'Tangata Whenua' and 'Tangata Tiriti' : The Significance of the Treaty of Waitangi in Creating Aotearoa/New Zealand Nationhood(<Special Theme>Indigenous Peoples and the History of the Nation)

<p>The aim of this article is to rethink the national identity of Aotearoa/New Zealand in relation to the role of the Treaty of Waitangi, which serves as the foundation of the modern state, New Zealand. Also, it is because of the Treaty that the Maori attained the status of an 'indigenous people.' The Treaty deals with the social, political and cultural rights of indigenous peoples, and at the same time, concerns the most basic principles of justice and law in New Zealand. Cultural and national identity changed amazingly in New Zealand during the latter part of the 20^<th> century, with an increased focus on the Treaty of Waitangi and the settlement of Treaty claims. In other words, there was an intensification of the indigenous rights movement. Many young Urban Maori go on hikoi (marches) or shout 'Honor the Treaty!' to express their Maoritanga (Maoriness). General Pan-Maori identity, that is, indigeneity and rangatiratanga (sovereignty), have become something of an ethnic identity for young Urban Maori people. Neotribalism, which emerged from devolution and bicultural policies, has had a big influence over Maori society. The cultural nationalism of the Maori, for example, the kaupapa (principle) of Kura kaupapa Maori (schools operating under Maori custom and using Maori as the medium of instruction), namely, 'Te Aho Matua,' has the potential for purism, as well. The distinguishing features of indigeneity-strategic neotribalism and cultural nationalism-are various aspects of Maoritanga today. On the other hand, the National Party's campaign of 'We are all New Zealanders' and 'One standard of citizenship' began to spread among the majority of New Zealand society after the foreshore and seabed issue of 2003. The heated controversy over the customary rights of the foreshore and seabed grew rapidly, with great influence on ethnic and race relations in the country. The former leader of the National Party opposition, Donald Brash, made his 'Nationhood' speech in 2004 dealing with 'one rule for all.' He positioned it in ideological contrast to an alleged governmental determination to recognize Maori birthrights. In other words, the 'one rule for all' ideology was sharply opposed to the ideology of 'tangata whenua' (the people of the land, namely, the indigenous peoples). After all, the Foreshore and Seabed Act of 2004 was 'one law for all.' Though New Zealand has never had an official policy of multiculturalism, in an empirical sense, it is without doubt a multicultural nation, as its population is drawn from all over the world. As for biculturalism-indicating Maori and Pakeha (people of European origin)-and national identity in multicultural everyday life, there are three major points with special meanings. First, immigrant ethnic groups have assumed a more public role within the ethnic composition of non-Maori peoples in New Zealand. Second, citizenship is now a hot political term, lying in conflict with indigenous rights. Third, biculturalism and multiculturalism have greatly different implications for indigenous peoples, as the Maori fear multiculturalism as a 'dissembling weapon' [M. DURIE 1995: 24] to weaken Maori political ambitions. Because the people cannot go back to the days before the Waitangi Tribunal, they must live with the 'principles' of the Treaty of Waitangi nowadays. New Zealand society today is ethnically diverse, while at the same time influenced by the politics and ethics of the Treaty of Waitangi. The emphasis on biculturalism that emerged in the 1980s has tended to fix both Maori and Pakeha identity. However, it tends to gloss over non-Maori and non-Pakeha New Zealanders, such as Asian immigrants. Also, it tends to assume pre-contact structures of Maori social organization, rather than the more urban forms that are influential</p><p>(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)</p>