Te reo: 'it's not revival — it’s resuscitation.'

"Te reo isn’t 'thriving.' It’s being artificially kept alive with millions of taxpayer dollars. That’s not revival — that’s resuscitation."

~ John Robertson from his post 'New Zealand is being culturally hijacked...'

"It’s not really about te reo, tikanga, or even Māori. It’s about power."

 

"It’s not really about the words.

"That so many Kiwis care about [the wording on a passport] shows this is a symptom of a much bigger problem. ... a microcosm of the slow-burning cultural tension that has been building in New Zealand for years. ...

"What began as a well-meaning effort to honour Māori language and culture has, in the hands of our cultural elites, become a tool for ideological conformity and social stratification.

"It’s not really about te reo, tikanga, or even Māori. It’s about power. ... They get to be the priest class. They can sneer at the plumber in Palmerston North who doesn’t want his kids doing karakia at school, and tell themselves they’re not just smarter, but better. ... 

"Today, we’re swimming in a sea of te ao Māori frameworks, mandatory karakia in secular spaces, and public servants scrambling to prove their cultural credentials rather than deliver basic services. The line between recognising Māori as tangata whenua and enforcing a cultural ideology across every aspect of national life has become increasingly blurry and people have noticed.

"I am wound up that we’ve arrived at a place where people can’t distinguish between cultural recognition and cultural imposition. Where using Māori names is no longer about embracing heritage, it’s about enforcing allegiance."

~ Ani O'Brien from her post 'It's just a passport cover... except it's not'

Rangatiratanga means "Ownership"

IT MIGHT SURPRISE YOU to know, since so much hangs upon it, that the Treaty's term 'tino rangatiratanga' is 'a missionary neologism'—one of many. [1] Its root word is ‘rangatira,’ which was of course an original te reo word meaning ‘chief.’ This new word coined by Williams then stresses the power, authority, and agency of the chief.

Article Two of Te Tiriti promises to preserve tino rangatiratanga; courts have interpreted this in various ways to mean that chiefs (Rangatira) retain some kind of chiefly power. But Te Tiriti itself fails to fully clarify of what that power consists. [2] Lawyers since have taken advantage of this imprecision by arguing that it means some kind of chiefly sovereignty (although not over the whole country, since each iwi only extended so far). Ned Fletcher and others have argued since that the English text agrees with this idea, saying that the sovereignty ceded by the Treaty was “compatible with ongoing tribal self-government,” suggesting then that “tino rangatiratanga” means Māori self-government. 

His view is both an expansion and a clarification of the mainstream view of what “tino rangatiratanga” might mean.

Context is important. Like most law, Te Tiriti is hierarchical. Article One focusses on sovereignty; Article Two has a focus on land and resources. There was a logical progression from one Article to another, with the first Article, logically and in law, taking precedence. Sovereignty first, then clarifying what that sovereignty is for.

So with this context then, what is chieftainship about? Answer: It is primarily about ownership — about ownership of that land and those resources. But it is ownership in a "chiefly" sense, analogising the control of a chief over a tribe's land and resources to that of a property right. In his book One Sun in the Sky, author Ewen McQueen explains why Williams's translation reverts to the collective to offer this guarantees:

It is true that in translation Henry Williams has taken an approach that better aligns with the more [collectivist] Māori world-view, rather than the more individualistic European outlook. As such the Māori version does not refer to individuals holding exclusive possession of property. Instead we find chiefs exercising “chieftainship over the lands, villages and all their treasures. [3]

In seeking to find a te reo word to describe the unfamiliar concept of property rights, Williams has unfortunately conflated a legitimate recognition of an individual right to property with a non-existent claim to a collective right. "But the expression 'collective rights' is a contradiction in terms.” [4]

This then makes for a disastrous confusion. Confusion, because the intent of Article Two is to impart property rights, an individual right. But the reference to chieftainship is about collective tribal rights over land.  Disastrous because Te Tiriti should have treated all Maori as individuals instead of as members of a tribe. But it really does nothing of the sort except by implication.

Instead, as written, it cemented in and buttressed the tribal leadership and communal structures that already existed here —encouraging the survival of this wreck of a system until morphing, as it has today, into this mongrelised sub-group of pseudo-aristocracy: of Neotribal Cronyism. 

Nonetheless, as [former Chief Justice] William Martin wrote in 1860,

"This tribal right is clearly a right of property… To themselves they retained what they understood full well, the ‘tino Rangatiratanga,’ ‘full Chiefship,’ in respect of all their lands…’” [5]

This is not trivial. This is why sovereignty, was ceded.

“EVEN THE 'TINO' OF the Māori version is better understood in this context,” argues McQueen. “It does not mean that the chiefs’ authority is unqualified in a government sense. Rather it is Henry Williams’s translation of how the chiefs would retain possession of the lands, forests and fisheries. The English version emphasised such possession would continue ‘full exclusive and undisturbed.’ Williams has rendered this concept as ‘tino’ rangatiratanga. It is about Māori retaining full agency over their land and resources. It is not a statement about unqualified political sovereignty.” [Emphasis mine.]

So “rangatiratanga” relates to ownership. “Tino” gives force to this relationship, giving it the force of a property right.

NOTES:

[1] Paul Moon, The Path to the Treaty of Waitangi, David Ling Publishing, (2002) p. 147

[2] Hugh Kawharu back-translates te tino rangatiratanga as 'the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship,' which doesn't quite clarify things, although the next phrase tries, the Queen guaranteeing "to protect the Chiefs, the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures ..."
    In Ned Fletcher's reconstructed English text, the corresponding phrase is "full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates, Forests Fisheries and other properties ... "

[3] Ewen McQueen, One Sun in the Sky, Galatas Press (2020), p. 42-43. 

[4] Ayn Rand, ‘Collectivized Rights,’ in The Virtue of Selfishness, New York, Signet, June 1963

[5] William Martin, The Taranaki Question, The Melanesian Press(1860), p. 9.

[This post is based on the 2024 post at my NZ History blog: 'POSTSCRIPT 2: Rangatiratanga as Ownership'

RELATED:

• It's still the "chieftainship" that is the problem — NOT PC
• Kawanatanga katoa > tino rangatiratanga — A POLITICALLY INCORRECT HISTORY OF NEW ZEALAND
• When was sovereignty properly established here?  — A POLITICALLY INCORRECT HISTORY OF NEW ZEALAND
• Ned's Puzzling Treaty — NEWSROOM

"The Greens' vision a pathway to Venezuela"

"LET'S STRIP AWAY THE political gloss and assess the Green Party’s 2025 budget for what it is: a document heavy on ideology, neo-Marxist buzzwords, and te reo, but dangerously light on pragmatism, economic credibility, and operational realism. ...

"Fundamentally, their budget is about lifting government revenue by taxing New Zealanders an extra $88billion over four years. They have no plan for growing the economy. ... for additional capital, the Greens have decided to simply borrow more. ...

"Included in the Greens tax grab are following revenue channels: Inheritance Tax [i.e., Death Tax]... Private Jet Tax ... 10-year Brightline test ... Labour’s removal of interest deductibility for residential property ... Companies/Corporate Tax [hike] ... Income Tax [threshold] change ... Mining Royalties [hike] ... Wealth Tax...

"It is worth remembering that the Green Party only claims these policies will generate nearly $90 billion in new revenue over four years. This is an implausibly optimistic figure. The reality is you can’t just plug in tax rates and expect static revenue. People adapt and restructure in reaction to law changes and shifting systems. Sometimes they just straight up leave. These are not 'guaranteed billions.' They are some pretty wild assumptions disguised as policy. ...

"CLAIMING TO HAVE FOUND $88 billion in additional revenue thanks to taxing the shizzzzz out of New Zealanders, the Greens have gone to town spending big. ... their budget is more manifesto than fiscal plan. At the heart of the document is the assumption that profit should be avoided and the state should act to hamper it as much as possible. Other assumptions of note relate to their allergic reaction to anything that remotely suggests that adults should be responsible for their own wellbeing. ...

"In classic modern Marxist fashion, they are determined to try things that have already failed multiple times over in other jurisdictions. ...The biggest problem with [their] extensive list of spending [outside the morality of altruism and theft, Ed.] ... is that there’s clearly a lack of capacity in our systems to deliver any of these services. ...

"It is also a strategy that assumes infinite government competence. The Greens are highly critical of our existing systems and yet they want to expand them, give them vastly more power, and put them under further pressure. ...

"'As Venezuelans have learned over the past 20 years of socialism, “free things” come at a high price'.' ...

"Most depressing of all, in my view is the way the Greens would set out to cause lifelong structural dependency on the state. Accusations of Marxism and socialism are often overblown, but in this case they are truly warranted. This plan contains no serious expectations of any personal responsibility nor any incentives to engage in commerce and grow the economy. Guaranteed incomes, regardless of effort, encourage longterm unemployment or permanent student life. There’s no point in saving, working hard, starting a business, or taking financial risks. In fact, those who do would be penalised severely by the Greens through taxation. This is a social model built not on empowerment, but entitlement. ...

"This budget is a blueprint for turning our country into the next Venezuela. It is easy to dismiss the insanity of the Greens as the fantasies of the irrelevant, but the assumption that will not get close to the levers of power is a naive one. ... unless MMP is overhauled ..."

~ Ani O'Brien from her posts 'The Greens' vision a pathway to Venezuela' and 'Greens' moral crusade masquerading as an economic plan

WATCH: Greens's co-leaderette Chloe Swarbrick attempts defending the impossible against Jack Tame's timid prodding:

Hmmm.

"[S]peaking Māori ... is [oft] perceived as 'virtue signalling,' which is a perception that has arisen in the context of decades of fashionable Western self-loathing. Like you, I can’t stand insincerity. It is hypocritical that people who obsess over the every failing of Western culture cannot also acknowledge the good things about it: democracy, the rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, habeas corpus and trial by jury, to name just a few. ...
    "However, at present thousands of Māori people are enthusiastically pursuing the renaissance of their language and their culture from a place of sincerity. Many white New Zealanders do not realise this and are mistaking them for the anti-Western virtue signalling camp, and are accordingly very hostile to anything Māori. This is met with bewilderment by Māori. They do not understand at all why some white people are so hostile to their culture. ...
    "Rather than realising the true source of the hostility to Te Reo (which is the intellectual dishonesty of postmodernism as a worldview) antipathy towards anything Māori is viewed in the light of historical suppression of Te Reo in schools as well as the devaluing of Māori culture generally. In short, it is perceived as racism. You need only read Māori media outlets to see the enormity of the bewilderment, hurt, rage and even hate this causes. ...
    "We need a new political paradigm in which postmodernism does not harden people to indigenous issues. The key to this is the simple realisation that you can be pro-indigenous without being postmodern."

~ Lucy Rogers from her post 'Why I speak Māori (and it has nothing to do with “virtue signalling”)' [Hat tip PM of NZ]

"But it is difficult to remain silent in the face of events that affect our lives fundamentally."

"Anne Salmond's ... 'Newsroom' column berat[es] people for having views on the Treaty of Waitangi when they cannot even read the Māori version of the treaty. ... that even when customs, laws or treaties impinge on your daily life, you cannot hold any views on these matters if you are unable to read the relevant documents in their original form.
    "It is safe to say that this view would come as a bit of a surprise to Biblical scholars who are not well versed in all of Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew and Latin. Clearly no Hindu or Buddhist can have any views on their own religion if they cannot read Sanskrit. And no one can say anything about Islam if they are not familiar with Arabic.
    "[Equally] immigrants to countries like France or Germany can express no views on tax or social welfare policies if they cannot read, write or speak the language.
    "This is obviously ridiculous and highly parochial. I have a feeling that even Anne Salmond understands the frivolity of her argument.
    "[She] is engaging in is what the philosopher Harry Frankfurt calls 'bullshit.'
    "This is where intellectuals and policy makers, who have no good answers to valid questions from regular people, essentially resort to using jargon to sidestep the matter....

    "But it is difficult to remain silent in the face of events that affect our lives fundamentally."

~ Prof. Ananish Chaudhari from his post 'Inability to understand te reo Māori does not prevent people from asking questions about race relations in New Zealand'

Te Reo: Confusion [update 2]

So even if you speak, or understand te reo, are the names "gifted" to govt departments by poets and reified reo speakers understandable? Or unintentionally confusing? Or perhaps the confusion is intentional, to help immunise them against criticism. (Hard to criticise, say, Te Konihana Tauhokohoko, if you have no idea who they are what they do.)

Anyway, here below, to help you out, in no particular order, is a rough literal translation of the names of some common departments and ministries (based first on the Māori-English dictionaries of Williams (1844), and then Ryan (1983), and then Google Translate for more recent neologisms like Kaipāho, Manatū, Haumaru, Konihana etc). Many seem more about poetry -- sometimes good poetry  -- than they do about communicating well ("Memory Room" for archives sounds good, and who wouldn't like the "Power of Distant Lightning"; whereas "Stranger Service" sounds like something that might be offered just off K Rd). 

So, often, only those in the know would know...

[UPDATE 1:

Te Pūkenga (NZ Institute of Skills & Technology)                                           The Wise Person

He Puapua (2019 report by the Ardern Administration)                                  Some Seeds or 

                                                                                                                         A Break in the Waves or 

                                                                                                                        Some Female Genitals

Human Rights Commission  (Te Kāhui Tika Tangata)                                    The Correct People Cluster

Te Papa Tongarewa (Museum of New Zealand)                                            Expensive Box   

Māori Language Commission (ki Te Taura Whiri)                                            Towards the Platted Rope]

Te Whatu Ora (Health New Zealand)                                                              The Woven Garment of Health
Māori Health Authority (Te Aka Whai Ora)                                                      The Root of Life
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (ki Hīkina Whakatutuki)   To Launch Performance
Ministry of Social Development (Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora)                       The Ministry of Life Creation 
NZ Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi)                                                              One Canoe
Broadcasting Standards Authority (Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho)                Controlling Broadcaster Behaviour
WorkSafe New Zealand (Mahi Haumaru Aotearoa)                                       Work Safely NZ
? (Whānau Ora)                                                                                              Healthy Families
Ministry for Primary Industries (Manatū Ahu Matua)                                      Ministry of the Main Dimension
Ministry for the Environment (Manatū Mō Te Taiao)                                      Ministry About the Wide World
Ministry for Culture and Heritage (Te Manatū Taonga)                                  Ministry of Treasures
Commerce Commission (Te Konihana Tauhokohoko)                                  The Marketing Convention
Earthquake Commission (Kōmihana Rūwhenua)                                         Commission (for) Shaking Land
Education New Zealand (Manapou ki te Ao)                                                Hope to the World
New Zealand Qualifications Authority (Mana Tohu Mātauranga o Aotearoa) Knowledge Brand Authority of NZ
Inland Revenue Department (Te Tari Taake)                                                The Snare of Other's Possessions
Productivity Commission (Te Kōmihana Whai Hua o Aotearoa)                  Commission for the Benefit of NZ
Ministry of Housing & Urban Development (Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga)        The Foundation of Precious Homes
Pharmac (Te Pātaka Whaioranga)                                                                The Storehouse of Privacy for Wellbeing
Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Te Pūtea Matua)                                        The Main Fund 
Ministry of Justice (Tāhū o te Ture)                                                                Ridge Pole of the Law
Ministry of Defence (Manatū Kaupapa Waonga)                                            Ministry of the Fleet of Forestry Canoes
Ministry of Education (Te Tāhuhu o te Mātauranga)                                       The Ridgepole of the Knowledge
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Te Manatū Aorere)                            The Ministry of Flight
Office of Treaty Settlements (Te Kāhui Whakatau)                                        The Intent Swarm
Civil Aviation Authority (Te Mana Rererangi Tūmatanui o Aotearoa)            Public Aeroplane Authority of NZ

Land Information New Zealand (Toitu te Whenua)                                        Salt the Earth
Te Puni Kōkiri (Ministry for Māori Development)                                            The Action Camp
Electricity Authority (NZ) (Te Mana Hiko)                                                        Power of Distant Lightning

Crown Law Office (Te Tari Ture o te Karauna)                                                Crown Law Office
Department of Conservation (Te Papa Atawhai)                                            The Fostering Box
Department of Corrections (Ara Poutama Aotearoa)                                    Incantation Pathway NZ
Department of Internal Affairs (Te Tari Taiwhenua)                                        The District Office
Immigration New Zealand (Te Ratonga Manene)                                            The Service for Strangers
Archives New Zealand (Te Rua Mahara o te Kāwanatanga)                         The Memory Room of the Governorship
Local Government Commission (Mana Kāwanatanga ā Rohe)                     District Governorship Power
New Zealand Lottery Grants Board (Te Puna Tahua)                                    The Money Source
National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa)             Wellspring Of Knowledge NZ
New Zealand Passports Office (Nga Uruwhenua)                                           The Land Rites
New Zealand Citizenship Office (Te Raraunga)                                               The Data
Translation Service, The (Te Pūtahi Whakawhiti Reo)                                    The Crossroads Carrying Across Language
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 

(Te Tari o te Pirimia me te Komiti Matua)                                                        Office of the Premier & the First Committee
Education Review Office (Te Tari Arotake Matauranga)                                Office Reviewing Knowledge

"...Modern Te Reo is unintelligible to them."

"Modern Māori language is colloquially referred to as ‘fruit salad Māori’. My elders do not understand this new form it has taken; modern Te Reo is unintelligible to them."

~ Dianne Landy, co-founder of Mana Wāhine Kōrero, from her post 'Mana Wāhine Kōrero Response to (now deleted) Stuff article Vs. Sean Plunket'

The team of $55 million

"Prime Minister Chris Hipkins insists that many voters are suspicious of co-governance only because politicians haven’t explained the concept clearly — but that failure also falls squarely on the shoulders of journalists.
    "As [one former politician] put it: 'One might have expected journalists to delve into what, precisely, the government meant when ministers incorporated this 'misunderstood' concept into lots of Acts of Parliament over recent years'....
    "There can never be a definitive answer to the question of exactly how much the Public Interest Journalism Fund has helped shut down criticism of the Treaty at a crucial time in our political history. But by accepting its conditions, it is undeniable that the media has inflicted a terrible wound on itself by being seen to have compromised its principal assets — trust, credibility and independence....
    "The widespread disdain for the recipients of the Fund’s cash was summed up by the epithet 'The team of $55 million' — a play on 'The team of five million,' which Jacinda Ardern used to rally the country behind her Covid management strategies....
    "The first of the general eligibility criteria [for the Fund] requires all applicants to show a 'commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to Māori as a Te Tiriti partner' — alongside a commitment to te reo Māori. The section describing the fund’s goals includes “actively promoting the principles of Partnership, Participation and Active Protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi [and this despite Te Tiriti's own three principles being Sovereignty, Property Rights, and Citizenship] ...
    "The lesson to media organisations seems clear: if the government ever comes calling with a bag of money that requires editorial prescriptions to be followed, take the advice of the advertising campaign that ran in the early 1990s to discourage children from experimenting with illegal drugs — and just say no."

~ Graham Adams, from his essay 'Has Government Money Corrupted Journalism?'

Are you, or are you willing to become, a Tribalist?

"A stoush between collectivist and individualist Māori is long overdue. ... Ultimately, inevitably, whether at the micro or macro level, the question must be answered. Is your allegiance to the tribe, or is it to yourself and your chosen group of family and friends.
    "If the two overlap, all well and good.
    "But in New Zealand (and Australia), for tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of Māori, they don't....  

    "Increasingly [however], through media and public services, through health, justice and education, the Māori culture is being prioritised. To the point of being romanticised and lionised. Long-standing rules about the state being secular are broken to accommodate Māori spiritualism. Te reo - or knowledge of te ao - is de facto compulsory inasmuch as, if you don't have it there are now careers that are barred to you. The Māori 'team' propelling this are on a roll... Prior to this compulsory cultural renaissance, people managed their own conflicts. Where they had a foot in both camps -- the tribe and the alternative -- they made their own decisions. ... What kind of society wants to remove that freedom? One in which the collective trumps the individual.... 

    "If we are going to be forced to take a side, and mounting evidence points to this eventuality, no matter your ethnicity, think of the conflict in these terms: Do you want to own your own life?"

~ Lindsay Mitchell, from her post 'Stoush between collectivist and individualist Māori'

The Government's He Puapua Report "often reads like a wish-list of outcomes that one might see emerging from a university Maori Studies Department"

James Allan was until recently a professor of law at Otago University, and is now at the University of Queensland. In other words, he is a knowledgable fellow who, being now outside the boundaries of academic backlash here, is able to speak freely about where he sees this place going.

He was commissioned by Lee Short's Democracy Action group to undertake a formal analysis of the Labour Government's 'He Puapua' Report, its programme for racial inequality that has all but become its Party Manifesto. He concludes:

[The He Puapua] Report often reads like a wish-list of outcomes that one might see emerging from a university Maori Studies Department.  

Brand new written constitution? Tick.
Based on an equal partnership between Maori and non-Maori (or the Crown or the government)? Tick.
To the extent that many or most New Zealanders will not be overly sympathetic to these sweeping proposals do we need to ‘educate the public’? Tick.
And do so at the taxpayers’ expense? Tick.
Give international law an implicit but clear pre-eminence or pride of place in terms of its importance as a valid and legitimate source of law? Tick.
Focus on groups not individuals? Tick.
Make a bland sort of socialistic equality of outcome the core concern rather than a far more liberal equality of opportunity? Tick.
Demand yet more money (better described as ‘resources’) from taxpayers for all of this? Tick.   

That and more of the same gives the flavour of this Report.

There is also more than a little hint of condescension scattered throughout the Report. For instance, ‘[w]e consider Aotearoa has reached a maturity where it is ready to undertake the transformation necessary to restructure governance to realise rangatiratanga Maori’ (p. iii, with a very similar sentiment expressed very similarly on p.4). Likewise, but less overtly, a similar tone is struck with the various mentions of the need for ‘a strong education campaign.’

Meanwhile difficult issues are glossed over, issues such as

• who will count as a Maori  

• the exiguous democratic credentials of international law itself, 

• whether New Zealanders would be given a binding referendum vote on any package of reforms that emerged from these two-party insider negotiations, 

• whether intra-Maori decision-making procedures would have to pass some sort of democratic hurdle, and so on.

Yet another difficulty, perhaps an inevitable one, is that those who lack Maori language skills will find the Report is sometimes wilfully obscure. Are we talking about sovereignty or self-determination and which variant of which? What, precisely, is ‘kawanatanga karauna’ or ‘nga taonga’? Readers not fluent in Te Reo, even those who are, will now and again feel they are wandering around a Report filled with the smoke of obfuscation.

Of course, in some ways the Report’s goals are perfectly sensible and would be shared by the vast preponderance of New Zealanders. Maori social welfare statistics are far below the median level and across all sorts of areas. Lifting these is a worthy goal and one that needs doing. However, whether that requires the sweeping constitutional and legal change mooted by the Report is quite another matter. Indeed, whether that mooted constitutional and legal change would in fact bring about those desired social welfare improvements is another matter. And it is one that can be doubted by reasonable people.

The main goal of this Report is to advocate for a good deal more power-sharing by the Crown with Maori, or at least with Maori tribal groups, than exists at present and to do so by relying heavily on the [1835] Declaration [of Independence].

The exact level of that desired power-sharing is kept unclear, but hints that the goal is a 50-50 split are scattered throughout. Still, the government of the day appears to have asked for precisely the sort of document that the authors of this Report delivered. Hence, it is no criticism of the authors of the Report that that is what they delivered....

This is a radical Report. Its recommendations are radical. Were those recommendations to be fulfilled to any considerable degree they would undercut majoritarian democracy; they would impinge upon elements of the Rule of Law; and they would exchange newer, worse, more aristocratic constitutional arrangements for older, better, more democratic ones.

At times the Report deals in condescension, verbiage and arguably deliberate linguistic obfuscation. There are repeated calls for more and more and more taxpayers’ monies. To attempt to legitimate the Report’s recommendations, international law is made to do a great deal of work, too much work. Putting international law on the same plane as (or possibly even on a higher plane than) the domestic law of one of the world’s oldest and most successful democracies is a tough sell, to put the point as kindly and as generously as possible.

None of those points in the preceding paragraph runs contrary to the possibility that the authors of the Report have delivered just what the government that commissioned the Report wanted. Indeed, the fact that that commissioning government has already taken steps in the areas of water and health to fulfil the spirit and general exhortations of the Report certainly suggests this is a plausible possibility.

The purpose of this first Analysis has been to examine in some detail the underpinnings of the Report, to lay out its conceits and first principles, and to show that these are unlikely to be widely shared or desired by the preponderance of New Zealanders. Whether an opposition political party will want to make use of this Analysis to fight back against its worldview and its suggested changes is something only time will tell.

Download his full Analysis here. Speech here:

If you go down to the woods today, you might hear a bit of te reo #PopUpGlobe

Pic by Stuff

In Shakespeare's outrageous comedy A Midsummer Night's Dream batshit crazy things happen to serious young things who have escaped the city's strictures for the unfamiliar and faintly dangerous delights of the forest, wherein they are made sport of by those who have born and grew up there: by a race of fairies invisible to the erstwhile city-dwellers whose puckish ways, however, are not.

They, and every receptive audience for the Dream (if the director is doing it right), are always in for a big surprise.

So too, it has been reported, were many of the audience for the Auckland Pop-Up Globe's production over the weekend -- surprised to discover that the fairies, the original inhabitants of the play's strange lands, were represented in this production by two Maori warriors and a wahine speaking in te reo. According to the Herald, who have clearly been simply trawling Facebook to muster controversy where there is none:

Online reviews left about the Pop-up Globe performance said the move was 'disrespectful' and 'bastardising' Shakespeare and confusing for audiences. Other theatre goers have made their equally damning views direct to the venue's management...
One person wrote on social media the use of Te Reo in A Midsummer Night's Dream "spoilt what otherwise was a thoroughly entertaining and professional production." In a Facebook review, another disgruntled theatre goer said the decision to have the fairies speak in Maori meant only two people at his count could understand what was being said.

The reporter does not say how many in total were included in that count, but she is at pains to link "the debate about the use of Te Reo Maori" in the production at the Globe with "the debate about the use of Te Reo Maori" elsewhere which, she says, "has flared several times in recent months ... [including] former National Party leader Don Brash clashing with RNZ's Kim Hill on her Saturday morning show over the public broadcaster's use of Maori greetings on air."

Linking the two "debates" seems to be both unhelpful and disingenuous. Because as every theatre-goer knows, it is possible to destroy a play with errant direction even if you support the director's intentions.

But as everyone leaving the play on Saturday night in tears of laughter could attest, this is not a play that has been destroyed. Far from it. In this setting, and with this directorial choice, the play comes alive.

As it happens, I too was at the show on Saturday night, and I was one of those wiping my eyes of tears when I left (and my Saturday-night-best of blood, but that, dear readers, is another story). And far from being surprised by the speaking of a strange tongue for 20% of the time, I was fully prepared for it -- indeed, I was coming back for a second time having enjoyed the first performance so much. And I will be back again for more before this season ends.

Because, what the reporter fails to point out is one very salient fact: this is a damned fine show! It is truly world class. The performances are stellar, the setting is superb, and the choice to use tangata whenua to represent the forest's native fairy folk is as thematically sound as it is dramatically stunning. Who better to represent the original forest folk than our original forest folk? And that choice being made, why wouldn't you ask them to speak in that original language? If it adds an air of unreality, then that is precisely what the Dream should do!

But there is much of it we can't understand? And so what -- there is much in Shakespeare's own English that is difficult for many to parse, and we don't usually play the Bard with subtitles. And there is much more of Shakespeare's original text that is cut in every production in order to reduce the show time -- a chainsaw being taken to the text that in some cases will see it reduced by as much as half!

But, comes the response, courtesy of the Herald's Facebook trawl, "This [is] silly because the fairies revealed key plot points." And indeed they do -- and apparently the Herald's erstwhile online reviewer is unfamiliar with the art of mime, which these actors speaking te reo use superbly to tell the story. The spells they cast over the various players could not be more clear if they were telegraphed; and if the reasons for their playfulness are not always clear, let me assure you that they are far more so than in many an opera sung in an unfamiliar European tongue. There are enough signposts in this Dream to understand where we are being led, both by mime and by the familiar-enough words of te reo each of us do know that pepper the text.

And as the play's director and Pop-Up Globe founder Miles Gregory explains (the man without whom, it should be remembered, this exciting theatre concept would not even exist),

 having the fairies speak Te Reo was a long-held dream because in Shakespeare's original work the fairies were written as communicating in a language unfamiliar to the other characters. "So to me, having the fairies speak another language enhances the storytelling and provides a fresh and exciting take on a play that is extremely well known."

And so it is, and so it does. That the storytelling is done in such a setting by such consummate performers only adds to the excitement.

Reuben Butler's Puck (played as a Maori warrior you truly believe could girdle the globe) is outstanding, he steals the show (as every good Puck should); Jason Te Kare's Oberon provides deft support; and if Edward Peni's Titania is more statuesque than seductive, then (s)he comes into her own when seduced herself by Nick Bottom's ass. (If you don't know, then you really must come along and find out!)

For me, the bitching, and the reportage about it, are just so much colourless carping. As an amused Puck says after watching the hilarious knock-down drag-out fight that climaxes Act III,

"Pakeha!" 

On Saturday night, that one beautifully-timed word brought the house down.
.

Hard Labour is coming for you

Want to know what dangerous fantasies inhabit Labour activists’ minds? Wonder no longer, as all the dopy policy remits activists have dreamed up for consideration at this weekend’s Hard Labour conference have now been published online. Fortunately, DPF has done the hard work of extracting the remits from the 25-page conference document. As he says, “Do not read these if you are of a nervous disposition”:

• Nationalisation of partially-sold assets
• A state owned insurance company
• State-owned and managed retirement homes
• Every NGO receiving even minimal government funding be required to have a 50% gender quota on its governing board! 
• Require all private boards to comply with a 50% gender quota within five years
• A gender quota for the House of Representatives (why not a race and sexual orientation quota also!)
• Compulsory Te Reo Maori until age 15
• Compulsory worker representation on large company boards
• Bring back compulsory membership of student associations
• De-facto compulsory unionism by forcing all employees to “contribute to the benefits of enterprise and multi-enterprise bargaining”
• Turn contractors into employees
• Reverse employment law changes and destroy NZ as a location for international film making
• Lower the voting age to 16
• End all funding of private schools (which ironically will force them all to be integrated and go from 25% funding to 100%)
• Bring back the food police to school tuckshops
• Ban seabed mining for minerals oil and gas
• Ban fracking
• Ban coal mining
• Ban plastic bags 
• Ban companies that do not pay a “living wage” (which is much higher than the minimum wage) from winning government contracts
• A tax on all aquaculture
• A tax on all mineral exports
• A tax on all financial transactions
• More taxes on petrol to fund rail
• Fund a brand new commercial-free TV broadcaster
• Fund a Pacific TV broadcaster
• A Super Gold card for transport for under 21s
• A rail link to the airport for Auckland (think how much taxes will be going up to pay for all of this) 
• Direct Kiwirail as to who must win their tenders
• Restore the “social obligation” to the SOE Act (despite the fact they were never repealed!)
• Insert the Treaty of Waitangi into the Constitution Act
• Raise the age of Super to 67 to pay for other welfare – except for Maori!
• A universal child benefit so millionaires get paid money for having kids
• 52 weeks paid parental leave (why stop there – go for 18 years I say!)
• All single benefits to be increased by $50 a week!!!
• And everyone gets a pony

Shorter summary: Gender, gender, gender; nationalisation, nationalisation, nationalisation; ; compulsion, compulsion, compulsion; ban, ban, ban (they’ve been listening to the Greens again, haven’t they); welfare, welfare, welfare.

Beer O'Clock: Beer Bits

Here's a few beer stories from around the traps.

• Convenience stores and supermarkets in the land of the free won't be allowed to sell full-strength beer.  Story here.
• A man in Florida killed his girlfriend in an argument about beer.  At least it was about something important.
• Russia's second largest brewery opens a new plant in Siberia.  Gives new meaning to the phrase "crack open a cold one."
• A visitor to London writes about "my teetotal hell in a city that likes to drink."  Fortunately, he saw the light.
• Here's the latest in nanny's politically correct edu-indoctrination:  young eskimo children learning how to use condoms with beer googles on.  True story.  Can't wait for the programme to start here.
• Just in time for Paddy's Day, here's everything you need to know to make Green Beer -- though why you'd want to do that to a glass of liquid gold, St Gob only knows.
• And finally, Dianne Bardsley from the New Zealand Dictionary Centre (yes Victoria, there really is such a place) knows all about the local language of alcohol, as she demonstrates in Pig's Eear at Beer O'Clock Anyone?:

    At the Dictionary Centre we are interested in the historical aspect of New Zealand words and usages in every domain, and alcohol is no exception . . .
    Shepherds, station hands and shearers would rush to town to "lamb down" their pay cheques, ie spend them at the nearest public house. As prohibition took hold, a unique use of the term "dry area" developed in New Zealand English. Soon words were generated for the products of illicit stilling and brewing, ranging from "bush beer", "bush whisky", "cabbage tree rum", "chain lightning", "colonial brew", "hokonui", "matai beer", "paikaka" ("it had a kick like a mule") and "tutu beer", to "sheep wash" and "Waitohi dew". Sly groggers were known in New Zealand by a variety of names, including "dropper" and "blind tiger."    Waipiro (rotten water) was an early name borrowed from te reo as a general term for alcohol, while titoki was a common borrowing for beer or shandy. Even dogs contributed to the lexis of alcohol. A "dog collar" is froth on beer, while to have "a dog tied up" was to owe money for drink. The word fence was compounded with others when alcohol was mixed with ginger beer, hence rum fence, sherry fence and "stone fence" (brandy and ginger beer).

    Beer brewing and drinking has its own vocabulary. To "chew hops" was to drink beer, or in other words, to have a "brown bomber." Too much of a good thing could produce a "beer goitre" or pot belly. Among the shearing fraternity and sorority, "beer o'clock" was the time to "knock off" work for the day. In fact, beer was often known as "shearers' joy" or "Tommy Dodd."
    Cockney rhyming slang was adopted to codify beer as "pig's ear", while too much gave one the "Joe Blakes" (the shakes). One then recovered with a "nurse" (an alcoholic pick-up drink) and the empties, or "dead marines", were collected in "bottle drives."
    Alcohol produced by amateurs usually resulted in unpalatable or potent drinks known as "green liquor", "purple death" (cheap red wine), "purge" or "panther purge." No doubt even more unpalatable was methylated spirits, known as "steam" by those in the know. Steam drinkers were likely to be "Jimmy Woodsers", to drink Jimmy Woodsers, or to "drink with the flies", all the equivalent of drinking alone.  
    An "Anzac Day dinner" was the term for a liquid lunch, perhaps with "Anzac shandy", a beer and champagne mix.
    The more New Zealanders drank, the more "mullocked", "munted", "shickered", "wasted" or "steamed" they would become.
    We left the "six o'clock swill" in the 1960s, in the attempt to make our drinking culture more "civilised". Perhaps you can sense the "Tui moments", hear the apposite response, and visualise the headshakes.|    Nevertheless, we cannot claim that alcohol has been a dry area in terms of word generation in New Zealand English.

Delightfully described, Ms Bardsley.  And now I'm off to chew some hops myself -- and in honour of Neil Miller's  Porter Story at his other blog, I'll do it with a Grafton Porter from Galbraith's, as I have so often before.

Cheers,

PC

Heads up this afternoon

Lindsay Perigo's appearance on Eye to Eye yesterday to discuss 'Mordi Language Week' can now be seen online at 'Gogglebox.'  Keep an eye out for former Head of the Māori Language Commission Haami Piripi to say the only way the Commission would "target" Perigo is "with a gun in the back," and Rotorua City Councillor Hawea Vercoe to display all the powers of reason of the vicious neanderthal he so strongly resembles.

Recipe for indoctrination

The new one-size-fits-all education curriculum to be enforced on New Zealand children has been released. It's a dog. Literacy, numeracy and the inculcation of knowledge are given low priority. Socialisation and "biculturalism" are given higher priority. Kerry Williamson at The Dom summarises:

The Treaty of Waitangi - dumped from a draft curriculum just months ago then reinstated after protest - is to become a guiding principle in the way New Zealand children are taught. It will join reading and writing as core subjects, along with issues such as ecological sustainability and climate change... "This curriculum represents a shift away from focusing on knowing facts and figures to knowing also how to use knowledge effectively and apply it outside the classroom," said Prime Minister Helen Clark...

This is not a curriculum for education, it's a prescription for indoctrination -- the teaching of "issues" before students are even aware of the facts which underpin them (if they're ever allowed to become aware of them) -- with the full power of the state put at the service of its enforcement in all schools across the country either private or public. A teacher friend of mine (whom I'm sure won't mind me posting this) provided his own summary, which I've edited only slightly:

The new school curriculum that arrived on my desk today, The idea that the Treaty of Waitangi is this country's founding document is now official [and wrong].

The treaty did not feature heavily in the original draft of the curriculum -- under pressure from the Maori Party and the Greens however, it is now full of it.

In particular the "vision" for young people includes:

Our vision is for young people who will work to create an Aotearoa New Zealand in which Maori and Pakeha recognise each other as full treaty partners, and in which all cultures are valued for the contributions they bring.

Under "Principles" there is this:

Treaty of Waitangi. The curriculum acknowledges the Principles of the Treaty of
Waitangi [sic] and the bicultural foundations of Aotearoa New Zealand. All students have the opportunity to acquire knowledge of te reo maori me ona tikanga.

Under the old curriculum, I taught about the Treaty of Waitangi as a historical event and encouraged debate on the relevance of the treaty and its aftermath today. This curriculum however enforces a set vision that must be taught to students in which treaty partnership is the ideal for today. What is simply an opinion is instead to be taught as fact...

Overall - and this is the worst part -- there is a distinct lack of emphasis on reading, writing and numeracy in the new curriculum and far too much emphasis on expressing opinions before
you have developed them.

Fun times ahead. [Emphasis mine.]

Literacy and numeracy rates are already at an all time low. Any honest educator would be horrified at at that, and scrambling to reverse the situation. Instead, the government's ministry of educators instead intend to continue the process that delivered that across the board failure.

If you were ever unsure about the motivations of the government's 'educators,'
that tells you almost all you need to know.

UPDATE 1: It's argued that the object of this curriculum "is to pull back on the spoon feeding of information and focus more on creating students who can think for themselves." A laudable aim, if true, but I think there's a misunderstanding here: in order to think for oneself, you must have the tools to think with -- the facts and knowledge necessary to think about.

George Reisman points out in 'A Root Cause of the Failure of Contemporary Education' that a moderately educated student should emerge from their schooling with working knowledge of up to a hundred or so books, "and do so in a form that is well organized and integrated, so that he can apply this internalized body of knowledge to his perception of everything in the world around him. He should be in a position to enlarge his knowledge of any subject and to express his thoughts on any subject clearly and logically, both verbally and in writing." Modern educators however spurn that notion as "spoon feeding." They want students to be creative without content, producing simple, uneducated and (above all) compliant men and women, who emerge with very little ability to understand the world in which they live, and easy fodder for whichever authority figure is able to push their Pavlovian buttons.

The revolt against knowledge is worldwide. University of Kent sociology professor Frank Furedi writes about its capture of Britain and America in his book, Where Have all the Intellectuals Gone? Confronting 21st Century Philistinism. He recalls the reaction of a colleague to an article in which Furedi had bemoaned the fact that students didn’t (and couldn’t) read whole books any more:

He had no problem with the estrangement of undergraduates from the world of books; rather, he was angry about my arrogant assumption that books should have a privileged status in higher education. The tone of the article was to suggest you can dismiss as undemanding any programme in which students do not read whole books, he complained. As far as he was concerned, the book has become an optional extra resource for the present-day undergraduate.

A public which is continuously spoon-fed platitudes and soundbites is likely to become estranged from the world of political debate. This development is particularly striking on university campuses, where students continually insist that ‘politics is boring.’ The language used on campuses reflects an intense sense of cynicism towards causes and ideas, and a distinct lack of interest in holding strong views of any sort. New York Times journalist Michiko Kakutani’s reflection on the language used by American college students captures this mood of disengagement. That familiar interjection ‘whatever’ says a lot about the state of mind of college students today, notes Kakutani. … With such little importance attached to ideas, intellectual argument has acquired negative connotations. [Emphasis mine.]

American educator Lisa van Damme continues the point in her article 'The False Promise of Classical Education':

In Dumbing Down Our Kids, Charles Sykes tells a chilling story about a straight-A student in the eighth grade named Andrea, who was very eager to learn science. Unfortunately for Andrea, her school, like most today, stressed the importance of “creativity” over “dreary” facts, and of “hands-on,” “active” learning over “dull,” didactic instruction. This bright young girl with a thirst for scientific knowledge spent her time in science class picking up cereal with a tongue depressor (to simulate the way birds feed), hunting for paper moths on a wall, and drawing pictures of scientists. When Andrea wrote a letter complaining that she had gotten nothing out of the class, she was expelled for being rude and disrespectful.

You have probably read stories like these and been horrified both by how shamefully ignorant, inarticulate, and illiterate many ... students are, and, even worse, by what schools do to students like Andrea. I wish I could dismiss such stories as rare incidents circulated among cynical critics of [modern] schools to give poignancy to their arguments. Unfortunately, my experience interviewing and teaching students at my school has shown me otherwise.

Neither empty heads nor heads full of empty facts should be the aim of education: what's needed she argues is "reform more radical than harking back to a more traditional approach that mouths respect for facts, logic, and abstract thought," and too reform more radical than simply calling for more creativity, or a return to "classical education."

The proper goal of education [she argues] is to foster the conceptual development of the child—to instill in him the knowledge and cognitive powers needed for mature life. It involves taking the whole of human knowledge, selecting that which is essential to the child’s conceptual development, presenting it in a way that allows the student to clearly grasp both the material itself and its value to his life, and thereby supplying him with both crucial knowledge and the rational thinking skills that will enable him to acquire real knowledge ever after. This is a truly progressive education—and parents and students should settle for nothing less.

Just to summarise then, children have an enormous capacity to learn, but most modern educationalists steadfastly refuse to use that capacity; they fail to fill that enormous capacity for knowledge and and for learning, leaving these young students (even as they reach adulthood) adrift in a world they can barely understand and with brains that have never automatised the skill of actually thinking, but are masters at regurgitating what they think authority figures wish to hear.

UPDATE 2: Trevor Loudon posts "an excellent article by Australian Mark Lopez. It is," says Trevor, "very timely considering the extreme left bias of New Zealand's newly announced school curriculum." See 'How The Left Changes Society Through Education.'

From The Australian 30.10.07
PC Warriors Serve up a Slanted Education
In her address to her union's conference in 2005 the Australian Education Union president Pat Byrne openly acknowledged the ideological bias that dominates the school system. As she put it: "We have succeeded in influencing curriculum development in schools, education departments and universities. The conservatives have a lot of work to do to undo the progressive curriculum."

Apart from seriously disagreeing that "conservative" or classical education is the answer to the progressive mid-grab (on that particular false dichotomy Lisa van Damme's article 'The False Promise of Classical Education' says it best) it's worth reminding yourself again that for the progressive the primary purpose of the state education system is not education, it is the inculcation of the state's chosen values. Always has been.

Special treatment

Are we all special? I ask because John Boy Key was saying yesterday at Ratana marae both that Maori are "special," and at the same time that Don Brash's "message" that everyone should be equal before the law "won't be changing," so either we're all special, or else he's just talking nonsense.

In a relaxed speech that began with a short introduction in te reo, Mr Key reiterated his view that the National Party believes Maori have a special place as the Tangata Whenua.

He says the National Party wants to engage in dialog with Maori and develop a relationship that will stand the test of time...

A speech by National's previous leader, Don Brash, on race relations led to some strain between National and Maori, and Mr Key concedes there may be bridges to mend. But he says fundamentally his message won't be changing from Dr Brash's - but the tone may be different.

Those two statements -- one that Maori should be regarded as "special," and the other that everyone should be equal before the law regardless of colour -- are so different that either he thinks we're all stupid, or else he thinks the meaning of words is less important than the "tone" in which those words are said, the 'emotional vibrations' put out with the words.

Either way, he's disgusting.

The most sensible thing said yesterday at Ratana seems to have been said by Tariana Turia. "Maori don't need patronising politicians," Turia is reported to have said. Maori aren't the only ones.

UPDATE: Lindsay Mitchell puts it bluntly: "When government accords one group special status they are by necessity taking from another. There can be no privilege without some corresponding disadvantage. If one individual or group is "special" then others are not." Couldn't say it better myself.

LINK: Political leaders trek to Ratana Church for yearly visit - Radio New Zealand
Key tells Maori they have "special status" - Lindsay Mitchell

RELATED: Politics-NZ, Politics-National, Hollow Men, Racism, Maoritanga