KEY POINTS:
David Garrett echoed the misinformed views of many people in his article on the Tuhoe nation. The assumption is that for the nation to become reality it must first secede.
There are many indigenous peoples nations that manage to co-exist with the colonising nation-state in various forms of autonomy and legal/political self determination and self-government.
In the United States, tribal sovereignty is legally recognised and constitutionally protected. There are more than 500 recognised Indian nations, each with its own government, courts, police, and so on that exercise various levels of authority.
We travel freely in and out of our borders. Non-Indians also travel freely, albeit subject to legal expulsion in tribal court if disruptive to tribal laws. The US seems to be functioning fine, in spite of this.
In Canada, recent legal decisions have given rise to the notion that self-government is an inherent right. Before this, most Indian groups had self-designated as First Nations. The debate between First Nations and the Canadian Government is over the scope and nature of that inherent customary right.
Its existence is not in doubt. Canada also seems to be coping rather well.
In New Zealand, relations between the Crown and Maori are portrayed as one of race. Aspirations of self-determination and some form of self-government and autonomy are depicted as separatism and apartheid.
Yet the Treaty of Waitangi recognised the hapu that signed the Treaty as distinct legal/political entities. The very fact of the Treaty establishes this.
How did the legal/political relationship transform itself into one merely of race? There is no legal precedent for this in New Zealand and none in other countries that share a common legal history with New Zealand (like Canada and the US).
This misguided belief that Maori are simply an aggrieved ethnic minority lies behind the fear, racism and anti-indigenism that fuels the negative political and mass media image of Maori. Aspirations of self-determination are not met by equal rights and civil rights. This only deals with individuals as part of a larger society.
Carried to their fullest, these rights are assimilationist for indigenous peoples.
For indigenous peoples the key concept is that of equitability. This means separate and distinct legal/political structures from the non-indigenous that have a respected status under the law.
Let us be clear. Laws and programmes targeted specifically to Maori are not based on race. They are based on that legal/political relationship. Many have been designed to force the assimilation of Maori into European-derived value systems, and to extinguish this legal/political relationship.
It is absolutely amazing that the issue of Maori efforts of indigenous nationhood is deemed a radical movement situated firmly in the left, somehow tied to terrorism.
Indigenous peoples' struggle for self-determination and self-government does not sit within the left to right European-derived political spectrum. Our struggle is not about class and smashing capitalism.
It is about dignity, respect, justice and the honouring of our ancestors.
For too long, the Crown and the media have kept these issues under wraps and off the negotiation table. The simple test in my mind lies in the level of self-determination.
Can a hapu or iwi legally build an outhouse on its own lands without having to get permission from some other authority? The answer for most indigenous peoples is yes. For Maori in New Zealand it's no.
Ultimately, the Tuhoe nation exists, whether New Zealand recognises it or not.
The time has come for the Government to come to the table, and deal with reality. The Tuhoe nation is not going to go away.
* Michael Lane is an American Indian (Menominee Nation) married to a Tuhoe woman in the Bay of Plenty. He has a "juris doctor" degree from Arizona State University and has been working on issues relating to tribal sovereignty for 29 years.
