Okay, my tongue is somewhat planted in my cheek but let's see if there is a modicum of truth in my title.
Since last week's post, the smoke has burned white and Cardinal Robert Prevost, lately of Chicago, the Augustinians, Peru and recently domiciled in Rome with a red hat, is now Pope Leo XIV.
There seems much to like in Leo XIV, not least from a personal perspective, that he stands with Francis' critique of JD Vance on ordo amoris, which is also my position. Alternatively put, Leo may be an American but he is not a Trumpian American.
He also in statements since his election is affirming of the Francis way of modernising the church. Yet, liked by "traditional" Catholics, he is wearing all the papal vestments including the mozetta, and living in the papal apartments.
What is in a name? Well, may be not that much if one's parents named one X or Y because "they liked" it. But there is quite a lot in a name chosen by popes because they set out to live up to and to live out that name. John Paul 1 and John Paul 2 wanted to capture the best of Popes John XXIII and Paul VI who straddled the (as it turned out) epochal decades of the 1950s, 60s and 70s, including Vatican II. Francis chose that name because of his "bias to the poor." Now we have Leo XIV, with specific resonance to Leo XIII, who wrote Rerum Novarum on the rights and duties of capital and labour, upholding the dignity of the labourer and challenging capitalists to live out obligations to their fellow humans. Sort of Marx without actual socialism (because not espousing collective ownership of the means of production). I haven't been to Peru but I can imagine that many years sent in Peru would point one to an encyclical such as Rerum Novarum.
There is more to the Leo XIII and (likely) Leo XIV connection than the Christianising of political economics. I leave that to other commentators. The point for now is that for those on the Catholic left, there is a lot to like in Leo XIII and for those on the Catholic right there is nothing to dislike in Leo XIII, and thus all (as I read across X and open up some of the articles tweets point to) have much to hope for in Leo XIV, including the chiefest critics of Francis.
Clearly, to this point in recitation of things said in the past few days, Leo XIV is very Catholic, so Catholic we might even say that it seems very unlikely that any Catholic will come up with the jibe (sometimes made about Francis) that the Pope was not Catholic!
We might also note - with much appreciation - that Leo XIV is a Christ-centred man of God, as Robert Imbelli draws out in this article.
Why bother then with a tongue in cheek remark about Leo being an Anglican kind of Pope?
Well, I have seen a number of commentators these few days past talk about Robert Prevost as a man not given to taking sides, but keen to walk a careful middle line. For instance, here is Dan Hitchens writing about "Leo XIV and the Best-Case Scenario" (meaning the best case for conservative Catholics to take heart even though Leo looks like "Continuity Francis" in certain respects):
"Trawling the Holy Father’s Twitter history, as one does, suggests a churchman who has made it to the age of sixty-nine without feeling any need to choose a side in the Catholic culture wars. Yes, he is outspoken on the rights of migrants; but he’s also seriously alarmed about the trans issue. Yes, he retweets the more progressive Catholic publications; but he also shares writings from the sturdily orthodox Cardinal George and Archbishop Chaput. Yes, he admires Pope Francis and likes the idea of “synodality”; but (unlike some people) he does not seem to regard either as a kind of inspired update on the gospel that calls into question what the Church has been doing for the last two thousand years."
How much more Anglican can you get than that?
:)
(Update (after first comment below): Anglicans do not need to walk the middle line as individual members of the Anglican Communion. But Anglican bsihops do find themselves walking the middle line ...).
PS For a beautifully written account of aspects of the contemporary Catholic scene with respect to Pope Francis and now Pope Leo, see Colm Tobin's reflections-with-advice-at-the-end.
34 comments:
Who knows how being Pope changes someone. Bishop Bergolio was regarded as somewhat serious and dour in Argentina, yet transformed into a somewhat spontaenous, charismatic man. But the money is not on Pope Leo shooting from the hip, to journalists on board a plane etc.
Is being Anglican always about being cautious and middle of the road? What about Desmond Tutu, Paul Ostreicher?
And if Rome can have an American Pope why not Canterbury a female Archbishop? There are several good candidates. That would certainly put Anglicanism on the map, and show its contrast to the Catholic Church, which, though it claims to be universal ("Catholic") forbids about half the world from its leadership.
One thing that concerns me in how these missionary Popes talk, and with how many Christian leaders talk, is the emphasis on service to others and promoting the Gospel at all costs. It sounds really good on paper, but as a therapist as well as a Christian with 40 years plus experience now, so often this leads to burn out. This sort of super-human dedication is turbo-charged, perhaps, by being a member of a religious order, as the last two popes (Francis the Jesuit, and Leo the Augustinian) have been. One thing that always puts me off Catholic spirituality (Dominican, Benedictine - perhaps the more down to earth Franciscans are the exception) is how time consuming and personally demanding it often is. My resistance isn't just laziness, I don't think, but a spiritual one too. My own personal experience, as well as having the privilege of seeing into the inner, spiritual lives of so many others, is that, if there is a larger trend to speak of, it seems that the Spirit in our hypermodern age is often calling us to *slow down*.
An Anglican kind of Pope? These questions are typically a Rorschach test and we see what we want to see. The latest youtube Daily Wire programme "The Matt Walsh Show: the Left discovered the new Pope is actually a Catholic" is typically mordant Matt Walsh stuff about what Fr Prevost actually said - and the first 11 minutes is a bit uncomfortable for Anglicans. But you did raise the question.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
š well what can I say, good try +Peter!!
Of course I have to mention Fr Cantamalessa who was so passionate about the unity of the church in his speaking: he mentioned on occasions that our enemy’s already consider us one, it matters to them not if you are Catholic, Anglican or Pentecostal only that you identify as Christian….
Centrist hmm… not sure personally but I have discovered over time the view of Anglican’s as such as been a cause for many jokes.
Mark I think rightly so, there have been some outspoken Anglican’s, and rightly so too +Peter leadership requires a certain walking of the tightrope albeit I think there is a time when for leadership also one must make a stand (the old if you stand for nothing your fall for everything etc).
I had never conceived of a Pope’s exhortations in comparison to contemporary psychology Mark : ) … On very limited reflection and of the accountings we have Jesus did things that would qualify in or within what is considered these days as healthy for overall well-being - meals, weddings, and taking time alone to pray come to mind straight away! I guess perhaps?? Maybe?? An aspect is the thought we have to do it all ourselves which could arise if the message is not interpreted well; Jesus was very clear about His mission and what He was sent to do - e.g. when he contends with the Samaritan woman but I was sent to the Jews etc. And Mother Theresa was noted as saying, when someone inferred the point of why do you stop at caring and not go further and quoted the saying of feed a man fish for a day and…. Teach him to fish and you feed him for a life-time…, “well I feed them” - “you can teach them to fish” or something along those lines…
I came across this (Australian) story today and it shows how costly it can be for an Anglican Bishop to *not* walk the middle line - the story of Ex-Bishop of Newcastle Greg Thompson - survivor of abuse - who later as Bishop took a stand and did the right thing in Newcastle. Via ABC News 11 May 2025.
Video 30min: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq7Ld-2BDiI
Article: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-11/compass-the-anglican-bishop-who-took-on-the-church/105138236
This was a startling find as it throws some light on what I've been learning about the Peter Ball case in the UK, and how the survivor Graham Sawyer was treated (he was blacklisted in CofE and couldn't get ordained - he came to NZ and was ordained in Wellington). There's been immense pressure on clergy and would-be clergy who've spoken out bravely about their own stories and advocated for survivors. There's been a very high price to pay for their courage.
A MÄori Anglican, Rev Isaac Beach, is on the committee to select the new Archbishop.
"Eight men and six women have so far been named to sit on the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) that will select the next spiritual leader of the Church of England.
Five of them are international appointments - the largest-ever contingent from outside England. There is one representative each from Africa, Europe, Oceania, Asia and the Americas.
Beach is one of those five. He is ordained as Deacon in the Diocese of Te Tairawhiti and joins a Palestinian archbishop, an Argentinian engineer, and a Ghanaian economics professor on the committee."
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/maori-anglican-reverend-isaac-beach-selected-to-help-choose-new-archbishop-of-canterbury/TL2XWXNQJJHN3O7KCDYTZEPIA4/
I don't have anything against Rev Beach nor against the other interesting people on the committee. But the process (a bit like the Conclave) seems mysterious, created by elites, not more open, transparent and democratic. Appropriately then,
"The Chair of the Crown Nominations Commission - who will ultimately make the appointment - is Lord (Jonathan) Evans, a former director of the British Secret Service."
Gosh, white people can use the c word and generally shout at each other in Parliament, but MÄori MPS are suspended from using haka at a bill designed to rubbish our funding document. Racism is so here ingrained, still.
More depressingly,
"New Zealand has the highest suicide rate for children, a survey of wealthy countries shows.
The latest UNICEF Innocenti Report Card 19: Fragile Gains - Child Wellbeing at Risk in an Unpredictable World ranked New Zealand 32nd out of 36 countries for overall child wellbeing.
It ranked Aotearoa last place for child and youth mental health."
New Zealand has highest child suicide rate, a survey of wealthy countries shows https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/561037/new-zealand-has-highest-child-suicide-rate-a-survey-of-wealthy-countries-shows
Question for +Peter please... do you know if this is true about Jonathan Fletcher speaking in NZ after his PTO was withdrawn, and if so would that have been via ACANZP or via an unrelated NZ-Anglican entity?
From The Telegraph 26 Dec 2019
by the Social and Religious Affairs editor
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/26/jonathan-fletcher-son-cabinet-minister-village-vicar-gifted/
"However despite having his permission to officiate (PTO) - a Church licence to practice - revoked two-years-ago, this newspaper revealed that Mr Fletcher had continued to travel around the world giving sermons.
"He had repeatedly flouted his preaching ban to speak around the world and travelled throughout the UK, Europe and New Zealand giving talks.
Hi Liz
I have not seen any notices of Jonathan Fletcher speaking events in NZ since his PTO was withdrawn (i.e. I have no awareness of his speaking anywhere in NZ, let alone in any Anglican church, either ACANZP or CCAANZ).
Jonathan Fletcher did speak at a Latimer Fellowship [i.e. Anglican related] event in Chch in (from memory) either 2016 or 2017 - I was at it. But this was several months before the first public murmurings about his nefarious activities (which led to his PTO being removed etc). There was no known reason at that point in time for Latimer to not invite him to speak.
Dear William
I am not going to publish your latest comment.
If you cannot find something good to say about Maori then don't comment on Maori.
Your comment finds fault with Maori and no redeeming aspects to their life in our land - their land!
There is a reason why statistics about Maori (e.g. higher proportion of prison population than Pakeha) are what they are and it has a lot to do with the history of colonization, that is, the history of one culture supplanting another and the trauma that results and the effects of that trauma through succeeding generations.
I am not prepare to publish the criticisms you make of Maori if that is not accompanied by acknowledgement of the work we have yet to do as a nation on healing the trauma.
Even with such acknowledgement I may not publish comments if I assess them as overall sided against Maori.
I hope and pray that he is a leader that will preach the Gospel of Christ in such a way that it will challenge his flock to lay it on the line for Jesus.
It is "my' land too, Peter (albeit that we are all passing through God's world) and I was responding to Mark's unfounded claims that the suspension of TPM's members for doing a performative haka in the face of another Maori MP, and the high raw figures for under 18s suicide are due to some undifferentiated phenomenon called "racism". I consider the allegations false and tendentious. Mark made no reference at all to levels of domestic violence and family breakdown in child mental health, and if you want to understand under 18s' self- harming and suicide, you surely start there.
The statistics I gave regarding Maori imprisonment, male and female, are all true and publicly available. A quick review of the statistics also shows that imprisonment is largely reserved for serious acts of violence against the person or serious theft or property offences. In both cases, alcohol misuse is a significant factor. I used to know Pete Dunne in my younger days and he would strongly agree. My impression is that these things have deteriorated in the past two generations, even when a very liberal social and legal policy has been regnant in NZ public life. I do not find catchall expressions like "history of colonization" very illuminating or helpful, especially because figures like Apirana Ngata lived far, far closer to actual 'colonization' (a better term is 'nation-building' because the European settlers built most of the farms, cities and infrastructure), and these figues led through a time when Maoris went into very serious demographic decline and then reversed those figures in the first half of the twentieth century as rural health care dramatically improved (the Tohunga Act was vital here) and Maori life expectancy and formal education greatly increased. My interest is in why post-1960 social statistics for Maoris have not been so good and in some cases very alarming. Why did family life break down so much for so many? What happened to the Maori Church? Why did Mormonism arise in that world? Whence the motorcycle gangs? How did a leftwing historian like Michael Bassett come to change his mind? How well are Maori Australians ('Maussies') doing? Pretty well, I understand. These are the kind of questions I am interested in: what happened after 1960, not 1860.
I don't make any 'criticisms of Maori' because I don't believe there is, properly speaking, anything called 'Maori' (or, mutatis mutandis, 'Pakeha'), a great undifferentiated anarthrous blob that thinks and believes and experiences the world the same way, as if there was no difference between David Seymour and Brian Tamaki. Human culture isn't set in stone (as the Marxists and racists falsely believe), and my beliefs, values and actions really don't have much to do with the skin colour of one of my grandparents. A Christian readily understands that.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
William, I've pulled out a couple of phrases from your text (*) and added text I've selected from an OP by a Baptist elder from Timaru (2023) - see the source for further info that may address some of your Qs, maybe challenge some of your ideas. Referenced.
https://baptist.nz/pondering-myths-about-our-history/
* European settlers built most of the farms...
“By the 1850s, a number of MÄori farming enterprises were flourishing. The Waikato tribes were trading their fruit, vegetables and grains. The Ngati Raukawa were successfully growing fruit, vegetables and wheat and milking cows around Otaki. MÄori at Motueka had 1000 acres in wheat and 600 in other produce. At Waitara, Wiremu Kingi's people were reported to be wealthy in terms of cash, with a 150 horses, 300 head of cattle, and ploughs and harrows and sailing boats to transport their produce for sale. In many places, MÄori were more successful farmers than the settlers, with their nuclear families, because of readily available tribal labour which worked on a subsistence basis. This didn't endear them to the Pakeha.”[18]
* My interest is in why post-1960 social statistics for Maoris have not been so good...
[No doubt many reasons William but on top of those, also appalling stuff like this]
The TV1 Documentary in 2022 called “No MÄori Allowed”[60] portrays that up until the 1960s in Pukekohe, MÄori were only allowed in the swimming pool on Fridays since on Saturdays the pool got cleaned, MÄori were only allowed in certain parts of the picture theatre, they were not allowed into shops without an accompanying PÄkeha and the list goes on.[61] ...
Continuing with reference to the “No MÄori Allowed” documentary - a MÄori lady was interviewed who went into a shop with her mother unaccompanied by a PÄkeha as required. A PÄkeha man took exception to this and beat her mother so badly that she could not work for the rest of her life. A taxi driver intervened but no doctor would take a proper look at her injuries. The daughter is now elderly and is still suffering from what happened that day.
Dear William
I am happier with the tone of the comment I have published. It emphasises questions and and discusses whether or not we Pakeha have a responsibility.
Liz rightly brings up the way in which - whatever view you or any other Kiwi has of colonization's effects - there has been some terrible and undeniable racism through generations in NZ, which is its own form of trauma on a race of people.
I can't believe we're still debating all this. Future generations won't be at least.
Hi William
My understanding is that WWII and high urbanisation - aka 35% before WWII in regards to the Maori population 75% afterwards led to a significant break down in societal structures for Maori. This was partly attributed to a lack of rural unemployment post-WWII with the mechanisation of farming, part due to the up-turn of manufacturing jobs in urban areas where lots of Maori ended up working and a lack of social services for the population base in rural areas. It was one of the fastest urbanisation movements of an ethnic group.
The previous population/health improvements were helped by advocates who worked on improving the availability of healthcare, sanitation and housing to Maori which increased life expectancy. As noted in the documentary Liz mentioned a number of Maori had previously been living in poor conditions when they were displaced from tribal land and also the population had been decimated originally by the diseases bought in with European settlement.
There was notable disadvantages for Maori …. The speaking of Te Reo in schools was banned from the late 1800’s until the 1970’s, and not formally ‘allowed’ until the mid 1980’s…. Consequently the majority of the Maori population lost their ability to speak Te Reo. My uncle by marriage was one of these people, he was hit for speaking Maori at school. This is only one factor, Maori we’re disadvantaged in regards to receiving superannuation as many could not prove when they were born as they did not have birth certificates, and therefore relied on family for financial support, ballots for land after WWII predominantly went to Pakeha due in large to prejudice (e.g. Maori weren’t considered able enough to be good farmers and some felt Maori being rural people already had tribal land albeit a lot of this by the time had been lost/confiscated) etc etc…
Keep in mind the outrage by non-Maori when the Labour government introduced bilingual signage for roads etc - and it wasn’t as though English was removed… and imagine what it might be like if English, like Te Reo has been historically for the Maori people was completely removed, the confusion, anger, disorientation that would occur if we were no longer ‘allowed’ to speak English.
I do not know regarding Maori and the decline in church support except the history of my local area and that was that was the loss of land promised to the local Iwi for the gathering of food by the crown - a number of crown land acquisitions had written into agreements the setting aside of land for Maori living. This was not honoured, the local Maori became somewhat furious about this and when a local Maori prophet who started preaching a combined version of Christianity and superstition many of the population were swayed to follow his leading.
Back to the present. When I first watched the haka in parliament I thought it was fantastic!! The Haka as generically understood can be used as a form of protest and challenge… what better way I thought to challenge the Treaty Principles Bill which sought to undermine the Treaty of Waitangi not only for Maori but all New Zealanders, recognising of course that the belonging of all ethnic groups to New Zealand is premised on this covenant. Sure it challenged political protocol, but that in itself is a challenge as the haka is a legitimate form of challenge in Maori culture and ‘technically’ ‘legally’ Maori have equal rights in our governance structure and so should not such a well known form of expression used in Maori protocol be ‘allowed’? David Seymour does have Maori ancestors, however, his comment on the news last night “no one takes those people seriously” is more of an insult in my mind than the haka. Obviously a number of New Zealanders did given the 40 000 people who marched on parliament, peacefully I might add and the overwhelming number of submissions against the bill.
Liz, the plural of anecdote is .... anecdotes. This is true of the Waikato in the 1850s and Pukekohe in the 1950s. Anecdotes become meaningful data when they are shown to be representative data of a population or nation as a whole and indicative of broad trends in that control group, rather than outliers.
I think it is generally accepted that race relations in New Zealand have historically been among the most peaceful the world has known, as anyone acquainted with the history of the United States (conflict with native Americsnd; black slavery), Iberian America (colonisation; black slavery in Brazil) or India (caste oppression; profound Muslim-Hindu communal violence) can testify - to say nothing of the horrific treatment of Australian aborigines. It is also acknowledged that the life circumstances and chances of Maoris were immeasurably better by, say,1910 compared to 1840, by just about any index we could mention: wealth, health, personal freedom and voting rights, women's rights, and life expectancy, as well as an end to the internecine and endemic warfare, reaching its murderous apogee in the Musket Wars and slavery that afflicted the Maori tribes for generations prior to 1840. Wikipedia says the Musket Wars killed 20-40 thousand Maoris and caused the enslavement of tens of thousands. Nobody said that Maori lives were perfect in 1910 (nor did anyone say this of the lives of working class whites), but they were indescribably better than they had been in 1840. New Zealand is perhaps the only country on earth where British colonisation caused the abolition of slavery. All this progress is a matter of indisputable historical record and is a testimony to the wisdom and goodwill of the Crown but above all to the transformative power of the Gospel as Maoris overwhelmingly became Christians (at least in name) and accepted new social relations and different ethical values as the imperatives of peaceful and prosperous living.
My questions have always been: why did this progress begin to stumble and deteriorate in the 1960s, even as society as a whole became more overtly opposed to racially discriminatory behaviour and ever greater amounts were spent on Maori health care, child care and education? Beginning in the 1960s, what happened to Maori family life and why? Why did most Maoris give up on church? Daniel Moynihan asked the same questions about black families in the United States from the 1960s, drawing attention to the dramatic rise in illegitimacy, fatherless families, school failure and welfare dependency from that time. These are the real problems and very few people in public life in New Zealand are willing to draw attention to the real causes. Instead, tired old leftwing American tropes about "racism" and "colonialism" are trotted out by people who are profoundly ignorant of New Zealand history - which apparently includes the histrionic MPs of TPM, according to those well known Maori MPs, Sean Jones, David Seymour and Winston Peters, among others.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
William, clearly you haven't bothered reading the article I recommended which explains the situation with how land was taken from Maori in various ways (confiscation, broken promises regarding reserves, schools, etc, threats from officials) and racial bias in various forms.
From the same article, about Anglican ministry in Canterbury:
James West Stack headed up the Anglican MÄori Mission for the diocese of Christchurch in 1862. He was aware of the extreme poverty of South Island MÄori and was doing all he could to act on behalf of those suffering. Stack believed that the “bitter sense of betrayal over the loss of land had ‘blighted all our work’”.[50]
For fantastic detail on the relationship over time between the NZ Anglican church and MÄori, read Hirini Kaa's book - Te Hāhi Mihinare : The MÄori Anglican Church
https://www.amazon.com.au/Ha%CC%84hi-Mihinare-M%C4%81ori-Anglican-Church-ebook/dp/B08P6NYZ6X
I get the feeling you give the credit to Pakeha for the relatively peaceful relations when actually MÄori often participated in peaceful protest rather than resorting to violence in the face of extreme provocation.. e.g. again from the article:
vi. On occasions specific MÄori claimed to be the owners of land when they weren’t. An example of correspondence about an example of this is below:
“Only the men of Ngamotu and Puketapu received Wakefield’s payment and they had no right to Waitara. .. Friend Governor, do you not love your land – England, the land of your fathers – as we love our land at Waitara? Friend Governor, be kind to the MÄori people.” - Wiremu Kingi Te Rangitake to Governor FitzRoy, 1844.[29]
vii. Often NZC [New Zealand Company] surveyors went straight through MÄori homes, gardens and cemeteries striking pegs into the ground. MÄori quietly went about removing the pegs.[30]
The question of mother tongue loss and new language acquisition has always interested me as a linguist (and lifelong student of the biblical languages). There were actually heroic efforts to promote Maori language by the Church Missionary Society, especially in its Bible productions. The difficulties were quite simply this: the transitions that Maoris were going to make in 1840 in acceding to the Crown and becoming British subjects amounted to some of the most rapid cultural changes any people has faced in history. In anthropological terms, the great majority of Maoris in the early 1800s were quite literally a 'Stone Age' people, as were all East Polynesians, with no metals, literacy, wheels, ceramics, stone buildings or the other technologies known in East Asia from at least 1500 BC (their proto-Polynesian ancestors having left Taiwan c. 3000 BC). Extreme isolation and cultural stasis meant there was very little development culturally or technologically for millennia because cultural advance really only comes from diffusion and conquest - as we know from the history of Europe and Asia. The encounter of such a culture - essentially unchanged for about 1500 years or longer- with the richest and most technologically advanced culture the world had known to that point - could never be unenventful, but it was remarkably peaceful. As everywhere in the world, the 19th century innovation of universal primary education meant that the traditional language took seconf place to the new national language. This was as true of New Zealand as it was for my Irish ancestors, and in France and Italy (at a time when most inhabitants there didn't yet speak French or Italian). Prior to 1840 there was no political entity or commonwealth in the New Zealand islands, only 500 or so tribes and sub-tribes of common ethnic origin but no political unity, along with a few thousand Europeans.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
I'm writing this having tonight found and watched the documentary I'd mentioned previously, “No MÄori Allowed”. Because of the requirement to register at TV1 I opted to watch it on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adInNe0jdJU
I learned a lot; it meant a lot to me. I was born in Waiuku and lived there till around the age of five. We'd drive through Pukekohe sometimes on our way to the main highway south. Later my brother developed a horticultural block in the Bombay Hills and I'd sometimes go and stay with him and his family in my school holidays. So I really have a feel for this area and for the market gardens.
If you haven't already seen this, please take a look! It brings together different perspectives and we begin to appreciate how the truth of the town's history isn't complete until everyone's been heard and listened to with respect - from the American academic armed with facts to the aged kaumÄtua with their wealth of local memories and knowledge. These various interactions don't get off to a great start either! There's suspicion and offence at 'outsiders' telling locals' stories and getting it wrong. But trust grows, relationships form, and the bare bones facts get fleshed out with real human stories. Light shines on dark places, opening the way for truth-telling for current and future generations.
Thanks William and Liz,
Yes, William, the claims you make - advanced culture, relatively peaceful engagement between two cultures - are made but they avoid the egregious errors of British settlement, from tolerating the Wakefields, to cheating on land deals, to spawning a culture that could be as racist as Liz is charting. Hardly an advanced culture advancing in a new land.
The 'claims' I make are all historically true, as anyone familiar with the work of Michael King or other historians can affirm. I was giving a global view only, as befits a blog post, not a granular discussion of particular places. The Land Wars in the Waikato did lead to unjust land seizures in the central North Island which were finally rectified many years later by the Maori land tribunals. Of course these conflicts caused pain - just as the Highland Clearances caused pain in Scotland in the 18th century (as well as accelerating the settlement of Nova Scotia) and the current depopulation of the French countryside has caused great grief there and the rise of the Gilets Jaunes. When has there ever been a time of massive and sudden socioeconomic change without pain and displacement and some injustice to rural dwellers? Do you imagine the 500 Maori iwi acted with justice, kindness and restraint towards each other before the arrival of the Europeans? Did the Taranaki Maori act with justice and kindness toward the Chatham Moriori? Of course they didn't! Throughout New Zealand, one tribe displaced or subjugated and enslaved another as it was able, and tribes moved on to other lands as they were able, during the 550 or so years of occupancy of these islands until the arrival of the Europeans. And the apogee (or nadir) of this martial culture (everywhere except the Chathams) was of course the Musket Wars - which probably not one NZer in 20 knows anything about today, so poor and partial is the teaching of school history today. The reason for this terrible history of warfare is clear: unlike in the Pacific Islands, there was no paramount king with the power to command obedience and suppress disobedience with extreme force, as the Kings of Hawaii, Tonga and elsewhere could do. The Treaty of Waitangi meant the pacification of these islands and the institution of a system of inter-tribal justice, security and development such as had never been known before. It is not popular to admit these things today, but that is only because too many New Zealanders (who know better) have an animus against Christianity, wilfully ignore the past and treat 1840 as some kind of Year Zero.This is just dishonest.
Maybe sometime there will be an occasion to discuss the questions I raised esrlier: Why did Maori social progress, which was steady and real in the 20th century (the Maori Renaissance) slow down and even go into reverse in the 1960s? Why is so much Maori family life in serious crisis today compared to the 1950s? Why have all the money, efforts and initiatives expended on Maori education in the past 40 years produced comparatively little fruit? Are Maori leaders like Brian Tamaki succeeding where others have failed?
A blogpost on this would be very interesting, Peter!
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
William, I'm trying to figure out why your successive comments make me feel so dismal - all this why? why? why? I don't know why! I don't think it's all nearly as dismal as what you're trying to make out, anyway. Perhaps because you look through a particular lens and I look through a different lens (not rose-tinted though).
We are a young nation and can't escape the growing pains. We'll make mistakes, we've *made* mistakes, *all* of us. But we have to remember that we're all in this together and it's not just binary Maori and non-Maori. We're a amazing mix of All-Sorts. Maori, Pakeha, Irish, Scottish, Pacific Islander, Asian and so on - often one person is a mix of many. This is why we all need to engage with mutual respect and listen carefully to each other. Those who identify as Pakeha are slowly cottoning on to this, and many Maori are way more inclusive now than when I was young.
If I'm not making sense then read this fascinating article at e-tangata, actually, read it anyway.. it acknowledges the bad as well as the good and shows how attitudes change over time - Maori and Pakeha - both.
It ends with the words, "We’ve all come a long way."
Yes, we have.. slow and arduous.. but yes we have!
And I attest to that :)
https://e-tangata.co.nz/reflections/how-far-weve-all-come/
Hi Liz! I found both the documentary and e-tangata thought-provoking and interesting, thanks.
That's part of what I've been saying all along, Liz - with the exception of Adam and Eve (of course), no sin of my ancestors is mine and no achievement of theirs is mine either. No white New Zealander whose grandparents arrived from Holland in the 1950s should feel any particular responsibility for wrongful land seizures in the Waikato in the 1850s, and no white-Maori (all Maoris are racially mixed today) should feel guilty that some of her ancestors in the 1830s were participants in the Musket Wars genocide. My responses have always been about the myopic and dishonest use of history to advance a poltical agenda - which is what TPM and the Greens have been doing, to enormous public harm. And as I have asserted repeatedly, it is the MMP electoral system in NZ which magnifies the mischief, giving a platform and megaphone to infantile and demagogic behaviour of the likes of TPM and Benjamin "Bussy".
But you will also note that I am consistently arguing against one of the not-so-covert projects of the racialised left, which is to insinuate into NZ public life a racial veto on politics and an institutionalised form of apartheid under the invented nonsense of "co-governance". There is a disaster looming here and it needs to be stopped. One of the ways is to scrap racial self-identification. If anyone can call herself a Maori, then the word means nothing. The Maori seats in Parliament should have been abolished a century ago.
A second way is to ensure rigorous control of educational standards in NZ schools, and rigorous control of child protection policies for children at risk from domestic violence. In both areas NZ has seriously deteriorated in the past two generations. National standards of English and maths are really weak now, especially compared to progressive Asian nations. Once again, racial politics prevents people from seeing the truth.
The country should take a lesson from that NZ headmistress Katherine Birbalsingh.
But there are other big-picture issues. One is that 20% of NZers live abroad, mainly in Australia, and there nobody really cares who your grandparents were. The Maori truck driver in SA who makes $A150k pa acheves or fails by his own merits, without any public status. NZ has always been fortunate in having Australia as the escape valve for an economy that is too small for an educated western population.
And a second is that every year there is a growing number of NZers of Chinese, Indian and Filipino origin and ancient literary cultures for whom these 19th century arguments have little interest or relevance. But how wonderful it is when a Vietnamese priest shares the universal Gospel with an Indian shopkeeper!
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
"institutionalised form of apartheid"
invented nonsense of "co-governance"
Different lenses, William. Dismissing co-governance as "nonsense" is itself nonsense; fearmongering about "apartheid" is really getting overwrought. Co-governance has already occurred in various forms for many years e.g. co-governance of resources/reserves in various regions. We're Treaty Partners after all and co-governance is based on mutual trust and our shared desire for securing long-term wellbeing. Maori are well accustomed to long-term strategic thinking and planning so there's no basis for fear, distrust or suspicion (and such reactions are unworthy, unfair and unwarranted).
Dear William
Your immediate comment above is lucky to be published. Please take care with comments. Your words read as 1. a diatribe 2. sweeping judgement (e.g. about co-governance) 3. racism (you effectively lump all Maori into each of your judgmental statements).
Your statements are seriously wrong in law and history, Liz.
First, "we" are not Treaty Partners. The "Treaty Partners" were the Crown and the signatories. Neither you nor I nor any other private NZer is a partner of the Treaty of Waitangi because neither you nor I is the Crown. The Crown means the continuing Government of NZ from 1840 to the present, i.e. the King of New Zealand and his ministers.
Second, the supremacy of the Crown over the lands and lives of ALL subjects is clesrly stated in the first paragraph of the Treaty. New Zealand is not a condominium. No individual or group in NZ has the legal power to veto the Crown in New Zealand. That is what the supremacy of the Crown means, incorporate in the King and his Government.
Third, like it or not, 'apartheid' or separate development, the policy that separate rsces will have separate legal authority over individuals of particular racial group memberships (as well as territorial powers) is exactly what the novel theory of 'co-governance' proposes: that persons selected on the basis of their self-described race as "Maori" shall have sovereign powers over other persons of this self-described community. This is exactly how the Group Areas Act functioned in the Republic of South Africa, except that central government officials decided who belonged to which racial group on genealogical grounds. In New Zealand anybody can self-identify as a Maori or European on their own volition, so the word is emptied of onjective mesning and truth. I was an outspoken opponent of South Africa's racial laws in my school days and knew pretty well how the bantustans were intended to work - all in the name of harmony and justice, we were sincerely told, allowing the different races of South Africa to look after their own lands and operate their own social welfare and school system. This also extended in South Africa to the idea that there shoulf be separate ideas for different races. This idea never caught on in New Zealand, although I understand the Anglicans do have a separate Maori church. I never imagined that people would advocate separate racial development for New Zealand. But every bad idea has its day, I suppose. Personally I subscribe to the idea that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
In this 1news article about Julian Batchelor whose talking points would appear to often overlap with your own William, the opinion of a legal scholar is also shared in the article:
"Dr Carwyn Jones has studied the legal dimensions of the Treaty of Waitangi for the past 17 years and worked with the Waitangi Tribunal.
"He rejects the conclusions Batchelor has come to saying he can see how Batchelor would conclude that the Treaty does not require a partnership if you were only looking at the English version, but that the MÄori version of the Treaty specifically includes tino rangatiratanga: ongoing MÄori authority.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/11/25/exploring-the-stop-co-governance-movement/
Peter, you state about my above comment: "you effectively lump all Maori into each of your judgmental statements".
I have re-read my comment several times and I haven't a clue what you are saying. The very point I have made repeatedly is that people are NOT an undifferentiated collective but individuals with different histories, experiences and outlooks, and the ponderous anarthrous statements one reads so often '('Maori believe this, Maori think this' etc) are themselves "effectively lumping all Maori into a number of judgmental statements" - something I am rigorously careful to avoid. Sean Jones, David Seymour, Winston Peters, Brian Tamaki and John Tamihere are all Maoris and they don't agree about anything! This is why I constantly say: 'Some Maoris think X, others think Y etc'. Can you imagine the (justified) uproar if someone stated, 'Pakeha believe X, Pakeha believe Y etc'?
As for the 'new' co-governance theory, the idea that there should be separate government systems within one nation for different ethnic groups, this was how the Ottoman Empire operated in part (the vilayet system) and the theory was central to the Group Areas Acts. It's a recipe for endless conflict and good only for lawyers. I am all for trying new ideas (provided they work) when the goal is to help ethnicities with struggling educational or primary health care outcomes. But I am fiercely opposed to racial discrimination in allocation of resources or rights, or access to health care or to Crown lands, and so are the vast majority of New Zealanders.
As for the nation's educational achievement, there is a terrible gap between rhetoric and reality, with a huge difference in school attendance rates between NZ and the UK and other advanced European and Asian nations like Singapore and South Korea. This has to be turned around urgently, followed by a clear-eyed look at the NCEA and the falling world rankings of NZ universities.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Hi William
I do not see you consistently writing Some Maori think this, some that. Nevertheless I may not have critiqued you correctly re generalisation. I am still troubled, nevertheless, by the way you argue because there is a permeating negative view of Maori response to the trauma of colonization (including your minimising the impact of that trauma), to other trauma in their inter generational response to what we Pakeha have brought, including disease which almost wiped Maori out at the end of the 19th century, and the massive mid 20th century shift for Maori from rural areas to urban areas ... and then you wonder why things have gone downhill from the 1960s!
You raise the question of co-governance as though it is "separate governance" - these are two different things; and aspirations for separate governance can be nunaced.
Consider the following scenarios:
= Ngai Tahu has a co-governace role in the use of water in the South Island, and all benefit because dirty rivers are clean again, artesian water can be drunk without fear of ingesting surplus nitrates;
= another tribe has an effective veto through co-governance on who can tramp and hunt in their hills and who can swim on their beaches - few people benefit (though birdsong might!) and resentment is stirred all around [I don't want that any more than you do.]
= there are separate legal and parliamentary systems for Pakeha and Maori respectively and the country becomes a chaotic mess [I don't wan that any more than you do.]
= there is a parliamentary system akin to the governance of the Anglican church in these islands ie a Pakeha house and a Maori house within the legislative chamber; MPs talk to each and work out how we will proceed on a matter; vetos are rarely made; and the country prospers through good societal relationships as well as good governance accepted by all;
= for some Maori areas, traditional land around a marae of significance, there is a distinct economic zone and within that the local iwi sets the rules, raises rates/taxes, and raises income [the model is something already working in Canada]; Maori enterprise prospers; Pakeha cheer these zones on; all are happy.
I agree with you that education in a nation needs to improve for all; and all need to participate in education geared for our future economic prosperity. There is a very difficult future in the globe for those who do not become educated.
No, I do not think Brian Tamaki has much to offer most Maori. He has certainly helped a few Maori.
It has occurred to me that from the 1960’s, there has been a steady erosion of spiritual roots in NZ culture. My observation is, (from my limited knowledge), that some people with Maori connections and ancestry seem to be more spiritually aware than many Pakeha. Because of that, the disruption of community life by the rural-urban shift into an increasingly secular society, may have contributed to loss of identity and spiritual connection, which has caused all sorts of social malaise?
Yes Moya, and that reminds me of things said by Hirini Kaa e.g.
“We can’t have a secular Maori culture,” Rev Dr Kaa says, “it just doesn’t work for us, it’s not how we view the world – but at the same time, we’re not necessarily talking about Christianity.”
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/soul-search/hirini-kaa:-maori-and-christian-ideas-of-the-sacred,-reciprocit/13792576
William obviously not much will alter your standpoint, yes NZ track record is way better than many countries in large part because we have the treaty, advocated for by Missionaries and also taken around many tribes (over 500) by missionaries to be signed by chiefs not present.
Actually you are a partner, as part of the treaty included a clause whereby all who were to settle in NZ were also to be included in the treaty, hence the phrase Te Tanagata o te Tiriti….
NZ was also fortunate because the English did not want to colonised NZ they did so because the missionaries petitioned them to do so because of the drunk ness and debauchery for lack of a better word of the first settlers largely traders who were English citizens, and also to stop the French from doing so.
Co-governance was written into the Treaty - sovereignty in one version, governance in another, it was written that Maori would have authority over the lands that they held and their people on those lands this did not come to pass.
Sure languages are integrated and change but there is a difference between that and being hit for speaking your indigenous language.
Yes Moriori’s suffered, the uncle I mentioned being hit for speaking Te Reo was a Moriori.
Can you not comprehend that a 35% plus rural to urban migration increase, post 1945 for the Maori population might have led to societal breakdown?? I met a lady at Church in Wgtn, she came to Wgtn as a young woman and said it was so different from her rural upbringing where pakeha and Maori co-existed, she said she got called a native from across the other side of the street and yelled at and had to stay away from Pakeha men because they took liberties in the sexual sense not seeing her as equal in terms of status to a European woman.
In what form would you consider Parihaka to be just and better than other countries. Note this was a Christian settlement.
Land was not all returned after the Taranaki wars.
The Maori seats in parliament were not a Maori idea initially and at the start only Maori owning land individually could vote, the Maori population were under-represented in government as a result until they were allowed to also vote in the general electorate. Now whether they are still relevant is debatable.
And so it goes on, the treatment of our indigenous people has not been ideal, it has not been the worst globally but there was serious disadvantages and discrimination all of which does unfortunately have a generational affect.
Post a Comment