The Herald has published a lengthy excerpt from Tze Ming Mok's essay Race You There (which will apparantly feature in the upcoming Great New Zealand Argument collection). It's an interesting piece, and well worth reading.
One of the interesting ideas is that newcomers should see their presence here in terms of "entry by Treaty":
The principles of the Treaty give us rules of engagement; if we accede to them, we will access our right to be different. Just imagine - you could assert your right to belong here based not on the length of time you've lived here, or the proximity of your homeland to New Zealand, or the turns of your accent, or the amount of money you've paid to the government, or the colour of your skin, but on your commitment to the place's founding principles. I know it sounds crazy, but it just might work.
This idea was briefly touched on at the Treaty symposium I went to recently. The Treaty made New Zealand a shared project, in which different peoples would live side by side and build something together. One of the underlying principles of this relationship was that "Maori have a right to be Maori" - to speak their own language and enjoy their own culture. Unspoken (because it is just assumed) is that Pakeha likewise have a right to be Pakeha. And this principle extends to every culture within New Zealand (and is affirmed by s.20 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990). By standing up for the rights of other Treaty partners, newcomers will gain a powerful argument that they too belong and are participating in the shared project.
I think you've misunderstood. This isn't about vetting potential migrants; its about those who are here finding a way to assert their common citizenship in the face of opposition from the british exclusivist, "whites only" crowd at NZFirst. Just as Pakeha settlers of the 1840's could claim a right to be here "because of the Treaty", so can more recent migrants (including, I should add, people like NZFirst's Peter Brown).
ReplyDeleteI'd also point out that "Maori have a right to be maori" is a principle which appeals to liberals as well, as it essentially boils down to people being allowed to be themselves (provided of course that they do not harm others - and having a different skin colour, speaking a different language in public, or eating different food doesn't even come close to any reasonable definition of "harm").
I/S - don't liberal constitutional frameworks already allow individuals to "be themselves" culturally and linguistically, etc. What does the Treaty add to this?
ReplyDeleteWouldn't Maori would still be able to form groups, speak their own language, and mark their difference in all sorts of ways (and the State would need to respect this) in the absence of ToW?
dc_red: Yes. But being able to back it up by appealing to the principles of our founding document doesn't hurt one bit.
ReplyDeleteI think dc_red is thinking of something else entirely when saying 'liberal constitutionalism' would allow Maori 'rights to be different'. My rights to be culturally different from the mainstream as an ethnic minority are not the same as the rights of indigenous people to self-determination, nor should they be viewed as such.
ReplyDeleteLiberal constitutionalism also needs to be reminded of its roots in common law and treaty law (pre-New Zealand treaty law in general, not just 'The Treaty'). Given that the government has shown that it is willing and able to take the extraordinary step of extinguishing super-old English common law indigenous rights (as it did over the F&S legislation), the fallback onto treaty law principles right now seems ever more pertinent. You gotta use what you got.
>By standing up for the rights of other Treaty partners, newcomers will gain a powerful argument that they too belong and are participating in the shared project.
ReplyDeleteI dont think newcomers need any arguments to say that they belong. the very suggestion implies some legitimacy to xenophobia. We either accept them or we dont - if we do then it is after the fact and we have to take them as they are and give them full rights regardless of whether they are leftists or rightists or moon units.
If NZF voters hate asians for some arbitrary reason it is jsut wrong you dont need to run around finding any other reason to defend those people.
Thanks for the feedback, although I'd argue that rights can almost always be over-ridden in the name of political expedience, irrespective of their foundations in liberal constitutions, treaties, or common law.
ReplyDeleteThe question of whether ToW adds anything to a liberal constitutional rights framework is separate from the question of whether those rights are respected.
Cliquey, lefty bollocks.
ReplyDeleteAsians and immigrants don't currently have a right to be different from Pakeha without recourse to one left-wing interpretation of a Treaty between the British Crown and Maori tribes? The entire proposition is beyond absurd.
"We will access our right to be different"? - Who is this "we"? and what "rights" are these that aren't here now?
Notice the rhetoric in the full article:
"I won't be a minority in this country... it's merely math."
"Asian and migrant communities could be forming a nascent political sector if not an actual political force. It's been a long time coming."
"Our... host societies"
"I've welcomed their presence for allowing me to be unapologetic... after so many years of our hiding and forgeting who we are."
"But we can't afford another front. We can't fight so many battles. We have to strike a new kind of deal."
"When it affects whole communities, it's an illness... that of having no allies."
"When we look at this place from our outsider perspectives, it seems like such a young country... This opening phase of petty deals and self-protection is an adolescent, immature stage."
"To grow this country up"
"We can't afford to be... hidden amid the ranks of white society."
The supreme arrogance is breathtaking. Migrants, straight off the plane lecturing us on how to run the country - to best suit themselves! Stunning.
Daa, we's just da dumb yokels whos don't know hows lucky wese all are to have yous peoples tell us hows to be all mature-like. Wese sure would preciate it.
I personally best love the line about:
"The cynicism of... the right... when they are drawing lines around groups.. pinning them here, counting them there, stacking up the numbers, and playing them off against each other."
Say what!? Who's the one stridently proclaiming differences? Who's boasting about growing numbers and political clout? If there is anyone fixated on the numbers it is most definitely the author. If the author's ham-fisted attempt to hijack the Treaty to claim rights to be different, striking deals with Maori and not "hiding" with white people anymore is not playing groups off against each other what is?
If the author wanted to prove how thick the average Pakeha is, then it's blind acceptance that I have so far seen is still not proof enough for me to give up on them!
Landfall! The title "Race you there" itself should have excluded it from any serious consideration without having to read the last, ridiculously corny line. Using paranoia about the half dozen members of the National Front as a straw man... where does one begin? I'll have to post on this one. As the author of the article and I have an inclement past and since I have no reason to provoke a bile attack I must therefore make a boring departure and avoid personalising it.