NEW ZEALANDERS once referred to Great Britain as the “Mother Country”. This was no mere declaration of kinship or affection, it was offered in recognition of Britain’s status as the entity responsible for giving birth to, nurturing, and protecting the young New Zealand state.
Until relatively recently, the notion that Māori might also have had a hand in the creation of New Zealand, or that the Treaty of Waitangi might be viewed as the nation’s birth certificate, would have been dismissed out-of-hand. Obviously, Māori had a past, but beyond the military and legal efforts required to silence those benighted natives demanding a future separate and distinct from that of the Pakeha, it could have no bearing on the colony’s development.
New Zealand was a child of the British Empire. Of that its settlers were as certain as they were proud. The fact that Queen Victoria, titular ruler of an empire greater than any the world had hitherto encountered, was a woman, only reinforced the motherly metaphor.
But if most agreed that Great Britain was the Motherland, did New Zealand’s settler society feel the same way about the nation it was building? If pressed to provide an answer, would the settlers have stuck with the matrilinear option, or would they have opted instead to dub the entity that was rapidly emerging from the overwhelmingly masculine milieu of early colonial New Zealand, the “Fatherland”?
If the statue erected by the people of the little North Otago town of Palmerston in 1903 is any guide, the answer must be an emphatic “No.” This marble personification of the nation, arm uplifted to greet the new twentieth century, was Zealandia – and she was all woman.
Auckland and Christchurch boasted their own versions of Zealandia, and she even makes an appearance in the publicity material produced for the centennial of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1940. (Which, given the fact that she’s a lightly-clothed Pakeha, is ever-so-slightly, um, racist, and sexist, at least by today’s standards!)
Zealandia 1940 |
Does that settle the matter? Have Pakeha New Zealanders, guided perhaps by Papatuanuku, the Māori earth mother, always looked upon the nation as female? Or were our colonial forefathers merely aping their European betters? Most obviously Britain’s Britannia, but also France’s Marianne, the USA’s Columbia, and Germany’s Germania: all of them loosely-clad, somewhat stern young women, spoiling for a fight.
Except Zealandia never really caught on, did she? If asked, most Kiwis would scratch their heads and shrug their shoulders. “Never heard of her, mate? Is she in a band?” Some might guess that she’s the Pakeha sheila carrying the flag, and facing the Māori warrior, on New Zealand’s coat-of-arms. But, for the most part, Zealandia, an unoriginal Edwardian attempt at fostering national identity, is long gone.
Which is not something one could say about the scores of soldiers keeping watch over the dead of this country’s foreign wars in small towns and large cities all across New Zealand. Statues they may be, some carved out of marble, some cast in bronze, but for the families and friends of the fallen, whose names are often carved on the sides of the monuments they stand atop, these sentinels have kept the collective memory of sacrifice and loss alive for more than a century.
Memorial to the fallen of the Boer War, Oamaru, North Otago. |
The first of these structures were raised in commemoration of the New Zealanders who fell “For the Empire” in the Boer War. Their statues strike heroic poses, as befitted their brutal imperial mission. Those of the Great War of 1914-18 embody less belligerent impulses. A soldier stands, rifle thrust forward, protecting his fallen comrade. As much a tribute to Anzac mateship, as martial valor.
New Zealand’s wartime Prime Minister Peter Fraser, believing the country had too many monoliths, to too many dead, opted instead to erect memorial halls to the fallen of World War II. Most still stand, places of community warmth and fellowship, rather than sad piles of cold marble and unflinching bronze.
No. New Zealanders will never refer to their nation as the Fatherland. The term sounds ridiculous – as inappropriate in 2025 as Mother Country. New Zealand is a nation built by daughters and sons. Like settler societies everywhere, it pushes the past behind it, and strides towards the future.
Māori, who have lived here longer, are waiting for us to turn around.
This essay was originally published in The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star on Friday, 25 April 2025.
7 comments:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/ldr/562297/please-walk-on-me-flag-artwork-sparks-outrage-again
This about a flag again. Helen Clark had a hissy fit about our flag too. It's a symbol, and non-violent to people protest FGS.
greywarbler
A national identity is I suspect forged over centuries. No disrespect to Maori - whose identity was perhaps more regional than national prior to the arrival of colonising Europeans – New Zealand –is on the short end of historical longevity. We simply cannot place ourselves amidst the Renaissance, the French Revolution, Oliver Cromwell's conquest of Ireland, indeed the milieu of socio-cultural events that occurred throughout history in Europe. And Europe is only one place to look; but important since it was the colonising Europeans – and successive waves of European settlers - who sought to create a distinct national identity in these distant south Pacific islands. Yet we are not an island to itself, as the saying goes; our identity was shaped by the events of history, the Industrial Revolution and the expansion of capitalism, colonialism, the scars of WW1 and WW2.
Where do Maori fit in? Are they indeed waiting for settler New Zealand to turn their gaze retrospectively, to acknowledge what some would argue to be a ‘people without history’? Yes, they have a distinct place in the national identity of New Zealand – as a now loosely unified people their myth, tikanga, art, te reo reflects the values, beliefs, and cultural norms that help forge a ‘national identity’. Yet distinct as it is, their identity is now intertwined with post-colonial New Zealand, for better or for worse. It is not separate paths we walk but parallel paths. Many would argue a shared path.
Like settler societies everywhere, it pushes the past behind it, and strides towards the future.
Māori, who have lived here longer, are waiting for us to turn around.
............
What makes you think Maori want to go back into the museum? Clearly Maori reject “New New Zealand and it’s “Great Replacement” idiotigy.
We know that because while EVERY PARTY IN PALIAMENT supports “Great Replacement” except NZF – although thief throws the dog a steak when he is in the house. Moari (on the other hand), are MOST opposed.
[“In Australia 8% says migrants don’t make good citizens; in NZ it is 49%..” Shamubeel Eaqub (Helen Clark Foundation). Humans have a coalitional instinct]
Did Maori not understand that while this was their country and that they were different in culture and lineage, this was a monumental era of discovery? The world had found them and they had found the world? Do humans not intuitively know that culture is out there in the public domain and you pick what you want and reject what you don’t want? Did they not see that the tribal communism would not work in an industrial farming economy?
[Ethnic groups are communities which believe themselves to be descended from common ancestors. Jews claim descent from the twelve tribes of Israel and Abraham. Turks trace their ancestry to the central Asian Turks, Hungarians to the Hungarian tribes of the central Asian steppes.
Many groups cherish a myth of fusion: the English are a blend of Anglo-Saxons (themselves a blend) and Celtic Britons, the French a mix of Gauls and Franks, the Scots a blend of Celtic Scotii settlers from Ireland and native Picts. It’s worth saying that many contributions are airbrushed out (Huguenots? Normans? Vikings?) because our affective attachments can only really zero in on a few key strands.
Gestalt psychology means we view a blend of parts as an undifferentiated whole, and that we screen out a lot of information to focus on a few lineages. One day, most of the multicultural diversity in western countries will be absorbed and forgotten. English is a gestalt.
https://erickaufmann.substack.com/p/is-rishi-sunak-english ]
Maori may be our most loyal New Zealanders with most to loose from “diversity dividend”?
Modernist theories of nation building assume that nations are social constructs, the result of media technology and elites.
Primoidialists point to our (assumed) Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness. Behaviours arose to bind large mobile groups who faced competition from other large mobile groups.
Ethnosymbolisim synthesises culturalists and primoidialists into one theory.
As Chris wrote about Jim Anderton and the Labour Party. They gutted working class representation. Without the shop floor and the community what is left? Instead we get “These are our most vulnerable” (or how did Jacinda get to sway around Harvard and Yale?)
[See: We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite
Musa al-Gharbi
https://pup-assets.imgix.net/onix/images/9780691232614/9780691232607.pdf ]
Could it be that, in “our globalised, borderless world” were we: “have more in common than we are different” [like wanting that lovely house v’s living in boxes], ethnicity is a key factor, necessary to combat the traitorous strategies of the John Keys of this world?
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/36725723_Liberal_Ethnicity_Beyond_Liberal_Nationalism_and_Minority_Rights ]
As a settler state, we are part of a diaspora. The story gets as far as Norm Kirks Waitangi Day speech and Michael King, before the vultures start to pick the nation apart.
During my lifetime I have often wondered why many Maori have not taken the opportunities offered to them. As I have grown, I now realise there is a certain resentment and resistance to the predominantly (until recently) white governments, offering services to Maori with one hand but discriminating against them with the other.
I’m sure all Maori of previous generations hoped to feel they were an equal part of the newly colonised NZ but that wasn’t to be. However the fresh young soldiers of the Maori battalion had no issue taking up arms to protect NZ and support the “Mother Land - Gt Britain.” Maybe they thought this action by them would ensure Maori generally would finally be accepted equally, but they were certainly prepared to fight and die for their colonial masters. Their actions make current claims that Maori never ceded sovereignty fake news imo. Only as time passed, and the lot of Maori had not improved, along with the thin recognition of the Maori Battalions contribution, did some of these older soldiers show resentment to their colonial masters.
This coalition is against the total Maorification of NZ but wants a balance that recognises both Maori and Pakeha contributions to the development of our country that all NZrs, can be a proud of.
There will always be those who would tear down what’s left of our colonial reminders, but there is plenty of room for both our colonial heritage along with our Maori heritage to be celebrated. Lets not lose any of our history. I think we -have- turned around Chris. Maori play a far bigger part in our countries affairs as compared to 1950's and sixties. For some change will never be quick enough.
I want to restate that:
Maori may be our most loyal citizens.
We know that because while EVERY PARTY IN PARLIAMENT supports “Great Replacement” except NZF, Maori , are MOST opposed.
This comes from AsiaNZ and the Helen Clark Foundation: “In Australia 8% says migrants don’t make good citizens; in NZ it is 49%..”
If you can’t beat ‘em join them seems like a rational strategy. Whatever the grievances are modern psychology (positive psychology) should make a good case for that.
In Tauiwi the editor states:
“….As a consequence, the debates over matters such as the future of te reo Maori, or the importance of the Treaty of Waitangi, are often ill-informed and there is a tendency to rely on comfortable myths that derive from New Zealand's colonial past. Pakehas have an obvious investment in reproducing these myths although there are members in other groups who share a similar commitment. Some Maoris and Pacific Islanders support the dominant group's mythologies much to the consternation of activists and to the delight of conservatives. The task of increasing the awareness of New Zealanders is obviously difficult given the cornmitment of particular groups to views which correspond to vested political and economic interests. Nevertheless, it is the aim to of this book to inform, to stimulate discussion and to try and dispel some of the myths surrounding race relations in New Zealand. “
Tauiwi: Racism and ethnicity in New Zealand Paperback – January 1, 1984
by P. Spoonley (Editor), C. MacPherson (Editor), D. Pearson (Editor), C. Sedgwick (Editor)
So the academics of the left want Maori to shake off the shackels and see how they have been fooled. But those same academics are the architiects of New New Zealand.
Eric Kaufmann describes ethnic groups like this:
Ethnic groups are communities which believe themselves to be descended from common ancestors. Jews claim descent from the twelve tribes of Israel and Abraham. Turks trace their ancestry to the central Asian Turks, Hungarians to the Hungarian tribes of the central Asian steppes.
Many groups cherish a myth of fusion: the English are a blend of Anglo-Saxons (themselves a blend) and Celtic Britons, the French a mix of Gauls and Franks, the Scots a blend of Celtic Scotii settlers from Ireland and native Picts. It’s worth saying that many contributions are airbrushed out (Huguenots? Normans? Vikings?) because our affective attachments can only really zero in on a few key strands.
Gestalt psychology means we view a blend of parts as an undifferentiated whole, and that we screen out a lot of information to focus on a few lineages. One day, most of the multicultural diversity in western countries will be absorbed and forgotten. English is a gestalt.
https://erickaufmann.substack.com/p/is-rishi-sunak-english
Ethnic groups evolved as a response to the fact that other humans are our main adversaries. The most robust theory of racism is that we a react to “race” as an involuntary alliance tracking mechanism. The initial reaction can relatively easily be reassessed.
Ethnic groups absorb other ethnic groups however what the left want to do is create a society of ethnic groups where one ethnic group (Maori) dominate. They think this will succeed because they reject primoidialism. We were doing a good job of absorbing Maori until the 1980’s.
The problem with the latter formula (one without a dominant ethnicity) is that there is no handbrake.
Take the Fourth Estate. Tax payer funded media is dedicated to a multiethnic society. On the other hand, Sean Plunket said (4 June 7:10) that 90% of media advertising revenue comes from real estate advertising. That is the sector that lobbies hard for immigration.
https://youtu.be/ixFxVJ6wmAE
So there is no opposition here (in effect). We are trapped by a coalition of colliding interests who filter what we can and cannot hear.
"Fatherland" & "Motherland" have been largely monopolised by the Third Reich & Russia respectively, so those terms carry way too much baggage. Gallipoli might just have been a unifying factor for both Wellington & Canberra in that "maybe the Empire isn't so above it all, and it wouldn't hurt to ask Westminster if we could have just a bit more say in our own affairs."
Excellent observations that augment well Chris's ponderings.
Post a Comment