The shabby conduct of political agitators Hobson’s Pledge this week reveals a deeper lie, writes Professor Richard Shaw.
Imagine waking up one morning and finding yourself on billboards across the nation promoting a political campaign that is the antithesis of everything you believe in.
Well done, then, to Hobson’s Pledge (HP), which put Rotorua kuia Ellen Tamati in exactly that position by using an image of her in its campaign against the retention of Māori wards and constituencies.
It’s a telling episode, and it reflects appallingly on the moral compass of those associated with HP.
Well, that told us a lot
HP cannot be ignorant of how challenging the forthcoming referendum on Māori wards and constituencies, which central government has forced on local communities, is for Māori.
Nonetheless, it was quite happy to use a “generic” image of a wahine Māori wearing tā moko kauae, and attribute a political position to her that is diametrically opposed to the one that she actually holds.
Quite happy to create and disseminate the impression, by using first-person statements as if they were her own words, that Mrs Tamati had chosen to participate in its campaign against Māori wards and constituencies.
The manipulation, lack of respect and carelessness are breathtaking.
Any organisation with even a modicum of integrity would have ensured that the person behind the image did, in fact, agree with the political statement being put into their mouth. Which surely shouldn’t have been all that hard to do, given HP spokesperson Don Brash’s insistence that there are Māori out there who are opposed to the retention of Māori wards and constituencies.
So why not approach them to front HP’s campaign? If they actually exist, that should have been easy enough.
Epic fail
HP’s conduct is the sort of sloppy behaviour that we don’t accept from students at our wānanga, schools, universities and polytechs. Playing fast and loose with the truth. Misattributing words. Distorting or failing to check your sources. Making stuff up.
It’s not quite plagiarism, nor exactly cheating, but it’s shabby and unacceptable. Try this sort of thing where I work, and you’d be lucky to get away with a D grade.
Learn some history
Behind all of this sits a deeper issue, which concerns the veracity of the so-called pledge that HP clings to.
Ironically, the claim that Lieutenant Governor Hobson allegedly made following the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840 — “He iwi tahi tātou,” translated as “We are now one people” — is perhaps the only aspect of the debate around Te Tiriti that the sort of person attracted to HP is dead keen on. The rest of it, tino rangatiratanga, for instance, not so much.
Obviously, Hobson didn’t foresee all of the ways that Māori would subsequently be treated differently — the confiscation of land, removal of property rights, suppression of language (and voting rights), treatment as second-class citizens in their own land, and so on.
Moreover, the only verifiable evidence that Hobson ever uttered those words “He iwi tahi tatou” is from a book written by the mission printer William Colenso, The Authentic and Genuine History of the Signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. However, this account was published in 1890, fully half a century after the Treaty signing, and when Colenso himself was 80 years old.
No other surviving historical source corroborates Colenso’s claim, including the document compiled at the request of the New Zealand Parliament 25 years earlier, by William Baker, a translator for the Native Department.
Hobson might or might not have said what Colenso put into his mouth. We have only the recollections of one 80-year-old man, 50 years after the event, to rely on.
Professor Richard Shaw. (Photo supplied)
Curiously, neither Colenso nor anyone else seems to have had anything to say about what the other people in the room at the time, including the dozens of Māori rangatira, had to say about the matter. It is odd (and unscientific) that the views of just one of those assembled should be recorded for posterity, and strange that this person’s view on the matter has since been given such a clear run. It’s what you might call confirmation bias.
Which brings us all the way back to HP’s shabby conduct.
HP is terribly enthusiastic about treating all people equally, but not above weaponising ethnicity, which is what makes us distinctive, when it suits their misguided purposes.
I’m so looking forward to the use of some generic farmer’s image when, consistent with its support for the principle of all people being treated equally, HP releases its campaign against rural wards.
The lobby group’s misappropriation of a kuia’s photo clearly demonstrates that we are not one people at all. Some people have the resources to bankroll a campaign that is dishonest and lacks integrity, while others have to deal with the hurt such mendacity causes.
I doubt that this is what Hobson had in mind.
Professor Richard Shaw teaches politics in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa Massey University. He is a regular commentator on political issues and has published six books about New Zealand history and politics.
Thank you for reading E-Tangata. If you like our focus on Māori and Pasifika stories, interviews, and commentary, we need your help. Our content takes skill, long hours and hard work. But we're a small team and not-for-profit, so we need the support of our readers to keep going.
If you support our kaupapa and want to see us continue, please consider making a one-off donation or contributing $5 or $10 a month.
I understand that the phrase “he iwi tahi tatou” means “we are in agreement”. i.e that by signing the Treaty each of the signatories concurred with the Governor’s proposal.
That is not the same as saying “one people as a united singularity”- which would be “kotahi tatou”).
Hobson was no doubt prompted by Henry Willliams, who knew te reo from two decades as a missionary.
The H.P. doctrine, “moving forward as one” implies their commitment towards inter racial cohesion, unity and equality [ aka, kotahitanga] Curiously they overlook the mountain of statistical evidence showing that Maori are falling behind? HP disciples are either ignorant of societal disparities, or if they are aware, have little interest in alleviating these? They decry initiatives designed to improve negative statistics or support Maori political representation as ‘race based privilege’, ‘apartheid’ or ‘Iwi elitist’. Despite the veracity of te Tiriti pledges and as well intentioned as William Hobson might have been, a blind man can see, we are not one people. The H.P slogan might be more honestly expressed; ‘Moving forward as Pakeha, Maori need not Apply’.
The use of the photograph without specific consent is more than sloppy, it reeks of extreme arrogance. That they also had the nerve to use te reo Māori for their own ends, while working to deny its relevance in other spheres, highlights their breathtaking hypocrisy and sense of entitlement.
“He iwi tahi tātou,” is mis-translated as “We are now one people” because the “now” is absent from the Maori original which correctly translates as simply “We are one people”.
Let’s assume that Hobson actually said “He iwi tahi tātou” and let’s assume that his Maori audience concurred.
What would that tell us, particularly with respect to the Maori response?
They would have taken it as a simple statement of common humanity, and they would have related it to Karatia 3:28 “Kahore he Hurai, kahore he Kariki..”. They may have seen it as consistent with their own understanding of Te Tiriti, but pre-existent and not something arising out of or depending upon Te Tiriti.
By inserting the word “now” into their translation, the Hobson’s Pledge brigade seek to create a different understanding: that the Treaty itself created equality and unity between peoples and that equality and unity do not exist independently of the Treaty. They also seem to imply that a verbal comment made by the Queen’s representative subsequent to the signing of the Treaty can have equivalent standing to the Treaty itself. That is an expression of colonialist arrogance heaped on top of the duplicity of their false translation.
Another noteworthy point is that HP failed to double-check the licensing agreement of the stock image which is a huge failure on their part. Any graphic design or advertising business worth their salt would ensure that they have correctly followed copyright law and the image’s licence. This is a real amateur move and is further proof that HP is a ragtag group of flunkies and losers.
I agree with Prof Margaret Mutu that Hobson’s phrase means “We are peoples together” and signals Māori and the Crown are two sovereign entities. “He iwi tahi tātou”, not “He iwi kotahi mātou”. The pledge is a strong commitment to biculturalism.
To convey the idea of unity (literally “oneness”) we might use “kotahi” rather than “tahi” but perhaps “tahi” was consistent with the usage of the time. Clearly “tatou” signaled inclusiveness. I don’t know that Hobson had biculturalism in mind. He himself does not strike me as a particularly bicultural person. We can only go so far in trying to determine what Hobson might have said, what he might have meant, and what his listeners might have drawn from his words if they were indeed spoken as reported.
There is more scope for clarity in our way forward. Biculturalism or multiculturalism are not a viable foundation on which to build a nation. Neither is a divided sovereignty. In that sense the Hobson’s Pledge people are correct. Their mistake is to think that British sovereignty and colonialist culture will remain dominant into the indefinite future. That won’t happen. New Zealand colonialism is approaching an economic and political crisis. After 185 years colonialism has exhausted all its possibilities and with the exception of Hobson’s Pledge, the colonialists all know that in their bones. They are drifting helplessly without any sense of direction. In that context the spate of anti-Maori legislation being pushed by ACT and New Zealand First is just colonialism shouting into the wind. It changes nothing.
There will be no place for colonialism in the future of Aotearoa. Our task now is to build rangatiratanga independently of the colonialist state and to restore te Whakaminenga
“There will be no place for colonialism in the future of Aotearoa.”
well yep.
of course, three million white settlers personally and corporately embody colonialism and cannot do otherwise.