Search

Objective: An initial exploration of the available conceptualizations of privilege in Aotearoa/New Zealand with the goal of developing a more in-depth qualitative study, incorporating kaupapa Maori and public health framings. Design: Interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of key informants that span the academic, community development, health service provision, and activist sectors. Participants were selected from multiple networks for their expressed interest and insight into the concept of privilege and its importance to analyses of social justice. Results: Six key themes emerged that include the invisibility of privilege; the weighting of different variables; individual vs group privilege; class; the active aspects of privilege; and links between privilege and Pakeha culture. Conclusion: Participants' constructions of privilege emphasize the multifaceted complexity and discursive ambiguities of the ways in which the concept is utilized within our political economy to account for disparity and covertly reproduce the status quo of Pakeha advantage.

Historical trauma is an important and growing area of research that provides crucial insights into the antecedents of current-day inequities in health and social wellbeing experienced by Indigenous people in colonial settler societies. What is not so readily examined is the flip side of historical trauma experienced by settlers and their descendants, what might be termed 'historical privilege'. These historic acts of privilege for settlers, particularly those emigrating from Britain, provide the antecedents for the current-day realities for their descendants and the structural, institutional and interpersonal levels of advantage that are also a key feature of inequities between Indigenous and settler. This article theorises an explicit link between historical trauma and historical privilege and explores how the latter may be examined with particular reference to Aotearoa New Zealand. Three core elements of historical trauma are posited as a useful framework to apply to historical privilege.

He Kōrero Whānau is a component of a wider whānau and hapū development project within Te Rarawa, an iwi located in the Far North of Aotearoa. It aimed to prepare and support whānau and hapū to record their own histories, and in doing so to develop research methods and strategies to suit Te Rarawa purposes and realities. The innovation of the approach is the inclusion of oral and life histories in any interview-based research Te Rarawa might undertake, and the training of community interviewers in the skills of research and oral history interviews. The approach is grounded in iwi and hapū development and responsive to needs and aspirations. It also works to demystify research and focuses on research making a difference in Te Rarawa communities. This paper discusses our experience of developing Te Rarawa research methods and applying them in ways that harmonise with the goals of Te Rarawa iwi development.

Maori and government policies of integration in the 1950s and 60s by accessing two concurrent narratives are discussed. The two narratives are the narrative of the state embedded in a one-size-fits-all Maori policy, and the narratives of the Maori 'business of life'.

This thesis considers Maori-state relations in the post-war period up to 1967. It focuses on the complicated and congested nexus at which tribal committees, branches of the Maori Women's Welfare League and the Welfare Division of the Department of Maori Affairs met and negotiated the particulars of the Maori-state relationship. Underpinning that relationship were the tensions inherent in the Maori world's ongoing task of balancing the old and the new, the traditional and the modem, the rural and the urban during a time of unprecedented change. The thesis draws on a mix of oral histories and documentary sources, especially government archives, to examine the motivations of Maori and the department in their interactions. It presents the department's broad integrationist philosophy and examines Maori peoples' drives for both engaging with the state and undertaking a range of development projects that built on Maori tribal concepts to mark out Maori socio-cultural spaces in modem environments. Maori policy and legislation including the Maori Social and Economic Advancement Act 1945 and the Hunn Report of 1961, and the major demographic changes associated with urbanisation, presented enormous challenges for Maori. Implementation of the Hunn report in particular fractured tense but workable co-operation apparent in 1950s Maori-state relations. The thesis illustrates how Maori creatively negotiated those challenges and progressed their own projects undeterred by the onerous constraints of integration. It achieves that by restoring the Maori narrative and the Maori concepts at its base. It finds intelligent, critical, vibrant Maori leadership involved in highly nuanced and complex interactions with state.

Hikoi is a photographic history of Maori protest - the public face, the rationale, the organisation and the toil behind the scenes. The images and accompanying text tell the story of protests that were turning points: Springbok Tour demonstrations and Raglan, Bastion Point and Waitangi, the Tent Embassy at Parliament in 1972, the Maori Land March 1975 and Hikoi 2004. Hikoi gives a glimpse of some of the hard-earned fruits of those protests: some traditional lands returned to Maori, the Waitangi Tribunal established, te reo Maori made an official language, Maori medium education and Maori media.

History of Lettty Brown, advocate and member of groups such as the Womens Welfare League during urbanisation 1950s-1906s

This thesis is a study of Maori land development schemes during the period 1945 to 1974, and contains two case studies from the Hokianga. Apirana Ngata introduced the schemes to New Zealand's legislature in 1929, giving the state direct legal and financial responsibility for assisting Maori people to develop and farm Maori land. The thesis briefly outlines the historical background to the schemes, and their social objectives. It details the development scheme legislation and policy, including its practical implementation and administrative structure. The two case studies reveal the complexities of the schemes at a local operational level, and shifts in the department's policies and approach since the 1930s. Title improvement policies have been integral to the operation of the schemes. The government has consistently viewed multiple ownership of Maori land as an impediment to bringing Maori land into full production, and the schemes relied on various devices for improving Maori land title to facilitate secure tenure arrangements for Maori farmers (including sole ownership) and to allow land development to occur. These various devices include consolidation, conversion and amalgamation. Ultimately though, the prolonged emphasis on title improvement was unwarranted. The legislation made ample provision for development to occur regardless of the number of owners or the state of the title. During their first twenty years, the schemes provided subsistence level farming. They, supported many Maori communities through depression and war, provided modern conveniences in modern homes, and reasonable incomes for families. Maori farmers and land owners responded variously to the schemes. Some were completely comfortable with the schemes, others struggled. But ultimately, the large-scale corporately run schemes would have the best chance of surviving as long term propositions. The smaller farms would eventually bow to the pressure of the demands of changing overseas markets. In the post-war years, the Department of Maori Affairs increasingly bureaucratised and formalised its land development programme, and pressed ahead with reforming Maori land titles. In the process, the department became responsible for ensuring the long term success of the schemes, and protecting the interests of the parties involved, including itself, the public, and the owners and occupiers of the schemes. The overall effect of the department's policies was to create a protected environment in which the department assisted Maori farmers into the modern farming industry, while protecting them from the cruelty of the modern economy. This thesis looks at how these things occurred by reconstructing the policy and legislation that created and maintained the schemes, discussing some of the key issues and difficulties that arose, and drawing on the experiences of the two schemes that are the subjects of the case studies in chapter five. A great shift in policy occurred as government struggled to balance its socio-economic responsibilities to Maori people and its economic responsibilities to the nation. Ultimately, schemes that began as a response to local development needs in Maori communities, emerged in the 1970s as primarily concerned with maximising the production potential of Maori land, for the benefit of the national economy.

"For many indigenous peoples, oral history is a living intergenerational phenomenon that is crucial to the transmission of our languages, cultural knowledge, politics, and identities. Indigenous oral histories are not merely traditions, myths, chants or superstitions, but are valid historical accounts passed on vocally in various forms, forums, and practices. Rethinking Oral History and Tradition: An Indigenous Perspective provides a specific native and tribal account of the meaning, form, politics and practice of oral history. It is a rethinking and critique of the popular and powerful ideas that now populate and define the fields of oral history and tradition, which have in the process displaced indigenous perspectives. This book, drawing on indigenous voices, explores the overlaps and differences between the studies of oral history and oral tradition, and urges scholars in both disciplines to revisit the way their fields think about orality, oral history methods, transmission, narrative, power, ethics, oral history theories and politics. Indigenous knowledge and experience holds important contributions that have the potential to expand and develop robust academic thinking in the study of both oral history and tradition.

The COVID-19 pandemic has inequitably impacted Indigenous communities in the United States. In this emergency state that highlighted existing inadequacies in US government and tribal public health infrastructures, many tribal nations contracted with commercial entities and other organization types to conduct rapid diagnostic and antibody testing, often based on proprietary technologies specific to the novel pathogen. They also partnered with public-private enterprises on clinical trials to further the development of vaccines. Indigenous people contributed biological samples for assessment and, in many cases, broadly consented for indefinite use for future genomics research. A concern is that the need for crisis aid may have placed Indigenous communities in a position to forego critical review of data use agreements by tribal research governances. In effect, tribal nations were placed in the unenviable position of trading short-term public health assistance for long-term, unrestricted access to Indigenous genomes that may disempower future tribal sovereignties over community members' data. Diagnostic testing, specimen collection, and vaccine research is ongoing; thus, our aim is to outline pathways to trust that center current and future equitable relationship-building between tribal entities and public-private interests. These pathways can be utilized to increase Indigenous communities' trust of external partners and share understanding of expectations for and execution of data protections. We discuss how to navigate genomic-based data use agreements in the context of pathogen genomics. While we focus on US tribal nations, Indigenous genomic data sovereignties relate to global Indigenous nations regardless of colonial government recognition.

Indigenous workforces have existed across the world since the creation of Earth. What has changed is the evolution of multicultural societies, governments, and landscapes that have become part of, or sit parallel to, sovereign Indigenous nations and their workforces. An international response to Employee Assistance Programming (EAP) and workplace health will be shared from various Indigenous groups across the globe. These societies include the Maori of New Zealand, First Nations of Canada, American Indian groups from the U.S. mainland, and Native Hawaiians. Guidelines for EAP practice include the discussion of historical trauma, communication skills, confidentiality, and environmental issues. Theoretical underpinnings for health sovereignty are shared through ancient teachings of Indigenous philosophies and their relationships to contemporary EAP development and utilization.

This thesis explores how Kaupapa Māori paradigms can make important contributions to research topics that may not be of direct or immediate relevance to Māori communities. Insights gained from a Kaupapa Māori investigation of white privilege in Aotearoa New Zealand are discussed. I argue that cultural hegemony is maintained through structured forgetting, silence, and suppression of dissent that has dire consequences for dominant cultural groups as well as marginal. Structural racism and privilege are amenable to analyses utilising similar frameworks albeit from opposite sides that can provide valuable insights to understanding inequity more broadly. I also examine ways in which Kaupapa Māori analyses of white privilege can illuminate pathways of redress that will benefit all New Zealanders and provide more embracing perspectives of nationhood.

This article explores affect, colonial privilege, and the cultural politics of national commemoration in Aotearoa New Zealand. Based on focus‐group interviews around two major national days, we examine means through which feelings and emotions are deployed in ways that enable the reproduction of social advantage. Situating affect within patterns of relationship, four interrelated affective‐discursive practices are explored. In relation to Waitangi Day, agents tend to work under the rubric of anger and confusion. For Anzac Day, being grateful and moved shapes the interaction, although participants often indicate preferences towards "having a day off." Given the colonial context in which these practices circulate, analysis observes the associated freedom and ease by which affective‐discursive privilege is (re)produced. Often incongruent and rarely challenged, privilege allows associated actors to do what they want, when they want, however they want. This affective climate authorizes the ongoing reproduction of, and justification for, membership to a higher‐status ethnic group of which unearned opportunities and entitlements remain its everyday, expected currency.

Kaupapa Māori methodologies in Aotearoa New Zealand have often been applied to content of immediate and direct relevance to Māori communities. Some of these include research about aspects of cultural revitalisation or examinations of the position Māori occupy within broader ethnic disparities, particularly in health and social outcomes. This article seeks to expand the application of Kaupapa Māori paradigms to research topics outside 'te ao Māori' (the Māori world). We argue that the Kaupapa Māori theorising of a Māori visual arts and culture scholar can provide crucial insights on white privilege in Aotearoa New Zealand with a view to addressing disparities and creating more embracing and equitable perspectives of belonging, citizenship and nationhood.

This article examines why and how scholars should acknowledge and name each of the diverse political actors and institutions that typically are objectified as ‘indigenous peoples’ on the global stage, or ‘Māori’ in New Zealand. For instance, rather than suggesting a political relationship or conflict exists between ‘Māori and the Crown’, political scientists and theorists should name the political actors and political institutions for which Māori is a shorthand, for example, ‘Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu (the corporate entity of the Ngai Tahu whanui) and the Committee of Tuahiwi Marae disagreed with the Crown’. A variety of reasons are discussed as to why this objectification of Māori (and any other indigenous population) as a single political actor has occurred, the problems are pointed out, and a range of examples are given. Not every use of the terms ‘Māori’, ‘indigenous peoples’ or similar descriptors in political science stands in for a specific political actor (e.g. sometimes, it is suggesting a cleavage or a group at whom a policy is directed), but where scholars are describing or suggesting political action, they should be careful in their use of ethnic labels. I suggest that it would be more productive to study the specific contexts, intentions and actions of individuals and institutions that might consider indigeneity as being part of their identity.