Asians Supporting Tino Rangatiratanga at Waitangi
Sat 6 Feb
Waitangi Treaty Grounds
On 6th February 2010, a group of Asian activists will stand under the banner ‘Asians Supporting Tino Rangatiratanga’ to commemorate Waitangi Day on Treaty Grounds.
What's that all about? Asians don’t have anything to do with all that stuff. That’s a Maori and Pakeha thing isn’t it?
The Treaty of Waitangi 1840 is considered the founding document of New Zealand as a nation. Despite this, it continues to be of heated debate exclusively between Maori and Pakeha peoples.
As tauiwi (non-Maori/non-tangata whenua) living in Aotearoa, we recognise the past and present injustices against Maori/tangata whenua peoples.
We also recognise the benefits from British/Pakeha colonialism and theft, that we instantly have access to, whether we have been here 5 generations, or arrived two minutes ago. They are the privileges and benefits of living in a wealthy colonised nation. The "freedoms" that come from colonisation, the "opportunities", the "standards of living", exist, and are available to new migrants, old settlers and their descendents because of the wealth and opportunities created and maintained by colonisation.
We know that as Asians living in Aotearoa, racism exists everywhere. Racism not only works to disadvantage ethnic minorities and tangata whenua, but it also works to divide us through negative racial stereotypes.
We choose to seek paths of justice that do not simply partake in further injustices against Maori/tangata whenua.
We choose to look at social justice and our responsibilities, not solely from a /Western/Pakeha perspective, but from ancestral perspectives where our elders have experienced colonisation, imperialism, and perpetuated these injustices also, which continue to have impacts on sections of the Asian population.
We do this so we don't have to hand on legacies of grievance and injustice to our children and grandchildren, as has been handed to us as tauiwi settlers, migrants and citizens.
These are the reasons we are supporting tino rangatiratanga.
Comments
Ka pai, this is awesome
Ka pai, this is awesome stuff, respect for your stand.
Treaty is a Fraud!
To those celebrating Waitangi Day as a kind of founding day for this nation: The so-called Tiriti o Waitangi has been nothing but a FRAUD! It was an agenda behind it which was that the british colonial power wanted to soften Maori stands in order to more easily "negotiate" the seizure of lands for settlers and the crown! What should instead be celebrated is the Declaration of Independence of 1834/35 and the United Tribes Flag. The Tino Rangitiratanga flag is only a rag that was created by some activists in the late 1980's that had a totally different agenda to achieve Maori sovereignty. They have so many times given in to the crown and the state that they have betrayed the Maori cause. So all those that believe that that flag has any real significance should finally wake up and study the true history of Aoteaoroa! We must get rid of the Crown, the present system of commercial exploitation and servitude, the lies about the past and large scale migration that is an agenda to undermine the sovereignty of the native people of Aotearoa! Maori should and must have a say in migration policy! It is unacceptable that the present regime allows in hundreds of thousands of migrants, many of whom do not at all identify with the treaty or other aspects of the history of NZ. I have met too many migrants that got PR not even knowing what the treaty of Waitangi stands for, not bothering about Maori and even insulting Maori as bludgers and a problem in this country! It is time to wake up and end this abuse of the system we have. Whosoever wants to become part of Aotearoa society must accept the rights of Maori as indigenous people of this country and respect their culture. Whosoever does not should never be allowed to immigrate here! The agenda of "multiculturalism" is only to serve the interests of the ruling elite. They want to undermine the treaty and other agreements, thus being able to divide and rule!!!
re
You sound like a typical racist member of the BNP. Thinking that they should get extra rights and privelages because 'they were here first' and scaremongering about those evil foreigners.
Learn to paragraph as well you ignorant fool.
You can't compare that to
You can't compare that to white supremacy, it's coming from a completely different position. The BNP are part of a colonial culture while the above person's view is coming from a colonised culture. It's not the same thing.
I agree with a lot of that.
I agree with a lot of that. As one of those Asians supporting TR, we weren't there to celebrate Waitangi day. We got asked this question by the media, which was the angle they were all going for today, like why we thought the mood of Waitangi has become more celebratory (assuming we were celebrating it). But we weren't actually there to celebrate the signing of the treaty , it was more to show solidarity and support for nga tangata whenua and build bridges that are prevented by the pakeha state and media's use of multiculturalism as an excuse to undermine indigenous rights. They have set up the discourse to make migrant interests in opposition to Maori and vice versa, but we see through that bullshit 'cause it just serves the interests of the dominant pakeha culture and takes their role in creating this situation out of the picture.
I met this guy who was doing research into how first generation Asians saw the treaty and had to end up expanding it to all Asians 'cause most of the first generation Asian migrants didn't know much about the treaty and therefore didn't have much of an opinion on it. But that goes to show that treaty education or any education about colonialism in aotearoa isn't a priority for the state, no surprises there. And a lot of migrants get these racist stereotypes of maori from pakeha media 'cause a whole lot of pakeha people don't even know what the treaty stands for and represent maori as bludgers and problematic. Part of the reason why we were there also to try and educate other asians about treaty and indigenous issues from a perspective where they might find it easier to relate to.
There was a lot of talk about flags at Waitangi, but for me it wasn't about supporting any particular design of flag but supporting steps towards decolonisation and indigenous self-determination.
the contradictions of TR
http://libcom.org/library/against-nationalism
Irritating comments in lead story
Quote in head story: "We also recognise the benefits from British/Pakeha colonialism and theft, that we instantly have access to, whether we have been here 5 generations, or arrived two minutes ago. They are the privileges and benefits of living in a wealthy colonised nation. The "freedoms" that come from colonisation, the "opportunities", the "standards of living", exist, and are available to new migrants, old settlers and their descendents because of the wealth and opportunities created and maintained by colonisation."
Can anybody elaborate on this or explain this kind of nonsense?
True and honest support is welcomed, but whoever wrote that needs to wake up a little.
I guess that statement is
I guess that statement is alluding to the fact that nz is a comparatively wealthy country where migrants will generally have more rights than a lot of the countries where we come from, especially if when we come from 2nd or 3rd world countries where political protest is repressed more violently and the state's control over people is stronger, where there is no social welfare system or minimum wage, for example. So in recognising these privileges as preceded by violence and colonialism, we hope to draw attention to the history of colonialism here and the continuing injustices that migrants also have a responsibility of addressing because we've been allowed to be here because of this, which we think is unjust. It's not saying that colonisation is good in anyway, but recognising that a lot of wealth that is generated in this world is based on domination and exploitation of certain peoples and the earth and these privileges rest on injustices.
It can be a bit confusing in the way it's worded, but that's why "freedoms" and "opportunities" are in quotation marks, they're not necessary real but that's kinda how western countries tout themselves in comparison to non-western or 3rd world countries, which are 3rd world because of processes of colonisation and ongoing processes of neo-colonialism to keep people poor and maintain the systems of domination.
Well HC is an ignorant racist
Well HC is an ignorant racist bigot, use simple words and no paragraphs, seems to be all they can comprehend
Too many ignorant people posting here at times
You do not seem to accept that Maori have some sovereign rights and an interest in maintaining their cultural and ethnic identity!
I don't feel much inclination
I don't feel much inclination to explain things to people who fail to show basic respect to others (i.e. labelling this "nonsense"), but I took it to mean that much of the wealth in New Zealand society was generated on the back of a load of free capital - resources, land and labour taken from the original owners and occupiers of the land.
The services and infrastructure created as a result of this free capital and cheap labour provides benefits to everyone in New Zealand, including new and old migrants and their descendants (like me) who have been allowed to come here under the authority of the colonial state.
Make sense?
cheers
Sam
Yes, but the benefits of the
"There is a danger of seeing
"There is a danger of seeing all non-Maori as some grey undifferentiated blob who all benefited from colonisation equally."
Is there? Possibly, but you'd have to be pretty stupid. I didn't see any such suggestion in this article.
Cheers
Sam Buchanan
I did not say that the
"... all non-Maori or at
"... all non-Maori or at least Pakeha are an undifferentiated blob who equally benefit from colonisation... it's a pretty commonly held view by Pakeha liberals and anarchists who are into 'decolonisation'..."
Dunno about the 'liberals', whoever that may be, but I've yet to hear an anarchist express such sentiments - can you cite any such instances? Nor do I think my comment implied this. I think you are just being picky, really.
Cheers
Sam Buchanan
Nope. I dont think I am being
Another more sophisticated version of this view is that while some Pakeha have may benefited from colonisation more than others (like Pakeha capitalists and men in general), that does not really matter too much, what really matters is that Maori lost almost everything and Pakeha as a whole gained almost everything. So they are saying 'race' is really the important thing here. Sure, racism is pivotal, but this view of course downplays how the capitalist class and its state were undoubtedly the driving force behind the expropriation of Maori land, so you can't really say that class does not matter too much. Colonisation is a product of capitalism, and capitalism is all about the capitalist class' relentless drive to impose its will on people around the world.
Colonialism defined
If colonialism is supposed to be a product of capitalism, how come the Romans already had colonies long before "capitalism" even became a concept as it is today? The Romans, like many empires of dominant forms of states before and after (whatever social structure or form they may have had!) did "colonise" most of Europe. The city of Cologne in Germany is exactly proving this. It was called "Colonia" by the Romans who established an outpost there. So was there already "capitalism" before then, or have you somehow slept through history lessons? The truth is a lot of you anarchists and leftists are following a cavalier kind of analysis of world affairs and history. You do not at all understand certain developments, because all you can ever understand and want to see is "class struggle", imperalism and capitalism as concepts of your ideology. History and human relationships, be they in different kinds of societies or economic circumstances, are much more complex than you want to believe. How for instance do you consider a "sole trader" to belong to. Strictly she or he would be a "capitalist" following the "capitalist ideas and concepts" of wanting to make earnings in the form of "profit" - possibly on the back of some employee they have. Since NZ is a society with so many individuals having organised their affairs in that kind of economic and legal form, and since so many of them just make a meagre living, you would have to categorise them as exploiters of a kind, disregarding their true circumstances. All people in NZ nowadays, no matter what ethnic background, do also live in a society comparatively wealthy. We get cheap imports from China and some third world countries, where people really work for a pittance and truly get exploited. So even beneficiaries here are by comparison "well off". Yet you would have to include them into a class of "exploiters", because they have some benefit from cheap mass produced products made in those countries (relatively low prices). So really this whole debate needs to re-focus and be re-considered in many ways, I believe. Colonialism has existed long before capitalism as we know it, that is for sure. Imperialism has also existed long before capitalism. And seeing so many issues through glasses filtering everything based on "gender issues" is another approach that is absolutely ignorant of reality. Some people I presume will always look for an excuse to see the world in these "class struggle", "feminist against chauvinist" and other "ist" and "ism" terms, they are really blind to scientific findings and all true reason that exists in a world that does have to respect the findings and teachings of Marx, Lenin, but also other Theorists, but needs to move forward and past this stereotyped way of thinking!
A sole trader would be 'petit
A sole trader would be 'petit bourgeois' in marxist terms. Literally, a 'small' bourgeois. I think Marx thought they would eventually be absorbed by the proleteriat as bigger businesses came to dominate (? maybe) and therefore weren't to be worried about too much.
True that some 'exploiters' eg. the owners of small businesses that do employ others only barely make a living (and I would question whether their position is any more oppressive than members of the 'working class' employed in professional positions by the state, social workers, teachers, etc) still, talk to most employers and it doesn't take long to hear the class hatred their job has infused them with.
Sorry for the tangent. Thanks to the original poster for your clear and detailed statement of solidarity. Inspiring!
HC, if you weren't just picking holes you would see that this is an example of what you are asking for, activists taking their analysis and action beyond simplistic, single issue approaches.
Keep up the good work!
HC, yes, colonies and
Yes, there are more than two classes, as Marx recognised. Class is just a reflection of a complex society, so it is very complex, with shades of grey between classes, and constant change according to what is going on in society. Yes, class does not explain everything, nor should it. Yes class can be used dogmatically and blindly.
But that does not mean class should be abandoned, as you seem to propose. The article above is an example of someone who is seemingly unaware of class. It contains no analysis of capitalism or class, no analysis of migrant labour and how migrants are used by capital, no analysis of the government's attempt to bring in many middle and capitalist class Koreans and Chinese to boost the economy and provide instant capital (though many are working class), no analysis of capitalism and colonialisation, no analysis of how Maori are becoming increasingly divided by class due to the settlement process (a process that I think is designed to create a new Maori capitalist elite, and give a boost to the economy by creating a dynamic Maori capitalist sector in the economy, to make sure the settlement money goes mainly to capitalist Maori thus dividing Maori amongst themselves, and stop Maori taking direct action in the form of occupations). And so on. It is just simplistic unequivocal support for tino rangatiratanga. And sure, that it is all the article set out to do, but I am just trying to provide an example of how class analysis can actually be useful sometimes.
Just because most workers in Aotearoa are much better off than their counterparts in the 'third world' it does not mean workers here are not exploited, nor annoyed with low wages, high living costs and high debt under this reign of vicious neoliberal accumulation (meaning profit making at any cost). I think you perhaps in are danger of seeing workers here as being bought off by 'first world' capitalism.