Flags and Republics
February 5th, 2007 at 11:45 am by David FarrarI’m fairly amused by how much coverage there has been on whether the tino rangatiratanga flag will fly on the Harbour Bridge, or One Tree Hill etc. At the end of the day I don’t care greatly either way.
But there is a lesson here about why it does get so many people heated up. For decades the flag has been portrayed as the flag of Maori sovereignty. To the average NZer they read that as a flag rejecting the Treaty of Waitangi, rejecting a pakeha presence in NZ and rejecting the concept of New Zealand. It is seen as making a highly political statement. You can argue whether it should be seen at that, but it is.
A “Maori” flag which was promoted just as a flag of Maoridom, of the united Iwi etc would I predict receive far less resistance. It might even come to be embraced by all NZers over time as part of NZ. Just as the Scottish flag is part of the UK, even though it is also a symbol for some to push independence.
The story linked to above also reports on a TV3 poll which found 52% were against a referendum on a new flag. I respect the current flag as our official emblem but am certainly one of those who would like a change to something which incorporated a silver fern.
The other interesting poll result was 53% said the issue of becoming a republic should be looked at, with 39% at this stage already in favour. That is a sign to Parliament that if the private member’s bill seeking a referendum on the issue is drawn from the ballot, they should allow it to proceed.
No tag for this post.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Maybe I’m being picky but how could it be true that “For decades the flag has been portrayed as the flag of Maori sovereignty.” when it has only been in existance for 16 years?
Vote:How did I learn the age of the flag? Well, the fact has been mentioned a number of times in recent media coverage. If you haven’t been paying attention to coverage of the issue, and if you don’t have your basic facts right, one can fairly question the value the opinions you express.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
David,
Vote:Can we please keep the silver fern off the flag to all the other people in the world (except rugby and netball supporters) it just looks like a white feather. If it is going to be changed a better suggestion would be the current flag WITH the union flag in the corner and replace the stars with a Koru and a Kiwi
February 5th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Well I am only going on a sketchy memory but I seem to recall the flag is supposed to unite Maori behind a declaration of independence made by some tribes which I think preceded the treaty. In any event like the foreshore claims acceptance would be a precedent, an inch rapidly becoming a mile.
Vote:February 5th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Half of the problem in getting a new flag is that everyone in NZ will have an opinion on it and expect to like it. Flags arent meant to please everyone, they’re symbolic of a country’s identity and unity – two things NZ continues to lack.
No one is going to agree on the design of the new flag, which is why most are just pleased to stick with the old one
Vote:February 5th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
That flag makes me cringe. I agree with DPF that I would have no problem with a Maori Flag that isn’t a rallying point for anyone who wants to have a state within a state.
Every time I see some white liberal from Grey Lynn wearing one of those t-shirts I feel like giving them a big clip around the ears. They seem to think they are in touch with their culturally accepting self, when in act they are promoting a divisive subsection of the population.
Sam and David C are probably wearing theirs now
Vote:February 5th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
“To the average NZer they read that as a flag rejecting the Treaty of Waitangi, rejecting a pakeha presence in NZ and rejecting the concept of New Zealand. It is seen as making a highly political statement. You can argue whether it should be seen at that, but it is.”
Not quite sure about decades but this about sums it up. Rightly or wrongly many of us see the Maori flag as the equivalent of the Stars and Bars rather than a positive representative symbol.
Vote:February 5th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
I quite like the United Iwi flag, as is is inclusive. The Tino Rangatiratanga flag is exclusive. Another flag I don’t entirely mind is the green and white koru, although I don’t think it is bold/striking enough for a national flag.
My first and most important criterion for a national flag – should be easy to draw.
Every time I see some white liberal from Grey Lynn wearing one of those t-shirts…
How often have you actually seen a white liberal from Grey Lynn wearing one of those t-shirts, southern raider? Honestly? I am a white liberal and lived in Grey Lynn for many many years (although not anymore) and can’t think of a single occasion.
If you are white and liberal, you generally know not to wear it, in the same way that you would know that painting your face with nugget might be seen as politically incorrect.
Vote:February 5th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Personally, I can’t wait to see the day that we have the current NZ flag and a Maori flag flying side by side over Parliment, and the Auck Harbour Bridge.
Vote:February 5th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
The previous poster who mentioned white liberals from grey lynn was just being polite. What he really meant was “self loathing whitey onanists”. The tino flag does not represent all maori and anybody whoever mentions Maori as a collective is an idiot. Thye are no more united in one thought and ideology as any other ethnic grouping within this country. mentioning Maori and attributing one thought collectively to them is colonial patronising at best and retarded racism at worst.
Vote:February 5th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Andrew maybe you were drinking too much Chardonay to notice.
Going from memory though I would swear that I have seen more white looking people wearing them than actual Maori.
Vote:February 5th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Damned chardonay goggles, they make everyone look brown.
Vote:February 5th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
It is my view, that the debate surrounding the possible changing of the NZ flag, best underscores how NZ has ‘lost its way, economically, industrially, educationally, socially and racially. From the 3rd highest living standard in world in the 1960/7o’s to some miserable, low place, 20th + position. If I ran my business the way this country has been run, Id be broke over night. (Which of course NZ effectively is.) Until this country can unite and we all learn to pull our weight collectively (just like any winning rugby team), then we’ll continue to act like a stranded, dying fish, flapping helplessly on the sea shore.
Vote:February 6th, 2007 at 11:01 am
“To the average NZer they read that as a flag rejecting the Treaty of Waitangi, rejecting a pakeha presence in NZ and rejecting the concept of New Zealand.”
Um. You seem to be confused here David. Or the “average New Zealander” that you claim to know the thoughts of is. The “tino rangitiratanga” flag hardly rejects the treaty of Waitangi. The very name is a reminder that in the Maori version of the treaty the chiefs retained “te tino Rangitiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa”. If anything the tino rangitiratanga flag implies that its bearers want those who made commitments to Maori under the treaty to honour those commitments. Thus, by logical deduction, the flag cannot be a symbolic rejection of a Pakeha presense in New Zealand.
Vote:February 6th, 2007 at 11:52 am
I wonder what people think they are advocating when they say they want a “Republic”?
I would be happy to have us break away from the UK and appoint our own Head of State. OUr GG would simply be the GG of NZ rather than the Queen’s representative. And that would be that.
I would even be happy with an alternating head of state (Maori/Pakeha) if it eased the transition.
In other words we would only have to change a couple of lines in our legistlation etc. the Crown would remain the Crown and we would remain in effect a constitutional monarchy.
But a “republic” implies a move towards the US model of constitution with an elected President who appoints the executive and so on.
This would be a massive shift and would make all our present documentation and case law obsolete. What do we rename all the references to “the Crown” for example?
Tread warily. We may get what so many people appear to want.
Vote:February 6th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Well I have to agree with the last post, the Crown can simply be redefined as the collective sovereignty of New Zealanders (taking on the obligations of the Crown). The only issue, is what to title the position of whoever is in the office replacing that of the Queen’s representative.
In asking for an elected office, the republicans are moving into the area which stalled the Australians. It would be more advisable to make change incremental and thus have each step validated on it’s own merits.
Thus I would have by a government appointment (just add a 2/3rd of parliament accepting this) system continue.
Vote:February 6th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Its crazy, theres nothing wrong with the flag we have, and to many of us any changed would be rejected.
As was mentioned above changing the flag means we are not together as a nation, are we together?, i think not.
Many of us older folk are very proud of our heritage (Culture) and are proud of the flag we have always flown.
To change the flag would be a step in the wrong direction.
Vote:February 6th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
As for the flag, the Union Jack (Crosses) and the Southern Cross stars and the common colouring, it is meant to be symbolic.
It does tend to say, a British colony in the antipodes.
When we claim our Crown/republican sovereignty, it will lose it’s meaning. Until then it has continued meaning.
How we would then choose to re-symbolise our nation, when more independent of the British colonial association, is perhaps only to be guessed at now.
Moving to a triple star focus and a tricolour theme patterned on some Maori motif may suffice.
Obviously it has to take into account the a bi-cultural nation and the multi-cultural society we will increasingly become. Thus a triple identity – British colony in Treaty with Maori and subsequent more diverse migration.
But this will be decided 20 years from now, and many of those who would cling to the old identity and flag symbolism by then will have passed on. Until we claim our sovereignty, this debate will not really have any purpose.
Vote:February 6th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Tiger Coxhead “The “tino rangitiratanga” flag hardly rejects the treaty of Waitangi. …If anything the tino rangitiratanga flag implies that its bearers want those who made commitments to Maori under the treaty to honour those commitments. Thus, by logical deduction, the flag cannot be a symbolic rejection of a Pakeha presense in New Zealand.”
The thing is, the claim of continuing sovereignty (which is why the 1835 flag was alongside this one on One Tree Hill), challenges the New Zealand built on the Treaty. The rejection that the Crown sovereignty includes Maori and Pakeha, and the claim of a separate and continuing and undiminished Maori sovereignty, is behind calls for a Maori parliament with a Congresssional style veto over a “Pakeha one” and also a claim of sovereignty over the coast-line of New Zealand.
The difference between Crown sovereignty and a promise of continuing self government to iwi (which justifies Maori seats within one parliament)and Maori sovereignty and allowing Crown governorship over the settler, is profound.
Vote:February 7th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
“The thing is, the claim of continuing sovereignty (which is why the 1835 flag was alongside this one on One Tree Hill), challenges the New Zealand built on the Treaty.”
Actually, no it doesn’t. The New Zealand you describe was not “built” on the treaty. The treaty was largely ignored by the authorities until the 1970s, and was declared a legal nullity from 1877. Of course, there were consistent discussions in Maori circles regarding inconsistencies between actual state policy and the commitments under the treaty, but by and large they were ignored by the political elite. Whether or not you think establishing Maori sovereignty nowadays is impractical is irrelevant to my original point, which was that the fliers of the flag want to bring attention to the guarantees of the treaty for Maori, and thus are not ‘rejecting the Treaty of Waitangi, rejecting a pakeha presence in NZ’. In fact, quite the opposite.
“a promise of continuing self government to iwi (which justifies Maori seats within one parliament)”
Well, an historical interpretation would suggest otherwise. The Maori seats were set up as a compromise to Conservatives in the late 19th century who thought Maori were too thick to participate in the electoral process. Thus with suffrage, Maori gained four seats even though their population would have justified far greater representation. That Maori came to accept the seats as a guarantee for a voice within parliament was only due to a decreasing Maori population and an increasing pakeha one, making the seats (which were originally not allocated on the basis of population distribution) more relevant to them. In any case, they were not established as some sort of high-fallutin ‘justification’ of Maori ‘self government’.
Vote:February 7th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
It is a historical fact that New Zealand WAS/IS built on the Treaty. AND this has nothing to do with honouring it (but the end of any independence from Crown rule). The New Zealand that was built WAS largely done so, in not honouring it. The New Zealand that is being built, is premised on some belated honouring of it.
I had not heard anyone deny any of this before now.
I still do not see any direct link between honouring the Treaty and a claim of Maori sovereignty (it is of a claim of some who hold the Maori version to have a different meaning). The claim of Maori sovereignty is at variance with the “English version” of the Treaty. In fact, it is the claim of Maori sovereignty which is causing a “Pakeha” backlash against honouring the English version of the Treaty.
As for the Maori seats – I simply note that they were established when Maori “self government” on their own iwi land had been rendered impossible by the Land Wars. It was a recognition of conquest and assimilation of Maori (a betrayal of the Maori Treaty right to self government). The succession of events is hardly a coincidence, but part of the dynamic of the flow of events – our history.
Maori today argue for a continuance of the Maori seats on the basis that it is a remnant/continuance of their participation in their own self government.
Tiger Coxhead “In any case, they were not established as some sort of high-fallutin ‘justification’ of Maori ‘self government’.”
Tacitly the Maori seats were exactly that.
If one is annex the land of others and incorporate them into one’s government system and yet then does so in a way which allows for their continuance as a “separate people” – one is recognising their separate people status. This is of their self government right in the Treaty. That Pakeha fulfilled this conquest/betrayal of the full self government/chieftainship promise in the limited number of seats that was awarded, was par for the course in those times. But this does not change the fact that even these Pakeha recognised that separate people status. Their doing so for their own empowerment over Maori is obvious, that Maori now find value in that separate people recognition being continued is also obvious.
The issue is whether the Maori sovereignty movement is driving some Pakeha into opposing the Maori seats. The Maori version of the Treaty sovereignty advocates may be undermining Pakeha support for Maori self government (continuing Maori seats) under the English version of the Treaty.
Vote:June 26th, 2007 at 9:52 am
In my view, flags are excellent but are a foreign concept.Taamoko and whakairo were the flags of Te Tangata Whenua. The real questions we should be asking is does the current imposed colonial foreign system provide balance, culturally, socially and economically with a fairness, equality and a justice to “all” people who have made Aotearoa their home. If the answer is “no” then its back to the drawing board or the beginnings of what went wrong. The Dec 1835 is one place we can return to, Te Tiriti 1840 is another. In pre colonial times Tangata whenua were no more savage than the colonial forces that invaded, proven by the claims research in the Waitangi Tribunal. Te Tangata whenua have so much to offer to kawanatanga in terms of Rangatiratanga “people values” as opposed to “money values. Many Tangata Whenua long to eradicate poverty and racial discrimination and historical propaganda that has been derogatory to any kind of real partnership. I dont believe “Real freedom” is found in flags or treaties but inklings can be found in the pursuit of “THE TRUTH”.
Vote:June 26th, 2007 at 9:54 am
In my view, flags are excellent but are a foreign concept.Taamoko and whakairo were the flags of Te Tangata Whenua. The real questions we should be asking is does the current imposed colonial foreign system provide balance, culturally, socially and economically with a fairness, equality and a justice to “all” people who have made Aotearoa their home. If the answer is “no” then its back to the drawing board or the beginnings of what went wrong. The Dec 1835 is one place we can return to, Te Tiriti 1840 is another. In pre colonial times Tangata whenua were no more savage than the colonial forces that invaded, proven by the claims research in the Waitangi Tribunal. Te Tangata whenua have so much to offer to kawanatanga in terms of Rangatiratanga “people values” as opposed to “money values. Many Tangata Whenua long to eradicate poverty and racial discrimination and historical propaganda that has been derogatory to any kind of real partnership. I dont believe “Real freedom” is found in flags or treaties but inklings can be found in the pursuit of “THE TRUTH”.
Vote:June 26th, 2007 at 9:54 am
In my view, flags are excellent but are a foreign concept.Taamoko and whakairo were the flags of Te Tangata Whenua. The real questions we should be asking is does the current imposed colonial foreign system provide balance, culturally, socially and economically with a fairness, equality and a justice to “all” people who have made Aotearoa their home. If the answer is “no” then its back to the drawing board or the beginnings of what went wrong. The Dec 1835 is one place we can return to, Te Tiriti 1840 is another. In pre colonial times Tangata whenua were no more savage than the colonial forces that invaded, proven by the claims research in the Waitangi Tribunal. Te Tangata whenua have so much to offer to kawanatanga in terms of Rangatiratanga “people values” as opposed to “money values. Many Tangata Whenua long to eradicate poverty and racial discrimination and historical propaganda that has been derogatory to any kind of real partnership. I dont believe “Real freedom” is found in flags or treaties but inklings can be found in the pursuit of “THE TRUTH”.
Vote:June 26th, 2007 at 9:58 am
In my view, flags are excellent but are a foreign concept.Taamoko and whakairo were the flags of Te Tangata Whenua. The real questions we should be asking is does the current imposed colonial foreign system provide balance, culturally, socially and economically with a fairness, equality and a justice to “all” people who have made Aotearoa their home. If the answer is “no” then its back to the drawing board or the beginnings of what went wrong. The Dec 1835 is one place we can return to, Te Tiriti 1840 is another. In pre colonial times Tangata whenua were no more savage than the colonial forces that invaded, proven by the claims research in the Waitangi Tribunal. Te Tangata whenua have so much to offer to kawanatanga in terms of Rangatiratanga “people values” as opposed to “money values. Many Tangata Whenua long to eradicate poverty and racial discrimination and historical propaganda that has been derogatory to any kind of real partnership. I dont believe “Real freedom” is found in flags or treaties but inklings can be found in the pursuit of “THE TRUTH”.
Vote:June 26th, 2007 at 9:59 am
In my view, flags are excellent but are a foreign concept.Taamoko and whakairo were the flags of Te Tangata Whenua. The real questions we should be asking is does the current imposed colonial foreign system provide balance, culturally, socially and economically with a fairness, equality and a justice to “all” people who have made Aotearoa their home. If the answer is “no” then its back to the drawing board or the beginnings of what went wrong. The Dec 1835 is one place we can return to, Te Tiriti 1840 is another. In pre colonial times Tangata whenua were no more savage than the colonial forces that invaded, proven by the claims research in the Waitangi Tribunal. Te Tangata whenua have so much to offer to kawanatanga in terms of Rangatiratanga “people values” as opposed to “money values. Many Tangata Whenua long to eradicate poverty and racial discrimination and historical propaganda that has been derogatory to any kind of real partnership. I dont believe “Real freedom” is found in flags or treaties but inklings can be found in the pursuit of “THE TRUTH”.
Vote:June 26th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
In my view, flags are excellent but are a foreign concept.Taamoko and whakairo were the flags of Te Tangata Whenua. The real questions we should be asking is does the current imposed colonial foreign system provide balance, culturally, socially and economically with a fairness, equality and a justice to “all” people who have made Aotearoa their home. If the answer is “no” then its back to the drawing board or the beginnings of what went wrong. The Dec 1835 is one place we can return to, Te Tiriti 1840 is another. In pre colonial times Tangata whenua were no more savage than the colonial forces that invaded, proven by the claims research in the Waitangi Tribunal. Te Tangata whenua have so much to offer to kawanatanga in terms of Rangatiratanga “people values” as opposed to “money values. Many Tangata Whenua long to eradicate poverty and racial discrimination and historical propaganda that has been derogatory to any kind of real partnership. I dont believe “Real freedom” is found in flags or treaties but inklings can be found in the pursuit of “THE TRUTH”.
Vote: