Old Problem, New Zealand:

An Applied Analysis of the Maori Among Indigenous Peoples

by Megan Elizabeth Rohn 2-color (and 4-color process) In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts in International Relations

Version 1 (“Logo Version”) of the College Mark Version, 2, “Seal Version” of the College Mark

Single-color

Version 1 (“Logo Version”) of the College Mark Version, 2, “Seal Version” of the College Mark

Dark backgrounds (Reversed)

POMONA COLLEGE Claremont, California The Twenty-Seventh of April, Two-Thousand and Eighteen

Version, 2, “Seal Version” of the College Mark Embossed

Version 1 (“Logo Version”) of the College Mark

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Megan would like to acknowledge her friends and new family (whanau) in New Zealand for helping her complete this thesis, especially Lyn Wilson, Maria Amo, Auntie, and Jan and Greg Presland. She would also like to thank Kate Cherrington, Paula Bold-Wilson, Tu Williams, and Matt McCarten for their interviews. An additional thanks to all of these interviewees for agreeing to have their real names in this thesis, since it is not being published at the moment. Furthermore, Megan is grateful to the Pomona College International Relations Department for funding her research, and to Professors Englebert, Gladney, and Marks for guiding her through the process. She is also thankful for the support of her parents and friends in America.

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Literature Review 1.1 Introduction of Research Question … 1 1.2 Literature Review … 7 Frame 1: Maori with Respect to Pakeha … 12 A Brief History of Maori-Pakeha Relations … 14 Frame 2: Maori with Respect to Other Native Peoples … 16 A Brief History of Native American-European Relations … 18 Additional Contributing Literature … 20 Research Strategy … 23 Chapter 2: Interview Analysis Preface: Analyzing Two Self-Comparing Groups From An External Viewpoint … 26 2.1 Kate Cherrington … 28 2.2 Paula Bold-Wilson … 38 2.3 Lyn Wilson and Maria Amo … 40 2.4 Tu Williams … 51 2.5 Jan and Greg Presland … 57 2.6 Conclusion … 59 Chapter 3: Data Analysis 3.1 Maori and Native Americans vs. Nonindigenous Counterparts … 62 3.2 Maori and Native Americans vs. Global Indigenous Average … 63 3.3 Analysis … 66 Chapter 4: Policy Suggestions Comparative Historical Context … 69 4.1 Self-Governance of Reservations and Continued Land Returns … 72 4.2 Increased Language Nest Funding and Scope … 76 4.3 National Language Week and Further Cultural Integration … 79 4.4 More Effective Representation in Federal Government … 82 4.5 Conclusion … 86 Works Cited … 90

1

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 Introduction of Research Question

In New Zealand, descendants of the native people are called Maori, and descendants of

English colonialists are called Pakeha. When the colonists arrived in New Zealand in 1840, they signed a document known as the Treaty of Waitangi with the Maori people. The British were interested in the Treaty as a means of formalizing their claim over New Zealand so that other

European colonial powers could not lay claim to it (Orange). Unlike Australian aboriginal peoples, the Maori of New Zealand spoke one language and were well-learned in musket warfare by the time the British arrived (Ministry for Culture and Heritage 2015). Thus, the colonists were forced to negotiate a treaty, as opposed to simply claiming the continent for themselves as they often did. The Maori chiefs, not all of whom signed the Treaty, wanted to maintain their rights over their land, and some believed that negotiating with the settlers would force tribes to stop fighting amongst each other. The Treaty gave the Crown sovereignty over New Zealand whilst ensuring that Maori retained their rights to own or sell their land and possessions (Orange).

While this treaty sounded promising from the outset, the rights of the indigenous peoples were quickly ignored by the British, and soon the Maori were treated like second-class subjects

(Allen, 61). Worse still, when citizens compared the Maori and English versions of the Treaty, they realized that the Maori version only promised government (kawanatanga) of New Zealand to the Crown, while the English version gave total sovereignty of New Zealand to Great Britain

(Allen, 61). There was no equivalent word or concept for “sovereignty” in Maori, and as such the

Maori people had no way to argue on their own behalf about the variation between the two 2 treaties. Colonists used this intentional mistranslation to claim unwarranted authority over the

Maori people until New Zealand became self-governing in 1907.

Even after 1907, Maori people remained oppressed until the 1980’s when the Treaty of

Waitangi was revitalized during the “Maori Renaissance,” which I will address shortly.

Subsequently, in the decades since the Renaissance, a popular consensus has developed that

Maori are generally better off today than many other indigenous groups, such as the Aboriginal people of Australia, and the Native Americans (Albury 2015, Leahy 2017, Duff 2013, Minorities at Risk 2009). In both of these other groups, substance abuse is more prevalent than the white populations of their respective countries today, their economic wellbeing is significantly worse than that of their white counterparts, and both indigenous populations appear to be much more severely affected by racism than the Maori (Volkow 2014).

In America specifically, Native Americans were driven off of their lands by the Indian

Removal Act of 1830 and subjected to the “Trail of Tears,” wherein they were sanctioned off to live on reservations (Cherokee Nation 2017). Native Americans are no longer required to live on reservations, but 22 percent still live on these reservations today (US Census Bureau 2016).

Although Native Americans are no longer “segregated” from the rest of the country in such an explicit manner, this historical segregation has had lasting impacts on their participation in

American society, especially with regards to government. To date, there have only been five

Native American senators, and 16 Native Americans in the House of Representatives (Stubben,

172). While this is not necessarily the direct result of past segregation, the historical oppression of Native Americans has certainly not helped them to gain representation in government

(Stubben, 172). 3

In contrast, Maori people have had guaranteed representation in the New Zealand parliament since the signing of the Maori Representation Act of 1867 (New Zealand Government

2017). This Act split New Zealand into four major electorates and guaranteed a Maori Member of Parliament (MP) for each electorate. Over time, as population has increased, the country has been re-divided into seven electorates, but the quota system in Parliament still persists. While the government as a source may be self-congratulatory about this quota system, it nevertheless exists and is extremely beneficial to Maori political representation. Numerically speaking, Native

Americans only account for roughly two percent of the United States population, whereas Maori people account for over 15 percent of New Zealanders (New Zealand Government 2013; US

Census Bureau 2016). This is an extremely significant factor in the political leverage that Maori have in New Zealand, compared with the smaller political influence of the relatively lower percentage of Native Americans in the United States. Furthermore, the Maori have one language which is taught to some extent in a majority of schools, whereas Native Americans have over ten recognized languages, making it more difficult to feel a collective identity from language.

One argument as to why Maori have undergone slightly less post-colonial trauma is their distribution and population on the islands of New Zealand, relative to that of America. In the

United States, the Native Americans had been living and migrating across the continent for some

13,000 years, giving them time to break off into several distinct tribes and regions with their own languages (Basu 2015). Consequently, when the British colonialists arrived, they thought the

Native Americans were all still “savages,” and did not respect any of their claims to the land

(Davis 2008). Instead, the colonizers declared the land was theirs because they believed it did not belong to any other particular group, while in reality it belonged to several indigenous groups. 4

In New Zealand, however, the Maori people had only migrated from Samoa and other islands in the late 13th century, whereas Aboriginal people arrived in Australia approximately

50,000 years ago (New Zealand Government 2016; Tobler et. al., 2017). As such, they did not have time to grow apart into as many separate tribes. This meant that when the Dutch and

English arrived during the 18th and 19th centuries, they had actual groups with whom they were forced to negotiate, unlike the Aboriginal people of Australia who were spread too thinly to band together and respond to the colonialists’ arrival (Leahy 2017). This is because New Zealand is much smaller than Australia, so the Maori stayed somewhat more concentrated in smaller areas.

Additionally, prior to the arrival of the colonialists, the Maori had just undergone the Musket

Wars, which helped them understand the use of the forthcoming British weaponry and develop military tactics that the English would not develop until decades later (Ministry for Culture and

Heritage 2015). This made them more adept at combatting the British, as Ron Crosby explains in his book, The Musket Wars: A History of Inter-Iwi Conflict 1806-45. Subsequently, the Maori-

Pakeha wars that followed were less detrimental to the Maori people than the colonization of

America was to the Native Americans (Crosby 312).

While Maori people often have lower salaries and higher unemployment than Pakeha, their culture appears to be much more respected, and much of this progress is recent. In the

1970s and 1980s, Maori people staged cultural protests known as the Maori Renaissance and demanded that the Treaty of Waitangi be given more respect (O’Sullivan 2007). As a result, the

New Zealand government acknowledged the Treaty of Waitangi as a law in its own right, and established the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975 in order to settle claims against the Crown for violating the Treaty. The Tribunal, which uses the Maori version of the Treaty, has settled numerous land reclamation cases and had a significant impact on daily life. The Tribunal has 5 settled these cases by giving hundreds of thousands of acres of uninhabited Crown-owned forestland, and millions of dollars in rental fees, back to the Maori tribes to whom that land belonged. For example, the 2008 “Treelords Deal” returned over $140 million USD worth of forestland (434,905 acres) and an additional $160 million in rental fees to account for the previous 20 years of Crown ownership (New Zealand Press Association). This money and land was split between seven tribes representing over 100,000 Maori citizens.

Moreover, it has increased New Zealanders’ knowledge of the Treaty and its implications on the relationship between Maori and Pakeha citizens. Since the Maori Renaissance and the establishment of the Tribunal, New Zealand has changed its self-identification from monocultural to bicultural (Hayward 2012). That is to say, rather than grouping all citizens together as New Zealanders, the government has acknowledged that its two most culturally significant groups of citizens come from two entirely different cultures, hence the term

“biculturalism.” Subsequently, the government has recognized Maori as an official language, and has heavily increased its focus on the development and achievements of the Maori people and how to best facilitate their wellbeing (New Zealand Government 2016). However, some scholars still insist that this bi-cultural mode of existence places the Maori in an inferior position because it limits the extent to which they can have self-determination, and only allows their actions to be framed with respect to those of the government, rather than in their own right (Brooks, 133).

This does not apply to Pakeha because the Pakeha are the majority in government, so their actions are often the “default.” As Brooks explains, it is similar to the fact that “history” usually refers to white history, which is why America has Black History Month.

For my research question, I will ask how the Maori perceive themselves and their own political and cultural representation relative to Pakeha, which I will then frame with data about 6 other New Zealanders as well as other indigenous minorities around the world (Minorities at

Risk). I will then expound upon any possible “lessons” that the Maori may have for other indigenous peoples, such as Native Americans. My dependent variable, “wellbeing,” will be measured in several ways:

• Objective: political and economic discrimination and grievances, representation in

government, substance abuse and incarceration rates, income and employment rates, etc.

• Subjective: socio-political consciousness, group identification, cultural efficacy and

activity engagement, and enculturated experiences of the Maori identity, self-perceived

feelings of cultural representation and governmental protection (Hokamau 2010)

I will measure the objective variables via census data and information available through the New

Zealand Census Bureau, Minorities at Risk, and other research. I will investigate the subjective aspects primarily through my interviews, and through additional scholarly and news articles.

I hypothesize that the independent variable will be a mixture of historical factors, primarily the Maori Renaissance in the 1970s and its subsequent revitalization of the Treaty of

Waitangi. There was a similar movement in America between 1968 and 1978 known as the

American Indian Movement, wherein activists organized protests and events in hopes of bringing attention to problems facing Native Americans (Abbott 2017). I was previously unaware of this movement, but I suspect that it was not as widely proliferated in America as the Maori

Renaissance was in New Zealand, perhaps due to differences in population size. This difference in population size may explain why the American Indian Movement did not have as impactful a result as the Maori Renaissance did – it related to a much smaller part of the population, and as such was likely much less visible (Abbott 2017). I hope to investigate whether the Maori

Renaissance truly did help improve Maori cultural and political representation, and if so, I will 7 explore political implications that this may have on other native groups such as Native

Americans. I believe I can make a novel policy contribution in order to further improve the standing of indigenous peoples.

I will have a large N, because I intend to perform a regression analysis comparing statistical (primarily economic) well-being of Maori people to that of other indigenous groups across all countries that have data on this subject, which I have obtained from Minorities at Risk.

I realize that my interview sample may be somewhat biased because I will be working with primarily scholars and politically engaged citizens. However, I assume that their increased awareness will make them better able to tell me about both the positive and negative elements of the current state of Maori people, rather than causing them to all be biased and believe that conditions are better than they really are.

1.2 Literature Review

To provide a global context for the current status of the Maori and other indigenous peoples, I will begin by looking at the primary, non-binding document for indigenous rights in the international community. On December 13, 2007, the United Nations passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, known as the UNDRIP. This declaration, while not legally binding, is intended to set the precedent of combatting discrimination, marginalization, and human rights violations against the 370 million indigenous people of the world (United Nations

2007). According to Professor Ken Coates of the Centre for International Governance

Innovation, UNDRIP lists the past and present obstacles and political, social, economic, and cultural ambitions of Indigenous peoples around the world. Much like the United Nations’

Declaration on Human Rights, UNDRIP establishes an international understanding of how 8

Indigenous peoples have been treated and the struggles they face henceforth. This Declaration embodies decades of Indigenous groups’ attempts to gain international attention, recognition, and political support (Coates 2013). Despite President Obama promising to “lend support” to

UNDRIP in 2016, the United States is still officially in opposition to the Declaration.

Although New Zealand initially opposed the treaty in 2007, they reconsidered and ultimately became signatories in 2010. The change occurred because Prime Minister John Key assured politicians that the Declaration is not legally binding, and that it will not give Maori any veto power over laws that have already been established by Parliament. While this Declaration is not legally binding, it may potentially have a significant impact on international laws, treaties, and norms, as seen with the International Declaration of Human Rights (Van Den Rul, 2016).

My thesis primarily examines Maori self-perception and societal changes that have occurred since the Maori Renaissance, and New Zealand’s signing on to UNDRIP may be an excellent example of a change that was caused in part by the Renaissance. Although it likely has not been

“in effect” in New Zealand for long enough to have created significant change, the fact that New

Zealand signed is still noteworthy, and will hopefully have a positive effect on Maori wellbeing in the future.

In order to assess the “wellbeing” of the Maori people today, it is at first necessary to determine exactly who the Maori are and how they define themselves. In 2010, Carla A.

Houkamau and Chris G. Sibley of the University of Auckland conducted a study in the hopes of doing just that. Their study, “The Multi-Dimensional Model of Maori Identity and Cultural

Engagement,” was later published in the New Zealand Journal of Psychology. In recent decades, the government of New Zealand has focused on revitalizing Maori culture and helping its Maori citizens connect to their heritage. However, Houkamau and Sibley noticed that “the diversity of 9 the Maori population poses a challenge to policy makers seeking to understand Maori identity for the purposes of interventions which support Maori development” (9). As such, they created a survey to understand the factors of Maori self-identification, including “(1) self-identification and cultural engagement in socio-political context, (2) enculturated experiences of Maori identity traditions, and (3) constitutive representations of “being” Maori” (8). Their goal was to create a culturally sensitive tool for Maori self-identification so that policymakers can better understand the Maori “perspective” so that they can more effectively address Maori needs. Houkamau and

Sibley conducted this survey across 270 Maori citizens, and found that the Maori experience their identities through six main dimensions (15):

1. Group Membership Evaluation 2. Socio-Political Consciousness 3. Cultural Efficacy and Active Identity Engagement 4. Spirituality 5. Interdependent Self-Concept 6. Authenticity Beliefs Houkamau and Sibley concluded that for Maori people, actively participating in one’s community and knowing one’s iwi (tribe) and heritage is a very significant part of the Maori identity. The survey found that a majority of Maori people tie their identities very strongly to those of their iwi and whanau (family), and that their ability to speak Maori is also a significant contributing factor.

The fact that Maori draw so much of their personal identities from their communal ties suggests that they are a very collectivist people, which is different from the average Westerner.

This is perfectly rational according to Larry Siedentop of the Mises Institute of Austrian

Economics, Freedom, and Peace. Siedentop explains that if a society is invaded by a group of colonizing outsiders, it follows that members of the invaded society would find more comfort 10 amongst themselves, whereas the colonizers would have more individualistic and conquering mentalities. Members of Western society tend to be more individualistic than those of Eastern descent (Siedentop 2015). This means that Westerners tend to define themselves with regards to their own individual actions and accomplishments, rather than their heritage and what they have contributed to the wellbeing of their family. For instance, I have German and Irish ancestry, but I don’t speak Gaelic or German, nor have I visited the town in Ireland where my great grandmother came from. Conversely, Houkamau and Sibley note that 5 out of 6 Maori people know which specific iwi they come from, and most have visited their ancestral marae (dwelling place of their ancestors).

This collectivist tendency of Maori society is noteworthy in part because of how much their has become supported by New Zealand culture at large in recent years. That is to say, the

Maori Renaissance and Waitangi Tribunal have shifted the Pakeha perspective on the Maori’s place in society significantly. Subsequently, the government now encourages Maori citizens to actively engage with their heritage, and actively recognizes how significant Maori culture is to the culture of New Zealand overall (Hayward 2012). Part of this is likely due to the fact that

Maori people make up 15% of the population of New Zealand, but it is important nonetheless.

Even sports teams recognize the importance of the Maori people to New Zealand, and before a game, most teams perform a traditional Maori haka (war dance) to get motivated and intimidate the opposing team (Godfery 2014).

This is not the case in America, where Native Americans make up less than 2% of the population. In America, the opposite is true - certain sports teams such as the Washington

Redskins refuse to change their names, despite how offensive they are to Native Americans

(National Congress of American Indians 2013). Maori culture is a point of pride in New Zealand, 11 whereas in the United States, Native American culture is often misunderstood and even offensively appropriated. On the other hand, some would argue that team names such as the

Florida Seminoles are not offensive because they have permission from the Seminole Nation.

However, according to Dave Zirin of The Nation, this argument is incorrect because the football team actually only has an agreement with the Florida Seminole Tribal Council.

Contrary to popular opinion, the Seminole Nation formally condemned the “Seminole” moniker in a 2013 resolution passed by their governing body in Oklahoma, notes Zirin. The

Florida Council only supports the name because they reap massive profits from casinos throughout Florida, most of which are branded with the Seminoles team logo (Zirin 2014). These mascot controversies illustrate an underlying cultural tension and misunderstanding that is much more prevalent in the United States than in New Zealand today. Conversely, while Maori people are still often slightly worse off than Pakeha in terms of economic and physical health, it seemed to me while I was there that their culture is more appreciated and welcomed than that of the

Native Americans in the US. In order to investigate this claim, I will also add data from the New

Zealand census that measures Maori improvement relative to Pakeha over time, once I have completed my interviews. First, however, I will begin with government data on Maori wellbeing.

In 2013, the New Zealand government conducted its first objective, nationwide Maori wellbeing survey, known as Te Kupenga. This survey was conducted in parallel with the national census, and it collected data regarding spirituality, Maori customs and practices, the Maori language, and social connectedness (New Zealand Government). The purpose was to provide a summary of the “cultural, social, and economic wellbeing of Maori in New Zealand.” The results of the survey were aggregated into ten reports regarding issues such as satisfaction with life, connection to ancestral homes (marae) and tribes (iwi), trust in institutions, and usage of the 12

Maori language. The Determinants of Life Satisfaction survey asked several questions on a scale of 1 to 10 in order to determine what factors correlated with Maori people feeling satisfied with their lives. According to the survey, 81 percent of Maori rated their satisfaction with life as at least 7 out of 10, while 83 percent of overall New Zealanders would give the same 7+ out of 10 rating. The survey found that Maori who believe it is more important to be involved with their culture are more satisfied with their lives.

The overall Te Kupenga report found that 70 percent of Maori adults believe it is important to be involved in Maori culture, 90 percent knew their iwi (tribe), over half had been to their ancestral marae (home), and over half had some ability to speak Maori conversationally.

This number has increased from around 40 percent in 2001, and the number of youths who can speak Maori is increasing as well, which is encouraging for the health and survival of the language. Although Te Reo Maori (the Maori language) is not compulsory in school for all children, it is increasingly being taught in schools and proliferating amongst younger Maori, according to Te Kupenga. The survey provides several useful data sets, but understandably does not make any blanket statements about how “well” the Maori people are doing.

Frame 1: Maori with Respect to Pakeha

The aforementioned question of Maori wellbeing is difficult to address, because asking it requires framing it within the broader context of New Zealand citizens at large, and of other indigenous groups throughout the rest of the world. Some scholars claim that the first frame of reference, comparing Maori with other New Zealand citizens, poses a problem because of the power dynamic that this comparison often establishes between Maori and Pakeha (white) citizens. Although this power dynamic is part of the explanatory variables for differences and should not prevent me from assessing any empirical outcome differences, some academics feel 13 that it does still prevent such an assessment. One such scholar is Dominic O’Sullivan, who explains in his book, Beyond Biculturalism (2007) that today, organizations often claim that they have a special partnership with the Maori community. However, O’Sullivan claims that this designation itself tokenizes the Maori and precludes the possibility that they will be treated as equals within that organization. He says this is the case because, when a community or government organization designates a “special relationship” with its Maori members, they are undercutting those Maori members’ path to self-determination, because their place within the organization has already been decided. Therefore, every action that Maori members take will be framed with respect to that organization. That organization must be distinctively non-Maori, or there would be no need for a “special relationship” with Maori members in the first place. As such, the accomplishments of Maori people will only be seen in comparison to the organization itself, and will not be evaluated in their own rite or based on their own merit, placing the Maori in an inferior position by default, according to O’Sullivan.

O’Sullivan’s argument is correct that the “special relationship” does imply that Maori standing will be determined relative to Pakeha institutions, rather than giving the Maori self- determination. However, I am frustrated with his argument because this “relationship” is still a positive first step, in my opinion. Before the Waitangi Tribunal and the Maori Renaissance,

Pakeha organizations and the government often ignored the needs of Maori citizens or failed to give them much consideration. However, since the Renaissance and the Tribunal, the special consideration given to Maori has allowed their needs to be heard at a much louder volume. They have become a more vocal and visible part of political considerations, and the government has made the huge shift, on paper at least, to bi-culturalism in an attempt to appreciate the diverse heritage of its citizenry (Hayward 2012). 14

As Janine Hayward explains in “Biculturalism,” the New Zealand government has stopped trying to categorize all of its citizens as New Zealanders, and has declared Maori to be an official language of New Zealand. Members of Parliament have increased focus on Maori needs and issues, and are encouraging the Maori people to reconnect with their roots in an attempt to save Maori culture from the oppressive assimilation to which it was subjected for so long (Houkamau). Although this means that Maori concerns will be framed, for the time being, against Pakeha concerns rather than by themselves, it is still an improvement that Maori concerns are being addressed much more than they used to be.

Similarly, Anne Brooks notes in Postfeminisms that those advocating Maori self- determination must be careful to avoid “Maori separatism.” Maori separatism is a movement in which those wishing to create their own Maori identity refuse to admit that they have any historical relationship with the Pakeha who oppressed them (Brooks, 133). This is an offshoot of feminist separatism in which feminists refuse to acknowledge their history with the patriarchy, and it is just as problematic as the tokenization issue that O’Sullivan addresses. It is important that Maori separatist scholars move past the separatist impulses that compel them to focus on their differences (Brooks, 133). By refusing to admit their relationships with Pakeha history,

Maori would be isolating this group of people with whom they will still have to live and be intertwined. It is counterproductive to deny that special relationship, because Maori cannot move forward in seeking self-determination without first reflecting back upon why they do not have that self-determination to begin with.

A Brief History of Maori-Pakeha Relations

In order to understand the necessity of these “special relationships,” one must have an understanding of the origins of the relationship between Maori and Pakeha residents of New 15

Zealand. An excellent summary by Claudia Orange can be found online in Te Ara, the government-sponsored Encyclopedia of New Zealand. When Europeans first began to colonize

New Zealand in 1840, they signed a document called the Treaty of Waitangi with the Maori people who already lived there. This Treaty stated that all New Zealanders were now citizens of

Great Britain and would be protected as such, and it allowed the Maori to retain their rights to control the sale of their land to the settlers (Orange 2012). However, the Treaty was intentionally written differently in English than it was in Maori (Allen 61). Subsequently, the Maori thought they had only ceded governance to the British, whereas the English version gave the British full sovereignty over New Zealand (Allen 61). Although this deceptive ploy may seem simplistic, the

Maori had no word or concept similar to sovereignty, and thus they had no legal jargon with which to defend the true principals of the Maori version of the Treaty against British abuse.

Thus, the British used this technicality to violate the treaty until the Maori Renaissance of the

1970’s. During the Renaissance, the Treaty was revitalized, and the Waitangi Tribunal was established in 1975 to settle any claims that the Crown had violated the Treaty (Orange 2012).

The Treaty of Waitangi and the Tribunal have made significant progress in restoring possessions that were unfairly taken from the Maori, but they have not prevented or fixed racism or systemic disadvantages to the Maori people. In 1865, the Maori lost the Taranaki wars, during which some Maori fought against the government (Spoonley 2011). At the end of the wars, the government took large areas of land from Maori people in the Taranaki region, even if the specific Maori people living on that land had not fought the government. There was also wage and pension discrimination against Maori people well into the 20th century, as well as instances of being denied access to hotels or being separated from Pakeha in cinemas. Motivated by the

American Civil Rights Movement, Maori organizations rallied together to challenge those who 16 discriminated against them, and the Race Relations Act was passed in 1971 (Spoonley 2011).

Subsequently, in the last 30 years, outright racism against Maori people has sharply decreased as the government has integrated the importance of Maori culture into the history of New Zealand as a whole (Spoonley 2011). Maori representation in Parliament has also increased across the political spectrum. Furthermore, the gaps between Maori and Pakeha wages and health standards have decreased as well (Simpson, J., Duncanson, M., Oben, G., Adams, J., Wicken, A., Pierson,

M., Lilley, R., Gallagher, S. 2017). However, Maori are still disproportionately affected by many health and mental health issues, especially youth suicide (New Zealand Child and Youth

Epidemiology Service 2017). Their wages are on average $213 lower per week, compared to the average New Zealander’s salary (Davis 2017). Also, they live in less affluent neighborhoods than their Pakeha counterparts, and only 17% hold a bachelors degree, whereas 33% of Pakeha posses bachelors degrees (Crossley, 162). While relative conditions and Maori cultural appreciation have improved, Maori are by no means equal to Pakeha in an economic sense.

Frame 2: Maori with Respect to Other Native Peoples

The second frame of reference for Maori wellbeing is the Maori people relative to indigenous peoples across the world. Last month, for example, Canada’s Prime Minister Justin

Trudeau sought advice on handling issues of indigenous Canadians from New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern, because New Zealand’s Maori people have made themselves known as worldwide leaders in indigenous advancement (Bracewell-Worrall). According to Minorities at

Risk, while Maori face several demographic disadvantages such as economic and social inequality, their government does not explicitly oppress and discriminate against them, as do the governments over many other indigenous populations. Using the Minorities at Risk data set, I will compare several statistical indices of Maori people to those of over 50 other groups of 17 indigenous peoples around the world. This data set provides numerous dependent variables that will be useful in my analysis, including economic discrimination, political discrimination, and representation in government. Upon performing a preliminary analysis of this data via Stata, it is noteworthy that Maori on average face an extremely low level of political discrimination and are nearly twice as well-represented in government relative to other indigenous groups (Minorities at

Risk 2006). During my research process, I will perform a regression analysis on these and several other elements of this data set in order to provide a robust statistical basis for my thesis.

This data is consistent with popular opinion, which alleges that Maori people are doing

“better” than Native Americans (Leahy 2017). However, this is a difficult comparison to make because of the many historical differences between the two groups. The situation for Native

Americans and Maori was different from the moment their respective colonizers arrived. As noted, the settlers in New Zealand immediately had to establish a Treaty to preserve certain rights of indigenous people, subsequent violations notwithstanding (Orange 2012).

In 1867, New Zealand passed the Maori Representation Act, which established a quota system of representation in Parliament (Maori Representation Act 1867). This meant that there were guaranteed to be four parliamentary seats held by Maori citizens, and that number would be flexible and proportional to the Maori population as it changed over time. As a result of population growth, there are currently seven Maori seats in Parliament. America has no similar legislation to provide for the representation of Native Americans. However, according to Malia

Villegas, director of the National Congress of American Indians Policy Research Center, this could be accomplished according to population parity by merely adding two US senators and 7 members to the House of Representatives (Trahant 2014). 18

Another feature of the Maori Representation Act was that all Maori males 21 and older were allowed to vote. At that time, owning land was required to vote, but Maori believed in communal land ownership, so they were not allowed to vote until the passage of the Act. In

1879, the law was changed such that any male citizen could vote, meaning all Maori men were allowed to vote before certain white men (New Zealand Parliament 2008). Conversely, all

“American citizens” were given the right to vote in 1870. However, this excluded women until

1920, as well as Native Americans until 1924, when the Snyder Act was passed and established that Native Americans are also United States citizens (Library of Congress 2017). Even then, individual states still had to ratify the Act, and the last state to ratify it was New Mexico in 1962.

The next formal decree between Maori and Pakeha was the establishment of the Waitangi

Tribunal in 1975, which was created to enforce the Treaty of Waitangi. These are the three most significant decrees between Maori and Pakeha, and so the legislation regarding Maori rights is relatively easy to organize. Even the settlements of the Waitangi Tribunal have been compiled into an online database and can be easily explored (Office of Treaty Settlements 2016). The rights of Maori people have only become more protected, albeit slowly, with the passage of time.

A Brief History of Native American-European Relations

While the Maori have been victimized by their Pakeha counterparts and are still at a disadvantage, they have not been subject to as many directly antagonistic Acts by the Federal

Government as Native Americans have, such as the Dawes Act and the Indian Removal Act

(Library of Congress 2017). At the time the American Constitution was written, the Founders recognized American Indians as Sovereign Nations, and they were to be formally dealt with as such (National Archives 2016). However, the government soon began to pursue an agenda of elimination, thinly veiled as “relocation,” for the Native Americans. In 1830, Native Americans 19 living east of the Mississippi were forced to move west because of the Indian Removal Act

(Cherokee Nation 2017). The Act was passed because gold had been found on Native American lands east of the Mississippi. Thus, President Jackson passed the Act to take this coveted land from Native Americans in exchange for granting them new land west of the Mississippi. This forced relocation resulted in sickness and death for many of the Native Americans who moved, and the path they walked along became known as the “Trail of Tears.” Between 1832 and 1871, the government reclassified Native Americans as domestic, dependent tribes, and then in 1871, ultimately stopped recognizing them as separate nations altogether (National Archives 2016).

The Dawes Act was passed in 1887 to encourage Native Americans to assimilate into white culture, in hopes of dissolving Native American tribes (Library of Congress 2017).

Subsequently, the US government took away two-thirds of tribal lands from their Native

American inhabitants and redistributed them piecemeal amongst Native American nuclear families, and sold the “surplus” land to white settlers. The Act was disastrous to Native

Americans because they were sequestered off to live on poor-quality land and separated from their tribes, severely damaging their ties to their heritage as well as their means of living. Since then, the US Government has adopted a more-hands off approach towards tribes, and the

“Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized tribal sovereignty in court decisions” for the last century (Native American Caucus of the California Democratic Party 2016).

As such, it is difficult to make a succinct comparison between Native American relations with the United States Government and Maori relations with the New Zealand Government.

While both Maori and Native Americans are considered citizens of their respective countries,

Native Americans living on reservations are subject to different laws than other Americans, which is not the case for Maori New Zealanders (Bureau of Indian Affairs 2017). Although the 20 purpose of these different laws is to benefit Native Americans and give them more sovereignty, it still creates a dichotomy between Native Americans on reservations and other American citizens

– a dichotomy which does not exist in New Zealand. According to the U.S. Department of the

Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. government and the recognized tribes in America have a relationship equivalent to the relationship between two governments, or two sovereigns.

This relationship was formally restored with the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, which reinstated tribal lands and stated that tribes could reorganize themselves according to federal law in order to self-govern (Native American Caucus of the California Democratic Party 2016).

Additional Contributing Literature

Whereas the relationship between the US and Native American tribes is seen as one between two sovereigns, there is no such concept of separation between Maori and the New

Zealand government. This is only one of many differences between the US and New Zealand’s respective relationships with their indigenous peoples, and Maori author Morgan Godfery points out that Americans could learn quite a lot from examining those differences. Morgan Godfery is a Maori writer specializing in Maori politics and international indigenous affairs. He lives in

Wellington, New Zealand, and has written on Maori affairs for several reputable news outlets. In

2014, he published an article in The Guardian entitled “The US Can Learn a Lot From New

Zealand on How To Embrace Indigenous Cultures.” Although he had an emergency and could not attend our interview, I have nevertheless used his analysis as a framework for my own.

Godfery’s article begins with the fact that New Zealand sports teams do a “haka,” or traditional

Maori war dance, to motivate themselves before every match. In contrast, if an American sports team did an indigenous war dance before a game, they would likely be accused of cultural appropriation. The use of this dance by a sports team would be seen as offensive in the United 21

States, whereas in New Zealand, the dance is a point of national pride and unity supported by

Maori (like himself) and Pakeha alike. He goes on to explain that Maori culture is a much more integral part of New Zealand society than Native American culture is to everyday life in the

United States. His article covers several aspects of Maori-Pakeha relations that I am interested in comparing to Native American-European relations.

For instance, the Treaty of Waitangi is “critical in the way New Zealand understands itself,” because the country is built off of an understanding between the native and non-native peoples, which is not the case in the US (Godfery 2014). Furthermore, Maori have a “louder” voice because there is an entire television network, sponsored by the government, that is dedicated to Te Reo Maori (the Maori language), giving Maori a significant media presence. He also mentions the quota system in Parliament, and goes on to state that the US focuses on race, whereas New Zealand focuses on indigeneity. Race is a “numbers game,” so Native Americans have a smaller impact on society because they make up only 2% of the population. Conversely,

Alice Te Punga Somerville, a lecturer at the University of Hawaii, states that Maori are at an advantage because they make up more of the New Zealand population, and because their

“special position” is derived from the fact that they were there first, not from their numbers. This difference can make the comparison between Native American and Maori “wellbeing” difficult.

Several other factors complicate this comparison, according to numerous scholars who

Godfery interviews. For instance, as Jo Smith of Victoria University in Wellington notes, the

Maori speak one language and negotiated with the colonists through one treaty (Waitangi), whereas Native Americans speak numerous languages and negotiated with the US government through a never-ending series of different treaties that all applied to different groups of people.

Furthermore, Julie Anne Gentner (2014), of the New Zealand Parliament, believes native groups 22 should be encouraged to share their decolonization stories. She says it would be wrong to declare

New Zealand the “winner” because that would remove a degree of agency and self-determination for other indigenous groups wanting to forge their own path towards decolonization.

Godfery’s point is that “Rather than searching for lessons from overseas, which risks robbing Native Americans of their agency in indigenous development, the key is to privilege indigenous perspectives.” He concludes that the US needs to ask Native Americans how to preserve indigenous culture, because that is what New Zealand asked the Maori, and it seems to have “worked.” Professor James Anaya, the former UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples, believes that the key to privileging the Native perspective has to start with the textbooks and education which shape the views of our children from the outset. Anya says

“the textbooks need to more accurately reflect the place of Native Americans in the country, there needs to be more understanding at all levels of decision making.” The way to do that is by using the treaties between Native Americans and the US government, especially by returning more stolen land to Native Americans like the Crown has to Maori citizens (Godfery 2014).

Anaya says we must go back to the treaties and actually enforce them, like the New

Zealanders have returned to the Treaty of Waitangi. He also believes America has not been supportive enough in enforcing the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of

1975 (ISDEAA), Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 (TSGA), and Helping Expedite and

Advance Responsible Tribal Home Ownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH), all of which have made noticeable progress for America’s indigenous citizens (Mosteller). The ISDEAA requires the federal government to provide increased funding for Native American education, health, and other issues, on the condition that tribes themselves will choose how to allocate the funds, so as to ensure self-determination. The TSGA amends ISDEAA to allow tribes to govern themselves, 23 allow 20 new tribes to join the self-governance program each year, and require the Secretary of the Interior to provide funding to “the governing body of each participating tribe” (Richardson).

The HEARTH Act “creates a voluntary, alternative land leasing process available to tribes”

(Bureau of Indian Affairs). While there have been a number of Supreme Court decisions which restored tribal sovereignty on paper, there is much progress yet to be made (Native American

Caucus of the California Democratic Party 2016).

I have also validated my investigation with the work of Osage and Doreen Bennett, the founders of the Maori-Native American collaborative organization, Two Feathers International

Consultancy. The Bennetts are Maori citizens and cultural preservationists from New Zealand

(Bennett 2016). After a series of cultural exchange visits between the Bennett’s and Mashu

White Feather, a Cherokee Native American, White Feather was inspired by how well the Maori have preserved their language and culture. He was convinced that Maori are the world leaders in indigenous development, and wanted to bring their practices back home to his fellow Native

Americans (Rerekura, 2014). Subsequently, the trio began the Consultancy as a means of promoting the preservation and proliferation of indigenous language and culture. Their mission is to create a world in which indigenous languages and culture is valued and where native peoples have access to equal human rights and have the opportunity to reach their full potential.

Two Feathers’ goal is to create a partnership wherein Maori teach Native Americans how Maori maintain their language and grow their culture (Bennett 2016). This organization is at the crux of my thesis, because it was created out of the very notion that Maori have something to teach other indigenous peoples about cultural preservation, which is what I seek to investigate.

Research Strategy 24

Until now, there have been few academic comparisons between the economic and political statuses of Maori and Native Americans, beyond surface level observations. I hope to go beyond those observations and determine whether or not Maori actually do feel that they are world leaders in indigenous development. If so, what factors contributed to this feeling and how can they help other indigenous peoples? I am aware that these questions are too many and too broad to be addressed in a thesis. As such, I will primarily be performing a subjective evaluation, based on interviews, of how Maori perceive their own societal status. I will frame these opinions in the contexts of statistics from Minorities at Risk, and I will briefly speculate on the causes of those opinions from historical and policy perspectives. Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to do an in-depth historical comparison between the entire histories of Maori and Native

Americans, I hope to contribute new knowledge to the field by suggesting some lessons that

America can learn from New Zealand about treatment of indigenous peoples, as Mr. Godfery has done. He is the only scholar I found who has addressed this question. As such, I feel it warrants additional exploration, and I will address it myself.

As addressed in this chapter, my thesis examines several historical and socioeconomic factors to evaluate the standing of Maori relative to other indigenous peoples today. The origin of my thesis was my desire to explore factors affecting Maori wellbeing and political voice today, and to examine why Maori culture seems more prevalent in New Zealand than Native American culture is in America. I initially asked whether Maori are “better off” than Native Americans today, but quickly found that to be too broad a question with too many varying historical factors.

For instance, I tried to investigate why the Treaty of Waitangi was respected slightly more than treaties signed between Native Americans and the U.S. government and colonists.

However, I realized that I cannot answer that question objectively. This is because the premise of 25 the question itself may be wrong – was the Treaty of Waitangi more respected, or is that merely a perception I picked up during my time in New Zealand? This question, along with all of my other inquiries, is why my interviews in New Zealand with the elders from the Awataha Marae will be critical. Although they will qualify as qualitative research, I believe they will illuminate whether Maori actually perceive themselves to be doing well or not.

Therefore, my question will be to explore self-perceptions and self-satisfaction of Maori people. This way, my initial assessment can stay qualitative and somewhat impressionistic, so as to avoid impossible comparison. I will ask several Maori elders and politicians how they perceive themselves to be doing relative to Pakeha and New Zealanders in general. I will compare those perceptions to data from the New Zealand Census to provide some parallel objective context, such as relative Maori income and education levels. I will then place these facts and opinions in a global framework using the aforementioned data from the Minorities at

Risk dataset, to allow for objective numerical comparison and provide additional context, with an additional statistical focus regarding Native Americans as well.

Upon determining that the Maori do seem to be somewhat politically and culturally represented relative to other indigenous groups around the world, I will briefly speculate on several historical factors and current policies that may be related to this finding. Finally, I will attempt to superimpose these factors and policies on Native American history and US policies, in instances when such comparisons are factually appropriate. Subsequently, I will look for and suggest possible policy implications that may benefit Native Americans. In the following pages,

I will investigate this question, contextualize its answers, and handle their potential implications.

26

CHAPTER 2: INTERVIEW ANALYSIS

Preface: Analyzing Two Self-Comparing Groups From an External

Perspective

Throughout several interviews of Maori and Pakeha citizens of New Zealand, it became apparent that the Maori have an international reputation for being adept at preserving their indigenous culture and helping it not only to survive, but to thrive. Interviewee Kate Cherrington illustrated this reputation by hosting a conference in 2015 in Auckland for Maori and Native

Americans to convene and learn from each other’s culture. Over 5,000 people attended the conference, with the goal of learning from each other about both groups’ respective strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, interviewees Lyn Wilson and Maria Amo, both Auckland-based Maori, have made a habit of meeting and hosting Native American and Canadian tour groups at their marae throughout the years in order to promote cross-cultural friendships and learning.

The prevalence of these conferences and meetings validates my thesis because it illustrates that Maori and Native Americans are actively seeking each other out to learn about one another’s methods of economic and linguistic survival and success. Native Americans and

Maori themselves have taken active steps to compare and learn from each other through these international exchanges. I had nothing to do with initiating this comparison, but I found it incredibly interesting, and have decided to examine it.

While I am not a member of either culture myself and do not understand the struggles facing Maori and Native Americans, I have humbly attempted to document that pre-existing comparison from an external point of view. Furthermore, while I refer to several Native

American authors in my conclusion, I did not have the opportunity to interview any indigenous 27

Americans. Given this limitation, my interview analysis and policy suggestions are primarily based off of policies that Maori interviewees see as successful for Maori citizens, rather than off of solutions that Native Americans have suggested, due to my lack of information of that nature.

______

Although I had addressed much of the history in my literature review (p.14-15), the interviewees provided a more colloquial timeline of events in their own perspective, and I feel it is pertinent to present it here to preface those individual interviews.

Interviewee Lyn Wilson explained that in the 1940’s and 50’s, Maori could be punished for speaking their own language or practicing their religion, and te reo Maori (the Maori language) was on the brink of extinction. However, thanks to relentless Maori activism and a

“renaissance” throughout the 70’s, Maori started kohanga reo, or language nests, to save their native tongue. A language nest is a language immersion program that provides educational and cultural activities centered around the target language. The interviewees note the importance of this linguistic revival and language nests because they brought about a cultural shift across

Aotearoa (Maori for “New Zealand”) as well. While language nests and similar endeavors exist in America, several Native American citizens have spoken ardently about how these institutions could be improved in order to parallel the kohanga reo in New Zealand (Rose).

Once Maori began reviving te reo, both their language and their culture began proliferating throughout New Zealand, reaching into the Pakeha world as well. Sometimes this proliferation happened by force, including when the government forced Maori to move from rural to urban areas for “integration” in what was really a maneuver to kick Maori off of valuable land, said interviewee Kate Cherrington. Other times, thankfully, it happened voluntarily because 28 willful and persistent Maori fought to regain representation and visibility in their very homeland, noted interviewee Paula Bold-Wilson.

Several of the interviewees were quick to point out that, although the government, particularly under Labour Party leadership, has made many helpful policies that facilitated Maori cultural integration, Maori have been the agents of their own revival. While the government has made many policies to redress the wrongs that were done to Maori in the past, those policies would likely not have been made if Maori had not spent years protesting and eventually getting into parliament themselves to galvanize change.

In terms of Native Americans, Kate Cherrington noted that Maori hope to learn from them, even though Maori have more of an international reputation for being leaders in indigenous cultural preservation. Kate, along with the other interviewees, were also quick to remind me that even though te reo Maori is prevalent in New Zealand daily life, there is still a huge amount of racial discrimination and post-colonial inequality to overcome, and there is still much progress to be made in New Zealand. These were new and important perspectives that I had not realized, but which have shifted my approach to the issue at large. What follows is a summary and analysis of each interview and the major themes and information that I learned from each one.

2.1 – Kate Cherrington

During an interview with Kate Cherrington, of New Zealand’s Centre for Social Impact, it became clear that Maori leaders want to learn as much from other indigenous groups as those groups do from the Maori. Ms. Cherrington has been involved in Maori-Native American relations for years and has participated in and facilitated several cross-cultural events in both 29 countries. Herself a Maori New Zealander, she is a board member of two Maori-Native

American NGO’s based in the United States, Americans for Indian Opportunity in New Mexico, and Ka Honua Momoa International in Hawaii. While I approached her regarding what the

United States could learn about indigenous cultural development from the Maori, she was quick to inform me that “Maori also seek lessons from Native Americans regarding economic development, especially because of the financial success of casinos.” Ms. Cherrington explained that in the Maori perspective, these casinos provide their respective tribes with enough financial stability and agency to determine their own destiny and actually give back to communities around them, rather than relying on the government for handouts and aid. She noted that there are certain Maori tribes, or iwi, in New Zealand, who “have become especially affluent from some fortunate land purchases in Auckland years ago, and as such they look to Native Americans as a model for ways to potentially redistribute that wealth to effectively help their fellow Maori.”

Maori also look to native Americans and native Hawaiians because of how long they have survived, since Maori have existed for a relatively short time in comparison. This cross-cultural indigenous inspiration is illustrated by the aforementioned conference that Kate helped host.

Kate also mentioned the differences in historical factors between Maori and Native

Americans, as I mentioned in my literature review. She noted that “it can be hard to compare the two because Maori are all New Zealand citizens, whereas some Native Americans who live on reservations are subject to different laws and jurisdictions under their sovereign tribe, as opposed to jurisdiction of the American government.” Naturally, she noted, this can make any integration policy from the federal government more difficult to enforce in America, while no such barrier existed in New Zealand. She also emphasized that the language revival was possible in large part because Maori all speak one language and are concentrated in a few areas, as opposed to 30

Native Americans who speak over 100 distinct languages and are spread across North America

(Lee). Nevertheless, she held fast to her stance that “Maori and Native Americans both have a lot to learn from each other, especially because the two have so many common beliefs,” a stance that she repeated throughout the interview.

In contrast to what many New Zealand Labour Party activists have said, Kate explained that the Maori people do not necessarily have an undying loyalty to the Labour Party and the political left. In her opinion, “whether the government is liberal (Labour) or conservative

(National), Maori still have to fight to make their voices heard.” She explained that Maori tend to favor the Labour Party because of their supportive policies, and because the National Party has taken racist actions against Maori and other ethnic minorities. Kate says that conversely, Labour is the left-wing party who traditionally supports ethnic minorities and “takes care of the ‘needy,’ and Maori are often ‘needy’ because they occupy the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder.”

For those reasons, the Maori people are historically more supportive of the Labour Party.

Furthermore, Kate feels like the Labour Party was always “overly patriarchal toward Maori and never let them be their own bosses” – she says they wanted to protect Maori, but “not let us determine our own destiny.” Moreover, while Labour extended the Waitangi Tribunal’s power to investigate historical land claims, she says “people often forget that three of the largest land claims were actually settled under Douglas Graham of the National Party.” She says that sometimes, more affluent Maori are offended by the Labour party’s patronizing tone, because

“being strong doesn’t rely on entitlement, it relies on being resilient and tenacious, and helping each other regardless of where you are socially or politically.” Thus, Kate says, the politics of both parties are “often neither here nor there for Maori” because ultimately, Maori want sovereignty and to be the source of their own destiny. She says that even if some Maori belong to 31 different political parties, their ethos is that “we are all Maori so we all take care of each other.”

Kate is not the only Maori who feels this way, as New Zealand learned during the coalition negotiations after the election in September 2017. After the vote, most parliamentary seats were held by either the right-wing coalition of the National and ACT parties, or by the left-wing coalition of the Labour and Green parties. However, neither coalition had enough seats to rule the government without the additional few seats held by the populist New Zealand First party.

This meant that, effectively, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters got to choose whether the new government would be conservative or liberal. Although his party appeals to the right wing via populism, Winston himself is Maori and not always amicable to National’s historically racist policies. No one knew which side he would choose, and he kept the entire nation waiting for weeks while he made his decision. Ultimately, he joined the Labour coalition, and Labour leader

Jacinda Ardern is now Prime Minister of New Zealand, with Winston as her Deputy.

However, as the world learned during the coalition negotiations, there was never a guarantee that Winston would choose Labour, suggesting that there is no guarantee that indigenous peoples or other minorities will always support left-wing politicians. This perspective is not meant to draw attention away from the fact that Maori do tend to vote Labour, as several interviewees noted. Nor is it meant to downplay the fact that the National party does have historically racist tendencies and policies, for which they should be ashamed (Spoonley). Rather, this perspective is relevant to Native American politics in the United States today because of the global reputation of liberal and conservative governments. Although a majority of Native

Americans favor the Democratic Party (Perez), some Native Americans who become wealthy from casinos or other means may vote for Republican candidates for their fiscal policies, or for other reasons. Therefore, whatever lessons America learns from New Zealand regarding 32 preservation of indigenous cultures, the government must try to enact subsequent policies in a bipartisan manner that appeals to all Native Americans, not just liberal or conservative ones.

Kate repeatedly emphasized that “identity is a key component of Maori culture,” as noted in the literature review. For Maori citizens, ancestry is extremely important, and many can trace their family tree back to the canoe that brought their ancestors to New Zealand hundreds of years ago. To the Maori, DNA tests seem “silly” because it does not matter what percentage a person is of what ethnicity – “if you are Maori, you know the mountain and the river that are closest to where your iwi originates, and that is it.” This is another cultural difference between indigenous peoples and descendants of colonists, which separates Maori from Pakeha and Native Americans from “European” Americans alike, says Kate.

This difference in identity perception is an important consideration when analyzing the extent of damage that colonizers inflicted on Native Americans when they removed them from their ancestral lands. To Americans of European descent, moving to a new city or state is usually no problem, but Native Americans have ties to their land and the resources it contains that go back thousands of years. Furthermore, Native Americans and Maori both have spiritual connections to their ancestral lands as well, which makes their forced removal all the worse to present and future generations. It is important to consider this factor when determining how to begin addressing past wrongs, because no amount of money or political representation or cultural integration in the present can repair being torn away from land that a tribe was spiritually bound to for thousands of years.

This is not to say that no reparation efforts will ever be appreciated, but rather, this is a wrong that likely cannot be totally repaired. As such, Americans must bear this consideration in mind when trying to help promote the flourishing of Native American culture, just like New 33

Zealanders of the Waitangi Tribunal did when they gave back portions of colonist-claimed land to Maori people. As Maria Amo of Awataha Marae noted in a separate interview, the acclaimed

Tribunal actually only gave back about 2% of the land that was taken from the Maori people.

Another one of Ms. Cherrington’s major themes was “how poorly the policies of assimilation and integration went for Maori when they began.” After speaking Maori or practicing the Maori religion became legal, the government switched to a policy of integration that pulled Maori away from their rural homes and families and relocated them into the “project” city of Auckland. When this occurred and Maori were forced to move to cities so the government could occupy their valuable land, they had to move into houses with yards enclosed by fences. Fences, she said, “make no sense to Maori, since they do not believe in owning land, much like the belief of Native Americans.” According to Maori beliefs, one can occupy land, but one cannot own it, because “the land is your parent, not something you can conquer.”

Moreover, as a member of the conservation board, she believes that “the best way to conserve a natural resource or location is to stay away from it – not to encourage people to visit it.” She says Maori and Native Americans hold this belief in common, but it is starkly different to that of Pakeha and white Americans. For instance, she says rock climbing is a very “white” activity because “indigenous peoples see rocks and mountains as something beautiful to be observed or used for survival,” not something to be conquered as a pastime that requires a lot of disposable income and doesn’t yield any additional utility.

This is a critical parallel that politicians must consider with American/Native American relations as well, because non-indigenous people have never fully understood how connected

Native Americans are to their land. When Native Americans were forced to move off their lands and onto reservations through the Trail of Tears, they were hurt twice as badly as their 34 conquerors thought. Not only were they moved onto less fertile and arable land, but also, they were removed from their spiritual connection to the land that they had grown up on and worshipped. Even though the Indian Removal Act technically gave Native Americans “new” land to live on, the Act was still incredibly detrimental because of their lack of historical connection to that new land.

As Kate’s point illustrates, nonindigenous people tend to view the Earth as a commodity to buy and sell, whereas Native Americans and Maori alike see the inherent value in the Earth itself and do not believe it can be owned more than temporarily. This difference in perspective still exists in both countries today. As such, politicians must take that difference into account when considering any future policies regarding granting lands to Native Americans. In order to make legislation that effectively benefits Native Americans, politicians must escape their mindset that the Earth is a collection of parcels of land to be bought and sold, and consider the indigenous perspective that the whole Earth is greater than the sum of its parts.

Furthermore, Kate believes a key component in New Zealand’s indigenous cultural survival that America lacks has been the recent re-writing of history books. When Kate was growing up and attending school, she mostly learned about European, Russian, and Asian history, but was “never truly taught” what happened in New Zealand. Until recently, the issues of colonization and racism had all been glossed over. However, in the past couple of decades, she says, “the education system has been changed and history books have been rewritten to include those painful narratives, and to teach New Zealand children about the violent events of the country’s past.” Although these are difficult and shameful discussions to have, she is grateful that the books have been changed to include Maori perspectives, and she believes “the country could not have moved on from its history” without making those educational changes. Ms. 35

Cherrington is very familiar with the American education system, having traveled and learned in several states, and she is “shocked at how little attention and truth American history books dedicate to explaining” the Trail of Tears and what the colonizers did to the Native Americans.

She says New Zealand is admitting what it took for society to become what it is today, yet a majority of this history and narrative is still “swept under the rug” in the United States. She is not suggesting that all white Americans hold onto guilt over what happened, but merely that

America addresses what happened as a nation, because it is part of the American identity. She pointed out that “the stories of slaves and immigrants in America are all well-documented - but the issue is that those stories are not told.” This suppression of native voices is further illustrated by the fact that neither country immediately signed the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. New Zealand did not officially endorse the document until three years after it was published, and the United States has yet to do so, 11 years later. Even the name of the country is a result of this suppression, beginning when Dutch colonists from Zealand colonized their “New” land. The Maori name for New Zealand is Aotearoa, and it’s citizens, says Kate, are only just now “waking up” and recognizing that.

Kate is correct that in America, history books do continue to largely gloss over the horrors that the colonizers inflicted on Native Americans. The books also sometimes frame Native

Americans as being unfairly hostile to the new colonists, when in reality this hostility is understandable. That is to say, foreign invaders had arrived to take their land, so naturally the

Native Americans wanted to defend themselves and their territory. Rewriting the history books is a good idea because there are concrete steps that America can take to make it happen, and because it will begin to change the minds of students, who are the leaders and activists of tomorrow (and today, in many cases). Rewriting the books would allow teachers to give more 36 weight to indigenous perspectives, and more importantly, to tell the truth about what happened without perpetually glorifying the events as “fulfillment of America’s manifest destiny”

(Chittenden). America is a nation of immigrants, a brilliant and defining characteristic of our nation. However, changing school history textbooks would allow American the citizens to address the past in a more direct way and admit that some of those immigrants had more negative impacts than others, particularly on native peoples.

According to Kate, the cultural shift happened because New Zealanders started traveling.

When they arrived overseas, “the main facets of their culture that they used to describe themselves to foreigners were things like the haka and other Maori traditions.” This lead New

Zealanders to realize how “Maori” the really are, regardless of their skin color. She also thanks the language nests for the cultural shift. Maori began the kohanga reo institution and Maori immersion programs approximately 40 years ago. Since then, people who attended those schools as children have grown up and become elected officials and television reporters and lawyers.

Those children grew up to become “influencers across New Zealand and champions for the

Maori cause,” and Kate is extremely proud of them. She notes that this language immersion education occurred “almost under cover” because it only happened in Maori communities, and now those children have grown up to succeed “not just in the Maori world, but in the Pakeha realm as well.” Thanks to this kohanga reo education system and language revitalization and

Maori entering the legal, political, and educational fields, Maori are now occupying more high- up positions in New Zealand society than they have in almost two centuries. Kate is extremely excited about this progress in the humanities fields, and her next hope is for Maori children to become scientists, engineers, and other STEM specialists.

The kohanga reo are important political considerations for Native American as well, 37 because even though they did not create change overnight, they have had an extremely successful impact in the long term that will undoubtedly continue to shift the political tide in favor of Maori voices. They have instilled a sense of pride and confidence in Maori that allowed them to become successful in the Pakeha world that was, and continues to be, oppressive towards them. As such, it is worth increasing support for such institutions in the United States, both to create strong Native American societal influencers, and to educate outsiders on this important but oft forgotten aspect of American history and culture.

Generally, when comparing Maori to Native Americans today, Kate is always careful to account for the obviously divergent historical factors between the two groups. Overall, she believes that “conditions for indigenous peoples are better in New Zealand, but there is still much progress to be made.” She is an ardent believer that all indigenous groups can learn from each other. Her main philosophy is that Maori and Native Americans both have a lot to learn from one another, especially because they share so many beliefs regarding the earth and land ownership. She underscored this reciprocal relationship by stating that Native Americans should seek help with cultural and language development from Maori, and Maori should seek advice on economic development from Native Americans. This philosophy has important political implications for international relations. It implies that both countries should foster and facilitate this trans-national relationship and cultural exchange, for the sake of their indigenous peoples.

Another important conclusion from Kate’s interview is that a main difference between

America and New Zealand, is that indigenous issues are not at the forefront of the American political consciousness like they were in New Zealand during the Maori Renaissance. This is an important consideration because it highlights the need to bring Native American issues back into the American political spotlight if any significant progress is to be made. Her point that 38 indigenous peoples are not always guaranteed to support a certain political party is also relevant for the United States because it shows that there is not a one-size-fits-all policy to right the wrongs of the past. Moreover, both the American and New Zealand governments tend to overlook indigenous relationships with their land and their heritage and identities - factors that she correctly says must be addressed in future policies. Other important takeaways include the beneficial effects that language nests, changing the history books, and maintaining indigenous agency have had for Maori. If the United States puts more effort into making similar changes, they could potentially benefit Native Americans even more than they already do. Despite the historical differences, Kate is confident that many of the changes that Maori have created in New

Zealand could also improve life for Native Americans in the U.S., and that Maori can continue to improve their lot along the way as well.

2.2 – Paula Bold-Wilson

Subsequent interviews further verified the aforementioned perception that the Maori have an international reputation for excelling at preserving their indigenous culture. As such, indigenous groups from several other countries travel to New Zealand regularly to learn about how the Maori have accomplished this preservation and gotten their culture to thrive in New

Zealand. For instance, Matt McCarten, a left-wing Maori political activist, verified the fact that

New Zealand is a case study in indigenous cultural flourishing. He mentioned that in 2015, a

Maori-Native American conference took place right in Auckland – the same one that Kate helped organize. He was inspired by the number of attendees from across the globe. He said that the conference “proves that Maori have an international reputation for cultural preservation,” but that equality has yet to be achieved, as many of the interviewees stated. 39

I also had the pleasure of interviewing Paula Bold-Wilson, a Maori lawyer and activist.

According to Paula, although racism has decreased since she grew up in the 1970’s and Maori economic and political standings have improved, “Maori people still face significantly more problems than the average New Zealander.” For instance, she noted the discouraging statistics that Maori are still overrepresented in New Zealand prisons, suffer from higher unemployment, and have shorter lifespans than the average New Zealander. She says hese statistics are critical to keep in mind because they sometimes get overshadowed by New Zealand’s international reputation as a “haven” for indigenous cultural preservation.

Although the Maori have been successful in reviving their language and gaining respect for their culture, New Zealand has a long way to go before its indigenous citizens can feel truly equal to those who are descended from the colonists. If politicians, both in and outside New

Zealand, take this “haven” reputation for granted, they will be missing a large portion of the truth that Maori are still statistically disadvantaged relative to the rest of New Zealand’s citizens, according to Paula. As such, I have included a statistical analysis in the following chapter regarding both Maori and Native American economic and political standing. In order to provide global context, this chapter compares both indigenous groups to non-native citizens in their own countries, as well as the statistical average for indigenous people across the world.

One of Paula’s major points was that “the Maori language and cultural revival happened because Maori are activists by nature, not because the government or Pakeha gave them permission.” Maori had to “fight an uphill battle every day for decades” to start seeing the changes they wanted, from protesting and occupying land to ultimately running for Parliament and getting elected to create and enact policies themselves. Maori, she says, are “fighters by 40 nature,” and are very staunch in their beliefs about land, culture, and identity. Their “natural warrior spirit” has allowed them to start the change, not permission from an outside source.

Paula’s emphasis of this point is extremely important because it illustrates how important it is to make sure that indigenous people maintain their agency throughout this process, be it in

America or in New Zealand. She is correct to mention that without persistent Maori fighting for themselves, many of these government policies may never have come about. It is important to remember that Maori living standards and linguistic and political representation have not improved merely because the government passed several helpful laws – rather, the government passed those laws because Maori brought their issues to the forefront of the national political agenda and made their voices heard. This can be challenging for Native Americans because they comprise a much smaller part of the American population than Maori do in New Zealand (2% versus 15%, respectively) (U.S. Census Bureau, New Zealand Government).

For that reason, it is all the more important that Americans do what they can to make more space for indigenous voices to create change on their terms. It will be critical that, no matter what helpful legislation the American government may pass in the future, they must remember who it was that advocated for them to pass those laws in the first place. That is not to say that the governments of New Zealand and America do not play a significant part in indigenous cultural preservation. In fact, the governments play an integral role – but it is not the only role by far.

2.3 – Lyn Wilson and Maria Amo

I also had the pleasure of interviewing Lyn Wilson and Maria Amo of Awataha Marae in

Auckland, where they graciously hosted me last summer. Lyn and Maria are the overseers of 41

Awataha, which was founded in part by Lyn’s father, a prolific Maori-Scottish artist and writer.

According to Lyn and Maria, racism still exists in New Zealand, but circumstances have improved for Maori since when they were growing up in the 1980’s. For instance, Lyn was always disappointed in her father for not teaching her to speak Maori, but he never taught her because “when he spoke Maori, he was physically hit or punished by supervisors at work.”

Maria and Lyn both explained that they were raised to be “self-sufficient and employable over anything else, and that learning to speak Maori or spending time at the marae was never a priority” in their families. They both feel like they were raised “white,” because that is how their extended Maori families categorized them. This trend even continued when Lyn sent her daughter to a Maori boarding school. Despite the fact that her daughter learned some of the language, she never became fluent because te reo Maori was still not a familial priority or cultural point of pride for her family at that point.

This forced assimilation parallels what has happened to Native Americans. Lyn and

Maria’s stories emphasize that Maori culture and language truly were on the brink of extinction, and that things have only recently changed. This is similar to the forced assimilation that has been inflicted upon Native Americans as well. Oftentimes in America, indigenous people either have to adopt stereotypically “white” behaviors and appearances to fit into society, or they remain on reservations, isolated from the rest of the country and from greater representation.

A contributing factor to Lyn and Maria’s non-Maori-centric upbringings was, and is, outright racism. For instance, when Maria was in elementary school in her rural hometown, one of her teachers’ assistants refused to help her because she was “brown.” When Lyn began her career in banking, she realized that she was the only Maori woman in her company, and she always worked in the front office or the showroom. One day, when she asked her boss to let her 42 move to another part of the office so she could take on more responsibilities, he told her she could not move, because she had only been hired as the “token Maori,” and they had to keep her in the front “for show.” Some of this racism still exists today, particularly with regards to speaking Maori on national television and radio. Lyn mentioned the 2017 “te reo Maori scandal,” wherein a prominent New Zealand newscaster refused to speak Maori on television and said that “the majority should not be forced to listen to the language of the minority,” and former

National Party leader Donald Brash agreed with him.

These instances of racism have implications for Native Americans as well. For instance, racism is still an issue in the United States, and the current presidential administration has only made matters worse. Affirmative action helps to a certain degree with regards to Native

American access to higher education (Hayden). However, affirmative action efforts have created backlash against people of color from white people who believe that people of color are “taking their spots based on race,” rather than on merit. Oftentimes, even when Native Americans and other minorities gain access to certain jobs and educational institutions, they still experience tokenization and outright racism like Lyn and Maria did in New Zealand. Fortunately, there are many more laws against discrimination in the workplace in America nowadays, but it is still hard to collect data about how beneficial those laws are to Native Americans. Again, Native

Americans comprise such a small proportion of the population, and many of them still live on reservations, so they have very little visibility in American society compared to Maori in New

Zealand society. In America, people never complain about someone speaking a Native American language on TV because no one speaks a Native American language on American TV.

However, things have changed since Maria and Lyn’s younger brother, Antos, have had children in more recent decades. Antos sent his daughter to a kohanga reo (language nest), which 43 is a “complete Maori immersion school.” Not only has his daughter become fluent in te reo

Maori, but he has learned a lot himself, both because of the school and because of his own independent study. Not only have they all become more involved with their language, but “our culture and marae have become our chief priorities as well.” Before working at Awataha, Lyn spent 14 years in corporate banking, Maria worked on television, and Antos was in advertising.

They were all in extremely profitable careers, but they “gave everything up to come and maintain the marae because [we] had a change of perspective and thought it was the right thing to do.”

They freely admit that they do not make nearly as much money now, but they did not come to the marae to be millionaires – they came back to be in the service of other people, both Maori and non-Maori.

Maria and Lyn and Antos’ return to the marae should be as inspirational for Native

American activists as it is to fellow Maori advocates. Their return implies that there was a significant shift in values and pride and priorities for these accomplished people to give up their successful careers and come back to promote the marae’s mission. This drive for successful

Maori to preserve and promulgate their own culture is clearly sustainable, which is a good omen for Native Americans as well. That is, Maori culture and language was on the brink of extinction in the 1960’s and has rapidly recovered, suggesting that it is not too late for Native Americans to revive the American Indian Movement and create their own rapidly successful program in

America as well. While Native American languages are not “endangered” on the reservations

(Rose), such a movement could still improve cultural and language education for Native

Americans who are not raised on the reservation, and encourage them to maintain and spread their heritage as Maori have done across New Zealand.

Lyn’s chief motivation for returning to Awataha was that her parents founded it, and she 44 wants to maintain it as a place for her children and grandchildren so that they will always have a

“place.” Without Awataha and without her, she explains, “there might be no one else to maintain the marae, and she and her descendants might not have a ‘place’ anymore.” Having this “place” is extremely important for her as a Maori, which she notes is common of all indigenous people.

As Maria says, indigenous people “tend to have spiritual connections to their land,” which Kate mentioned as well. Thus, with regard to Maori and Native Americans alike, having their ancestral homelands pulled out from under their feet is detrimental in more ways than one.

It is also important for Lyn to stay at the marae for financial reasons. As she explains,

“marae receive funding by hosting tour groups and events, donations, and occasionally payouts from particularly rich iwi, or tribes.” Some iwi have become wealthy in recent years because of real estate investments that their leaders made years ago, giving them the expendable income to support their families’ marae and even start educational funds for their children. Nevertheless,

“even with this money, members of the marae still have to maintain their own facilities without any federal funding,” so they require particularly dedicated people like Maria and Lyn who want to be there for the cultural and moral reasons – not for the huge paycheck.

Lyn’s explanation about wealthy iwi has an important parallel with Native American tribes as well. Some Native American tribes, such as the Shakopee Mdewakanton Dakota Tribe in Minnesota, have become wealthy from owning casinos, much like some iwi have become wealthy from investing in real estate (Schaefer Riley). Thus, perhaps Native American tribes could continue to invest a portion of those profits back into reservations and educational programs like iwi invest in marae. This could also help decrease wealth disparity between tribes who have become affluent from casinos and those who have not and may be suffering. Kate explained previously that Maori liaisons already come to the United States to try and learn 45 economic lessons from Native Americans, so perhaps those same Native Americans could learn more about educational and pan-tribal investment from the Maori liaisons. In order to encourage this sort of investment, perhaps America could provide tax breaks or other incentives for casinos that are trying to help their tribes help themselves.

While it is grossly unfair for indigenous peoples to have to spend their own money to overcome oppression they did not bring upon themselves, Maori spend this money “because it enables them to retain their agency.” Since Maori are the ones footing the bill, they are the ones who get to make decisions regarding where and how the money will be invested. This way, they avoid “being controlled or patronized by any ‘white savior’ Pakeha.” It would be ideal for Native

Americans to be able to determine their own destiny in this manner as well, rather than having it thrust upon them by financial regulations the non-indigenous United States government. While this solution is not ideal, it is worth investigating in America because it retains agency for indigenous peoples and has been relatively successful in New Zealand.

Maria’s main motivation for dedicating her life to the marae is for the educational reasons, “both for Maori children through language immersion, and for non-Maori visitors from

New Zealand and the rest of the world.” She cites the language nests as the main reason for

Maori cultural revival, and she ardently confirms their “critical importance in maintaining Maori society,” which Kate also emphasized. In New Zealand, not all schools are required to teach

Maori, but she believes part of Awataha’s mission is “to supplement that lack of education.”

Fortunately, the Treaty of Waitangi has helped facilitate this mission, she explains. Eighty percent of Maori land was taken by the Crown, and while Maria does not expect to get nearly that much back, she supports the treaty because “it provides some sort of remuneration for a fraction of what was lost, and some means of investing in land and education for future Maori 46 generations.” Because of the treaty, the Ministry of Education requires schools to teach certain

Maori language and culture curricula, which has encouraged many English as a Second

Language (ESL) groups to come to Awataha. This has allowed the marae to educate an even wider range of students, which Maria appreciates.

Maria and other Awataha staff have expanded their educational outreach even further by going into non-Maori schools and providing a “soft introduction” for other students who might not learn about it elsewhere, like a de facto kohanga reo. Oftentimes, the students follow up that initial meeting with a full day’s visit to the marae, wherein Maria and the other elders get the chance to truly integrate te reo Maori into their education and teach them even more about Maori culture and customs.

Awataha has made a good decision to play such a big role in educating other New

Zealanders about Maori culture and language. This suggests that having marae and increasing support for language nests would also be beneficial in America, because it would promote language preservation and facilitate greater understanding and integration of Native American culture across the country. Awataha is also wise to include international students as a critical part of Awataha’s mission in education. Hosting and teaching international tour groups is extremely beneficial to the global community because it encourages cross-cultural learning and integration, and increases the number of people in the world who can appreciate Maori and other indigenous ways of life. Better yet, the marae has hosted groups of Native Americans and First Nation peoples from Canada as well, facilitating the learning between indigenous tribes that Kate explained was so critical to their survival.

As a result of this cultural and educational activism from Maori like those at Awataha,

“conditions have also improved with regards to racism as well,” according to Lyn and Maria. For 47 instance, after the aforementioned reporter refused to speak Maori on television, he received copious amounts of negative backlash (Godfery). This is because nowadays, says Lyn, “a majority of New Zealanders like to hear te reo Maori on television.” The language has become a point of national pride, the government now sponsors a national Maori language week, and

Maori have their own national television network (which Maria’s uncle helped create).

Moreover, Lyn and Maria are proud that in recent years, several Pakeha reporters have begun learning the language and integrate it into their broadcasts regularly. Maria notes that a lot of the racism used to happen “simply because people were ignorant.” Now that Maori are reviving their culture and language and making them more prevalent, she believes racism has decreased because people know and understand more about Maori than they used to. Also, the amount of ethnic minorities in New Zealand has greatly increased in the past 20 years, which Maria says has naturally improved race relations “purely because there are more players in the game now.”

This increased visibility has forced Pakeha to accept and consider the needs of other groups, especially when running for office and trying to gain votes from a variety of constituents.

This is promising news for Native Americans as well. According to Canadian Prime

Minister and Nobel Laureate Lester B. Pearson, “misunderstanding arising from ignorance breeds fear, and fear remains the greatest enemy of peace.” Based on Maria and Lyn’s observations, the opposite is also true in New Zealand – now that Maori have decreased misunderstanding about their culture, some fear has abated and peace is starting to take its place.

Perhaps the same could be true for Native Americans in the United States, especially if America replicates some of these policies like national language week and starting a Native American television network. Transplanting these policies would require a huge amount of coordination and effort, but the potential positive impacts for the Native American community would almost 48 certainly be worth it, considering their success in New Zealand. Furthermore, given the increasingly turbulent sociopolitical climate in America today, now could be the perfect time to enact these policies because so many other historical race and gender roles are being questioned.

Maria and Lyn both feel “more represented” today with the Labour Party in power, especially because the National Party’s policies were “all terrible and racist.” Despite the occasional political differences between urban and rural Maori, Lyn says that Labour candidates have always tended to occupy the Maori quota seats. There used to be an actual Maori party, but it became defunct after the most recent election because its supporters veered off to vote for more powerful parties like Labour and National.

Despite the fact that the Maori seats were intended to ensure that Maori always have a voice in Parliament, Maria and Lyn said that they “do not always agree with the representatives in those seats.” Sometimes they feel better represented by their local city or electorate’s Member of Parliament, but other times they feel better represented by the nationwide Maori seat holder.

Maria says this feeling “heavily depends on the candidate and their personality,” because there are certain Maori who she and Lyn would never vote for because they don’t advocate for the same things. However, there are other candidates, like the nationally renowned Peeni Henare and the locally known Calvin Davis, who they will always support. The occupants of Awataha will always vote for Peeni and Calvin because they “know those candidates’ policies and what they have spent their lives working toward.” It also helps that Peeni’s father George Henare was a friend of Lyn and Antos’ father, illustrating their explanation that many Maori are either acquaintances or relatives of one other.

This is different from the Native American situation because most Maori actually know each other and know the candidates all across New Zealand. Oftentimes, as with Maria and Lyn, 49 they are even related to each other. Although Native Americans are likely friends or relatives of their tribal leaders, the different tribes are so separated by language and geography that there are few, if any, overarching national political figures or familial relationships like there are for

Maori. Policymakers need to take this difference into account because it illustrates how much more difficult it can be for Native American citizens to take collective political action without the added advantage of literally being related to those with nationwide political power.

In terms of governmental structure specifically, Maria explained that oftentimes, “not all

Maori voices get heard because of the artificial organizational structure that the government forced onto their tribes.” When the colonists arrived, there were too many groups of Maori for the government to “keep track of,” so they aggregated several groups, or hapu, into large tribes, or iwi, based on geographic location. The government did this in order to create a smaller group of distinctive leaders and “decrease the number of Maori citizens with whom they would have to consult before they could make political decisions.” This unsurprisingly backfired because those artificial groupings did not always consist of hapu who got along well, and even today, many people in every iwi do not agree on who the true leader is. She explained that this organizational model is “detrimental for Maori representation” because that arbitrarily elected “leader” gets to negotiate with the government, which leaves many hapu feeling unheard and unrepresented.

This is an important political parallel to Native American tribes because some of them are sovereign, and the federal government sees them as tribes rather than individuals. This implies that many divergent Native American voices probably remain unheard, just like many Maori voices do when they do not agree with their iwi leader. The United States form of government is not natural to Native Americans in the same way that Pakeha government is not natural to Maori.

Therefore, it follows that neither the American nor the New Zealand government optimally 50 serves their respective native citizens. However, according to evidence from these interviews, the

New Zealand government appears to be making more of an effort to change to fit the needs of its indigenous citizens. At the very least, the New Zealand government has created more policies to facilitate cultural integration and economic advancement. Furthermore, Pakeha did not make the historical mistake of driving their native people onto reservations through the Trail of Tears like

America did, all of which proves that America could learn a few lessons from New Zealand on treatment and advancement of native peoples.

Overall, Maria and Lyn say most Maori are “under the impression that conditions were never as bad for Maori as they were for Native Americans.” Despite being common knowledge among Maori, this generalization could be problematic if it is used to downplay the injustices that Maori have faced, so it is important to avoid doing so. Ms. Amo and Ms. Wilson also note that those varying historical factors between the two groups “further complicate any potential comparisons.” However, racism is still a prevalent issue in New Zealand, and like the other interviewees, they note that New Zealand still has work to do in order to overcome it. Their stories have implications for Native Americans too because they show just how much change can be created in such a short time, thanks in large part to language nests and marae and activism.

Every interviewee highlighted these institutions as critical to their indigenous revitalization, so perhaps they should be further pursued in America as well. This would allow for education of indigenous peoples as well as other citizens from at home and abroad, which would be as powerful in America as Lyn and Maria explained that it is in New Zealand. Their political grievances are also relevant to Native Americans because they show that solving these issues must be a bipartisan effort. These grievances also suggest that the federal government may not be using the most effective method to communicate with sovereign tribes, just like the Crown 51 does not have a perfect method for communicating with iwi leaders. This interview also underscores the potential benefits of cultural integration and unity through traditions like the haka, which has united New Zealanders worldwide. If done in a non-offensive manner, the

Native American equivalent could become a rallying cry for American sports teams as well, increasing national pride and understanding of America’s native peoples. Maria and Lyn are excellent examples of the type of activism and dedication that is required to preserve and promulgate native cultures, and American politicians must put more resources into helping leaders like them in the United States as well.

2.4 – Tu Williams

I also had the privilege of interviewing Tu Williams, political advisor to Minister Willie

Jackson of the New Zealand parliament. Minister Jackson is of Maori descent and has garnered a national reputation as a broadcaster and champion of the Maori political cause. His advisor, Tu

Williams, has been involved in the Maori Party of New Zealand and is also very knowledgeable about the history between the New Zealand government and policies regarding the Maori people.

He emphasized that, despite the historical differences between Native Americans and

Maori, “both groups had been systematically oppressed, as is common for indigenous people.” In his opinion, the most important tools for overcoming that oppression and gaining political leverage have been the Treaty of Waitangi and the Waitangi Tribunal (see p. 3-4), because they

“force the government to admit what the colonizers took from Maori and give some of it back.”

Not only does the Treaty force the government to make concrete concessions to its Maori citizens, but it has “illuminated the devastating affects that colonization had on Maori cultural, economic, and social wellbeing,” says Tu. The Tribunal symbolizes the Crown recognizing that 52 their injustices, like forced assimilation and stealing land, have contributed to the major dismantling of Maori culture, language, and way of life. He says when the colonizers arrived, they “immediately began degrading the Maori as ‘primitive,’ and didn’t recognize that they were interacting with a society and way of life that was thousands of years old already.” This has lead to huge disparities between Maori and Pakeha, in terms of health, education, employment, and justice, so “the Treaty is a reminder that the government is and will continue to be indebted to

Maori to remedy those injustices.” Tu is proud of the sheer number of new policies directed at improving Maori wellbeing, most have which have come from Labour governments, but admits that there is still a long way to go. He says it is crucial not to forget that “the source of those disparities was the government dismantling the Maori way of life back” in 1840.

The symbolism of the Tribunal is an important consideration for how the United States government treats Native Americans as well. Although Native Americans and Maori are both statistically worse off than their white counterparts, the Tribunal illustrates that the government of New Zealand has made much more effort to admit the mistakes of their past with regard to indigenous peoples. Since the founding of the Tribunal in 1975, politicians have shown their remorse for what the Crown did to the Maori, not only through specific policies but through honest and continual conversations with the public about the bad things that occurred and must not occur again.

Conversely, the United States has yet to fully address the crimes that the government perpetrated with respect to Native Americans. President Obama made significant strides by giving back 2 million acres of Native land to its rightful owners and facilitating annual meetings between tribal leaders and U.S. Senators during his tenure in office. Unfortunately, he was the first president to do so, primarily by settling over $3.4 billion in land mismanagement cases, and 53 by being the first president to “make Native Americans feel like their voices have been heard”

(Beck). President Trump has removed any further Native American land restoration from the federal agenda, and has even reversed some of the progress that President Obama made (Perez).

Moreover, even with these cases settled, no president besides Obama has come forward and made a national statement about how the settlers mistreated Native Americans, and how the government is indebted to solve the inequities resulting from this mistreatment. Conversely, New

Zealand’s Labour Party prime ministers and politicians have kept Maori issues a consistent political priority since 1975, which is a critical difference between the two nations. Maori have had several prime ministers who have been role models by showing the nation how important indigenous issues are, and Native Americans deserve a president who will do the same.

Mr. Williams is also happy that the government has begun taking more of an interest in social justice issues, and is continuing to make significant policy strides that help Maori,

“especially in health care accessibility, employment, and education efforts.” In terms of Tu specifically, his superior, Minister Willie Jackson, is the Minister of Employment. Tu and Mr.

Jackson have recently started a program directed at employing Maori youth and teaching them valuable trade skills, and it is off to an encouraging start. A Maori himself, he has “seen the first- hand effects on Maori children who grow up surrounded by generations of unemployment, often accompanied by substance abuse as well.” Those children often grow up and struggle to maintain a job themselves – not for lack of trying, but for “lack of economic stability and role models in their own families,” he says. He and Minister Jackson are determined to help break this cycle. He is also very encouraged by the greater representation of Maori in parliament, across the political spectrum. He is proud that his fellow Maori have “leadership roles in all parties” and have a

“growing voice” that he believes will continue to grow across all of the parties. 54

This increased Maori representation across the political spectrum should be encouraging for Native Americans as well, because it shows the potential benefits of greater Native American representation in the federal government. Combined with the representation required by the

Maori seats, Maori have amplified their political voices in recent years by running for office in increasing numbers, which Tu says has been a contributing factor in increasingly helpful social welfare policies for Maori. This progress goes to show that America should follow this example and include more Native Americans in government, perhaps by quota representation or some other means, instead of continuing the patronizing and controlling relationship that the federal government currently administers over Native American peoples and their lands. Maori political participation shows that inclusion is critical in the United States because it would result in policies that help the Native Americans that they target, because they were made by the Native

Americans they target.

According to Mr. Williams, the recent push in Maori-focused policies is a result of “the

Maori activists who lead the Maori Renaissance in the 1970’s.” At the beginning of the decade, the government released a report that said “te reo Maori was a dying language, and if people didn’t act quickly to preserve it, it could disappear forever.” This spurred several activist Maori into action, and they began tirelessly lobbying the government and the public to raise awareness about te reo and other issues of Maori wellbeing.

Tu explained how, specifically, in 1987, the activists “took the Maori language claim to the Waitangi Tribunal,” which ruled that te reo Maori is a “precious treasure.” Instead of settling for this pleasant title, Maori took this ruling all the way to the courts of London, where the judges found that “both the Maori people and the current New Zealand government are obligated

‘by Crown and Treaty [of Waitangi]’ to protect te reo Maori.” As a result, the government 55 adopted partnerships and principles of the Treaty that obligated them to “protect, preserve, and revitalize” the language. In the years since, there has been a “massive investment” to see this process through, and the Government is making an admirable effort to hold up their end of the obligation. However, Tu says it is important to remember that “Maori themselves, not the government, brought their issues to the forefront of the national political landscape,” and without these fearless galvanizers, the language and culture at large may have been lost to forced assimilation. Thanks to their advocacy, the Tribunal is enforcing the Treaty which helps save

Maori land, language, and other treasures.

Tu’s emphasis on the fact that Maori lead the movement for their own revitalization is an important reminder that Native Americans must also maintain their agency and be given credit in any movement to improve their sociocultural wellbeing. That is to say, the Waitangi Tribunal and accompanying social policies exist because the Maori fought for them, as Paula said, not because the government arbitrarily decided to do the right thing and account for past mistakes.

Therefore, in any efforts to expand cultural education and understanding of Native Americans, or

Obama’s much appreciated efforts to return native land, Americans must make it clear in the history books that these things happened because Native Americans fought for them, not because the President decided to bestow these gifts upon them.

Once language preservation became an issue of national interest, says Tu, it became easier to address other Maori social issues, one of which has been “the way in which the government interacts with Maori tribes.” Tu mentioned the “hotly contested” issue of iwi structure, which Lyn Wilson and Maria Amo also noted. He echoed their sentiments that the government still needs to find a “more effective way to interact with large groups of Maori,” and 56 needs to take the time to consider multiple perspectives from each iwi instead of only speaking with one arbitrary leader out of convenience.

He also credits kohanga reo (language nests) with a large part of “saving and cementing te reo Maori,” as well as marae in general and total immersion Maori schools. As a result of the proliferation of te reo Maori and the culture surrounding it, there has been a “renewed appreciation for Maori arts and artists as well,” both nationally and around the world. This has also lead to the spread of the haka to every school and sporting event across the country, as well as celebrations of Matariki, the Maori New Year, in most major cities. Mr. Williams is very proud and excited about the spread of both of these traditions, as are Lyn and Maria.

Overall, Mr. Williams did not ignore the fact that colonists “very nearly dismantled Maori language and culture” with their land usurpation and forced assimilation. If it weren’t for the

Maori activists of the 1970’s, he says, “[our] culture may have disappeared entirely.” However, these leaders have brought issues of Maori wellbeing into the national spotlight. As a result, “the government has begun doing their fair share to lessen the disparities between Maori and Pakeha citizens,” for which Tu is grateful. He emphasized the important progress the government has made because of efforts like the Waitangi Tribunal, language preservation, social welfare policies, cultural appreciation, and Maori representation in government. Although he says there is a long way to go, he remains optimistic about the several “beacons of light that have begun to shine” since the Maori Renaissance and language revitalization of the 1970’s.

Mr. Williams’ interview highlights the importance of the Maori Renaissance and underscores the potential of revitalizing the American Indian Movement. Thanks to the Maori

Renaissance, Maori have increased their representation in government, gotten a portion of their land back, and revitalized their language and culture, and convinced the government to 57 participate in all of these efforts. This progress goes to show that, despite many more language and geographical barriers than the Maori Renaissance, the American Indian Movement has potential to regain the traction that it had in the 1970’s and force America to give indigenous peoples the attention and policy improvements that they deserve. The concrete land returns and abstract art and language appreciation that resulted from the Maori Renaissance should encourage Americans from all races to take heed of the American Indian Movement and help it regain a place on the national social and political stage, through increased funding, lobbying, research, and awareness in general.

2.5 – Jan and Greg Presland

I was also fortunate enough to speak with my host parents from Auckland, Jan and Greg

Presland. Jan is a teacher and Greg is a lawyer, and both are Pakeha from families who have been in New Zealand for generations. Mr. and Mrs. Presland are outstanding citizens who are very active in the New Zealand Labour Party and in advocating for issues regarding education, a nuclear-free New Zealand, the environment, and Maori people. While our conversation was less formal, they provided insights and support for which I will always be grateful.

According to Greg, the Labour Party has had a “sacred alliance” with the Maori people since the handshake between the Labour Prime Minister and Maori leaders in the 1930’s. Greg says the symbolic implications of this handshake were that “Labour pledged to always give their best efforts to address Maori needs, with the understanding that Maori would generally give

Labour their political support.” Although the Maori interviewees did not always agree with this statement, Greg is still correct in stating that Maori tend to vote Labour over National, as previously noted, and this “handshake” helped set that precedent. Greg is also very proud that the 58

Labour government of 1975 was responsible for enforcing the Waitangi Tribunal, which has been a “critical instrument for addressing the historical territorial grievances” of what the colonizers took from the Maori people. He also explained that the New Zealand tradition of saying “kia ora” instead of “hello” came from a Maori woman who worked for the national telecom company in the 1970’s, before the company was privatized into Spark Mobile. During her workday at the office, she answered phones with “kia ora” instead of “hello.” Before long, her coworkers picked up the habit and, “being the national phone company, set the precedent of greeting people in New Zealand with the ubiquitous kia ora,” on the phone and everywhere else.

Jan is extremely proud of Maori traditions, including the haka and the Maori ceremonies that occur when a new principal is instated at a school, or at the ribbon cutting ceremony when a new public building is opened. She is an elementary school teacher, and she always enjoys teaching her students about Maori history and language, “especially with the haka and other special traditions.” She and her husband have admirably dedicated their spare time and part of their career to fighting for justice for Maori people and other social causes. She says that “many

Pakeha do have a sense of guilt about the land and sovereignty that they took away from the

Maori,” and that they are glad the Waitangi Tribunal is giving some of it back.

As Lyn said, not all Pakeha share this opinion, and not all Maori feel that the Tribunal will sufficiently make up for the damage that was done. However, according to my interviews, the majority of both groups are “ready and willing to work together.” Many have been doing so for decades, as Greg, Jan, Maria, and Lyn illustrate. This news is encouraging for New Zealand and America alike, because it proves that this positive attitude could easily be transferred to

America with the right amount of time, effort, and social activism from both sides.

59

2.6 - Conclusion

While interviewing my Maori colleagues to determine how they feel about their position in New Zealand society, several major themes became apparent as contributing factors to their perceived social progress in recent decades. First, each interviewee was quick to note several barriers that Native Americans face that Maori do not, including language barriers, geographical separation, forced movement onto reservations, and a smaller relative population size. Despite these differences, both groups have been historically subject to discrimination within their own native lands and have made strides to overcome this discrimination. Furthermore, several interviewees mentioned the Maori-Native American initiative to learn from one another, regarding both economic and cultural policies. This validates my thesis by proving that I did not create this comparison, but am merely documenting it.

Second, my interviewees noted that identity, culture, and connection to the land are all vital traditions for the survival of native communities. They noted that these were the first things that the colonizing government tried to dismantle when forcing assimilation onto the Maori people, and that they were only able to revive their heritage by uniting and fighting together for these common things. This suggests that any policies in the United States aimed at rebuilding

Native American communities or improving cultural or economic wellbeing will need to account for identity, culture, and connection to the land, and not just objective economic indicators like monetary value and location of land or funds for welfare programs.

Third, the interviewees also illustrated that none of these efforts were made simply because the government arbitrarily decided to make up for past wrongdoings. They credit intrepid Maori activists for initiating the critical achievements of the Renaissance, such as increasing their own political representation, founding language nests, and becoming societal 60 leaders and influencers and maintaining their agency. None of today’s Maori-focused policies would have been enacted without the substantial amount of Maori activism that lead to them.

Finally, however, the interviewees also indicated their appreciation of the fact that the government has begun upholding its promises to the Maori people by using the Tribunal to enforce the Treaty of Waitangi, and by creating so many supportive government policies targeted toward helping Maori citizens. This shows that in America, any effort to improve economic and cultural wellbeing of indigenous peoples must be a joint undertaking by Native Americans and the federal government, because both sides are necessary to solve those disparities.

A noteworthy conclusion from the interviews is how much more political attention has been, and continues to be, devoted to indigenous issues in New Zealand than in the United

States. Granted, Native Americans account for a significantly smaller proportion of the United

States population than Maori do for the population of New Zealand (2.4% and 15%, respectively). However, this extremely small population size is the direct result of colonization and forcing Native Americans onto reservations, which is why their plight should be all the more important to American society at large. Yesterday’s Americans are primarily responsible for this small population size and lack of representation, so it is all the more critical that today’s

Americans, indigenous or not, contribute to fixing these issues.

Although all of the interviewees heavily emphasized the importance of language nests as the spark that ignited the Maori revitalization, their similar focus on the Tribunal’s utility indicate that this abstract cultural revival is underpinned by concrete land Treaty settlements.

This illustrates the intertwined nature of the two policies, implying that the surface level of language and cultural revitalization has only been possible because of the deeper changes in political representation and land repossession, and vice versa. Upon analyzing the interviews, I 61 conclude that my interviewees indicated that a combination of abstract programs, such as education and language preservation, and concrete policy changes, such as increased political representation and land repossession, has been the key to Maori cultural revitalization and agency. The subsequent implications for Native Americans are that any new solution to Native

American inequality will likely be more successful if it also creates concrete and abstract changes in tandem with each other, rather than just one type of change or the other.

Chapter 3 provides empirical evidence to show that Maori and Native Americans are still both living statistically subpar lives compared to their white counterparts, and that certain conditions, such as political and cultural integration, are better for Maori, while other conditions, such as economic equality, are better for Native Americans. In light of this evidence that Maori do suffer less economic discrimination and have better political representation than Native

Americans, I ultimately suggest a variety of policy options in Chapter 4 that I believe are necessary but not sufficient conditions to improve living standards and cultural integration for

Native Americans. These solutions are a mixture of policies regarding concrete self- determination on tribal lands and abstract appreciation and increased education about, and influence of, Native American culture. Although they will not solve all of the inequity between

Native Americans and other Americans today, they have proven to improve quality of life for

Maori citizens in New Zealand. Thus, they are worth pursuing in the United States for any benefit they may have, be it significant or marginal, primarily because Maori and Native

Americans have initiated this international policy and learning exchange themselves.

62

CHAPTER 3 – DATA ANALYSIS

3.1 Statistics: Maori and Native Americans Compared To Their Respective Nonindigenous Counterparts

Maori vs. Average New Zealander Table: Summary Statistics by Ethnicity

Statistic Maori (15% of population) Non-Maori Poverty Rate, 20141 32% <16% Heavy Drinkers, 20122 28.6% 20.7% Percent of Prison Population, 20123 51 49 Suicide per 100,000 people, 20124 16.4 10.5 Life Expectancy, 20125 75 years 82 years Median Annual Income, 20136 $22,500 $28,500 Percentage with Bachelor’s Degree 9.1 % 18.6 % or Above, 20127 Unemployment Rate, 20128 14.8 % 5.5 % Sources: 1. New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, 2. Marie, et. al., 3. Department of Corrections and Statistics New Zealand, 4. Parliamentary Library, 5. Marriott & Slim, 6. New Zealand Government, 7. Parliamentary Library, 8. New Zealand Government

Native Americans vs. Average Americans Table: Summary Statistics by Ethnicity

Statistic Native Americans (~2% of population) National Average Poverty Rate, 2014 28.3 % 15.5 % Heavy Drinkers, 2014 9.2 % 6.2 % Incarceration Rate per 100,000 900 650 Adults, 1997 Suicide per 100,000 people, 19.5 12.9 ages 15 – 34, 2015 Life Expectancy, 2010 73.7 years 78.1 years Median Annual Income, 2016 $39,719 $57,617 Percent With Bachelor’s 10% 33.4% Degree or Above, 2016 Unemployment Rate, 2013 11.3% 9.1% Sources: 1. United States Census Bureau, 2. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA), 3. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 4. Centers for Disease Control, 5. Indian Health Service, 6. American Community Survey, 7. Postsecondary National Policy Institute, 8. Austin.

63

As the data shows, both Maori and Native Americans are living statistically substandard lives when compared to their respective New Zealand and American counterparts. Both indigenous groups experience higher instances of substance abuse (SAMSHA, Marie et. al.), and both have lower incomes on average (New Zealand Government, American Community Survey).

It is worth noting that, while some conditions have improved for Maori relative to other New

Zealanders, certain factors like the wage gap are actually getting worse (Marriott & Sim).

Although the average Native American income appears to be $18,000 below the average

American income, this data is skewed because of the casinos in America, and the real income gap is even larger. That is, some tribes profit so much from casinos that the residents of the reservation do not need jobs because they live off of the casino profits, while other tribes remain largely poor and destitute (Schaefer Riley). This also skews unemployment data with regard to

Native Americans, even when the data is separated by who is and is not seeking employment. In other words, some Native Americans are unemployed and not seeking employment because they live off of casino profits. However, some residents in other tribes give up seeking employment and fall into the cycle of poverty and drug abuse like many Americans before them.

3.2 Statistics: Maori and Native Americans Relative to Global Indigenous Minority Population

As mentioned in Chapter 1, the Minorities at Risk Dataset provides quantitative economic, political, cultural, and other data regarding every minority group in every country around the world. Stata is a statistical analysis software program that is widely used in political statistics. By using this software to analyze this dataset, I was able to create a statistical framework that compares Maori and Native American populations to other citizens in their respective countries. I also compared Maori and Native Americans to the global average for 64 indigenous populations around the world, across several variables. The independent variable was race: Maori, Native American, or indigenous (global average). The dataset provides over 30 dependent variables, but for the purposes of this study, I chose six specific example variables:

Economic Discrimination, Political Discrimination, Legislative Representation, Cultural

Grievance, Protest, and Political Grievance.

Below are two sample Stata inputs, which compare Native American and Maori representation in the legislative branch of government to that of the global average of indigenous representation in the legislative branch.

65

In the first input, “Obs 210” and “3” indicate that there were 210 observations, or 210 indigenous groups taken into account for this dataset, and 3 of them were Native American.

“ttest LEGISREP if Indigenous==1, by (USnatives)” indicates that the command is comparing legislative representation of Native Americans to legislative representation of indigenous peoples overall. The scale for legislative representation is 0 to 1, with “0” being no representation, and

“1” being sufficient representation. “Mean .48” and “.33” indicate that the global average for indigenous representation in the legislative branch of government is .48 (some representation), whereas the average for Native Americans is only .33 (little representation).

Similarly, the second input tests the same variable, legislative representation, for Maori and indigenous peoples in general. “Mean 1” indicates that Maori have sufficient representation in the legislative branch, which is better than Native Americans and indigenous peoples on average. The mean has changed from .48 to .47 because the outgroup changed from Native

Americans to Maori.

The following table compares Maori, Native Americans, and the global average for indigenous people against the six aforementioned dependent variables. This table was compiled using the same Stata technique illustrated in the two sample inputs above. The accompanying legend explains what condition each number indicates.

Table: Various Maori and Native American Quality of Life Indicators, Relative to Global Average of Indigenous Peoples

Variable Maori Native Americans Global Indigenous Average Economic Discrimination 2 1 2.13 Political Discrimination 1 1 2.04 Legislative 1 .33 .48 Representation Cultural Grievance 2 1 .78 Protest 3.33 1 .50 Political Grievance 3 3 2.53 66

Source: Minorities At Risk Legend: • Economic Discrimination: 0 = no discrimination, 1 = neglect/remedial policies, 2 = neglect/ no remedial policies, 3 = social exclusion & neutral policy, 4 = exclusion/repressive policy • Political Discrimination: 0 = no discrimination, 1 = neglect/remedial policies, 2 = neglect/no remedial policies, 3 = social exclusion & neutral policy, 4 = exclusion/repressive policy • Legislative Representation: 1 = representation in government, 0 = no representation • Cultural Grievance: 0 = no grievance reported, 1 = grievance focused on ending discrimination, 2 = grievance focused on creating or strengthening remedial policies • Protest: 0 = none reported, 1 = verbal opposition, 2 = symbolic resistance, 3 = small demonstrations (less than 10,000 people), 4 = medium demonstrations (10,000 – 100,000 people) • Political Grievance: 0 = no grievance expressed, 1 = grievance focused on ending discrimination, 2 = grievance focused on creating or strengthening remedial policies, 3 = grievance focused on creating or strengthening autonomous status

3.3 Analysis

As noted, there were 210 observations, or data points, for each of the above comparisons, three of which were from Maori peoples and three of which were from Native Americans. As such, there were not enough data points to be statistically significant, but the three averages still provide an enlightening side-by-side comparison.

The data show that Maori are actually more economically oppressed than Native

Americans, but both groups are better off than the global average. This could be due to the casinos that are so profitable to Native Americans, which supports the interviewees’ notes that

Maori want to learn economic lessons from Native Americans. Both groups suffer from the same degree of political discrimination, but both are better off than the global indigenous average.

This is logical because, although both groups are still victims of racism and historical disadvantages, Maori and Native Americans live in wealthy, Western democracies with generally higher standards for health, human rights, and political freedom. This also explains

Maori and Native Americans’ identical levels of political grievance – while most indigenous groups grievances are between creating remedial policies or pursuing autonomous status, Maori 67 and Native Americans are solely focused on strengthening their autonomous status, which is indicative of New Zealand and America’s respective development compared to other countries with indigenous minorities.

As mentioned by the interviewees, Maori got where they are today because of their strong-willed activism, which is illustrated by the protest variable and the fact that Maori participate more in concrete demonstrations, while Native Americans tend more towards verbal opposition. This could loosely support my initial impression that the Maori Renaissance had a larger impact than the American Indian Movement, but I am not qualified to definitively conclude this. Maori cultural grievance is also more focused on strengthening remedial policies, whereas Native American cultural grievance is more focused on ending discrimination. This could support my initial observation that Maori culture is more respected in New Zealand than

Native American culture is in the U.S., because strengthening remedial policies is a more advanced stage of cultural grievance than ending discrimination is, as indicated by the legend.

The global average of .78 implies that other indigenous peoples may not even have enough agency to report their grievances. Finally, legislative representation is much higher for Maori than Native Americans, which is logical given the quota representation for Maori in Parliament, and the historical lack of Native Americans in elected positions in the U.S. legislature.

The purpose of this analysis was not to prove that Native Americans are worse off than

Maori in every aspect. As the data reveal, Native Americans and Maori peoples are statistically

“better off,” equal to, or “worse off” than each other in several categories, which makes an overall comparison both impossible and unnecessary. It is worth repeating the variety of differing historical and demographic factors that invalidate such a comparison. First, Native

Americans account for around 2% of America’s population, while Maori make up 15% of New 68

Zealanders. Also, Maori all speak one language and are concentrated in fewer areas, whereas

Native Americans speak several languages and are spread across the nation. Furthermore, Maori have quota representation in Parliament, while Native Americans have no guaranteed seats in

American government, which has been harmful, as illustrated by the data.

Moreover, Maori signed one treaty with the colonizers, while Native Americans were forced to sign several incongruous treaties. Subsequently, due to this difference, Maori had their land stolen in wars but were never driven onto reservations like Native Americans were, and

Maori have gotten much more of their land back than Native Americans have. Both groups are statistically better off than the global indigenous population for several variables, but this does not undercut the fact that both still suffer from discrimination and inequality that must be solved.

In light of the aforementioned supporting evidence from interviews and data, the purpose of this analysis is to demonstrate that there are certain aspects of life in which Maori are better off, and that America could learn from those aspects to transplant some of those mechanisms to the United States to help Native Americans. For instance, Maori have statistically superior political representation and cultural integration when compared to Native Americans, so it is worth investigating if and how those conditions could be improved for Native Americans by enacting the corresponding policies from New Zealand.

Considering the amount of wealth and international influence that the United States possesses, this nation is more than capable of improving economic conditions, cultural integration, and political representation for Native Americans. A significant part of what could catalyze improvements would be for Native Americans and politicians alike continue to advocate and create an actionable agenda for change. As such, the final chapter of this paper suggests a tentative agenda for some initial policy changes that could facilitate such improvements. 69

CHAPTER 4 – POLICY SUGGESTIONS

In October 1972, the American Indian Movement released the “Trail of Broken Treaties

20-Point Position Paper,” which made 20 recommendations regarding the betterment of Native

American circumstances. Although President Nixon accomplished 10.D by repealing the

Termination Acts and President Obama began to address several of the points regarding restoration of native lands, these 20 demands are still far from being met. As such, this chapter provides additional historical context and proposes four policy suggestions for indigenous and non-indigenous Americans to consider today. Not only are the following solutions derived from practices that Maori say have benefitted their own people, but they also have several features in common with the American Indian Movement’s proposal from nearly half a century ago.

Comparative Historical Context

At first glance, the interviews indicated heavily that language nests and other cultural support efforts and policies have been the main factor in improving Maori agency in New

Zealand. However, after further analysis, the subtext of the interviews also indicated the extreme importance of the Waitangi Tribunal and the enforcement of the Treaty of Waitangi. Although the cultural integration has been invaluable to improving the abstract Maori voice in New

Zealand society, the concrete policy of land restoration has been critical in backing up that policy. That is, it would have been easy for New Zealand to support its indigenous peoples in theory by making some minor efforts like Maori Language Week and marae. Even if these actions had made little to no difference, no one would be able to blame New Zealand because it would still look like leaders and politicians were trying, at the very least, to improve the status of 70

Maori citizens. However, thanks to the gravity and implications of the Waitangi Tribunal, that symbolic appreciation is underpinned by the concrete actions of giving back millions of dollars of concrete assets to Maori people in a productive way that allows them to maintain their agency.

Moreover, the Waitangi Tribunal does not just “throw money at the problem” – it gives back land to the Maori in a way that lets them control how they use it, and benefits them the most without micromanaging them. Conversely, in the United States, the government only recently started settling claims and giving land back to Native Americans outright, under the

Obama administration (Washburn). This agenda has fallen by the wayside, and has even been reversed by the Trump administration (Burr, Perez). Prior to that, and continually on the remaining majority of Native American lands, the reservations are still held in trust by the United

States government (Riley). This means that Native Americans cannot buy or sell the land or borrow against it, or set a fair market price for it, meaning that they still have very little agency.

Naomi Shaefer Riley, New York Post columnist and author of The New Trail of Tears:

How Washington is Destroying Native Americans, is frustrated by this policy. Her 2016 article in

The Atlantic advocates for changing this policy by giving Native Americans ownership of reservation land. Riley argues that the current lack of ownership has lead to a housing crisis on the Crow reservation in Montana because the Crow are not allowed to sell the land to profit off of it and get themselves out of debt. Instead, she said, they are in debt from federal aid programs that they cannot pay back, and their suffering is compounded by a 46.5% unemployment rate and very little economic activity on the reservation. The Crow cannot sell the land to make money to pay back the debt, nor can they sell it to have more money to build more houses for themselves.

Despite providing aid, the government’s choice to make Native Americans’ decisions for them, regarding federal funding, has plunged Native Americans into a vicious cycle of 71 dependency on the federal government. This could keep them in debt and perpetually result in fruitless spending from the government in several tribes, which makes politicians even more averse to putting any more effort or money into solving the issue, according to Riley. In comparison to cultural issues, she believes that giving indigenous citizens the right to sell their own land would have much more of an impact than renaming a baseball team like the

Washington Redskins. One provides symbolic recognition, while another puts money in a person’s pocket that they can use to get healthcare or a home or feed their family.

However, Kelli Mosteller, a member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation in Oklahoma, believes that Riley’s solution is incomplete. She explains that Riley misses the point in advocating for private land ownership, because it undermines the indigenous traditions of tribal and communal land use and opposition to land ownership. She also believes that Riley downplays the importance of cultural revitalization too much, and that language and traditions will be as critical to rebuilding Native American communities as land and economic development. As Mosteller noted, significant progress was made in America regarding indigenous self-determination with the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (ISDEAA), Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 (TSGA), and Helping Expedite and

Advance Responsible Tribal Home Ownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH). She believes these acts have improved the wellbeing and self-determination of her own tribe as well as that of others.

The interviews with my colleagues in New Zealand support Mosteller’s argument, and indicate that the true solution lies somewhere in a combination of both policies. Not only must

Native Americans have the concrete right to determine what goes on on their land, as Maori do, but they must also have the abstract support of language and cultural revitalization like Maori have also won for themselves from the New Zealand government. As demonstrated by these 72 significant improvements resulting from these acts, as well as the interviews and research, the

American government must focus more exclusively on attacking the root of the problem – self- governance of land and funding – instead of continuing to throw money ineffectively at the symptoms and then get frustrated when that funding doesn’t actually create any productive change. They must also continue to make cultural integration efforts by supporting language nests, changing history books, and promoting increased understanding by non-Native Americans through nationwide education efforts, including a potential Native American Language Week.

In light of these interviews and research, this chapter proposes four major policy suggestions for improving the cultural and economic visibility and agency of Native American tribes. These policies include self-governance of reservation land, increased support for language nests, increased cultural integration and Native American Language Week, and more effective representation in the federal government. Not only have policies such as these been helpful according to the Maori people, but they have several recommendations in common with those from the American Indian Movement’s 1972 position paper (AIM).

4.1 Self-Governance of Reservations & Continued Land Returns

Like the Treaty of Waitangi, Native Americans signed several treaties regarding land and rights with the new colonists, both upon their arrival and in subsequent years. However, unlike the Treaty of Waitangi, most of these American treaties were ignored, allowing Andrew Jackson to force Native Americans onto reservations by exiling them through the Trail of Tears.

Subsequently, the American Indian Movement (AIM) has called for the establishment of a new system of treaties and a treaty commission, like those involved in the Waitangi Treaty and

Tribunal, since AIM’s 20-Point Position Paper in October of 1972 (AIM). The Movement has 73 also called for “land reform and restoration of a 110-million acre native land base,” but unfortunately, these requests are far from being fulfilled.

Conversely, the Waitangi Tribunal began enforcing the Treaty of Waitangi in New

Zealand in 1975. Since then, the Tribunal has settled multiple claims worth millions of dollars and given thousands of acres of (unoccupied) Crown forest land back to their rightful Maori protectors. Fir instance, the largest deal, known as the “Treelords Deal,” gave back $223 million in rentals and 434,906 acres of land (worth another $196 million) to seven tribes representing over 100,000 people (New Zealand Press Association). Another settlement returned $80 million to the Whanganui tribe and granted human rights to their river, the Whanganui river (Roy).

As for the United States, almost all of the treaties signed with Native Americans went unenforced. While the Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Tribal Self-

Governance Act, and HEARTH Act have all been productive gestures of good faith, they still keep Native Americans under the patronizing control of the federal government. The Waitangi

Tribunal has come closer to eliminating this by settling nearly all of the Maori’s stolen land claims to date. The closest the U.S. has come to honoring those treaties are the recent settlements of land mismanagement and possession claims that took place under President Obama.

Obama’s administration made significant progress and settled many substantial claims and suits that Native Americans have brought against the federal government. For instance, in

2010 his court settled Cobell v. Salazar, a case filed in 1996, resulting in $60 million in scholarships, $1.4 billion in payments to individual Native Americans and $2 billion in federal government monies dedicated to buying back 10 million acres of land for Native Americans that was taken by the 1887 Dawes Act (Beck). The case has become known as the largest class-action suit in American history. His administration also settled other mismanaged land claims and 74 restored 2 million acres of native land, which Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma member and former Secretary of the US Department of the Interior says Native Americans are pleased about.

However, Donald Trump has made it clear that he has no interest in improving the wellbeing of Native American tribes, and may actively be interested in making their lives worse.

For instance, he has considered forcing tribes to give up their sovereign land and governing rights to the federal government for privatization, which is exactly what happened during the

Termination policy of the 1950’s (Perez). This policy was widely condemned by the American

Indian Movement, and was so detrimental that President Nixon was forced to put an end to it in

1970. Every subsequent president has maintained a policy of self-determination. Landreth is also currently suing President Trump for the 200,000 acres he cut from the Bears Ears national monument, which protected indigenous land (Burr).

In light of Trump’s extremely threatening stance toward Native American land, culture, and way of life, it is crucial that America reinstate the policies of the Obama era, including settling court cases and annual meetings with tribal leaders. The U.S. must also heavily consider creating an American version of the Waitangi Tribunal that has the sole focus of continuing to restore lands and settle claims like Cobell v. Salazar. Moreover, it is crucial that Americans galvanize and lobby to prevent the federal government from taking more indigenous land and ruining more national parks, which just occurred at Bears Ears. Instead, the government should be creating policies to return and preserve more native land. Americans need to elect different leaders to office so that the government will cancel harmful initiatives like the Dakota Access

Pipeline, and instead begin to value citizens and the environment and the future over corporate interests. All of this is easier said than done, but these actions will be critical for the entire U.S. 75

Although completely necessary and already underway, this situation would face ill- informed political backlash for a few reasons, especially given the current presidential administration. For instance, people already live on land that was taken from Native Americans, and it would be illegal to simply uproot them and force them to move like the Native Americans were forced to. Also, it would be difficult to determine which tribes and individuals get what land and how much of it, because multiple parties could have historical claims to the same land and resources. Moreover, the quality of the land may have deteriorated in the centuries since it was taken, meaning that merely returning the land itself may not be sufficient. The most difficult challenge would be to accurately create and justly enforce one treaty and tribunal, like the

Waitangi Treaty and Tribunal, out of the countless treaties that colonizers forced Native

Americans to sign over the centuries and across the country.

However, when considering these obstacles and this backlash, there are actually several solutions that could alleviate a majority of those concerns. In settling disputes such as the aforementioned Treelords Deal and the Waikato Tainui Rapato Deal, the Waitangi Tribunal in

New Zealand has set the precedent of issuing Maori claimants cash payments and a formal apology on behalf of the Crown, and giving them forest land that no one lives on. This would solve two of the above issues: no citizens would be displaced because Native Americans would receive uninhabited land, and deteriorated land would be partially accounted for by the accompanying sums of money from the government. As for determining who gets what land and creating one treaty out of many, America should look to New Zealand for the specific procedural details of the Waitangi Tribunal, which are beyond the scope of this paper but still applicable.

Maori recovering their land through the tribunal has been the largest contributor to their independence and success, besides the language nests. Although kohanga reo have been critical 76 to Maori cultural development, the root of the issue lies in the fact that all of that land actually went back to Maori. All of the language nests and cultural integration are aesthetically pleasing and important, but they are much more significant because they are backed up by concrete possessions that have been given back to Maori.

For native Americans, the cultural integration and language preservation suggestions are important, but structural change is equally significant, and it could include native Americans the rights to buy and sell reserve land. This would give them the economic self-sufficiency that they deserve, which even the casino tribes don’t have. Without self-sufficiency, no matter how much the government helps facilitate their cultural development, the government will always have a paternalistic and controlling relationship over Native Americans. This paternalistic relationship will persist because the government still holds so much indigenous land in trust, which the

American Indian Movement has condemned since their 1972 position paper (AIM).

President Obama made noteworthy progress in remedying this issue. Because he was the first president to do so, the actions were so recent, and that priority has been reversed in the current administration, there is no way of predicting the long-term success or failure of those actions. However, it is vital to pursue this policy and not forget about it. The solution must have two parts – cultural integration, and actual economic independence from land rights or self- determination. Although the more abstract cultural integration is significant, that solution alone lacks sufficient substance to address the ultimate concrete structural problem of self- determination of native land. The U.S. must demonstrate that it values its indigenous citizens through actions instead of just words, and so both facets of the solution are critical.

4.2 Increased Language Nest Funding and Scope 77

Tribal language programs already exist in the United States in a similar form to Maori kohanga reo, or language nests (Rose). However, given the critical importance of those language nests to the ongoing Maori cultural revival, it could be greatly beneficial to Native Americans if the U.S. were to increase support for such institutions, both financially and otherwise.

As Kate explained in her interview, language nests have been a crucial element in facilitating the survival and flourishing of Maori language and culture, and subsequently, pride.

Language nests are schools that teach in exclusively the Maori language, and there are different schools set up to serve different age groups of children, like elementary, middle, and high schools in America. Since their advent in the 1970’s, these language nests and the elders and parents who supervise them have been raising Maori citizens who are proud of and in touch with their heritage. Now, in 2018, many of those students are coming of age to influence the political landscape, and many have become activists, politicians, and TV personalities.

There are several tribal language programs in America as well, including the program of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California (Rose). These programs have support from both their respective tribes and the federal government, having received $487,279 from the

Department of Health and Human Service’s Administration for Children and Families, as well as additional funds from tribes themselves (Rose). However, despite their positive influences and support, many tribes across America are at risk of losing their native languages, with critically low numbers of speakers remaining today. For instance, the Washoe tribe has 1,500 registered members but only eight speakers, and similarly, the Pullayup tribe has only 5 beginner-level speakers out of 4,800 members (Rose). As such, Washoe Language Program Coordinator and tribe member Lisa Enos has suggested 10 methods to improve the effectiveness and reach of

Native American language nests. These methods include increases to funding and elder 78 involvement, along with “cultural activities, community involvement, books, handouts for parents, curriculum development, using media, games, and free resources” (Enos).

It would be wise to encourage tribal and governmental coordination to facilitate Ms.

Enos’ suggestions, especially since many of those suggestions have been critical to the success of Maori language programs. Marae and language nests keep Maori elders involved in the community long past retirement age, and transplanting this elder involvement to Native

American language nests would address Ms. Enos’ suggestion of increasing elder participation in tribal language programs. Also, cultural activity and community involvement are wise suggestions from Ms. Enos because they are effective on marae and in kohanga reo in New

Zealand, especially in facilitating non-indigenous citizens’ understanding of native language and traditions. Furthermore, curriculum development would be ideal because AIM has been specifically asking for federal aid for educational programs since October 1972 (AIM). As Kate and Lisa illustrate, bringing more Maori language nest traditions to Native American tribal language programs could be immensely beneficial, and at the very least, would do no harm.

Kate emphasized why these language nests are extremely important for the Maori people, and thus why the American government and tribes should work by all means to facilitate similar opportunities for Native Americans. Not only have kohanga reo students become important influencers on behalf of the Maori community, but they have also found success in the Pakeha world, as evidenced by their careers in television and politics. This is clear evidence that kohanga reo have greatly increased the political and cultural influence of Maori in New Zealand.

Given this evidence, it is imperative that tribes and the American government prioritize improving language nests in the U.S. according to Lisa’s recommendations, so that Native

Americans can reap those same benefits of increased political and cultural influence. 79

4.3 National Language Week & Further Cultural Integration

The Maori interviewees felt that Maori language week and other methods of integrating

Maori culture into New Zealand culture have been important supplements to the Waitangi settlements in facilitating understanding of, and agency for, the Maori people. The American

Indian Movement has called for a similar “protection of Indians’ religious freedom and cultural integrity throughout the United States” since their October 1972 Position Paper (AIM).

Specifically, the Paper states that “Congress shall proclaim that… the religious freedom and cultural integrity of Indian people shall be respected and protected… even in regenerating or renaissance or developing stages… [and] shall not be interfered with, disrespected, or denied”

(AIM). Given this request and the “cultural integrity” that Maori feel they have increased through Maori language week and other methods, it is imperative that indigenous citizens of

America are afforded access to these same methods.

Along with Maori language week, the interviewees highlighted several other important actions that Maori have taken to make their culture as prevalent, if not more, than Pakeha culture in New Zealand. These steps include changing history books to include more truth about colonization, changing the national greeting from “hello” to “kia ora” (“hello” in Maori), and establishing a nation-wide Maori television network, Maori TV. Maori have also spread their traditional haka to the point that every sports team performs it before a competition, and most elementary and middle schools have their own haka to perform on special occasions. Moreover,

Maori have spread their ceremonial greetings so effectively that oftentimes, when a new public building is opened or a school welcomes a new principal, the building or school officials will perform a traditional Maori welcoming ceremony, or powhiri. Politicians have also began to open town hall meetings and campaign events with remarks in Maori from Maori candidates. 80

While Paula saw this as tokenization, several other interviewees were simply encouraged to see a politician who looked like them and literally spoke their own language. I believe these customs, both powhiri and opening remarks from indigenous peoples, are worth exploring in America.

According to the interviews, this increased proliferation of Maori culture into the Pakeha- dominated domains of New Zealand has lead non-Maori-immersion schools to take their students on more frequent field trips to marae and teach their students more Maori words and holidays.

Especially since the advent of Maori language week, several Pakeha newscasters have started learning Maori and trying to speak it on national television, which has been tremendously exciting for Maori viewers. Given this evidence as well as the desires expressed by AIM, it is imperative that the United States try to bring as many of these practices to America as possible.

There would be several barriers to transplanting these successful strategies from New

Zealand to the United States, but many of them can likely be overcome with small adaptations.

For instance, using Native American language every day on television would probably receive even more criticism than it did in New Zealand, so it might be best to ease America into it by starting off with one week per year during a “Native American Language Week.” After

Americans have become more accustomed to this new sound, they might be more open minded to hearing it on their radio and television stations more frequently.

It could also be difficult to coordinate National Language Week, or a nationwide indigenous equivalent of kia ora, because there are over 100 Native American languages (as opposed to one for Maori people) (Lee). At least seven of these distinct languages have over

10,000 native speakers, according to Tanya Lee of Indian Country Today. However, news networks could overcome this issue during Native American Language Week by using certain languages where their respective tribes are more prevalent. This might leave minority groups of 81

Native Americans feeling unrepresented because their tribe didn’t have a significant enough population for their language to be used on television. However, having an imperfect Native

American Language Week would still be better than not having one, because it could be a step toward the successful cultural shift going on in New Zealand today. Moreover, a large majority of America’s native languages are extinct or endangered, having fewer than 100 native speakers, making preservation and proliferation of indigenous languages even more critical (Lee).

The government must also alter public school curriculums to include the truth and critical historical information about how America really came to be. As the interviewees emphasized, rewriting American history books and being honest about colonization will be critical to improving understanding and conditions for America’s indigenous citizens. Better still, this process will facilitate bringing more indigenous voices to the forefront of American historical and artistic literature, from both the past and the present.

If handled appropriately, it could also be wise to have regular American students take field trips to reservations in order to participate in language programs like on marae, or simply to see the reservations. If the students participate in the language programs, it will expose them to indigenous culture just like Pakeha students see while visiting marae, which facilitates cultural integration and understanding between the two groups. However, if it is inappropriate for non- indigenous students to take up the resources of these language programs, it is still important for them to see the reservations and understand what living conditions are like there.

These visits are crucial because they could inspire students to lobby on behalf of their fellow citizens who may not have the time and resources to act for themselves. Schools could also invite indigenous visitors from nearby reservations to teach about their language and culture, just like the elders at marae often visit local non-Maori schools to explain Maori language and 82 tradition to students of Pakeha and other descent. This would also benefit Native American students who live off the reservations because they would feel proud to identify with the visitor teaching class that day, just like Maori students in majority-pakeha schools are often proud when

Maori elders visit their schools to teach for the day, as the interviewees noted.

In terms of the haka, using Native American dances before sporting events may be seem as culturally appropriative in today’s political climate. However, significant numbers of indigenous peoples are not offended by the Redskins and other “appropriative” sports team names because they have more pressing issues to confront, like homelessness and unemployment on reservations (Riley). Perhaps, after indigenous welcoming ceremonies have become commonplace for schools, public buildings, and political events, the social climate would be amenable to introducing some sort of indigenous haka into the American athletic world as well.

As Kate explained, these are critical changes that must take place as soon as possible. It is especially necessary to change those educational narratives to reach young Americans, in order to begin shifting America’s cultural mindset and collective understanding of how American history actually unfolded regarding indigenous peoples. This new frame of mind could facilitate more dialogue and open-mindedness regarding changes to how the country treats Native

Americans and possible new policies that could be made to improve their circumstances. Ms.

Cherrington is correct that these are huge lessons the U.S. could learn from the Maori people.

4.4 More Effective Representation in Federal Government

Although New Zealand’s quota representation method that guarantees Maori voices in parliament would be controversial in America, the United States must either consider it or think of an equally effective way to guarantee space for indigenous voices in government. To date, 83 there have only been 16 Native Americans in the House of Representatives and 5 Native

American senators (Stubben 172). Although the federal government has the Bureau of Indian

Affairs to advance the needs of Native Americans, many indigenous peoples are completely unsatisfied with their efforts, and the American Indian Movement has called for the abolition of the Bureau of Indian Affairs since it’s 20-point policy proposal in 1972 (AIM).

Instead, AIM has proposed an “Office of Federal Indian Relations and Community

Reconstruction” which would consult with the president and Congress about policies affecting indigenous communities, with a $15 billion budget and 1,000 employees. The Office’s purpose would be to “remedy the breakdown in constitutionally-prescribed relationships between the

U.S. and Indian Nations and people and to alleviate the destructive impact that distortion in those relationships has rendered upon the lives of Indian people” (AIM). Considering the current lack of representation and indigenous peoples’ dissatisfaction thereof, and their proposal of a new structure to remedy the issue, it is crucial that the U.S. either follow AIM’s suggestion or pursue a solution similar to that of the quota representation for Maori Members of Parliament.

Alongside settling age-old land mismanagement claims, President Obama was the first president to put substantial effort toward indigenous affairs, and to “make Native American tribe leaders feel genuinely heard,” said Jim Gette of the Justice Department (Beck). Natalie Landreth,

Native American Rights Fund senior attorney, praised him for beginning a tradition of annual conferences between tribe leaders and the federal government to discuss Native needs (Burr).

Conversely, Donald Trump has demonstrated that he does not prioritize Native American representation or affairs. For instance, his proposed border wall infringes on the sovereignty of the Tonoho O’odham Nation because it crosses their reservation and “sacred burial ground”

(Perez). Moreover, Trump’s budget has cut $300 million from the Department of the Interior’s 84

Indian Affairs budget, and he has threatened to break the Constitution’s Indian Commerce clause by questioning the “unconstitutional privilege” of Native American housing grants.

Considering these deplorable ideas and their potentially detrimental implications for indigenous Americans and the progress they have made, the US must maintain Obama’s policies of tribal leaders annually meeting with government officials, and continue fostering self- determination as stated in the IDSEAA, TSGA, and HEARTH Acts. It is also necessary to either have quota representation for indigenous peoples in government, or to abolish or restructure the

Bureau of Indian Affairs in order to give the Bureau more decision-making power.

Although restructuring the Bureau of Indian Affairs and encouraging the existing self- determination precedent should proceed without issue, quota representation specifically could face opposition from political conservatives, Native Americans, and other minorities as well.

Conservatives would oppose because they would perceive the system as “reverse racism,” and say that Native Americans are getting those seats because of their race instead of merit.

Conservatives would also be afraid that those additional seats would always support the political left because of the Democratic Party’s perceived tendency to attract more voters of indigenous descent. Some Native Americans might oppose the system because they would feel tokenized, and because not all tribes and interests can be represented by so few guaranteed quota representatives. Other minorities would not support quota representation for Native Americans unless their groups received this “preferential” treatment as well.

While these suggestions will face opposition when applied to America, many of the issues can be overcome by making certain adjustments. For instance, the quota seats for Native

Americans are not guaranteed to support the Democratic Party, because the Maori quota seats do not always support New Zealand’s left-wing parties (Labour and Green), which eliminates that 85 argument. Sometimes, those Maori candidates are members of the right-wing parties, National and New Zealand First, as illustrated by current Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, a Maori and New Zealand First politician. Also, the precedent of self-determination already exists because of the three Acts that Mosteller references, and giving more influence to the Bureau of

Indian Affairs or restructuring it would primarily affect Native Americans, so other citizens would be unlikely to complain. However, corporate interests like the Dakota Access Pipeline who wish to exploit indigenous lands would undoubtedly oppose this increased native representation and authority, but this will not be an issue in November when the Legislature returns to a Democratic majority and can ignore those typically right-wing corporate concerns.

In terms of quota representation being unfair in the U.S. because of potential tokenism,

Maori appreciate this type of representation and do not feel tokenized by it, which suggests that other indigenous peoples may be amenable to it as well. Tokenization concerns are a weak argument from the outset in this instance, because many peoples would rather have some voice than no voice. As for the positions not being “merit-based,” and concerns about other minority groups also wanting quota representation, creating indigenous quota representation through an executive order could solve these issues. The system has been beneficial for Maori in New

Zealand, so the President could apply it to America based solely on that evidence. No other groups receive quota representation in New Zealand, which will force those other groups to be quiet in America. This will subsequently abate fears of “unmerited” positions, because no one else besides indigenous peoples will have obligatory quota representation in the government.

Maori representation across the political spectrum has important implications for Native

Americans because it illustrates the need for more indigenous voices in American politics. As noted in Chapter 1, the American Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches all have 86 historically low numbers of Native American participation, which hurts any attempt the federal government makes at alleviating indigenous issues. Without actual indigenous voices, the federal government will continue trying to solve problems that do not affect them directly, making them unable to find effective solutions for issues like education and housing on reservations.

Conversely, Maori politicians like Mr. Williams and Mr. Jackson grew up surrounded by

Maori issues, so they are able to create effective solutions because they know what will and will not work in Maori communities. Some of this improved Maori political representation was doubtless facilitated by the required Maori seats in parliament, and some is a result of Maori children who went to kohanga reo in the 1970’s and 1980’s and have now grown up to be politicians. These Maori politicians have made great strides in creating policies to improve Maori wellbeing because they were once on the receiving end of those policies – because the policies are by indigenous people, for indigenous people. To that end, it is critical that America find a way of including more Native American perspective in the federal government. Kevin

Washburn, Native American and assistant secretary of U.S. Department of the Interior from 2012 to 2015, echoed this sentiment and is working to tighten this representation gap.

4.5 Conclusion

As noted, there are many historical differences between the Maori and Native American peoples, including language and geographic barriers that affected Native Americans and not

Maori. Despite this fact, both groups have taken an interest in learning from each other, as evidenced by the international conference that Kate administered. Specifically, Native

Americans have been interested in learning about language preservation from Maori, and Maori have been interested in learning about economic development from Native Americans. Both 87 groups are indigenous and have other commonalities such as their spiritual connection to their land, and these commonalities have contributed to this transnational relationship. Therefore, it is worth taking the aforementioned suggestions into account, especially because the Maori interview highlights so often coincide with the American Indian Movement’s position paper.

However, these suggestions are by no means solutions. As evidenced by the interviews,

Maori cultural presence has greatly increased since the language nest movement began in the

1970’s, but racism persists and there is a long way to go before equality is reached. In fact, the

Maori reputation for being a case study of successful indigenous cultural revitalization can be harmful in that it obscures the fact that more progress must still be made toward Maori equality.

Several other common themes arose from the interviews. For instance, Maori culture in

New Zealand was largely caused by the language nests, which catalyzed the revitalization. These language nests empowered their students to become Maori activists and influencers, across all sectors and political parties of New Zealand, and even lead to the advent of Maori Television.

Furthermore, land restoration from the Tribunal, self-determination on that land, and other supportive government policies have been invaluable for Maori.

Although the Crown and the government have changed laws, policies, and practices, the interviewees made it clear that the recent changes have happened because of the Maori warrior culture. Persistent Maori fought and accomplished these changes for themselves, through years of hard work – the Crown did not merely “give” them anything. Given these considerations, and which factors helped and who truly fought for them, it would be wise to try these suggestions in

America because Maori feel they have made notable progress in New Zealand.

After conducting the interviews, it became apparent that self-determination has been a contributing factor to their cultural revitalization and political agency, which I had not previously 88 considered adequately. Although severe economic disparities still exist between Maori and

Pakeha, their increased cultural and political representation since the enforcement of the Treaty of Waitangi are still signs of progress. This political and cultural progress stems back to Maori self-determination because Maori determine what occurs on their marae and lands, and spend money and administer programs in ways that best fit their needs.

The United States has let Native Americans make similar decisions, but only to limited degrees, leading to two schools of thought regarding what next steps must be taken to improve

Native American wellbeing. Schaefer Riley says that reservations must be taken out of Federal

Trusts and given to Native Americans for private land ownership, so that they can buy, sell, and borrow against this land that is rightfully theirs. The cultural revitalization aspects are not as important, in her opinion, because she feels they are only symbolic and do not represent concrete systemic change. For instance, she argues that renaming a baseball team will not help a child who has grown up with unemployed or drug-addicted parents, while profit from land would.

Conversely, Mosteller says reservations should stay in trust to the government, because it is obligated to provide certain services for lands that it keeps in trust. She believes cultural and language revitalization, and other symbolic and abstract measures, are just as important to tribal wellbeing as land rights. Her solution is not merely to throw money at the problem, or privatize the land, but to create a comprehensive solution of cultural integration and self-determination.

As a result, I proposed the four aforementioned solutions that integrate considerations from all of the interviewees, as well as Mosteller’s considerations of land and cultural maintenance, and AIM’s position paper. Self-determination on tribal lands is crucial because it allows indigenous people to decide what would be best for them, benefitting them more than decisions from an external party. Improved resources for language nests are key because they 89 have produced a generation of confident Maori leaders in New Zealand, and would continue to do so in America. National language week is necessary because it creates more space for indigenous voices to be heard and respected by the nation at large. More effective governmental representation is vital because it will bring indigenous issues to the forefront of the national political conscience, and would help indigenous peoples take their rightful involvement in national decisions that have affected them for centuries. I am optimistic about these because they begin to address the concrete and abstract issues that America must confront in order to progress with equal treatment and opportunity for its indigenous citizens. Moreover, these methods have helped Maori in New Zealand, and they have several parallels with suggestions that the

American Indian Movement itself made over 40 years ago.

In conclusion, as Mr. Williams showed in his interview regarding Maori and the New

Zealand government, the American government must also continue working with indigenous citizens to jointly improve their cultural and political representation. Moreover, it is up to all

American citizens to bring indigenous issues back into the spotlight, especially given the current presidential administration. It is not enough for the United States to merely state that it appreciates Native American culture – the nation must also include more indigenous voices, restructure tribal-government relations to be better suited to serve Native American needs and agency, and initiate real structural reform.

90

Works Cited Abbott, Franky. “The American Indian Movement, 1968-1978.” Digital Public Library of America, updated 2017. Web. 30 Oct. 2017. Albury, Nathan John. “Embracing Indigenous Languages: the Kiwis Just Do It Better.” The Conversation, 7 Jun. 2015. Web. 13 Nov. 2017. Allen, Chadwick. Blood Narrative: Indigenous Identity in American Indian and Maori Literary and Activist Texts. Durham: Duke University Press, 2002. Print. American Community Survey. "Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2016 inflation-adjusted dollars)". United States Census Bureau. 17 Apr. 2016. Web. 11 Apr. 2018. American Indian Movement. “Trail of Broken Treaties 20-Point Position Paper.” American Indian Movement Archives, Oct. 1972. Web. 8 Apr. 2018. Austin, Algernon. “High Unemployment Means Native Americans Are Still Waiting for an Economic Recovery.” Economic Policy Institute, 17 Dec. 2013. Web. 11 Apr. 2018. Australian Government. “Sorry Day and the Stolen Generations.” Australian Government, 20 May 2015. Web. Accessed 14 Oct. 2017. Basu, Tanya. “There’s a New Theory About Native Americans’ Origins.” TIME, 21 Jul. 2015. Web. 4 Dec. 2017. Beck, Christina. “Why the US Government Will Pay Native Americans Almost Half a Billion Dollars.” Christian Science Monitor, 28 Sep. 2016. Web. 3 Apr. 2018. Belich, James. The New Zealand Wars and the Victorian Interpretation of Racial Conflict. Auckland: Auckland University Press, 2015. Print. Bennett, Osage. “About Us.” Two Feathers International Consultancy, 2016. Web. https://www.twofeathersinternationalconsultancy.com/about-us.html Bracewell-Worrall, Anna. “Justin Trudeau Seeks Guidance from Jacinda Ardern on Indigenous Issues.” Newshub, 13 Nov. 2017. Web. 3 Dec. 2017. Brooks, Anne. Postfeminisms: Feminism, Cultural Theory and Cultural Forms. Abingdon-on- Thames: Routledge, 2002. Print. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Frequently Asked Questions. United States Department of the Interior, 2017. Web. 20 Oct. 2017. Bureau of Indian Affairs. “HEARTH Act of 2012.” United States Department of the Interior, 2012. Web. 10 Apr. 2018. Bureau of Justice Statistics. “American Indians and Crime.” U.S. Department of Justice, Feb. 1999. Web. 11 Apr. 2018. Burr, Thomas. “He’s Not Good For Tribes: From Keystone to Bears Ears, Trump is Alienating Native Americans.” Salt Lake Tribune, 10 Dec. 2017. Web. 5 Apr. 2018. Centers for Disease Control. “Suicide: Facts At A Glance.” U.S. Government, 2015. Web. 11 Apr. 2018. Coates, Ken. “From Aspiration to Inspiration: UNDRIP Finding Deep Traction in Indigenous 91

Communities.” Centre for International Governance Innovation, 18 Sept. 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2017. Cherokee Nation. “A Brief History of the Trail of Tears.” Cherokee Nation, 2017. Web. 10 November 2017. Chittenden, H. M. “Manifest Destiny in America.” The Atlantic, Jan. 1916. Web. 20 Apr. 2018. Crosby, Ron. The Musket Wars: A History of Inter-Iwi Conflict 1806-45. Auckland: Raupo Publishing, 1999. Print. Crossley, Michael, et al. Education in Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015. Print. Davis, Kelvin. “Maori-Pakeha Wage Gap is $213, MP Says.” Newshub, 9 Aug. 2017. Web. 1 Dec. 2017. Davis, Kenneth. “America’s First True Pilgrims.” Smithsonian Magazine, 22 May 2008. Web. 4 Dec. 2017. Department of Corrections and Statistics New Zealand. “New Zealand’s Prison Population.” Stats NZ, 2012. Web. 10 Apr. 2018. Duff, Michelle. “Jason Momoa: Once Was Warrior.” Stuff New Zealand, 30 May 2013. Web. 4 Dec. 2017. Godfery, Morgan. “The US Can Learn a Lot From New Zealand on How To Embrace Indigenous Cultures.” The Guardian, 13 Oct. 2014. Web. 10 Oct. 2017. Hayden, Erik. “End Affirmative Action to Avoid White Backlash.” The Atlantic, 2 Aug. 2010. Web. 22 Apr. 2018. Houkamau, Carla and Chris Sibley. “The Multi-Dimensional Model of Māori Identity and Cultural Engagement.” New Zealand Journal of Psychology, Vol. 39, No. 1, (2010): 8- 28. Web. 10 Oct. 2017. Indian Health Service. “Disparities.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Apr. 2017. Web. 11 Apr. 2018. Janine Hayward, “Biculturalism”, Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, 20 Jun. 2012. Web. Accessed 20 October 2017. Leahy, Patrick. “Why Were the New Zealand Maori Seemingly Far Better Treated Than Australian Aboriginals Historically?” Quora, 22 April 2017. Web. 18 October 2017. Lee, Tanya H. “7 Most Popular Native American Languages in U.S.” Indian Country Today, 30 Jun. 2014. Web. 10 Apr. 2018. Library of Congress. “Voting Rights for Native Americans.” Library of Congress, 2017. Web. 20 Oct. 2017. Maori Television. “About Maori Television.” Maori Television/Te Reo/Freeview, 2017. Web. 15 Oct. 2017. Marie, Danette, David M. Fergusson, Joseph M. Boden. “The Links Between Ethnicity, Cultural Identity and Alcohol Use, Abuse and Dependence in a New Zealand Birth Cohort.” Alcohol and Alcoholism, Volume 47, Issue 5, 1 Sept. 2012, Pages 591– 596. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/ags070 92

Marriott, Lisa and Dalice Slim. “Indicators of Inequality for Maori and Pacific People.” Victoria Business School, University of Wellington, Aug. 2014. Web. 11 Apr. 2018. McGreal, Chris. “US Should Return Stolen Land to Indian Tribes, Says United Nations.” The Guardian US Edition, 4 May 2012. Web. 4 Apr. 2018. Ministry for Culture and Heritage. “Musket Wars.” New Zealand Government, 11 Sept. 2015. Web. 1 Nov. 2017. Minorities at Risk. “Assesment for Maori in New Zealand.” University of Maryland - Center for International Development and Conflict Management, Feb. 2009. Web. Accessed 15 Oct. 2017. Minorities at Risk. “Assesment for Native Americans in the United States of America.” University of Maryland - Center for International Development and Conflict Management, Feb. 2009. Web. Accessed 15 Oct. 2017. Minorities At Risk. “Data.” University of Maryland, Center for International Development and Conflict Management, 8 June 2016. Web. 12 Dec. 2017. Mosteller, Kelli. “For Native Americans, Land Is More Than Just the Ground Beneath Their Feet.” The Atlantic, 17 Sep. 2016. Web. 5 Apr. 2018. National Archives. “American Indian Treaties.” United States Government, 4 Oct. 2016. Web. 20 Oct. 2017. National Congress of American Indians. “Ending the Legacy of Racism in Sports and the Era of Harmful Indian Sports Mascots.” National Congress of American Indians, Oct. 2013. Web. 20 Oct. 2017. Native American Caucus of the California Democratic Party. “Tribal Sovereignty: History and the Law.” Native American Caucus, 2016. Web. 10 Oct. 2017. “Native Americans’ Legal History in Comparison to Native Maori.” American Indian Resource Policy Center, 29 Nov. 2012. Web. 6 Oct. 2017. New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services. “Facts About Poverty in New Zealand.” New Zealand Council of Christian and Social Services, July 2017. Web. 10 Apr. 2018. New Zealand Government. “2013 Census QuickStats About Income.” Stats NZ, 9 Sept. 2014. Web. 11 Apr. 2018. New Zealand Electoral Commission. “Maori Representation.” New Zealand Government, 24 Nov. 2016. Web. 10 Nov. 2017. New Zealand Government. “Maori Representation Act of 1867.” Early New Zealand Statues. Auckland: University of Auckland, 2008. Web. 15 Oct. 2017. New Zealand Government. “Maori Language in Education.” Stats New Zealand, Feb. 2017. Web. 14 Oct. 2017. New Zealand Government. “Maori Language Snapshot.” Education Counts - Ministry of Education, 1 Jul. 2016. Web. 6 Oct. 2017. New Zealand Press Association. “Largest Ever Treaty Deal Treelords Passes Into Law.” New Zealand Herald, 25 Sep. 2008. Web. 4 Apr. 2018. Office of Treaty Settlements. “Homepage.” New Zealand Ministry of Justice, 23 Sept. 2016. 93

Web. 20 Oct. 2017. Orange, Claudia. “Story: Treaty of Waitangi.” Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, 20 June 2012. Web. 10 October 2017. O’Sullivan, Dominic. Beyond Biculturalism: The Politics of an Indigenous Minority. Wellington: Huia, 2007. Print. Parliamentary Counsel Office. “Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.” New Zealand Legislation, 24 Nov. 2004. Web. 20 Apr. 2018. Parliamentary Library. “’Gaps’ Between Ethnic Groups: Some Key Statistics.” New Zealand Parliament, 1 June 2009. Web. 11 Apr. 2018. Pearson, Lester B. “Nobel Lecture.” Nobel Foundation, 11 Dec. 1957. Web. 20 Apr. 2017. Perez, Tom. “Trump is Breaking the Federal Government’s Promises to Native Americans.” Los Angeles Times, 7 Aug. 2017. Web. 5 Apr. 2018. Postsecondary National Policy Institute. “Factsheets: Native American Students.” Postsecondary National Policy Institute, July 2017. Web. 11 Apr. 2018. Rerekura, Eru. “Native Americans Inspired to Treasure Culture.” Radio New Zealand, 16 December 2014. Web. 21 October 2017. Richardson, William. “H.R. 3508 – 103rd Congress: Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994.” GovTrack, 1993. Web. 16 Apr. 2018. Rose, Christina. “10 Ways To Boost Tribal Language Programs.” Indian Country Today, 18 Aug. 2017. Web. 3 Apr. 2018. Roy, Eleanor. “New Zealand River Granted Same Legal Rights as Human Being. New Zealand Herald, 16 Mar. 2017. Web. 4 Apr. 2018. Schaefer Riley, Naomi. “One Way To Help Native Americans: Property Rights.” The Atlantic, 30 Jul. 2016. Web. 4 Apr. 2018. Siedentop, Larry. “How the West Invented Individualism.” Mises Institute of Austrian Economics, Freedom, and Peace, 31 Mar. 2015. Web. 10 Nov. 2017. Simpson, J. et. al. “Te Ohonga Ake The Health Status of Maori Children and Young People in New Zealand Series Two.” New Zealand Child and Youth Epidemiology Service. April 2017. Web. 20 Oct. 2017. Spoonley, Paul. “Ethnic and Religious Intolerance – Intolerance Towards Maori.” Te Ara Encyclopedia of the New Zealand Government, 5 May 2011. Web. 1 Nov. 2017. Stubben, Jerry D. Native Americans and Political Participation: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2006. Print. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration. “Alcohol.” United States Government, 30 Oct. 2015. Web. 11 Apr. 2018. Taonui, Rawiri. “Te Ture – Maori and Legislation.” Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand. Tobler et. al. Aboriginal Mitogenomes Reveal 50,000 Years of Regionalism in Australia. Nature, 544, p. 180-184. 13 Apr. 2017. Web. 30 Oct. 2017. Trahant, Mark. “Yes, It’s an Imperfect System, but the Native Vote is Worth Counting.” Indian Country Today, 4 Nov. 2014. Web. 10 Nov. 2017. 94

United Nations. “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” United Nations, March 2008. Web. 15 Oct. 2017. United Press International. “Government to Buy Back Land for Native Americans.” United Press International, 4 Aug. 2013. Web. 8 Apr. 2018. United States Census Bureau. “Facts for Features: American Indian and Alaska Native Heritage Month: November 2015.” U.S. Government, 2 Nov. 2015. Web. 11 Apr. 2018. United States Census Bureau. “Facts for Features: American Indian and Alaska Native Heritage Month: November 2016.” United States Government, 2 Nov. 2016. Web. 15 Oct. 2017. Van Den Rul, Celine. “Why Have Resolutions of the UN General Assembly if They Are Not Legally Binding?” E-International Relations, 16 Jun. 2016. Web. 4 Dec. 2017. Volkow, Nora. “Substance Abuse in American Indian Youth is Worse than We Thought.” National Institute on Drug Abuse, 11 Sept. 2014. Web. 20 Oct. 2017. Washburn, Kevin. “US Restores Millions of Acres to Native Americans.” Albuquerque Journal, 2 Mar. 2016. Web. 2 Apr. 2018. Watkins, Tracy. “NZ Does U-Turn on Rights Charter.” Stuff New Zealand, 24 Apr. 2010. Web. 4 Dec. 2017. Wittstock, Laura W., Salinas, Elaine J. “A Brief History of the American Indian Movement.” American Indian Movement, 2006. Web. 1 Nov. 2017. Zirin, Dave. “The Florida State Seminoles: the Champions of Racist Mascots.” The Nation, 7 Jan. 2014. Web. 4 Dec. 2017.