consequences of the "sexual revolution" of the 1960s: hugely burgeoning rates of illegitimacy, unstable and broken relationships, and fatherlessness. To mock traditional Christian matrimony as "Betty Crocker marriages" sounds very sour in a nation with shocking levels of domestic violence and child abuse. I do not know what is "capitalist" or "oppressive" about a stable family home with two parents supporting each other; growing up in a broken home and living on benefits, I longed for such an "oppressive" life.
It is has been known for more than 40 years that the road out of poverty has three big components: 1. Complete your education. 2. Get married and try to stay married (don't have kids out of wedlock). 3. Accept an entry level job and stick at it until you become a more skilled and valuable worker. Those who are able to follow this formula and avoid alcohol and substance abuse usually exit poverty within a generation. In 1965 Daniel Moynihan, then a sociology professor, later a US Senator, predicted that the American black family would face chaos in a generation if illegitimacy (then 25% among blacks) became the norm. Sadly he was proved right, and a comparable story could be told in many countries. Culture is critical.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Peter: no, I do not say family life is "responsible for all statistical disparities" but I think it is probably the most important factor. Educational underachievement can also arise from the inadequacies of the schools and what they provide. NZ schools have significantly underperformed for a long time and this only being addressed now by Government. The very high levels of non-attendance (exacerbated by the pandemic) are part of this picture, which of course involves family life as well.
Liz makes a useful point about alcohol, which is echoed among Australian Aborigines and Native Americans. Since NZ is never going to embrace prohibition, a cultural change about alcohol needs to be created, just as there has been over smoking tobacco.
There is also the question of diet and obesity. Alcohol, smoking and diet are probably the main factors in health differences (mental illness, diabetes, asthma etc). These are about social class and education, not race. Good primary health care and education can make a big difference here.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Hi William
There is a lot to agree with in what you say, and family life is (in my own experience of family in the widest sense re the generations preceding me and the generations peer to me) very, very important to well-being, along with great schooling etc.
What we seem not agreed on is that given we all breathe the same air, live on the same islands and all support the All Blacks, and Lydia Ko, nevertheless there is a disparity between the people who once were colonized and the people who were the colonizers and thus, just maybe, there is a colonization effect to work on. (Ditto, I suspect, re the USA and those who were once enslaved and those who were the masters of the slaves ...).
Absolutely.
Peter, life is never a simple choice between perfection and bad, but a trade off. Why did the original East Polynesians settle in the North Island in the 13th and 14th centuries? Perhaps they were driven out of their home islands by fiercer incomers? We will never know because the Taiwanese tribes who settled the Pacific Islands over millennia were not literate and didn't work in metal. But we know they were not Rousseau's "noble savages" living in a pre-Fall Eden. Slavery, cannibalism and a warrior culture were as much a part of old Samoa and Fiji as they were in old New Zealand. There was nothing unique about the Maori, it was simply that New Zealand was literally the last place on earth to be settled and it remained isolated from other human contact for maybe 500 years. The basic culture of the Maori tribes, with its pluses and minuses, was the same as the islands to the north. Centuries of isolation meant technological and sociological stasis. No doubt this was aided by the very large size of the islands and their topography, so that no centralised state ever evolved. Without a state, you don't get technological advances and sociopolitical change - and when perforce change does come, it will be rapid and disruptive. Sometimes for bad (the trade in shrunken heads for muskets, facilitating the Musket Wars and 20000-30000 deaths), but usually for good (Williams and the Maori catechists, Sir Apirana Ngata), That's what I mean by life being a trade off. Good politics is about securing the best outcomes for the greatest number. Bad politics is about personal enrichment of elites.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Found: Aussie radio interview with Māori Anglican, Rev Dr Rangi Nicholson: educator, sociolinguist, ordained Anglican priest (b. 1952); with Dr Meredith Lake (ABC RN, Australia, Nov 2023).
Dr Nicholson's great-great-grandfather signed the Treaty of Waitangi. His ancester was a missionary (printer William Woon) so he signed as a witness.
Dr Nicholson explains that missionaries translated the Treaty, advocated and promoted it throughout the country, and signed it. He emphasises that when Gods people are involved with making oaths, promises, covenants and treaties, he believes that God takes that really seriously. He says he believes.. and many Maori have since 1840.. believed that the Treaty is a sacred Covenant and not just a secular contract (because Gods people were very much involved). He specifically mentions the involvement of Anglican, Wesleyan/Methodist, and Roman Catholic churches. "I believe as far as God is concerned, the ink has hardly dried".
The church needs to ask itself, has it honoured the Treaty over the last 180 years? Especially because the church is going to come under increasing scrutiny regarding its record as we approach the bicentennary of the Treaty in 2040.
The discussion moves on to the role of the church in the wake of the Treaty, reflecting on things to think about in the lead-up to 2040. [What I've summarised starts around 24:11 on the audio]. I hope you'll have a listen!
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/soul-search/the-m%c4%81ori-anglican-church-m%c4%81ori-language-and-search-for-justice/102961224
By 'cultural stasis' I mean that between, say 1300 and 1800, life for most Maori (measured by average life expectancy of c. 30 years, health and nutrition, possessions, material culture, personal freedom etc) was essentially unchanged (as it probably was for centuries before among their East Polynesian ancestors), but in the years 1800-1830 the equivalent of maybe three millennia of western technology and cultural institutions was unleashed upon them. No people has ever faced so much change so quickly without also undergoing major disruption to millennium-old patterns of life. Contrast the very different 19th century experience of 'colonisation' (or more properly 'empire' since there were very few settlers) on the Asian landmass (India, Indochina, SE Asia), where the cultural-technological starting points of these ancient civilisations were very different.
We also have to reckon with the devastating impact of epidemics among Maori in the latter third of the 19th century which led to dramatic reductions in numbers and life expectancy. Maui Pomare's campaign against tohungaism and the extension of scientific medicine (strongly supported by Ngata) helped turn this tide.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Great find, Liz! Great to hear this testimony!
Hi William,
There definitely are arguments [often made hereabouts!] that colonization in NZ was "good colonization" and/or "better colonization than, say, the French ... the Americans ...".
But that approach does not in itself right the colonizing wrongs that, nevertheless, effect the flourishing of all Kiwis.
Peter, that point was already well understood in 1904 when the British Government commissioned the Casement Report into the horrific abuses perpetrated in the Congo Free State, the personal possession of King Leopold of Belgium (part of the inspiration of Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness', I think); and before that, the labours of David Livingstone in central Africa, which were partly motivated by the Victorian crusade to stamp out the Arab slave trade in Africa. It cannot be overstated that a sense of humanitarian Christian mission pervaded British foreign and colonial policy then - including the abolition of suttee and other abuses in India. New Zealand's experience certainly wasn't perfect: the NZ Wars of 1860-72, however they arose in different parts of the North Island, certainly led to unfair confiscations and dislocations, and it probably didn't help that the British Government (20,000 km away) took a hands-off approach to the colonial government's actions. Maybe more intervention would have led to greater fairness. But hindsight is 20/20, which is why I am not too quick to judge the past, wondering what a future age will think of ours, in which marriage is widely abandoned and a quarter of pregnancies end in abortion.
I return to the basic point that the extension of British sovereignty didn't begin as the imperial desire of the British but at the instigation of Maori chiefs themselves. As Michael King reminds us (Penguin History, 172-3), already in 1831 thirteen northern chiefs twice wrote to William IV seeking protection from settlers and the French, as well as the "holocaust" (King's description) of the Musket Wars. Furthermore, as King explains, the process which culminated in the Treaty of Waitangi arose largely from the evangelical humanitarian convictions of successive governors of NSW and Colonial Office officials, "the only authorities outside New Zealand who revealed themselves to be genuinely interested in the welfare of Maori" (p. 171).
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Again, William,
there is much to appreciate in what you say: actual history is complex!
Nevertheless, the wars are a particular blight on Maori flourishing, and we have barely begun to get to grips with the loss and grief they cause, and with the continuing effects of land confiscations etc.
Does anyone see anything coming? It's such an interesting question on its own! Often we at least have a clue that there's potential for something to go badly wrong. But for one thing, we hope it won't! Also we may not listen to the right people. And if it's a big thing, we need lots of people to pull together to deal with the thing. We need resources. We need to be well-prepared. We need to communicate clearly and rely on good information. We have mixed responses - not everyone's convinced there *is* an issue (or how to respond). People are people! Systems are systems! Both can fail. What I'm thinking of as I write this is the security issues I've read about as events unfolded leading to the assassination attempt on Trump. But also Covid.. and mis/dis-information. Even when we see something coming it's a huge mission to get everyone on board in order to respond adequately!
Awesome to see yourself and other church leaders calling out this current Treaty Principles Bill. The new proposed understanding of Article 2 in particular is an utter travesty.
Post a Comment