What do you think?
Rate this book
Maori and the State: Crown-Maori Relations in New Zealand/Aotearoa, 1950-2000
Presenting the most recent research and written by an expert in the field, this examination explores the principal interrelationships between the British Crown and the Maori people in the 1950s and 1960s when Crown assimilation policies intensified—and during the 1970s—when the pressure of the Maori renaissance encouraged policies and goals based on biculturalism. A subject central to New Zealand’s culture, this is an important and historical analysis of the country and the wider issue of indigenous peoples’ rights.
350 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 2010
1 person is currently reading
3 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
December 28, 2024
Sociologist David Pearson has noted that by the time of the sesquicentennial commemoration of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, whereas the ‘one people, one nation’ idea had always been illusory, the replacement dream of ‘two peoples, one nation’ was one that seemed attainable — even if it remained a ‘Dream Deferred’.
An essential read. An academic read. A tough read.
I fear trying to accurately summarise the takeaways from the book is a dangerous thing. At the highest level, Hill manages to give agency to both the State and Māori. The State generally tended towards integration/assimilation (though the market reforms from the 1980s change that, along with the various changes in government) whereas the various Māori groupings generally tended towards tino rangatiratanga (which Hill notes means different things to different groups at different times – and understandably so!).
A standout point was that even when the Crown sought to change the law or create bodies that potentially restricted Māori rights of self-determination, it did not necessarily follow in terms of effects. Māori could adapt and co-opt bodies for their own purposes, though criticism might arise if they busied themselves with administrative tasks rather than towards autonomy.
There were plenty of other points that might go against received wisdom. The very real urban drift by Māori did not sever connections to their rural marae, even if it complicated it (which does match John Tamihere’s experiences in his biography). Further, while the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are a hot topic now, it is worth looking at them as a compromise, and that they are an acceptance of the State’s sovereignty (i.e. they are the result of competing tensions rather than a “gift” to Māori giving them special rights).
Land transfers view public leases and the Maori Trustee remain a feature of the early part of the period, along with the controversy of the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967, something that rubs up against my own property law experience. It is a reminder that the inequalities in the law persisted for many decades, so claiming “equality” for all regardless of ethnicity now carries a heavy dose of irony.
Defeat of autonomist aspirations was always the preferred Crown goal, especially in the long assimilationist period from the beginning of the colony until the early 1970s. But where that proved untenable, the state sought to appropriate organisational expressions of autonomy for its own purposes, often attempting to turn them into vehicles for the assimilation project. In turn, Māori attempted to reappropriate the state's appropriations, Both parties, then, resorted to compromise and subversion in pursuit of their own goals, But until the Crown abandoned the policy of full integration (as assimilation, after a long semantic journey, had ended up being called), the ultimate goals of Māori and the state seemed completely incompatible. From the 1970s, arrangements which would suit both parties to the Treaty of Waitangi (as well as pakeha and other ethnicities of New Zealand) seemed potentially achievable – that is, if they were seriously pursued through consultation and negotiation conducted in good faith.
While the writing is good, it is academic in language the high-level style focus on institutions rather than individuals can make it somewhat abstract. It’s not gripping, but it left me with so much to ponder.
An essential read. An academic read. A tough read.
I fear trying to accurately summarise the takeaways from the book is a dangerous thing. At the highest level, Hill manages to give agency to both the State and Māori. The State generally tended towards integration/assimilation (though the market reforms from the 1980s change that, along with the various changes in government) whereas the various Māori groupings generally tended towards tino rangatiratanga (which Hill notes means different things to different groups at different times – and understandably so!).
A standout point was that even when the Crown sought to change the law or create bodies that potentially restricted Māori rights of self-determination, it did not necessarily follow in terms of effects. Māori could adapt and co-opt bodies for their own purposes, though criticism might arise if they busied themselves with administrative tasks rather than towards autonomy.
There were plenty of other points that might go against received wisdom. The very real urban drift by Māori did not sever connections to their rural marae, even if it complicated it (which does match John Tamihere’s experiences in his biography). Further, while the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are a hot topic now, it is worth looking at them as a compromise, and that they are an acceptance of the State’s sovereignty (i.e. they are the result of competing tensions rather than a “gift” to Māori giving them special rights).
Land transfers view public leases and the Maori Trustee remain a feature of the early part of the period, along with the controversy of the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967, something that rubs up against my own property law experience. It is a reminder that the inequalities in the law persisted for many decades, so claiming “equality” for all regardless of ethnicity now carries a heavy dose of irony.
Defeat of autonomist aspirations was always the preferred Crown goal, especially in the long assimilationist period from the beginning of the colony until the early 1970s. But where that proved untenable, the state sought to appropriate organisational expressions of autonomy for its own purposes, often attempting to turn them into vehicles for the assimilation project. In turn, Māori attempted to reappropriate the state's appropriations, Both parties, then, resorted to compromise and subversion in pursuit of their own goals, But until the Crown abandoned the policy of full integration (as assimilation, after a long semantic journey, had ended up being called), the ultimate goals of Māori and the state seemed completely incompatible. From the 1970s, arrangements which would suit both parties to the Treaty of Waitangi (as well as pakeha and other ethnicities of New Zealand) seemed potentially achievable – that is, if they were seriously pursued through consultation and negotiation conducted in good faith.
While the writing is good, it is academic in language the high-level style focus on institutions rather than individuals can make it somewhat abstract. It’s not gripping, but it left me with so much to ponder.
Displaying 1 of 1 review