New Zealand Republic
The Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
This website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 New Zealand License.
The Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand Incorporated.
Mail: PO Box 5063, Wellesley Street,
Auckland 1141
Contact - Member login
Website designed and maintained by Web Social.
Comments
New Zealand should first take the logical next step and join the Commonwealth of Australia as a State, and take its place as part of the driving force in the southern hemisphere - before it unilaterally becomes a rebublic.
Becoming a rebublic will not solve any economic issues, nor will it change its relationship with Australia, in fact it may do more harm than good in the eyes of the rest of the Commonwealth - joining such nations as Zimbabwe and SouthAfrica on the road to ruin - upon loss of the stability implied by the Crown.
Republic ? - good luck getting the majority of the population being keen on that idea !
The majority of members of the Commonwealth are republics. Moreover your claim that a New Zealand republic would end up like Zimbabwe or South Africa is laughable. Totally different countries.
hi
It won't be Maoritania, and personally I won't support your movement while you politicise it to the left and ram all this Maori crap down everyone's throats.
I won't support your movement while you politicise it to the left and ram all this Maori crap down everyone's throats.
Firstly, we're not politicising anything to the left. The reason why we find it easier to recruit people of a left-wing persuasion is that they don't abrogate constitutional issues like most on the right do. I would love it if our supporters within the National Party were more active, but they're not, and by doing so they abrogate the debate to the left. That's not our fault by any measure, I'm constantly trying to get more Nats / Act people onside.
Secondly, we're not ramming anything down anyone's throats. If you don't want Maori names for things, you should probably go live in a country with no historical links to Maoridom. I find this anti-Maori sentiment to be somewhat ironic, since you're in conniptions over the issue of British heritage. What gives us the right to "ram" our heritage down their throats?
"I hate to disappoint you, but "Aotearoa" is the generally accepted Maori name for New Zealand."
Whilst I personally have no issue with "Aotearoa", I am interested in how it became "generally accepted" and what "generally accepted" means.
First, I would like to know how Maori came to be an official language as I do not recall. English was the official language for many years with government being conducted in English. Then, was it by government decree or referendum that Maori became an official language. That effects how "generally accepted" Maori language is. A government "making it so" does not necessarily mean that it is generally accepted by a majority of the population.
As for Aotearoa, I think, at one stage, it may have referred to the "north Island" alone. So I would be interested to hear of the process by which this word became the "generally accepted" Maori word for NZ, a concept which Maori had no need for, prior to European arrival.
that is not what aotearoa means, aotearoa means land of the long white cloud,
Even Wiki says:
The use of Aotearoa to refer to the whole of New Zealand is a post-colonial usage. In pre-colonial times, Māori did not have a commonly-used name for the whole New Zealand archipelago. Until the 20th century, 'Aotearoa' was used to refer to the North Island only
and
Historians (e.g., Michael King) have suggested that the use of Aotearoa to mean 'New Zealand' was initiated by Pākehā (non-Māori). He theorises that it originated from mistakes in the February 1916 School Journal and was propagated in a similar manner to the myths surrounding the Moriori.
and
After the adoption of the name New Zealand by Europeans, the name used by Māori to denote the country as a whole was Niu Tireni,
etc.etc.etc. What gives us the right to "ram" our heritage down their throats?
Because there was a war, and "we" won. So there.
In fact Aotearoa was the original Waitaha name for the South Island, given in honour of one of their canoes. It never meant "Land of the Long White Cloud" or anything remotely like it, but since Maori inherited much in the way of language from Waitaha (along with symbolism and agricultural skills) I suppose they can make it mean whatever they choose.
The Waitaha name for the North Island, where they also lived in great numbers, was Whai Repo.
And as an aside, English is not, and has never been, an official language in New Zealand. We have two official Languages, those being Maori and Sign Language.
Interestingly I think you're on to something Newt. Much like people say God Save the Queen is legally equal to God Defend New Zealand, yet GDNZ is protected by statute and GTSQ isn't. But then, "North Island" and "South Island" have never been officially Gazetted names for either island - the last official European names were New Ulster and New Munster...
Maori are leaving these shores, migrating to the warmer climes and better economic opportunities of Australia, where they can get ahead by escaping the fatalism and tall poppy syndrome of their own culture.
One day New Zealand will be a Republic, I'm quite sure of that, and I will support it when it arrives, but it won't be a Maori republic, and it won't be called Aotearoa, no matter how much any miserable, white-hating, anti-British lefties want it to be.
"We" are the descendants of the greatest culture the modern world has ever known; "we" brought the light of civilisation unto the darkest reaches of God's earth, "we" brought the tolerance and charity of Christianity, "we" brought equal rights and women's suffrage and democracy and freedom, and it appalls me that you seem to wish to denigrate those things because you don't appreciate the symbiotic nature of the relationship and bond which exists between the people and the Monarch, in a constitutional Monarchy such as ours.
"We", despite having evolved from the colonists that once "we" were, are not ruled against our will by a foreign hereditary elite. Rather, "we" have chose to continue to uphold a system which "we" believe to be the best yet offered.
When you can come up with a Republican model which provides us with a tangibly better and proven alternative, "we" will support that instead.
But the onus of that proof is on you.
I do not oppose a Republic. I do oppose a bastardised State, misnamed a Republic, built on the desires of misguided liberals, extremist leftists, and racist Maoris and their apologists, especially when, even lumped in altogther, the above constitute only a tiny minority of our population.
Oops, actually I am a constitutional monarchist...however if and when a republic comes, as at now, I don't think I would welcome it. However, I would accept a republic, provided it incorporated the traditions of our existing parliamentary democracy with its inheritance from Magna Carta to Glorious Revolution and beyond.
Whilst I am a champion of our British inheritance, I do not give it the sweeping accolades you have bestowed on it.
As far as the Maori language is concerned, there are many Maori and English names for the same place. These are often used interchangeably by Maori and non-Maori alike. Our parents may have baulked at that. Language is fluid and whatever practice is in common current use is the modern standard.
I will leave it to the Webmaster, the OP, to further address the issues you raised in your post.
Wibble.
Neither one of the two should be "celebrated" by the general public, let alone be a public holiday.
The Queen has more relevance to me than Matariki.
That's great. But that doesn't mean you need a public holiday to celebrate the Queen's alleged relevance - not the least one which isn't the Queen's actual birthday.
Sure if I were formulating a list of public holidays today I would not inlude QB but then I would not include Christmas Day in the Summer or Labour Day.
Ok, so you wouldn't accept QB if you were putting the list together, yet you take issue with Matariki.
How can Matariki have been celebrated in New Zealand prior to 1840 - New Zealand as a country did not exist until the Treaty of Waitangi when Maori and Pakeha/Non-Maori were united under the sovereignty of the British monarch (no matter whether you read the Maori or English version of Te Tiriti).You're arguing in semantics. Sure "New Zealand" as a state didn't exist prior to 1840 (although, I could argue that it existed from 1835 with the United Tribe's Declaration of Independence, which was accepted by the House of Commons). The historical fact is that within the islands of New Zealand prior to 1840 Matariki was celebrated / marked, albeit in a different way from today.
Pre-British Maori governent was in tribal areas. Therefore it is fitting to celebrate the monarch as Sovereign of us all.
No, it was fitting in 1840 when the colony was a mere collection of warring Maori tribes and lawless European settlements. The Crown has since then come to represent Maori repression, being the legal mechanism that took land off Maori in often unjust ways (i.e. confiscation, forced land surveys, etc). The Crown failed miserably in its duty of care to Maori. We cannot move forward as a country wedded to an institution that has caused so much division.
That's why around two-thirds of Maori support a republic, according to the New Zealand Electoral Study.
Christmas and Easter are Europeans imports; Matariki is a Maori custom. I would not object to adding Matariki as an additional holiday but a National Govt would listed to employers' complaints about having another public holiday.
So we get rid of the least relevant holiday to New Zealand - Queen's Birthday - which is head about the same time. Simple, Maori are happy, non-Maori don't lose something they particularly care about (witness the total lack of celebration of the event) and businesses don't lose a day to make money.
I stand by my last comment. Matariki may have been celebrated pre-euro days in Ngati whatua and Tainui tribes (where I live) but the customs of NZ only came about in 1840.
So, in your mind, everything prior to 1840 is irrelevant? What about the Te Rauparaha Haka that was written in the 1820s / 1830s? What about Kapa Haka? Are these things not New Zealand customs because they were created before 1840?
Those customs included both British and Maori customs.
Sure - but as I've pointed out, Queen's Birthday holiday isn't even a British custom. It's something the colonies made up.
The bit about immigrants accepting the customs and way of life is bit tangental to the discusion of Matariki/ QB. It is more relevant to the general discussion of a republic. I have read that some republicans say many Asian immigrants are uncomfortable swearing allegiance the Queen and accepting the monarchy.
I've not heard such arguments myself. However, I do know for a fact that *a lot* of immigrants from the UK / Ireland are unhappy at having to swear allegiance to the monarchy they consider they've left behind. Most complain to me that the symbols of the class system are one of the reasons why they decided to leave the UK to begin with. It's indisputably part of New Zealand's founding myth (cf Richard Seddon et al) that we don't judge people by who their parents are/were. The monarchy fundamentally goes against that principle.
"The Crown has since then come to represent Maori repression, being the legal mechanism that took land off Maori in often unjust ways (i.e. confiscation, forced land surveys, etc). The Crown failed miserably in its duty of care to Maori. We cannot move forward as a country wedded to an institution that has caused so much division."
Oh please! The Crown has also got rid of the slavery that had been practised. It also introduced the Maori Land Courts so that disputes between Maori Land owners and tribes coud be settled without wars, land grabs and enslavement. Maori are free to buy non-maori land and money do for the security of personal ownership. The Crown has also introduced a welfare state. It would be great to examine the life of the average Maori person in pre-British times, compared with today.
Also, the point of the Maori Land Court (originally the Native Land Court) was to create titles for Maori land, so that it was easier for settlers to buy it up - it was never intended to protect Maori land interests. If that were not so, then you wouldn't have seen such a dramatic drop in Maori land ownership from the 1850s onwards.
So the crown, government, has been responsible for good and bad! We can't separate the bad from the good and claim that the monarchy was responsible only for the bad. Well I guess some can try to do that!
"it was never intended to protect Maori land interests." TBH I don't know the full motives, but one of the results was a greater degree of certainty and protection. As far as motives,as for so many things, I guess it depends on whose version of history and whose interpretation one reads and accepts.
"if that were not so, then you wouldn't have seen such a dramatic drop in Maori land ownership from the 1850s onwards." Maybe some Maori wanted to sell their land , when presented with the opportunity to do so. After all, the arrival of the British and settlers would have considerably driven up the number of potential purchasers! Maybe the idea that they would not be tied down to one area, or to a particular way of life, actually appealed to some owners?
No, you missed the dichotomy. The Crown = the Queen / the British monarchy, the Government = the Prime Minister and Cabinet. All of the good and bad was by the New Zealand Government, the Crown simply stood idly by and did nothing, like a useless ornament.
We can't separate the bad from the good and claim that the monarchy was responsible only for the bad. Well I guess some can try to do that!
Except I didn't, so I'm not sure how this is relevant.
I understand the dichotomy but do not understand the relevance of your posting in a discussion on the the need for a republic the following "The Crown has since then come to represent Maori repression, being the legal mechanism that took land off Maori in often unjust ways " when we are all agreed the crown in that case means the government as a whole and not the responsibility of the Monarch alone.
Matariki has no relevance to me....I am a NZer British and Irish descent. The Queen is sovereign of us all - Maori and Non_Maori (See treaty of waitangi 1840). We have had a monarch for about 170 years - since the inception of modern NZ. What could be more Kiwi than that. Why not celebrate the official birthday of the holder of the office at the apex of our country. The monarch is the embodiment of the state.
If I chose to migrate to India I would not expect the Indian government to change its constitution to reflect my background. I would expect my children to have Indian linguistic, constitutional and social customs. Similarly I would expect people arriving in NZ to accept our consitution and way of life and not to expect NZ to adapt to them.
It still commemorates her birthday, even though it is not her actual birthday. In the same way other people have birthday parties in their honour which are not actually on their birthday. It is hardly unusual!
If you call the fact that she is Head Of State New Zealand unmeaningful, then why have a organisational and this web site dedicated to the removal of the monarch. If the monarch does not affect you "in a meaningful way" no need for you to be involved in this organisation. I certainly think that the Head Of State, the person and the position is "very meaningful".
However in our multicultural society with a plurality of ideas and different concepts of what it is to be a New Zealander, your ideas may differ. Unlike Matariki, Ramadan, Hannukah Christmas, Easter that may or may not have any relevance to various people, we all have the same Head Of State, a consititutional embodiment of NZ. Meaningful.
You just answered your own question.
If the monarch does not affect you "in a meaningful way" no need for you to be involved in this organisation. I certainly think that the Head Of State, the person and the position is "very meaningful".
You're confusing opposition to the concept of a head of state with the monarch and the Queen. We're opposed to the monarchy, not having a head of state - if anything you could say we want a head of state who is more meaningful, better able to relate to New Zealanders because they're actually from here and physically present in New Zealand.
we all have the same Head Of State, a consititutional embodiment of NZ. Meaningful.
You're argument is circular - we all have the same head of state who is the constitutional embodiment of New Zealand. The position must therefore be meaningful, because we all have the same head of state. That's circular logic. You've actually got to show that, despite being absent from New Zealand, and selected in a way that runs against what New Zealanders stand for, the Queen retains meaning for New Zealanders. I would say that the position doesn't - all that prevents us from becoming a republic is largely fear of the alternatives, which is exactly why the monarchists love to talk about irrelevant HDI measures...
The Head Of State is a meaningful position, that I think we agreed on. It is a fitting position to commemorate by way of having a public holiday to celebrate the holder's birthday.
The fact that the Queen fills that position is indeed meaningful - it means, to you, that NZ is not showing it has complete independence and has not, symbolically, declared its independence from the UK. Also to you it means that we have settled on an inappropriate person to hold the position. To others, it means that we are, symbolically, declaring our inheritance and the culture they would like to identify as the national culture, whilst not being beholden to any other nation's government.
Sorry I am not British nor Maori, but I do agree to a Matariki which relevant to this country, not to me but the country of Aotearoa.
I respect the Queen and the Monarch in England but NZ has long been a sovereign country who has a right to steer away from this colonization afiliation.
Nothing stop people from connecting to their country of origin like myself. People forgot NZ has been and independent country for how long? The queen will continue to represent the colonization era not to disrespect her, but it will not solve the problem of all different people including Maori in NZ.
The way forward for NZ and her own people is to define their own processes based on the collective effort and common purpose by the enthnic groups, cultures and whatever made NZ a unique country of her own without standing under the shade of the Monarch and Australia.
This is where I like to quote the national anthem of NZ. God of Nation at thy feet...... Yes this does shows the need for NZ to define their journey forward.
God bless all New Zealander.
Queen's Birthday holiday is the invention of a colonial New Zealand's desire to ape Britain - and in doing so going further than the Brits themselves.
Yep - I agree the Brits themselves don't celebrate Queen's birthday. But they have a much more visible presence of the monarchy in their countries. The Queen has more relevance to me than Matariki. Sure if I were formulating a list of public holidays today I would not inlude QB but then I would not include Christmas Day in the Summer or Labour Day. I would prefer a Universal Suffrage Day and a United Nations Day etc.
How can Matariki have been celebrated in New Zealand prior to 1840 - New Zealand as a country did not exist until the Treaty of Waitangi when Maori and Pakeha/Non-Maori were united under the sovereignty of the British monarch (no matter whether you read the Maori or English version of Te Tiriti). Pre-British Maori governent was in tribal areas. Therefore it is fitting to celebrate the monarch as Sovereign of us all. Christmas and Easter are Europeans imports; Matariki is a Maori custom. I would not object to adding Matariki as an additional holiday but a National Govt would listed to employers' complaints about having another public holiday.
I stand by my last comment. Matariki may have been celebrated pre-euro days in Ngati whatua and Tainui tribes (where I live) but the customs of NZ only came about in 1840. Those customs included both British and Maori customs.
The bit about immigrants accepting the customs and way of life is bit tangental to the discusion of Matariki/ QB. It is more relevant to the general discussion of a republic. I have read that some republicans say many Asian immigrants are uncomfortable swearing allegiance the Queen and accepting the monarchy.