I think maybe pakeha practice tino rangatiratanga better than Maori?
Maori are where we are because of a heap of things that have gone down over the decades. But don’t we have that warrior gene?
That gene, which is supposed to make us so tough, should mean we can be successful despite everything the system and history has dumped on us.
Even with history against us, every Maori has the potential to live tino rangatiratanga right now – without a law to say we can, without needing a flag to inspire us to do it, without a dollar in the back pocket. All it needs is the desire and mental toughness our warrior gene gives us.
If self determination is an indicator of tino rangatiratanga then a greater percentage of pakeha than Maori have got this self determination thing sussed, and as a result they enjoy all the benefits tino rangatiratanga brings.
At its most basic level tino rangatiratanga is about making decisions for oneself – That means making decisions about, what I eat, drink, smoke, watch on TV, how well I perform at work or school, how fit I’ll be, what qualifications I’ll seek, what career I’ll have, what my belief system is, who my friends are, whether I’ll do right or wrong, be positive or negative, turn left or right, go up the stairs or take the elevator.
I’m all for Maori tino rangatiratanga? I’ve seen all the benefits that pakeha have got from it, and I want our people to be just as successful and influential, on our own terms.
When we make the right decisions for ourselves and our whanau, good things come to us, despite history. Simple really.
First of all what is tino rangitiroranga
you know, you can confuse alot of people when you are speaking one language and then change language half way through the sentence
its a bit mental
It says pretty clearly “At its most basic level tino rangatiratanga is about making decisions for oneself.”
What’s mental about it?
My bad
And coz most people who speak english don’t speak maori
Anyway, the topic you’ve just brought up is one I find very interesting, and I have spent hours of my life discussing this kind of topic with my friends; Why do Maori’s end up poorer, less educated and generally lesser off than white NZers? No matter how long we talk about it we can’t seem to find a core reason.
But maybe thats not what your getting at? What exactly do you mean when you say white people make more decisions for themselves than maori’s? Can you say any examples? I’m interested
I agree wholeheartedly with what you’re saying Kelvin, but be wary of Alan Duff syndrome (a close relative of Waipareira disease). It’s very easy to lose sight of the difference, and plays into the hands of the redneck. The Maori Party’s pretty much fallen into the trap and are just about to give national the mandate to decimate everything the Labour Party stood for prior to 1984 and between 1990 and 1999.
Kelvin, I think this is a very important topic. It is the same sort of discussion we have in the States about federal versus state powers. Our constitution breaks it down into three power sources.
1. the federal government has the powers enumerated in the Constitution, mostly in Article I, section 8.
2. states are prohibited from doing certain things, like coining money.
3. the people are given a Bill of Rights, but that isn’t all.
The most interesting amendment regarding division of sovereignty is the Tenth Amendment. It says that if a power is not granted to the federal government, it belongs to the states. And if a state is prohibited from doing something, then that power resides with the people.
The idea of self-determination makes me think of the “state” and “people” powers. The Treaty seems to divide powers between the Crown and Maori in a similar sense. I think it would be interesting to see how much power a state has in the US federal system compared with what Maori retained after the Treaty.
Or would a better comparison be with treaties the US made with all the various tribes?
Did you know that Native Americans in what is now Oklahoma formed their own state and petitioned Congress to be admitted to the union? They had their own state constitution, laws, and everything. But when Congress rebuffed them, they abandoned their state and became part of Oklahoma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Sequoyah
What can a state do even though we have a national, federal government? You can look at any state’s code and get an idea:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/
Those are the topics which a state can control.
Do Maori have a legislative assembly of some kind in which they can legislate with the residual powers they have after the Treaty?
That’s a real question, because I have no idea at all.
@Anton – I hear what you’re saying.
@Dylan – I think there is a parallel path that Maori can take as well as protesting about past injustices. We (Maori) have been demanding ‘tino rangatiratanga’ or ’self determination’ for some time now.
I actually think self determination is something we can practice in our daily lives by making the right decisions for ourselves and family. We don’t have to demand it from anyone.
I think in general pakeha practice it better than us and as a result they get educated, qualified, are healthier, more financially independent and reap the lifestyle rewards.
Tino rangatiratanga may be a Maori word, but the concept is universal and practiced by many cultures possibly without realising it.
We have some of the solutions to our problems within our own culture, and if we just practiced them we may just lift ourselves out of the mire.
To illustrate; I recall a Maori MP telling the story about his old overweight uncle who was told by his doctor that he had/ was on the verge of diabetes. The doctor wanted to give him medication to treat it, but he instead told the doctor to stick his medicine. The old uncle went home, started eating healthily and exercising and voila lost weight and didn’t need drugs. I reckon that’s a classic example of someone practising tino rangatiratanga (determining for himself) to make his life better.
And here I was thinking that Tino rangatiratanga meant ’sovereignty’ but self determination would work – but considering Maori never had a problem understanding the market model of barter and trade, they have always had ’self determination’. History was never against Maori, they just decided that some assets were more crucial than the land, what was the worth of some scrubland when you could get 10 muskets for it and smoke the tribe down the road and take their established stocks? I know, it’s ‘not that simple’ but the fact is, Maori always knew what they were doing and made their decisions, just today they don’t want the consequences of being warriors. Then when they realised that they were on the wrong side of the equation and you couldn’t eat bullets, it was too late and the English were too successful and too established to fight about it. 19th century Maori were much smarter than anyone gives them credit for, its just they played and lost. Nothing wrong with that, so did the Germans. But unlike Germans, Maori just won’t get over it, accept it and just move on
Dylan, you’re about to get the wraith of PC indignity .. “maoris’ doesn’t exist, don’t you know? “Maori” is plural.
@Paul – you’re right. It wasn’t that simple.
My first thought is that self determination is something you can only find within yourself.
But another thought that comes to mind is that you actually have to have the choices laid before you. I remember once my mother went on a work visit to some south auckland schools to do some photography. She came back and told me that the children there had nothing, that compared to the schools I have been lucky enough to go to they had nowhere near as many resources or teachers or good buildings or anything. She also said she saw about 2 white kids there and the rest were maori. And one could argue a worse education could mean worse decision making in everything later in life.
Theres also another story I heard, about mike tyson or whatever his name is, the boxer. He got really into street crime at a young age, and one day he got offered to join some boxing classes. And he went and he started getting really into it and starting doing more and more boxing and less and less street crime. And then boxing kind of became his life.
I see alot of young maoris around auckland walking the streets. Maybe its coz they got nothing to do. Maybe its coz they got no, as you say, tino rangatiratanga, and they aren’t making anything out of their lives. It is true that everyone needs to put effort into making decisions in their lives but you can only do so much with what you got. And thats where it doesnt become about whites or maori anymore. It’s up to our government and our schools and our communities to give opportunities to every new zealander, coz I see some white kids walking the streets looking lost with nothing to do aswell.
Anyway maybe I’ve dived into a blog I dont know enough about. I dont think I do, all I can say is that the maoris situation interests me alot and I really want to know just why things are the way they are. And I am only talking about youth, you are talking about all ages.
p.s thanks for the pc bomb pete i think i needed it from earlier comments I made, heh
(btw my point on the mike tyson thing was that; to make decisions and choices and go for goals in life, you have to have the opportunity)
@Andrew – Tino Rangatiratanga has been interpreted in various ways, one of which is ’self determination’. Many Maori ultimately want a Maori Government, some tribes want self government (the details of how either of these options would operate are yet to be determined). But self determination can be narrowed down to the individual determining what’s best for him/ herself (and their family). I think before we decide to change the world we need to sort ourselves out individually, and that’s where I believe the answer to many of our woes lies in education. There are issues with the education system itself, but that’s for another post. There isn’t anything in law that gives status to tino rangatiratanga. Hope of explained it a bit for you.
I’m getting the feeling that you guys are not talking about government or sovereignty at all. It sounds like tino rangatiratanga is about good personal choices and virtue.
I really don’t think about my not smoking or making sure to brush my teeth every day as matters of self-determination, but it is true that there are choices involved there. There is a great big set of choices an individual can make to have a healthy, happy life and be successful.
What does tino rangatiratanga mean in a political context? I mean, that flag to be flown over the bridge clearly isn’t there representing quitting smoking or daily tooth brushing or flossing, or even earning a Ph.D. It means something more than that. I thought it was about sovereignty and what powers are left over after the Treaty was signed. Do I have this all wrong?
Ok, that helped. You posted while I was typing.
@Dylan – 1) there are plenty of opportunities for all new Zealanders. the opportunities in South Auckland mayjust be different to the ones you experienced. We just need to look at all our Maori leaders who have done really well having come from varied backgrounds. Self determination is about making the most of the opportunities that do present themselves.
2) I think you have contributed significantly to this post despite (in your words) not understanding the concept well. you’ve probably asked questions others have been afraid to ask.
Pakeha power and current self determination was and still is built in destroying Maori tino rangatiratanga and the sytematic, strategic and most effective stripping Maori of their land and resource base. The most recent stunning exmple of this is the Seabed Foreshore Theft Act 2004.
Kelvin thanks for the 2)
Disagree with the 1) but thats getting off the blog topic
I think problems such as these need alot more serious intellectual thought in new zealand. I don’t think we have gotten to the bottom of it, of why maori are the way they are. I also think there needs to be less of a vibe in the way people talk about maori being seperate from whites in new zealand, we live in the same land and under the same state, we share an economy, we have been tied in with each other for decades and there is still this feeling of seperation.
Maybe if you think white people have more tino rangatiratanga than maori do, maybe the answer is for maori to get closer to the white community to learn from them? Maybe we need to integrate more in schools and workplaces etc.? That could be done in all sorts of ways which is yet another conversation.
anyway I will leave you guys to it
Just a few observations on the post and the comments made thus far:
1. There is no definitive interpretation of what “tino rangatiratanga” means, but the most widely accepted ones are sovereignty or self-determination. When looked at in the context of the Treaty, where tino rangatiratanga is mentioned, and the English version, equating tino rangatiratanga to self-determination or sovereignty is probably accurate.
2. I have not seen any interpretation of self-determination equating to making healthy lifestyle choices and the other examples you have given, Kelvin. While I agree that self-determination is about making decisions for oneself, it is about making the bigger, more important decisions that are usually left to the State. Self-determination is more about devolving power from the State and letting the individual make choices for themselves. For example, instead of the State providing health services for Maori, self-determination would involve devolving funding for those services to Maori so they can provide their own services. Again, given the context in which tino rangatiratanga is used in the Treaty, I think it would generally be agreed that it is something much more important than chosing whether or not to smoke or take drugs.
3.
@Ngahui – so we can see what you think the problem is, but what’s your solution? Another 170 years of protests? How about a generation of educated, successful and influential Maori? Wouldn’t we have more chance to balance things through them? But that would mean an individual commitment from a generation of parents as well as the school system? But thats only a decision those parents can determine for themselves.
@H.Fee – individual decisions are important and if we only think that Tino Rangatiratanga is about higher level issues such as governance and sovereignty, then collectively we miss a massive opportunity to make a difference for ourselves. i have no issue with Maori delivering services as we have done for sometime. But we’re still at the bottom of the heap.
Tino rangatiratanga to a solution to our problems from within our own culture but it needs to practiced at all levels, in many different ways to be totally effective. I think pakeha in general do it better than us without consciously knowing it or having a label for it.
@H.Fee – do the recipients of the services practice tino rangatiratanga at a personal level? (Rhetorical)
@Ngahui – I think the tens of thousands of successful and influential Maori over the years have practiced tino rangatiratanga at an individual level and therefore had the strength to overcome the historical barriers we’ve experienced.
Kelvin, surely you’re wrong to say “There isn’t anything in law that gives status to tino rangatiratanga”. Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a legal document is it not?
Article two of the Maori version of the treaty, which was the version signed by the crown, gives a crown gaurantee of the tino rangatiratanga of hapu and iwi over their lands, possessions and taonga.
(Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangitira ki nga hapu – ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa.)
So, what’s your position on the legal status of te tiriti o Waitangi? are you agreeing with Judge Prendergast’s (1877) decision that the treaty is “a simple nullity”?
Nick
Unfortunately a Treaty is a Treaty, an Act of Parliament is a Law. There is a difference.
My point is how do we get a heap of Maori in to parliament so that we can wield our influence and make the changes we want? Firstly we get our kids educated so that their future influence is almost guaranteed not left to chance, which means we need to commit to sending our kids to school every day (at the very least), which means at an individual level we have to make a commitment or determine for ourselves (i.e. practice tino rangatiratanga) that this is what will happen. There is a parallel path open to us alongside the one we’ve followed for the last 170 years. Not as headline grabbing, but probably just as effective.
Two hundred thousand Maori kids going to school each day isn’t nearly as news worthy as 1/10 of that number marching on Wellington.
Well the solution aint – ‘lets just admire them and be just like them’ . That would mean we’d have to steal everything back and make their kids go hungry and barefoot. Secure fair and just treaty settlements for a start to re-build the communal asset bases and social structures and again begin functioning as a community. On the back of that re-distribute tribal communal wealth, tikanga, knowledge, mauri and mana to supplement what the modern world offers for the body too. E tipu e rea….
Kelvin – excellent post
It’s great to see a Labour MP making these points. The Maori in Australia report that TPK pulled together a couple of years back highlighted how successful Maori can be by asserting themselves as rangatira of their own whanau.
“I think maybe pakeha practice tino rangatiratanga better than Maori”
well Pakeha certainly practice individualism better but I am not sure that is a good thing or something to be emulated. I also think systematic discrimination is hard enough to fight against as it is, let alone saying positive outcomes are down to individual choices. Women are making great choices all the time and still being paid less than men…is that because we don’t work hard enough? No, it is because of history and a system that still discriminates. I would rather a collective NZ was fighting for collective positive outcomes for all our people rather than just Pakeha blithely going about their business ignoring NZ history, the document we can claim our right to be NZers from and our current race relations.
It is about parenting Kelvin. Too much bullshit is spoken about tino rangatiratanga. Kids are failing because of poor parenting.Simple as that. If you don’t believe me – go teaching.
It all seems well and good and I’m one for personal responsibility and individaul liberty however it seems counter to what the Labour party does. Labour regulates or try to regulates such things alcohol, tobacco, television, food. We get with ever more and more compulsion and coercion. These things should be left to the individual to, as you say, make decisions for oneself instead of the state interfering in the decisions of individuals and communities. As Gandhi said “Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err”.
“No society can possibly be built on a denial of individual freedom” Gandhi.
Really, Kelvin, this is nonsense on stilts.
Tino Rangatiratanga does NOT translate as “self-determination” but as “the powers pertaining to the chiefs” – in other words to the sovereign political authority of the iwi – as exercised by its legitimate leadership. The term is POLITICAL – which is why it occurs where it does in the text of the Treaty of Waitangi.
As numerous historians have made clear over the years, no self-respecting Maori chieftain would have surrendered the authority he exercised over his own people to the British Crown. What the tribes were actually seeking was the “protection” of the British Empire – both from the French, and other powers who were snooping around New Zealand shores, and from the devastating effects of the Europeans’ new technology, which, during the so-called “Musket Wars” (circa 1800-30) had wiped out close to a fifth of the Maori population.
Maori activists began RE-INTERPRETING tino rangatiratanga to mean “self-determination” in the 1970s and early 80s but only in the term’s original political and diplomatic sense (self-determination being one of the key concepts behind the ethnicity- and language-based redrawing of the map of Europe following the First World War.
To reduce tino rangatiratanga to the banal notions of individualistic self-empowerment found American self-help manuals is as demeaning as it is risible.
Frankly, I expected better of you.
My understanding of tino rangatiratanga is that it is about Maori having control over all things Maori – total and full control. In which case, your statement Kelvin, about Pakeha being able to practise this better is probably, if I was to be a bit tongue in cheek – correct.
I think the reworked definition of having control over oneself is interesting, and I like the theory, but in terms of actual definition – not as accurate as it is meant to be.
Both major players in the political market have made policies that undermine tino rangatiratanga – as it is meant to be known as. I would imagine, with proper tino rangatiratanga, that perhaps choices for Maori and then, better outcomes, may have been an outcome. This is speculative of course – but I suspect that if there were more options (educational, housing, welfare, health etc) that had more ownership by Maori for Maori, then there would be a (an educated guess here) rise in successful outcomes. I wonder sometimes if lipservice is all that is paid to the wonderful rhetoric that is espoused forth in various policies – like in education, priority 5 is ‘Maori achieving success as Maori’ – yet there are less bilingual and immersion options now than there were several years ago (despite Ka Hikitia goals of lifting this) – the latest to get the chop was when Tolley closed Aorangi with the only bilingual unit in the NW of CHCH – and despite strong Maori support etc the Govt refused to listen and live up to its rhetoric.
I think the issue of tino rangatiratanga is more complex than just making better individual choices for ourselves.
(ps not the same Paul as above – I see there are two of us again)
There is a general impression in the world that Maori are better protected and have been treated better than native peoples in such places as the USA.
It is good to make comparisons, I think. Take, for instance, the Cherokee Nation.
http://www.cherokee.org/Government/Default.aspx
It is worth comparing what the Cherokee kept after the treaties with the USA. They apparently feel they retained the ability to adopt a constitution and three branches of government.
The Sioux apparently function on a “government-to-government” basis with the USA, and they have their own constitution and laws.
http://www.standingrock.org/government/
Potawatomi have interesting things to say about how much they kept after treaties:
“The Citizen Potawatomi Nation’s right to exercise sovereign authority has been recognized since time immemorial.”
http://www.potawatomi.org/Government/default.aspx
Worth considering.
Kelvin, you’re not saying anything about education that wasn’t said by the Young Maori Party 50 years ago. You’re talking about conforming to Pakeha standards; of law, of education, of success. It’s just assimilation warmed up. If you think that assimilation is the way forward, then have the grace to admit it, rather than misappropriating the term tino rangatiratanga.
Yes, I realise that acts of parliament and treaties are different things. My point is that they both have legal status. The denial of the legal status of te tiriti and of tino rangatiratanga by the crown is part of the problem of colonisation, not part of the solution.
As a Pakeha I wouldn’t appropriate the term tino rangatiratanga for myself (much less claim that I “practice it better” than Maori!). However, I do think that Pakeha can learn from and act in solidarity with Maori practices of collective self-determination. I agree with Meg that Pakeha individualism is nothing to be emulated and that collective struggle is much more fruitful.
I agree that education is important, but for what purpose? If education is contributing to individual and collective self-determination and social struggles, then great. But if it’s contributing to assimilation and narrow individualism, then I’d see it as part of the problem. Especially if your only goal is getting more Maori elected to parliament. What, so they can join the Labour party and vote for laws like the Foreshore and Seabed Act?
oops, make that 100 years ago for the Young Maori Party. I should check my dates before hitting submit!
There is a general impression in the world that Maori are better protected and have been treated better than native peoples in such places as the USA.
It is good to make comparisons, I think. Take, for instance, the Cherokee Nation.
http://www.cherokee.org/Government/Default.aspx
It is worth comparing what the Cherokee kept after the treaties with the USA. They apparently feel they retained the ability to adopt a constitution and three branches of government.
The Sioux apparently function on a “government-to-government” basis with the USA, and they have their own constitution and laws.
http://www.standingrock.org/government/
Potawatomi have interesting things to say about how much they kept after treaties:
“The Citizen Potawatomi Nation’s right to exercise sovereign authority has been recognized since time immemorial.”
http://www.potawatomi.org/Government/default.aspx
It makes me wonder how Maori would do if they had these sovereign powers, and exercised them with their own government made up entirely of Maori. What a different picture it would paint if Maori worked government-to-government with the NZ government.
In my opinion, the idea that the treaty is “a nullity” is where we should start from. Given that, Maori are free to form their own government (or governments) just like other first peoples can, and then negotiate binding treaties with the NZ government.
Anyone paying attention to Polynesians and Hawaii? Seems like they are going to get lands and governing power back, like other Native American tribes have. Crossing my fingers.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574412832314714444.html
Notice any similarities with conservative thought in NZ? The Wall Street Journal is against “separatism,” and they laud the virtues of assimilation.
This is current events. Will NZ give back the right to have a government to Maori, and help Americans make the right decision?
Other NA tribes have constitutions, 3 branches of government, and sovereignty. They make treaties with the USA because they are their own nations.
http://www.cherokee.org/Government/Default.aspx
http://www.standingrock.org/government/
http://www.potawatomi.org/Government/default.aspx
Worth considering.
Chris Trotter, as ususal, another ego-stroking rant devoid of original thought or a single idea, that adds nothing to the debate. Maybe try something small for starters, like coming up with a new slogan for Dunedin?
Gee, Jennifer, that’s an interesting response. Wasn’t aware that I was “ranting” – merely pointing out the philological and historical problems with Kelvin’s use (or misuse) of the term “tino rangatiratanga”. It would seem that the political reflex of “put the boot into anyone who criticises you” is still alive and kicking in the NZ Labour Party. It will take more than ignorant abuse, however, to recover your lost Maori vote – let alone the Treasury Benches!
What exactly is wrong with individual tino rangatiratanga? We need strong individuals. Strong individuals mean strong whanau, strong whanau mean strong hapu, strong hapu mean strong iwi.
Who is saying the individual self determination equates to individualism, selfishness or self interest?
Who is saying the individual self determination and social responsibility are at odds with each other?
Who says being successful, wealthy, influential, educated is about assimilation? Don’t we want success, wealth, influence or education for Maori?
If we don’t want wealth then why are our treaty settlements worth millions and we keep reminding pakeha that they’re only a fraction of what was pinched? Stop the hypocrisy.
If we don’t want success then let’s not aspire for anything, because to achieve it means we’ve been successful.
If we don’t want influence, how the heck are we going to hope to do what Ngahui wants, – “Secure fair and just treaty settlements for a start to re-build the communal asset bases and social structures and again begin functioning as a community. On the back of that re-distribute tribal communal wealth, tikanga, knowledge, mauri and mana to supplement what the modern world offers for the body too.” – because we need people with influence to achieve these dreams. It won’t happen by magic.
If we don’t want education, then let’s just live in ignorance.
If, as Chris says, tino rangatiratanga translates as “the powers pertaining to the chiefs”, shouldn’t we be striving to develop as many chiefs as we can? Where does the road to chieftainship begin? At a meeting? No it starts with the individual wanting to make a difference for the collective – the whanau, the hapu, the iwi.
If we are to ever have any hope of changing the way the country is run to reflect Maori values, and assert collective tino rangatiratanga, then we need more than just a few individuals to step up.
And let’s stop the bullshitting – Maori want the influence and success pakeha enjoy – if not, why all the protesting?
@Ropata – I was a teacher
@Chris – what does “the powers pertaining to the chiefs” mean today?
The answer to that, Kelvin, was demonstrated very clearly by the way the leaders of the “five tribes” prevailed upon the Maori Party to secure them a highly advantageous “deal” vis-a-vis the ETS legislation.
This is what tino rangatiratanga looks like in the 21st Century. Dr Elizabeth Rata calls in “Neo-traditionalist Tribal Capitalism” – an almost entirely reactionary admixture of aristocratic politics and cut-throat commerce which rests on the brokerage powers afforded to tribal leaders by the elevation of “culture” and “identity” above the brute class realities of Maori poverty and marginalisation.
Which is, of course, why Labour should follow Phil Goff’s courageous example and oppose it.
Chris
1) I read Dr Rata’s paper maybe two years ago and agree with what she described as neo-tribalism.
2) If poor and marginalised Maori don’t aspire to education, influence, wealth and success, then the neo-tribalists will trample on them just the same as they’ve been trampled on for years. Aspiring to those things doesn’t mean they have to become neotribalists themselves.
3) In my opinion Tino Rangatiratanga can be lived in many different ways – at the “Neo-traditionalist Tribal Capitalism” level, or with people simply making good decisions about their lives, as two examples. The latter may seem simplistic and trite, but there have been some awfully complicated solutions suggested/ implemented over the years that have got Maori no where.
A fair point, Kelvin.
And I couldn’t agree with you more – that re-focusing Maori policy on to the things that really make a difference to the lives of ordinary, working-class Maori families is exactly what the Labour Party should be doing.
You can’t eat “heritage”.
Bunch of my posts got crammed in there because they seemed to be disappearing into the void, so I reposted. Sorry for the repetition.
You fell into the m, oderation hole!
this is why I said it was mental to start speakin one language and then start speakin another half way through a sentence in the first place. it creates confusion and confusion is exactly whats goin on in this blog, people arguing about what the word in the other language means.
@Chris Trotter – to quote you.
“..Tino Rangatiratanga does NOT translate as “self-determination” but as “the powers pertaining to the chiefs” – in other words to the sovereign political authority of the iwi – as exercised by its legitimate leadership. The term is POLITICAL – which is why it occurs where it does in the text of the Treaty of Waitangi…”
Chris – the words “Te Tino rangitiratanga” NEVER appear in the text of the Treaty of Waitangi, instead, the word that does appear is “Kawangatanga” meaning “Governorship” whereas the argument is that “te tinorangatiratanga” SHOULD be the word that appears in the text… frankly Chris, I expected better of you – don’t believe everything you read in the Dompost!!!
.. Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake tonu atu – te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua
… and i’ll take that back straight away!
It does appear ! (apologies, withdrawn)
“At its most basic level tino rangatiratanga is about making decisions for oneself.”
the one thing thats seems obviously missing in the argument is, tino rangatiratanga is about M?oritanga, when most of M?ori do not have proficient use of their own language, and deep knowledge of their own customs, how can they exercise tino rangatiratanga, it is not being a M?ori descendant practicing and following P?keh? ways. you cannot have tino rangatiratanga without te reo M?ori and tikanga M?ori simply as that. if there was a concerted effort to learn these aspects and bring them back to their rightful place in our culture a lot of the other issues we face would no longer affect us.