1. I accept your and Dieuwe's point but I clarify slightly. Yes, New Zealand has for most of it's history been a European state, but my point regarding being bi-cultural is essentially highlighting that we've always been a country in which both Maori and European had existed, and that to a degree Europeans have certain (reasonable) obligations to them as agreed at Waitangi, and that Maori activism in recent years has included political demands for self-governance. Therefore, Richmond's speech offers a view into what early colonial figures believed to be a good policy outcome for Maori within what would become a European state.
2. I agree with you here in that the Maori desires of today are significantly different to the Maori needs of yore, but as I mentioned above there needs to be an identifiable outcome other than this kumbaya singing we have been experiencing regarding Maori-Crown relations policy. There is a growing Maori population and there are genuine calls for political change by those that are not aligned with the activist class, and Richmond offers an insight into that could have looked like.
Thanks for sharing those large quotations from William Richmond. While I was aware of Governor Grey's policy ideas from my previous study of our history, it was fascinating to see an early attempt by a government minister to grapple with the implications of the treaty in light of Grey's ideas and what they could mean for the nascent bi-cultural society of New Zealand.
Excellent historiography to have this at hand. A couple points:
1. The claim that NZ is bicultural at the end of your write up is the wrong frame, and one that needs to fall away. I would argue Dieuwe de boer's recent x post presents the better view: NZ is actually a historically European ethno state, with an acceptance of minority cultures as such. We need to reframe the conversation around the superiority of NZ European culture, while still acknowledging the existence of minority cultures. This is important as it also rejects the frame that the bill itself proposes; that is the equality of men and cultures. The danger of this frame should be clear to anyone who has observed the recent immigration numbers and felt the changes in their local communities and cities.
2. In my eyes the real strength of this piece is as an indictment of the current Maori nationalist class, rather than as a tool for use in our current predicament. Multiple examples of the forthrightness and keeness for integration by Maori are presented. In comparison the current lot just shout for gibs, without any cohesive political program behind it. In light of this fact I'm doubtful that the good will expressed by the European ruling class at this time would bear any fruit if applied to the arguments (or lack thereof) of those dithering down the island towards wellington.
1. I accept your and Dieuwe's point but I clarify slightly. Yes, New Zealand has for most of it's history been a European state, but my point regarding being bi-cultural is essentially highlighting that we've always been a country in which both Maori and European had existed, and that to a degree Europeans have certain (reasonable) obligations to them as agreed at Waitangi, and that Maori activism in recent years has included political demands for self-governance. Therefore, Richmond's speech offers a view into what early colonial figures believed to be a good policy outcome for Maori within what would become a European state.
2. I agree with you here in that the Maori desires of today are significantly different to the Maori needs of yore, but as I mentioned above there needs to be an identifiable outcome other than this kumbaya singing we have been experiencing regarding Maori-Crown relations policy. There is a growing Maori population and there are genuine calls for political change by those that are not aligned with the activist class, and Richmond offers an insight into that could have looked like.
Thanks for sharing those large quotations from William Richmond. While I was aware of Governor Grey's policy ideas from my previous study of our history, it was fascinating to see an early attempt by a government minister to grapple with the implications of the treaty in light of Grey's ideas and what they could mean for the nascent bi-cultural society of New Zealand.
Excellent historiography to have this at hand. A couple points:
1. The claim that NZ is bicultural at the end of your write up is the wrong frame, and one that needs to fall away. I would argue Dieuwe de boer's recent x post presents the better view: NZ is actually a historically European ethno state, with an acceptance of minority cultures as such. We need to reframe the conversation around the superiority of NZ European culture, while still acknowledging the existence of minority cultures. This is important as it also rejects the frame that the bill itself proposes; that is the equality of men and cultures. The danger of this frame should be clear to anyone who has observed the recent immigration numbers and felt the changes in their local communities and cities.
2. In my eyes the real strength of this piece is as an indictment of the current Maori nationalist class, rather than as a tool for use in our current predicament. Multiple examples of the forthrightness and keeness for integration by Maori are presented. In comparison the current lot just shout for gibs, without any cohesive political program behind it. In light of this fact I'm doubtful that the good will expressed by the European ruling class at this time would bear any fruit if applied to the arguments (or lack thereof) of those dithering down the island towards wellington.