parihaka

ĀteaJune 8, 2017

A place for returning: injustice, legacy and reconciliation at Parihaka

parihaka

Taranaki will tomorrow witness a formal reconciliation and settlement with the Crown. And like so much Māori history, it is about mana surviving, despite the odds, writes historian Danny Keenan.

The Parihaka community in Taranaki will tomorrow meet with Crown officials, including the minister of treaty settlements, Chris Finlayson, to hear an apology, and to receive a reconciliation package of $9 million.

The events of Parihaka in the late 19th century provide “a damning indictment of a government so freed of constitutional constraints as to be able to ignore with impunity the rule of law, make war on its own people, and turn its back on the principles on which the government of the country had been agreed,” stated the Waitangi  Tribunal in 1996. “For decades, the shameful history lay largely buried in obscurity.”

That shameful history is one of a pacifist community raided and sacked by the Armed Constabulary in 1881, of the imprisonment without trial of its leaders, Te Whiti-o-Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi, is now conventionally accepted.

Bringing that to light has been a long and exhaustive process. Even before the reconciliation negotiations, including the Taranaki Whānui  WAI 143 claim at the Waitangi Tribunal, which got under way in 1989, there was the Sim Royal Commission of 1928. And in between, one inquiry after another, as the events surrounding the Parihaka invasion of 1881 were subjected to judicial inquiry.

Engravings, John Ward, 1883. Feature image: painting by George Clarendon Beale, c 1881

Along that path, many issues arose. One concerns the appalling behaviour of the troops during the occupation of the village. Were “war crimes” committed at Parihaka, as many are claiming today?

Perhaps, but we do need to be careful with our language. I don’t think it’s helpful to talk about “war crimes” in relation to Parihaka. It is such a morally freighted term, bringing to mind recent events like Rwanda in the 1990s, or Srebrenica in 1995, which can seriously distort how we view what happened at Parihaka.

The Waitangi Tribunal Report Te Kaupapa Tuatahi of 1996 used the word “holocaust” in relation to the Raupatu in Taranaki, but this set off such a firestorm – even PM Helen Clark got drawn in, as did Tariana Turia MP – that we lost sight of Parihaka itself.

With the claims now being settled, and with economic and cultural regeneration now to the fore, what should we remember about the events of Parihaka?

I take my cue on this issue from the kaumātua, who have lived and experienced Parihaka all their lives, and who are trying to look ahead, to remember the past in the context of a positive present and exciting future.

During the invasion, the soldiers did destroy property and cultivations, stole personal items and did misappropriate livestock. Some soldiers are also said to have mistreated the women. Testimony was given by Parihaka people to this effect in 1928, to the Sim Royal Commission which met at Waitara.

Such is known, say kaumātua. Many children were later born of the troops, and these children were cared for. Some were given names to recall those events. But in time, these children and families were apparently no longer remembered – no one would say who they were.

Parihaka was, and remains, a huge moral victory for Taranaki Māori, though of course that was – and is – of little consolation to those families who lost so much.

I remember kaumātua reminding me years ago that, when Māori frame their past, they do so with important cultural markers in place, such as whakapapa. In fact, whakapapa provides the organising structure of all Māori knowledge, including knowledge of the past, or history. And the organising theme is mana. Māori history then is about mana surviving, despite the odds.

In the light of this, then, Parihaka was important: in the context of hurt, dispossession and grievous loss, Taranaki Māori were able to maintain and assert their mana, which was never lost, and of course is much in evidence today.

The reconciliation matters because it enables recovery.

The process has enabled Taranaki Māori to recover some of the material, economic and cultural losses incurred from the 19th century through to quite recently. This has further enabled Māori to embark upon economic development, social enhancement and communal regeneration, building upon those cultural elements that were never lost.

How will this process be viewed in 20 years? We sometimes look back to the Sim Commission hearings of the late 1920s. The testimony given then by Parihaka Māori is priceless today, as will be records of the Waitangi Tribunal, when viewed in 20 years time.

There now exists a comprehensive archive for Māori in the future to read and study. Some of the finer points haven’t aged that well, like the monies on offer (which seem meagre today), but overall I think the record, and the hard work of Parihaka Māori recently to achieve what they have, will stand the test of time

And what of the legacy of Parihaka?

Rangikotuku Rukuwai, kaumātua of Parihaka, sums this up really well: “I have lived my whole life around Parihaka.” Descendant of Te Tohu and Te Whiti, he knows where he is from, and he hopes that sentiment will pass onto his family, that they too will know where their ancestry lies.

“Parihaka has a future, especially with so many of the younger people coming back,” he says. Many things were lost and destroyed, and people were forced to leave their homes. Now, the young ones were returning.

Parihaka is then a place for returning, following the hurts, dispossession and egregious loss, attesting to the power of the place and to the ideas which were there, at the very beginning, in the mid 1860s.

But it is also of course about Te Whiti and Tohu. The young ones, says Rangikotuku, are returning to the teachings of Te Whiti O Rongomai and Tohu Kakahi, which stressed peace to everyone.

“Te Whiti and Tohu taught peace and unity – they wanted all of the people to live together, side by side.” That, says Rangikotuku, was their legacy.

Dr Danny Keenan (Ngāti Te Whiti, Te Ātiawa) is the author of Te Whiti O Rongomai and The Resistance of Parihaka (Huia Publishers)


The Society section is sponsored by AUT. As a contemporary university we’re focused on providing exceptional learning experiences, developing impactful research and forging strong industry partnerships. Start your university journey with us today.

Keep going!
debate-team_feature

ĀteaJune 1, 2017

It shouldn’t be a debate: Our schools need to stop prioritising Pākehā values by default

debate-team_feature

A high school debate tournament highlighted the unconscious Euro-centric bias at the heart of the New Zealand education system, writes Nadine Millar.

Here they are. The Hato Pāora College debating team, about to take part in the annual O’Shea Shield a couple of weekends ago. The room is prickly with anticipation. This prestigious speech and drama event involves 17 Catholic schools across the lower North Island, and draws massive crowds. Spectators, my son and I included, jostle for a seat. When the chair of the debate stands to read the moot, a hush falls over the room. He introduces the speakers and opens the floor for the affirmative team to begin.

The first speaker from Hato Pāora, a Māori boarding school in Feilding, rises to his feet and clears his throat. Shoulders back, he casts his eye around the room. He acknowledges first the chair, and then the adjudicator. He speaks directly to the opposition, hand extended, and wishes them luck. He thanks the teachers that have helped them prepare for the event, parents and whānau who’ve come to watch, and all their school mates.

The Hato Pāora College debating team. From left: Kahuroa Brown, Kaea Tibble, Caleb Matthews. Photo: Nadine Millar

In a Māori context, opening a speech with a mihimihi, or a round of acknowledgements, is fairly typical. Depending on the occasion, these introductions can be long or brief. It’s a form of respect, with speakers often just as likely to acknowledge the people who aren’t in the room as they the ones sitting right beside them. These unwritten formalities provide a certain structure, but they’re not hard and fast rules. They’re flexible, and can be adapted to suit all sorts of situations. Even, if you like, a high school debate.

Unfortunately, the judge of the debate didn’t see it that way. He referred to Hato Pāora’s ‘effusive praise’ as not only unusual, but quite unnecessary. Long introductions waste time, he said, suggesting competitors would do better in future if they just got stuck straight into their arguments. He also reflected on the metaphorical references used to humorous effect by Hato Pāora. Entertaining though it was, the purpose was unclear as none of it really served to advance their argument.

Then, looking genuinely perplexed, he said: “I don’t know. Maybe it’s a Māori thing.”

It was a throwaway comment, no offence intended, but it’s a reflection of the unconscious bias that lies at the heart of New Zealand’s education system. The kind of bias that most of the time people can’t see because Pākehā culture is hidden inside words like “normal” and “traditional”. Certainly, the judge’s criticisms about long-winded introductions and over-imaginative wordplay is valid in terms of a traditional Pākehā debate.

In a traditional Pākehā debate, the roots of which can be traced to Ancient Greece, the primary goal is to win. It’s a contest of logic, style and strategy. Competitive debating undoubtedly develops an invaluable skill set – the very cornerstone of modern democracy. Teams are judged on their ability to present arguments that are logical, consistent, and emotionally appealing. Time is of the essence. Points of information, or interjections, are a way of exposing the weaknesses in your opponent’s argument while they’re in full flight.

But what if we take a traditional Māori perspective? The purpose of tautohetohe, or Māori debate, is less about beating the opposition and more about achieving consensus. That’s one reason it can take so long, years even, for important decisions to be made. Pākehā are often critical of this process, because it would be infinitely faster and practical just to put tough decisions to a vote. But in te ao Māori, fairness is not always a function of numbers.

You’re unlikely to hear points of information in a formal Māori setting either, because standing up to interject while someone else is holding the floor is generally accepted as a no-no. The real skill in tautohetohe is in listening. No notes, no aids. I’ve seen people stand after several hours of debate, returning to address each speaker point by point.

More often than not, a good tautohetohe is entertaining. It has to be, because it can go on for such a long time. That’s why metaphor and word play feature so prominently. Why not have a laugh while you’re trying to convince someone of your point of view? Humour is often just as persuasive as logic, after all.

While the historical traditions of Pākehā and Māori debates are equally valid, like so many facets of our education system, only one tradition is ever really acknowledged – the Pākehā one. It’s a bias that is sometimes blatant, other times so subtle you can’t always put your finger on it.

One of the Hato Pāora boys described it this way: “It just felt as though the judge was saying we’d done something wrong.”

That’s a real shame when you consider that not only were the boys being respectful, they were following tikanga Māori. Is it fair to be criticised for representing your culture? Sure, the boys could have shortened their mihimihi, and played down those metaphors. But the point is, should they have to? Should Māori kids have to stop being Māori, in order to succeed in education?

In policy, references are always made to “the gap” between Māori and Pākehā. People talk about “levelling the playing” field, “the long brown tail” and the need to “lift” Māori rates of achievement. It’s an emotionally charged language that continually puts the spotlight on the failure of Māori, rather than the failure of the system.

There is never any discussion about what Māori have to give up, sacrifice or leave at the school gate in order to achieve in the classroom. It’s not that Māori can’t compete on Pākehā terms. Of course we can, and we do. But in all this talk of a level playing field, when do we ever propose having a home game? I’d like to see how Pākehā kids fare in a tautohetohe. There’s never any discussion about that, though, because everyone readily accepts that the playing field is a Pākehā one. The turf is not up for debate.

The mono-culturalism of our education system is no doubt a key reason Māori kids drop out, or are stood down, at a rate more than double their Pākehā peers. Of those kids that do stay on until Year 13, only three Māori out of 10 school achieve NCEA Level 3 – half the number of Pākehā.

There are other options, of course. You can by-pass the inflexible Pākehā system, where things like achievement and success are narrowly defined, and send your kids to kura kaupapa and wharekura. It’s a good choice. The evidence shows Māori kids thrive in a total immersion environment. But it shouldn’t be a case of one system being better than another depending on ethnicity. Parents ought to be able to send their kids wherever they like, and have equal opportunity of success regardless of what system they’re in.

Change is slow. When I was growing up in the 80s, racism in the playground was rife. I knew I was Māori, but sometimes I wished I wasn’t. These days, people like to think things have improved – that Māori kids can walk into school each day feeling proud of who they are. But recognition is one thing. We still have a long way to go before we can say our education system truly reflects and upholds Māori values, language, customs and knowledge.

It’s a process that begins not with Māori kids, but with the people who influence and shape the system they learn in. From teachers in classrooms, to policy makers in government, to adjudicators in high school debates. It is time that our system truly examined the unconscious bias that sits at its core, privileging one ethnic group over another.

It will require people to hold up the ideas and values they have absorbed invisibly, and look at them in a new light. It will mean being open to the ways in which our education system can be improved and enriched by Māori cultural values, as opposed to burdened or threatened by them. It means making room for Māori knowledge at the centre of the discussion, as opposed to on the periphery. It means discarding words like “traditional” and “normal,” as though these words reflect facts we all agree on.

Above all, it means praising instead of penalising Māori kids who have the courage to turn up and compete on Pākehā turf every day, all the time holding on to the values that define them.

More by Nadine Miller:

How one approach to learning Māori conquers the shame factor


The Society section is sponsored by AUT. As a contemporary university we’re focused on providing exceptional learning experiences, developing impactful research and forging strong industry partnerships. Start your university journey with us today.