Your search

This article will argue that Māori prophetic movements were sites of political resistance where Māori prophets resisted colonisation and developed syncretic theologies that gave their followers a sense of hope within a tumultuous colonial environment. The movements of four Māori prophets will be discussed in chronological order: Te Atua Wera and the Nākahi movement; Te Ua Haumēne and the Pai Mārire or Hauhau movement; Te Kooti’s Ringatū movement; and Rua Kēnana and the Iharaira movement. This article will critically analyse these Māori prophetic movements as sites of religious and political resistance to show how Māori prophets challenged colonisation and land loss.

Kaupapa Maori theory is broadly underpinned by a politics that has strategically promoted forms of cultural essentialism and oppositional political stances/power analyses, which have been useful to the revitalisation of culture and the assertion of rights and recognition. Although they serve Maori struggles, these positions often become less self-consciously strategic, and more often lead to accepted political orthodoxy. At the same time, Kaupapa Maori has asserted the importance of theory developed from indigenous - Maori ways of thinking and acting. In this article I contribute to such a project by reflecting on Maori cultural ethics and what they might offer to theorising social and political relations beyond the oppositional colonised-coloniser binary. With particular reference to the work of Emmanuel Levinas, I argue that Maori orientations suggest an imperative to relationship - not opposition, and to responsibility for others - not simply the assertion of rights claims. A politics informed by Maori cultural ethics glimpses a different, certainly riskier, but ultimately more radical and productive politics.

While Māori (the indigenous people of New Zealand) retain a strong collective identity, cultural heterogeneity renders traditional conceptualisations of Māori identity increasingly problematic. To demonstrate the diverse ways Māori define and express their own identities, this article reports research that uses life-story interviews to explore personal perceptions of identity among 35 Māori women ages 18–75. Content analysis revealed traditional cultural factors (particularly whānau/family commitment) were important for identity among all participants, although the expression of these factors differed along with age and background. Older women raised in rural communities expressed family commitment through participating in social and economic activities within their own tribal networks. Younger, urbanised Māori expressed their identities by choosing careers which advanced Māori interests, supporting Māori political aspirations, and forming close relationships with other urban Māori. Life-story excerpts are used to illustrate distinct intergenerational differences in expressions of Māori identity as well as descriptions of “Māoriness,” seldom articulated in literature on the topic. The need to expand current paradigms of Māori identity to incorporate the diversity of group members is emphasised.

This is a collection of papers by senior Maori academics who are experts and have considerable mana in their chosen fields. The ten contributing authors, who are academics at Massey University, discuss the Maori language, marae, religion, the Treaty of Waitangi, the State and Maori, citizenship education, mental health, the health workforce, kaitiakitanga and horticulture. The book discusses Maori development and contemporary issues concerning Maori, both from the authors' perspectives and across different disciplines.

The English Laws Act, passed in 1858, declared the Laws of England applicable in New Zealand and cemented the hitherto alien ideology of land as property. Part of this ideology was the separation of tangata from whenua along with the separation of ownership of land from ownership of water. Māori, as tangata whenua – people of the land, made no such distinctions. Ownership affects how people ‘manage’ whenua (land), make decisions and account to the legal system. Under English law, financial considerations are at the forefront. In contrast, Māori kaitiakitanga values are concerned with the interests of land, understanding that the best interests of people will follow. Despite stark contrasts between the ideology of land as property and the ethics of kaitiakitanga – obligation, sustainability and nurture – Māori engage with mainstream agencies and lead by example in efforts to promote the wellbeing of people and environments in a unified approach. This paper outlines competing paradigms, changing relationships and challenges faced by communities who seek to nurture and respect whenua in the face of colonization. Interview data from Māori involved in community land-based initiatives illustrates past and present struggles and what some possibilities might be for the future.

In 1840, English officials on behalf of the British crown signed the Treaty of Waitangi—also known as Te Tiriti o Waitangi—with the Indigenous Māori population, affirming Māori sovereignty and guaranteeing their collective rights to the country’s land and resources. Since the 1700s, English settlers had been arriving in Aotearoa (the Māori name for New Zealand) to capitalize on the seal and whale trade. As the number of settlers increased, reports flowed back to Britain of general lawlessness and dubious private land deals, and the crown was forced to consider how best to control its citizens. A treaty with the Māori, officials decided, was the way to do so. The agreement, which established the basis for the relationship between the Māori and the British, is commonly cited as a shining example of how a treaty can recognize and protect Indigenous peoples’ rights by curtailing the reach of the state. But does te Tiriti live up to its sterling reputation? The answer, of course, is complicated.

This article asserts that elite indigenous tribal masculinity is a particular type of masculinity that has developed since colonisation, in part at least, mimicking dominant forms of invader/settler masculinity. While most commentators have outlined that the dominant forms of invader/settler masculinities were held to be inversely related to the mind of indigenous men, the productive nature of power imposed a different set of rules that challenged this dialectic so that aspects of invader/settler masculinity were necessarily imbibed into burgeoning post-contact indigenous masculine leaders. This masculinity has since been allocated disciplinary and authoritative power through notions of tradition and authenticity. Further, indigenous masculinity was often asserted as reflecting the collective will for liberation; in reality, elite indigenous masculinities have habitually served to exclude alternative forms of indigenous masculinity and indigenous women from leadership roles. Via a post-hegemonic analysis of indigenous masculinity, this article appraises the Janus-faced and ambivalent figure of the indigenous heterosexual patriarch; both oppressor and oppressed. The dialectics between hetero-patriarchal masculinity and feminism, and colonised/coloniser become complicated, as indigenous masculinities are both imbibed with privilege and denied it; both performing colonial hetero-patriarchy and resistant to it.

This commentary reflects upon the major Māori land reforms in te Ture Whenua Māori Bill (2016). The reforms implement more bureaucracy and replace some mechanisms used by the Māori Land Court to protect against Māori land loss. The Waitangi Tribunal, which has dealt with Māori grievances over land loss for over 30 years, issued a critical report in March 2016 along with recommendations about the reforms. That report was largely ignored by the New Zealand Government. This commentary contains a review of the literature on Māori land to date, as it helps to understand the ideas behind the Tribunal's report as well as the reforms. There is also an examination of the main points made by the Waitangi Tribunal, as well as aspects of te Ture Whenua Māori Bill (2016). The overall conclusion is that the Māori people should be very nervous about the reforms for their lands.

The State of Maori Rights brings together a set of articles written between 1994 and 2009. It places on record the Maori view of events and issues that took place over these years, issues that have been more typically reported to the general public from a 'mainstream' media perspective. It is an important documentation of these fifteen years of New Zealand history, recording the assertion of Maori rights as the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand, focusing on Maori issues and experiences and written from a Maori perspective.

Māori leaders in New Zealand continue the battle to end British colonisation. The aim is to restore the balance between Māori and the Crown guaranteed in the treaty that Māori and the British Crown agreed to in 1840 so that we can live in peace and harmony. Early European visitors subjected our ancestors to numerous atrocities. Relying on the Doctrine of Discovery, they illegitimately usurped our power and dispossessed us, leaving us in a state of poverty, deprivation and marginalisation. They fabricated myths to justify their criminal activities, set up an illegitimate parliament with unfettered powers, passed laws legalising their crimes and then covered it up with amnesia. They established the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975 to inquire into breaches of the treaty, not realising that it would dismantle the myths and look beneath the amnesia. Governments then instigated the ‘treaty claims settlement’ process to extinguish all Māori claims, remove Māori rights and entrench colonisation. Research undertaken has shown that Māori loathe this process and do not accept that settlements are full and final. Research on constitutional transformation has identified a possible solution. The first step towards that goal involves implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.