[ad_1]
By Lara Greaves 
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon (centre), ACT leader David Seymour (left) and New Zealand First leader Winston Peters arrive at the Waitangi Treaty Grounds on Monday, February 5, 2024.
photo: RNZ/Angus Drever
Viewpoint – Whenever New Zealand’s political debate turns to the Treaty of Waitangi and its contemporary relevance, one term comes up: “race relations”.
We have heard it recently in media commentary and political commentary on ACT’s controversial Treaty Principles Bill, where former Prime Minister John Key called for “to tone it down a bit” and now at the Tūrangawaewae marae in Ngāruawāhia.
But the term is a misnomer. If used or misunderstood, it can undermine social cohesion, exacerbate political polarization, and distract from the real policy issues being debated.
What we are really talking about is the relationship between Maori and the Crown. But we are not particularly good at teaching that distinction in schools or universities. This is not a debate about “race relations”; it is a debate about the Treaty.
The treaty was signed in 1840 by two groups: the hapū (kinship-based groups) and the British Crown. Those who signed te Tiriti included the rangatira (the Māori leader (or chief) representing the hapū) and representatives of the Crown.
Today, “Te Tiriti o Waitangi” is widely used to distinguish between the Maori version and the English version of the Treaty of Waitangi. Neither version mentions “race”.
Maori and the Crown
We have now done decades of academic and legal work to define rights from Tiriti. But if we don’t have a treaty, as is the case with many indigenous groups, international conventions and laws will guide the situation.
One of the core principles is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – if anyone dares to mention it. Part of the coalition agreement with New Zealand FirstNonetheless, indigenous rights are gaining increasing recognition around the world.
Indigenous groups are political groups. Yes, they are based on kinship, continued culture and language, but not often on “race”. Internationally, if a country recognizes Indigenous peoples, these groups usually decide their own membership.
It also depends on their history and relationship to the country. Some groups still use a “blood quantum” rule, which is based on a fraction of a person’s total ancestry. Other groups use a citizenship rule, which allows them to admit whomever they choose.
Of course, Maori have long used whakapapa-based models to identify belonging, tracing lineage to specific ancestors, places and waka.
Outdated concept
In the 1960s and 1970s, the term “race relations” was often used to contrast relations between Maori and Pakeha with other countries, particularly South Africa. This led to the widely accepted myth that New Zealand had “the best race relations in the world”.
The term was still widely used to describe Māori relations with the Crown during 2004-05, when the Foreshore and Seabed Act came into the political spotlight.
It is even still in official use, integrated into the New Zealand human rights bureaucracy, fulfilling the role of the Race Relations Commissioner, and used to mark Race Relations Day.
However, it is now widely recognised that ‘race’ is an outdated concept. The Maori Affairs Amendment Act of 1974 freed us from a system of classification based on race by defining ‘Maori’ on the basis of descent.
In the decades since, other important government activities, such as the census, have also shifted from racial construction to national construction.
In 1975, the electoral law was also changed to remove the descent rule from the Maori or general electoral rolls and switch to one based on self-identification. Previously, people who identified as being more than half Maori had no choice but to be included on the Maori roll.
Furthermore, many have highlighted the limitations of the definition and scientific basis of the concept of “race.” As the American Association of Biological Anthropologists explains, “Humans are not biologically divided into distinct continental types or racial genetic groups.”
Ultimately, the so-called “race relations” issue is more about discussing the rights of political groups (tribes and tribes) based on te Tiriti and tangata whenua (their Aboriginal identity). The “relationship” in question is between Maori and the Crown.
National Māori Action Day gathering in central Auckland on Budget Day.
photo: RNZ/Jessica Hopkins
Social cohesion
In the current political climate, the term “race relations” itself can make it sound as if all Maori and all Pakeha have difficult relations and are in danger of not talking to each other.
I’ve even heard some people use terms like “race war” or “racial tension”. Yet we know from psychological research that (on average) New Zealand’s different racial groups’ views of each other have been improving.
The Maori protest was not representative of Maori views on ordinary white people. It was directed at the Crown or those with decision-making power. The idea of tension between “races” reinforced the perception of a zero-sum stalemate among New Zealanders.
Using the word “race” also pits common groups of people against each other. It is often used to ignore multiculturalism and New Zealand’s large populations of Pacific and Asian descent.
We know that Maori are individually diverse, politically and culturally, as the composition of the current Parliament shows. Many factors contribute to this diversity, from active choice to experiences of isolation.
Ideas of ‘race relations’ homogenise Maori, yet we know that Maori are on both sides of any given Maori-Crown relations debate.
The main target of Maori discontent is the British Crown, which has not met its treaty obligations in various laws. The use of the term “race relations” is outdated and inaccurate. Ironically, it also undermines social cohesion – the “relationships” we are trying to talk about.
* Lara Greaves is Associate Professor of Political Science at Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington
[ad_2]
Source link
