Week 10, page 3/4

→https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352220656_Making_Sense_of_Indigenous_Colonial_Encounters_New_Zealand's_Treaty_of_Waitangi_in_a_Digital_Age/link/60bf754c299bf1e6b7188c63/download

My notes are in [...]

p. 3.  Why are we concerned with New Zealand’s Treaty of Waitangi?

According to a recent United Nations report by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the Secretariat (DESA), New Zealand Maori constitute less than 15% of the population of New Zealand, however account for 50% of the prison population. The unemployment rate for M ̄aori is over twice as high as the national average. The household income of Maori families is only70% of the national average. M ̄aori life expectancy is nearly 10 years lower than that of non-M ̄aori (DESA 2009, pp. 25–26). All of these issues, according to Stavenhagen (cited in DESA, 2009, p. 26), are considered by M ̄aori to be “the result of a trans-generational backlog [retard] of broken promises, economic marginalization, social exclusion and cultural discrimination,”which, ultimately, originated in the Treaty of Waitangi and its history(s). The Treaty continues to play an important role, particularly since the 1980’s vis a vis activity concerning the position and plight [situation désespérée] of indigenous peoples around the world. Perhaps, once, the Treaty was held up as an ideal model and / or example of what good indigenous/ colonial relation could look like. More recently, the Treaty was being used to interrogate the use and value of the United Nations declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (adopted by the UN in Sept. 2007 [see article n. 10/ 46 : Indigenous people shall not be forcibly removed from their lands and territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return]. NZ alongside other developed nations whose histories are imbricated in British and French colonial activity, has endorsed the declaration.

Non signatories in 2007 but endorsed the Declaration in 2010: Australia, Canada, NZ and the United States : very similar colonial histories , common concerns

→ See McKenzie vs Williams’ approach to the treaty

- p. 2 McKenzie’s study (Donald Francis McKenzie, Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts, Cambridge: CUP, first ed. 1984) is “grounded in orality, literacy studies. Interpreting key documents “ that have emerged from indigenous-colonial encounters”. ( …°

p.7 McKenzie considers that the Treaty should be considered as a partial witness of the encounter between indigenous people and its colonisers. The Treaty should be read as an “ongoing dialogue” and the “spirit” of the text can be rediscovered “through a better understanding of the conditions of orality and literacy”: “That spirit is only recoverable if texts are regarded not simply as verbal constructs but as social products”, p. 127

- p. 6 Williams [David Vernon Williams. 1989. ‘Te Tiriti o Waitangi—Unique relationship between Crown and Tangata Whenua?’. In Waitangi: Maori &Pakeha Perspectives of the