Settler societies, indigenes, culture, language

Jonathan, Shirin, and I have been having a really interesting interesting discussion down here about issues of culture and power in settler societies.
In the course of the discussion there Jonathan has been starting to develop a really interesting typology of different kinds of settler societies. Since he’s a guy who knows an amazing amount about many really intriguing parts of the world, including but not limited to the Pacific Islands, Africa, and the Middle East, what he has to say is really worth reading.
We also address the ever-thorny question of when cultural appropriation– mainly, in this context, by the settlers, of the cultural products/practices of the indigenes– is legitimate and when it should be (at the very least) questioned. In the discussion there, we make a distinction between cultural appropriation (generally ok) and cultural expropriation (generally not ok).
Finally, I’ve been looking at the report that New Zealand’s Waitangi Tribunal issued in 1986 on the issue of whether Maori language (te reo Maori) counts as a “treasure” (taonga) of the Maoris under the terms of the 1840 Waitangi Treaty and is thus deserving of the government’s protection.

[That web document there presents both the English-language and the equally authoritative Maori-language versions of the Treaty. In “Article the second”, the “kuini o Ingarani”, that is, the Queen of England, undertakes to protect the unqualified exercise of the Maori chiefs’ chieftainship over all their “ratou taonga katoa”– their most precious treasures….
Note also in the Maori-language second para of “Article the First”, that the language actually had no word for or concept of the European-origined concept of “sovereignty”. Therefore they used a Maori transliteration/adaption of the concept of “governorship”– Kawana-tanga.]

Well anyway, in 1913, 90% of Maori schoolchildren could still speak their ancestral language. (Marcia Stenson, 2004, p.97) But since the view (and possibly the desire) of most of the Pakeha (i.e. mainly-Anglo settler) majority in the country was that the Maoris were “a dying race”, whose last remnants would presumably soon be assimilated into English-speaking society, government policies forbade Maoris from using their mother-tongue in schools and provided no access for them to use it in their dealings with the government.
By 1975, fewer than 5% of Maori schoolkids could speak their ancestral tongue.
Enter the Waitangi Tribunal— a body established that very same year as

a permanent commission of inquiry charged with making recommendations on claims brought by Māori relating to actions or omissions of the Crown, which breach the promises made in the Treaty of Waitangi. The Tribunal comprises up to 16 members… Approximately half the members are Māori and half are Pākehā.

So here are some excerpts from what the Tribunal reported, in April 1986, about the language issue:

‘Ka ngaro te reo, ka ngaro taua, pērā i te ngaro o te Moa’
‘If the language be lost, man will be lost, as dead as the moa [a famous but long-extinct large local bird]’
… There is a great body of Māori history, poetry and song that depends upon the language. If the language dies all of that will die and the culture of hundreds and hundreds of years will ultimately fade into oblivion. It was argued before us that if it is worthwhile to save the Chatham Islands robin, the kākāpō parrot or the notornis of Fiordland, is it not at least as worthwhile to save the Māori language?
… When the question for decision is whether te reo Māori is a “taonga” which the Crown is obliged to recognise we conclude that there can be only one answer. It is plain that the language is an essential part of the culture and must be regarded as “a valued possession”. The claim itself illustrates that fact, and the wide representation from all corners of Māoridom in support of it underlines and emphasises the point
… an understanding of Māori language and culture was necessary not only to develop the full personal development of Māori children but also to assist the Pākehā to fully appreciate the history, achievements and character of Māori society.’
… We question whether the principles and broad objectives of the Treaty can ever be achieved if there is not a recognised place for the language of one of the partners to the Treaty. In the Māori perspective the place of the language in the life of the nation is indicative of the place of the people.’

And here, from the same source, is a list of the tribunal’s recommendations, namely that:

* legislation be introduced enabling any person who wishes to do so to use the Māori language in all courts of law and in any dealings with Government departments, local authorities and other public bodies;
* a supervising body be established by statute to supervise and foster the use of the Māori language;
* an inquiry be instituted into the way Māori children are educated to ensure that all children who wish to learn Māori be able to do so from an early age and with financial support from the State;
* broadcasting policy be formulated in regard to the obligation of the Crown to recognise and protect the Māori language; and
* amendments be made to make provision for bilinguism in Māori and in English as a prerequisite for any positions of employment deemed necessary by the State Services Commission.

As that summaryalso notes:

The Tribunal did not recommend that te reo Māori be a compulsory subject in schools, nor that all official documents be published in both English and Māori at that time, ‘for we think it more profitable to promote the language than to impose it’.
In 1987, te reo Māori was made an official language of New Zealand and Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori (the Māori Language Commission) was established to promote the language.

I don’t know what proportion of Maori schoolkids nowadays can speak their language. (For a couple of other takes on the present status of the Maori language/culture issue see this recent JWN post.)