Posted on

Tame Wairere Iti – Leadership Qualities

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | Tibetan Language Erasure | References

Responsive

Tame Wairere Iti strongly displays the leadership quality of being responsive to his surroundings. This distinguishes Tame Iti’s leadership style from other activists because he has consistently demonstrated that he not only is well aware of all factors that affect his actions, but also of how his actions come across to others. By being responsive to change, Tame Iti has been able to easily adapt the movement he has created to be more readily inclusive and accessible to everyone. Tame Iti was one of the first Maori activists to begin using the internet and social media platforms in the early 2000s as he recognized the potential to mobilize interest in younger and more globally diverse audiences.  Furthermore, this has always benefited Tame Iti when organizing and leading events as he often changes the avenue in which his activism is delivered to best match the receiving audience and thereby have the most impact. For instance, after his 2005 arrest, Tame Iti began to create artistic expressions of Maori activism because “art is a form accessible to all”. His pieces still consistently reflect the theme of Indigenous rights, such as one of his most famous pieces of modern art in which “I will not speak Maori” is copied over and over again against a red background, yet these works are still a departure from his earlier and more violent activist strategy. Tame Iti recognized that after his imprisonment, in which he was granted a lighter sentence, subsequent actions of the same manner would result in both the end of his career and a diminished reputation. Although this is just one specific example, it is illustrative of a key quality of Tame Iti’s leadership style.

Tame Iti Art
Tame Iti presenting one of his pieces at an exhibition in London

Resilient

Tame Wairere Iti has always displayed resilience. From the time he was a young kid in primary school, and stood up to his principal by continuing to speak his native language, to when he continued to appeal his sentence in 2012, Tame has been resilient. Iti was arrested and convicted in 2012 for various firearm charges as well as one charge for unlawful possession of Molotov cocktails. He and his partner were sentenced to two and a half years in prison even though some of the surveillance footage was illegally acquired by the police. The legality of the evidence was not taken into account by the judge during the sentencing or trial, but Iti made sure to get justice by using this while appealing the case and his sentencing. His resilience proved effective, and he was released on parole a year early. This is only one example of Tame’s resilience, but he continuously shows it as he fights for the rights of his people. There are constant barriers and people who try to stop him, but nevertheless he continues on with his fight. His resilience also makes it easy for his followers to look up to him, and try to follow in his footsteps.

Courageous

Tame Wairere Iti has always shown great courage. Whether as a child, refusing to give up speaking Maori, or working as an activist as an adult, Tame Iti has always had a powerful ability to not show fear. At age 15, Tame Iti began a life of anti-authority protest, and his courage would serve him well. Beginning with his establishment of a Tuhoe “Embassy” in Wellington in the 1970s, Iti began a career of challenging authority to pursue indigenous sovereignty in ways most people would balk at. Perhaps the most notable example of this was in 2005, when, at a ceremony with many judges and officials in attendance, Iti fired a shotgun into a New Zealand flag, in an attempt to convey what it felt like to be Maori under the New Zealand government. Defacing the flag while government officials look on is not an act the average individual would be capable of doing, nor facing down police, or many of the other things Tame Iti has done on a regular basis in the past 50 plus years. His bravery in the face of those who oppress him and his people make him a great leader and activist, and it has helped him in the fight to get New Zealand to respect Maori sovereignty.

Tame Iti shooting a New Zealand flag
Tame Iti in protest of treaty violation shooting a New Zealand flag

Posted on

Whina Cooper – N.Z. Foreshore and Seabed

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | N.Z. Foreshore and Seabed References

Our Current Event is the New Zealand Foreshore and Seabed Controversy. This controversy between the New Zealand Government and the Maori Peoples has been ongoing since 1840 when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. In the treaty it states that the New Zealand Government owns the coastal water, the foreshore and riverbeds. Since the government did legally own the land because of this treaty, they had the authority to grant parts of the foreshore and seabed to whomever they chose. This allowed the foreshore and seabed to be used by the public from these owners.

Now the foreshore and seabed were granted to private owners who allowed the general public to fish and put their boats on the coast. What the New Zealand government forgot to recognize was the Native Maori Peoples rights and use of the land and water. The Maori fish, collect seaweed and used canoes as a form of transportation. Not only is the foreshore and seabed a piece of Maori ways of life, it is apart of their culture. The land under the water was used for canoe landing, as battlegrounds and burial grounds.  The government failed to establish an agreement with the Maori and allowed others to use the land without Maori permission.

As a result, the Maori started the battle of earning rights to the foreshore and seabed that holds cultural meaning to them. In the year 1997, Maori from the Marlborough Sounds applied to the Maori Land Court for rights of foreshore and and seabed in the area as Maori customary land. The case went to Court of Appeal but prior to that, the Foreshore and Seabed Act of 2004 was passed. The act claimed that the government is the owner of the foreshore and seabed (excluding private land), the public has access to the the foreshore for recreational purposes and seabeds for navigating boats. What the act also stated was people who owned dry land next to the foreshore since 1840, can apply to the government to redress and could claim territory customary rights.

Hikoi protesting the proposed Seabed and foreshore legislation, 2004.

On March 4th, 2009 at the Ministerial Review Panel the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act is being reviewed. The National Party and Maori Party entered into a Relationship and Confidence and Supply Agreement in November 2008. When asked why the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed act was being reviewed the response is stated in the article, Door Open to Repeal of Foreshore and Seabed Act, “In this agreement both parties agreed to initiate a review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act as a priority. A key part of the agreement was recognition of the concerns over the current Act, and also the interests of the public in using the coastal marine area.”

Upon this Ministerial Review Panel in 2009, Prime Minister John Key announced his plans to repeal the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act. Mr Key stated these decisions, 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act would be repealed and replaced with new legislation. The foreshore and seabed currently vested in Crown ownership would be replaced by a public space incapable of being owned; Existing Maori and Pakeha private titles would continue unaffected; and Customary title and customary rights would be recognized through access to justice in a new High Court process or through direct negotiations with the Crown.

In 2011, the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act is repealed and replaced with the 2011 Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act of 2011 by the National-led government. The Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed is replaced with a “no ownership” regime. The Iwi can apply to the court or negotiate with the government for recognition of customary rights or customary marine title over a particular area. These interests cannot prevent existing rights and uses, for example, fishing and public access. As of December 2014, seven applications for recognition and customary rights under the act have been confirmed. However; none have been confirmed as of 2014.

Whina Cooper at New Zealand Parliament during the 1975 Maori Land March.

Our Indigenous Leader, Whina Cooper would be an active leader in this current event. Through her lifetime of protesting and marching and fighting for Maori land rights, she would be an active participant in this controversy. Her main involvement in this controversy would be staying involved in the several marches held by other Maori peoples. Just like she was quick to be apart of the Maori Land March of 1975, she would be one of the main faces of the Foreshore and Seabed marches. Upon being involved in marches, Cooper would become involved in the government and Maori party. She would be one of the Maori Natives fighting for the Foreshore and Seabed Act of 2004 to be reviewed and repealed.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Ely S. Parker – Maori Land Ownership

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | Maori Land Ownership | References

 

The Maori people are indigenous Polynesians currently facing land ownership issues in their home of New Zealand. Between 1250 and 1300 CE, settlers from the Polynesian islands began to make canoe voyages to New Zealand, where they developed into a distinct culture. Europeans arrived In the 17th century. Initially, relations between the Maori and Europeans was amicable, but the Europeans were eager to claim this land for their own. In 1840, after years of negotiations with the indigenous people on the island, the Europeans and Maori leaders signed the Treaty of Waitangi. This treaty established British governance over the island and gave the Maori people the full rights and privileges of British subjects. Most importantly, it guaranteed full ownership of the Maori lands, forests, fisheries and other possessions. The treaty made both parties happy at first, but disputes over the wording of the English and Maori versions of the treaty have lead to problems of land ownership in New Zealand. Since the treaty was established, Maori land has frequently been sold without its peoples discretion. This problem continues today.

Maori Leaders Signing the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi

In 2004, the New Zealand parliament passed the Foreshore and Seabed Act, which granted the ownership of the intertidal zones all around the island to the government. This zone held plentiful natural resources, such as fish, that the government wanted to sell for extra money. The Maori people, however, had been using those lands since they arrived in the 13th century, so under the treaty, they were rightfully the owners of this land and thus it was illegally claimed by the government.

This act has been protested by the Maori since 2004, and in 2009 the act came under official review and revision. Revisions were put into the Marine and Coastal Area (Takuti Moana) act of 2011. This act made the coastal land public again, and also gave the Maori the right to claim ownership of the land under two conditions. The people had to prove they were holding the land in accordance with their customs, i.e. they were engaged in traditional fishing tactics and generally not abusing the land, and they also had to prove that they have occupied the area from 1840 to now without substantial interruption. Obtaining and presenting this proof to the government was and still is difficult, and thus many people have lost the lands their families have lived on for many generations, despite the fact that the treaty of 1840 granted them full rights.

If Ely S. Parker were alive today and serving the New Zealand government instead of the US, he would have greatly opposed the 2004 FAS act and would have upheld the Treaty of Waitangi. He would have endeavored to make sure that no Maori people would have their land illegally claimed and sold away.

Parker valued fairness above everything else, and at all times in his life sought to uphold the law of the United States. He saw ratified treaties as the final word on disputes, regardless of the contents of the treaty. When Native Americans or white politicians attempted to change treaties, Parker followed the Supreme Court decision of Fellows vs Blacksmith, which stated that a treaty, once ratified, had to be followed whether the Native Americans had knowingly assented or not. In the case of the FAS act, Parker would maintain that the treaty had to be followed, whether whites liked it or not.

Parker was also a pragmatist. He valued the continuation of Native peoples and communities, but he was flexible about methods. He would be eager to support the diversification of Maori incomes, so they were not reliant on fish. As he provided Native tribes with farm equipment and training, he would seek to provide the Maori with resources that would allow them to leave the shore behind. Currently, the Maori use the intertidal zones for fishing, gathering seaweed, travel, and burial grounds. They have a long cultural connection to the land. Parker did not spend much time worrying about cultural heritage. In his early career, he supported land allotments and removal of Native Americans in an effort to compromise. Later in life, he regretted his strong stances on both matters, realizing that many Native Americans had stronger connections to their land than he did. Depending on when in time he was asked about the FAS act, his views on it would evolve.

No matter Parker’s views on the nuances of FAS, he would still uphold the Treaty of Waitangi. He followed the law at all times, carefully overseeing his position as Commissioner of Indian Affairs and taking great pains to keep everything in order. He would never have allowed his own government department to cheat indigenous people out of their land.

Posted on

Winona LaDuke (Ojibwe) – Whanganui Water Rights

Biographical Timeline | Leadership Qualities | Whanganui Water Rights | References

Colonization is destructive and ongoing, and manifests in similar ways around the world.

In many ways, the external threats faced by Winona LaDuke and the Ojibwe, are very similar to the challenges faced by other indigenous nations fighting for their sovereignty and their rights to self-determination.

The Whanganui iwi (tribe), for example, is located thousands of miles away from the Ojibwe nation, on Aotearoa (an island more commonly known as New Zealand). Their struggle to protect their waters from the harms of the colonial government is similar to the work that Winona LaDuke does today.

Cows grazing on a river in Aotearoa. Photo courtesy of Radio New Zealand.

Water is threatened in Aotearoa.

How is it threatened? Let us count the ways…

For starters, it has been poisoned. Gallons of human and animal waste flood the waterways. Although the New Zealand government has botched sewage control for decades, many blame an unregulated dairy farming boom for the recent increase in fecal contamination. The resulting level of E. coli contamination has left many lakes and rivers unsafe for people to touch, much less to swim in – and by 2017 the drinking water of Aotearoa was contaminated to the point of emergency. Nutrient-rich plant fertilizers escape from agricultural farms as well, and can feed the overgrowth of harmful algae. Heavy metals, rubber, and petroleum byproduct also contaminate the water when they wash off of roads and out of urban areas. Furthermore, many industries obtain the right to dump waste directly into the waterways of Aotearoa. 

The riparian ecosystem has been damaged as well. The amount of available water decreases every year, as the New Zealand government relies economically on agriculture, and issues water rights to farmers with unsustainable irrigation practices. Furthermore, dams and poor forestry tactics deform rivers and degrade the health of the ecosystem.

These issues clearly affect everybody who lives on the island – whether they are members of an iwi, or not. However, for the Māori people, New Zealand’s attack on the water supply is simultaneously an attack on Māori sovereignty.

What is sovereignty? Who has sovereignty in Aotearoa?

Absolute sovereignty. In Māori, tino rangatiratanga.

Māori leaders signed a treaty with the British Crown in 1840, which Britain then used to claim ownership of and sovereignty over Aotearoa. There were two versions of the this treaty: one written in English and signed by the Crown, and the other written in Māori and signed by Māori leaders. In the Māori version of the treaty, although the leaders ceded governorship (kawanatanga) to the British in return for protection, they retained tino rangatiratanga. Absolute sovereignty. Because of this difference in language, the Waitangi Tribunal determined in 2014 that the Māori people did not legally sacrifice their sovereignty. And yet, the Māori people still live under the rule of a colonial government which retains the ability to rule over their people and their land.

Image of the Whanganui river, published by ABC.

Whanganui water sovereignty 

The denial of Māori sovereignty, and the implementation of the colonial model of resource use in Aotearoa, is at the heart of New Zealand’s water abuse. To the New Zealand government, water is merely one natural resource among many. On the other hand, to many Māori people, the rivers and lakes they have lived alongside for centuries are sacred family members.

The Whanganui iwi has a familial relationship with the Whanganui river. The leader of the iwi, Gerard Albert, argued strongly against New Zealand’s “perspective of ownership and management” of the river, which instead of an object which can be owned is “a living entity,” an “indivisible whole.” The government, on the other hand, tends to compartmentalize the health of the Whanganui river by putting it into what Albert calls “environmental…box,” isolated from social concerns, public health, and the rights of the Whanganui people. After compartmentalizing the issue, the government dismisses “environmental” concerns as unimportant, especially when “the environment” would benefit from limits on resource extraction. “New Zealand tries to squeeze maximum value out of its natural resources,”  according to a NZ national research institute. From the perspective of the Whanganui people, the colonial government squeezes them to the point of suffocation.

However, the iwi fights back against this suffocation. In 2014, after years of organizing and activism, the Whanganui iwi gained legal recognition of the Whanganui river as a person. This sets a precedent for other iwi in Aotearoa to fight for the legal personhood of rivers and other ancestors near them. Although the NZ government still retains control over the river, it retains such control in Māori terms. This is not a recognition of absolute sovereignty. However, this success does allow for the Māori people to self-determine within the NZ government.

Winona LaDuke speaking about the importance of water, at Standing Rock.

What would Winona LaDuke’s perspective be?

The United States rejects tribal sovereignty in many ways, and takes a very similar stance to resource extraction and ownership as does the NZ government. In this sense LaDuke is already familiar with the situation faced by the Whanganui and other iwi in Aotearoa – as it is the same kind of situation she has been fighting against for years.

LaDuke is no stranger to discussions of treaties and sovereignty. The Ojibwe signed treaties with the US government in the 19th century, which preserved their right to hunt and fish on ceded land. However, the Minnesota state government frequently denies these claims – on the basis of state law, and treaty language.

In 2000, LaDuke fought against a Minnesota university’s attempt to patent wild rice, a crop which her people have harvested for hundreds of years. The University’s attempt to establish ownership over a living organism, with which indigenous peoples have a centuries-old relationship, is much like the NZ governments establishment of control over the waterways of Aotearoa.