New World Atonement: Colonization in New Zealand
New World Atonement
Colonization in New Zealand
By Anika Bajpai
Since the Age of Exploration, encounters with foreign intruders have left countless indigenous groups ravaged by diseases, driven from their lands, and at times enslaved. Although the prevalence of laws and attitudes that enabled much of this treatment has declined, the scars of colonization are still present and, without comprehensive corrective action, will persist. The establishment of Western colonial states upended traditional physical borders and created a legacy of socioeconomic and cultural divisions between new settlers and indigenous peoples. However, several countries, including New Zealand, are trying to break this cycle of native generational disenfranchisement with policies that aim not only to atone but to empower their indigenous communities.
The Broken Treaty
New Zealand’s story is similar to that of other New World countries: “discovery,” trade, treaties, and deceit, all ultimately giving way to the dispossession of its original inhabitants. At the end of the 18th century, the islands saw an increasingly active European and American commercial presence.[i] In the 1830s, the British Crown took steps to regulate the islands by meeting with Maori chiefs to sign a Declaration of Independence, soon followed by a treaty establishing New Zealand as a British colony.[ii]
The Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840. Differences between its English and Maori versions have spurred arguments over reparations in New Zealand.[iii] The English version of the treaty established British control over Maori sovereignty, but allowed the Maori to maintain ownership of their lands, which they could only sell to the Crown.[iv] Due to translational errors, however, the Maori chiefs who ratified the treaty were unaware that they had signed away these rights. The Maori believed that tribes would be able to keep rangatiratanga, or sovereignty, while the British would only receive kawanatanga, or the right to make laws.[v] This discrepancy would cement the British foothold in the islands, allowing British influence to expand in the coming years.
Over the next few decades, the British—now empowered by the Treaty of Waitangi—chipped away at the cultural and physical border with the Maori people. By 1865, the British Crown had come to own more than 90 percent of the South Island’s landmass and was able to use its ownership to resell the land to new settlers at a profit.[vi] Consequently, whole tribes were expelled from their lands without proper compensation and replaced with new populations. Moreover, many Maori communities were legally pushed off their land because of the introduction of British law in New Zealand, which abolished communal land tenure in favor of individual ownership.[vii]
This process of dispossession was exacerbated by a series of conflicts in the 1860s between the Maori and the British. The New Zealand Parliament passed the Suppression of Rebellion Act 1863, allowing the government to confiscate the land of any dissenter. With this legislation, the British seized millions of acres of land from the Maori, regardless of whether they had rebelled against the British.[viii] Later laws and court rulings further chipped away at Maori land rights, and by the turn of the 20th century, with a steady stream of foreign settlers flowing into New Zealand, the Maori became a minority within the borders they once controlled.[ix]
A Changing Equilibrium
The Maoris’ new peripheral status was soon reflected in their day-to-day lives. By the 20th century, the Maori experienced poorer health, greater unemployment, substandard housing, and lower educational attainment compared to their white counterparts.[x] Forced to participate in a society controlled by Western colonists, a clear socioeconomic divide emerged between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples, highlighted by the fact that the Maori owned only a mere five percent of New Zealand’s land by 1975.[xi]
Furthermore, political institutions threatened Maori culture, a phenomenon exemplified by the government banning the Maori language in schools and other public administrations, all hastening the language towards extinction.[xii] While the Maori had seats reserved in the New Zealand Parliament, they could do little to slow these changes.[xiii] To many Maori, it was clear from the moment the Treaty of Waitangi was signed that they had been cheated and that a conscious effort would be needed to preserve their culture.
In the 1970s, a new generation of Maori and their allies began pushing for a national conversation centered around their historical treatment. For weeks, thousands marched under the slogan: “Not One Acre More of Maori Land.”[xiv] As a response, in 1975, the New Zealand government created the Waitangi Tribunal to investigate and redress historical violations of the namesake Treaty.[xv] This Tribunal allowed for tribes to negotiate with the Crown for a formal apology, monetary compensation, and land restitution.[xvi] These settlements, however, do not aim for complete compensation for a history of disenfranchisement and trauma. Rather, they offer an official acknowledgement of the mistreatment of the Maori tribes, alongside the needed resources to rebuild.[xvii]
The Melting Pot of New Zealand?
The Waitangi Tribunal represents just one way in which New Zealand has tried to reconcile with its colonial past. A much subtler yet larger shift has taken place in the country in the past few decades. By embracing Maori culture, New Zealanders have gradually blurred the cultural barrier standing between European descendants and the Maori. From performing the Haka, a Maori ceremonial dance, before international sporting events to the Prime Minister beginning a speech to the United Nations in the Maori language, many indigenous symbols have been embraced as national symbols. Over time, New Zealand has integrated components of Maori culture into its national identity—a stark contrast to the decades spent repressing these very same cultural elements. Even the Maori language is now taught at school and spoken in the national parliament. Through governmental and public actions, New Zealand has been able to better remedy its colonial past, ultimately softening cultural boundaries to move a step closer towards a more united future.
Nevertheless, New Zealand’s approach is far from perfect. Many Maori feel that the Tribunal does not go far enough, as both the land and monetary aspects of the Tribunal are restricted. The only lands eligible for negotiation remain the ones in the possession of the government , thus excluding all privately owned properties. In addition, there is a fixed pot of one billion dollars for monetary settlements for all tribes, which limits the compensation Maori can receive for generations of mistreatment. It is unclear how much these actions have helped level the playing field for the Maori: while their average level of educational attainment, life expectancy, and income level have increased over the past few decades, a noticeable socioeconomic gap between them and their white peers persists.[xviii] For instance, despite constituting just over fifteen percent of the total population, Maori make up more than half of all prisoners in the country.[xix] Although Maori and the descendants of immigrants live together under the borders of one country, much still divides the two.
Though far from complete, the progress that New Zealand has made is still meaningful. Compared to the treatment of Maoris half a century ago, there has been a seismic shift towards acceptance. While New Zealand has by no means leveled the playing field between the Maori people and European descendants, the government has nonetheless made large strides towards achieving that goal. By establishing the Waitangi Tribunal and embracing Maori culture, among other changes, New Zealand is paving the way for a more just future.
A New Path Forward
The beginning of the Maori’s story in New Zealand resonates with the founding of many New World countries: systematic displacement and disenfranchisement over generations. However, unlike New Zealand, many of these countries have not taken extensive steps to address such historical injustices. The Maori’s status within New Zealand—furthered by guaranteed representation in parliament, recognition of and compensation for historical wrongs, and a trend of cultural integration—could provide a path forward to these countries.
Across the Pacific Ocean, the United States government has allocated billions of dollars for programs that aim to close the socioeconomic gap between Native Americans and the rest of the population and has even settled on an–admittedly small–financial compensation package to offer to tribes with historical grievances.[xx] However, the results are questionable—Native Americans are still twice as likely to be below the poverty line, while also having a suicide rate 1.5 times above the national average. [xxi] There exists a clear cultural and economic border between indigenous and non-indigenous Americans. Large proportions of non-indigenous Americans remain unaware of the history of Native Americans and the problems facing their communities, with school curriculums continuing to place their focus elsewhere. In fact, a 2015 study found that nearly 90 percent of Native American history curriculums only address pre-20th century events, to say nothing of the fact that 27 states do not name individual Native American historical figures in their curriculum standards.[xxii] All in all, it seems likely the socioeconomic divide between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples will persist in the United States until the country addresses the cultural border and its many economic implications.
Instead of following in the footsteps of New Zealand, countries such as Australia and Canada seem to be going down a similar path to that of the United States’: addressing socioeconomic divides through monetary compensations and programs, with limited effort to address cultural divides. The Australian Federal Government, despite allocating 0.3 percent of Australia’s GDP to programs for aboriginals, has not made an official apology for its past treatment of its native peoples.[xxiii] Further, both Australia and Canada still do not guarantee indigenous representation in their respective parliaments.[xxiv] That said, there are signs of progress in both countries. In 2019, the Australian High Court gave aboriginals the right to sue over land losses incurred during colonial times. Meanwhile, Canada is in the process of settling with native families whose children were forcibly taken by government authorities.[xxv] But, unless paired with cultural recognition and consciousness, New World countries will likely have limited success in moving forward from their colonial pasts. New Zealand’s model, while not perfect, represents a sincere effort to repair the boundaries both broken and built up in the past, one for its friends to learn from.
Illustration by Mena Attia.
[i] Bourassa and Strong, “Restitution of Land to New Zealand Maori,” 230.
[ii] Bourassa and Strong, 231.
[iii] Hayward, “Treaty of Waitangi Settlements,” 401–2.
[iv] Bourassa and Strong, “Restitution of Land to New Zealand Maori,” 231–32.
[v] Bourassa and Strong, 232.
[vi] Bourassa and Strong, 234.
[vii] Taonga, “Land Ownership and Māori Agriculture.”
[viii] Bourassa and Strong, 234.
[ix] Bourassa and Strong, 235.
[x] Hayward, “Treaty of Waitangi Settlements,” 400.
[xi] Bourassa and Strong, “Restitution of Land to New Zealand Maori,” 236.
[xii] Metge and Durie, Tuamaka, 16.
[xiii] Dow and Gardiner-Garden, “Indigenous Affairs in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, United States of America, Norway and Sweden.”
[xiv] Bourassa and Strong, “Restitution of Land to New Zealand Maori,” 237.
[xv] “Why New Zealand’s Maori Do Better than Australia’s Aboriginals.”
[xvi] “Reparations In New Zealand.”
[xvii] “Reparations In New Zealand.”
[xviii] Yeh et al., Wai 2575 Māori Health Trends Report .
[xix] Smale, “Why Are There so Many Maori in New Zealand’s Prisons?”
[xx] Hassan and Healy, “America Has Tried Reparations Before. Here Is How It Went. (Published 2019).”
[xxi] Riley, “Here’s One Way to Help Native Americans.”
[xxii] Shear et al., “Manifesting Destiny.”
[xxiii] Dow and Gardiner-Garden, “Indigenous Affairs in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, United States of America, Norway and Sweden.”
[xxiv] Dow and Gardiner-Garden.
[xxv] Code, “Australia Aboriginals Win Right to Sue for Colonial Land Loss.” Reuters, “Canada Will Pay Compensation to Thousands of Indigenous ‘Stolen Children.’”
