Your search

This paper will provide a critical critique of Alt/Far-Right Political Thought on Indigenous Issues and History in Aotearoa New Zealand. It examines the preface of the book, “One Treaty, One Nation” entitled, “Some of The Myths on Which The Treaty Industry is Based” by emerging Alt/Far-Right Publisher, Tross Publishing. The author examines supposed ‘myths’ put forward by the authors. An exploration of the relevance of Aboriginal academic Aileen Moreton-Robinson’s White Possesive Doctrine, Histographpobia and Veracini’s Commentary of “On Settling.” This piece ends by providing commentary on the collective future of Aotearoa New Zealand should be based on.

Source: National Library of New Zealand Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa, licensed by the Department of Internal Affairs for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand Licence.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, the arrival of imperial ideologies in the 19th century led to devastating land-loss and cultural marginalisation for M?ori at the hands of settlers and successive governments. This article examines the damaging effects of a Crown-imposed treaty claims settlement system designed to address injustices inflicted on M?ori. Interview data from a Taranaki-based (a West Coast region, central North Island of Aotearoa New Zealand) hap? (sub-tribe) that engaged with this system foreground the adversarial nature of this system and its continuation of trauma. We argue that, while the process provides voice to M?ori, it does so within a paradigm that pits kin-groups against each other, unjustly limits redress and fails to resolve tension. A tikanga framing provides insights into how tensions are set up and ways tikanga (underlying values and principles that guide practice) can be used outside the redress system to seek healing and resolution.

As Aotearoa New Zealand grapples with developing solutions to complex issues surrounding its unique freshwater and marine biological heritage, there is a growing recognition that mātauranga Māori can be ‘unlocked’ and used with great effect alongside western science. Examples where appropriate consideration and development of robust methodologies for the application of mātauranga Māori coexisting alongside western science are increasing. Unfortunately, despite the benefits that can be derived from this collaboration, the quality of engagement is not always satisfactory often due to poor interpersonal relationships and misidentification of the knowledge holders. By providing an appropriately historical context, this article is able to consider the critical issues now facing mātauranga and the Māori knowledge holders today, and fundamental requirements that will empower application of this knowledge within bio-heritage management. We consider how the development of a methodology between mātauranga Māori holders and potential end-users might contribute to improved outcomes for Aotearoa’s biological heritage.

<em>Gale</em> Academic OneFile includes THE MISAPPROPRIATION OF THE HAKA: ARE THE CURRENT LEGAL by Isabella Tekaumarua Wilson. Click to explore.

In recent years Maori people have adopted many strategies to protect and advance the well being and visions implicit in the exercise of tino rangatiratanga. Much of that work has been done at home, but an increasing number of Iwi and other Maori organisations are now participating in international affairs that are seen to have some relevance to our lives. They are joining a worldwide movement by Indigenous Peoples to reassert their rights and reclaim their rightful place.

In 2010 Indigenous peoples' rights continued to feature in discussions in a variety of international fora. Indigenous peoples' traditional knowledge (TK) associated with genetic resources (GR) were discussed under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) and within the World Trade Office (WTO). The United Nations (UN) General Assembly's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Indigenous Peoples' Declaration) featured in debate under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); the UN General Assembly's Third Committee; the work of the UN mechanisms with a specific mandate concerning Indigenous peoples; and, in a landmark ruling of the African Commission on Human and People's Rights (African Commission), was adopted by the African Union. International human rights monitoring bodies also advanced their jurisprudence on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

Aotearoa/New Zealand is not known for egregious breaches of indigenous peoples’ rights. Nonetheless, New Zealand’s legal system is ineffective at implementing international and domestic laws that protect the rights of Maori. This has been seen most starkly in the Foreshore and Seabed Act of 2004, which had the effect of extinguishing Maori aboriginal title to the foreshore and seabed areas and was passed despite almost universal Maori opposition.

In 1840, English officials on behalf of the British crown signed the Treaty of Waitangi—also known as Te Tiriti o Waitangi—with the Indigenous Māori population, affirming Māori sovereignty and guaranteeing their collective rights to the country’s land and resources. Since the 1700s, English settlers had been arriving in Aotearoa (the Māori name for New Zealand) to capitalize on the seal and whale trade. As the number of settlers increased, reports flowed back to Britain of general lawlessness and dubious private land deals, and the crown was forced to consider how best to control its citizens. A treaty with the Māori, officials decided, was the way to do so. The agreement, which established the basis for the relationship between the Māori and the British, is commonly cited as a shining example of how a treaty can recognize and protect Indigenous peoples’ rights by curtailing the reach of the state. But does te Tiriti live up to its sterling reputation? The answer, of course, is complicated.

Introduction. Although opportunities exist for positive experiences in research, Māori in New Zealand, like other indigenous people colonised by Europeans in the nineteenth century, have also been subject to research and associated policies that have had long-lasting negative consequences. Researchers have subsequently been challenged by Māori to conduct research that is acceptable, accountable and relevant. Much of this debate has taken place within the framework of the Treaty of Waitangi, a treaty of cession signed between Māori and British Crown representatives in 1840. Nowadays, health and health research statutes exist that require researchers to respond to the ‘principles’ of the Treaty. Few practical examples of how health researchers have undertaken this have been published. Aims. We examine how, in developing a national study of injury outcomes, we responded to the Treaty. Our study, the Prospective Outcomes of Injury Study, aims to quantitatively identify predictors of disability following injury and to qualitatively explore experiences and perceptions of injury outcomes. Discussion. Responses to the Treaty included: consultation with Māori groups, translation of the questionnaire into te reo Māori, appointment of interviewers fluent in te reo Māori, sufficient numbers of Māori participants to allow Māori-specific analyses and the inclusion of a Māori-specific qualitative component. While this article is located within the New Zealand context, we believe it will resonate with, and be of relevance to, health researchers in other former settler societies. We do not contend this project represents an ‘ideal’ model for undertaking population-based research. Instead, we hope that by describing our efforts at responding to the Treaty, we can prompt wider debate of the complex realities of the research environment, one which is scientifically, ethically and culturally located.

Governments in New Zealand have legislated a large number of settlements extinguishing many hundreds of claims taken by Māori against the Crown for breaches of the country’s founding document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. They portray settlements as a great success for Māori and the Crown. Māori disagree. Settlements are government-determined and imposed on Māori using a smoke and mirrors approach that masks successive governments’ true intentions: to claw back Māori legal rights; to extinguish all claims; and to maintain White control over Māori. In short, to uphold the Doctrine of Discovery in further breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Māori claimants and negotiators report being enticed into the process by false promises only to become traumatised and disenchanted. Yet many take a pragmatic stance and sign settlements, making the best they can out of a bad deal that goes nowhere near compensating for their actual loss. They know that despite what legislation may say, the settlements are not full, not fair and not final and that, like all previous settlements, they will be revisited. They also know that unless fundamental changes are made to the constitutional makeup of the country, there is no prospect of justice and reconciliation for Māori.