The author of this article is John Robinson, author of the recently published book, “Who Really Broke the Treaty?” published by Tross Publishing.
“Once when Maori called me racist, I would say “No, I am not.” Then I thought a bit about
what racism is, and I realised that they were the racists. I had entered dangerous grounds, for
it did not take long to see that my country is deeply racist. I do not belong here.”
What is New Zealand? This is a country that has defined itself out of existence. It is no
longer one sovereign nation. Instead, sovereignty rests with many race-based hapu and iwi
scattered across the country, ruled by unexplained tikanga based on the ways of a past
warring tribal society.
Who are these special ones who hold the sovereignty of our lands? This is the Maori, people
whose identity is fundamental to government and laws. The definition of Maori is then basic
to any understanding of the country. Here is, written into law in 1974.
“A Maori is a person of the Maori race: and includes any descendant of such a person.” 1
Here there is a Maori race. There is no thing as a race, yet here it is written into law. So,
what is this? It is a race consisting of Maori. We are none the wiser – keeping in mind that
key words in legislation and in international treaties must have a clear, well-defined meaning,
leaving no doubt of what is implied. We are back where we started, and can go on round in
circles as long as we like, but will never get anywhere in an effort to find a clear definition of
‘Maori’ in our law. This is nonsense, but it is the basis of much New Zealand law, and of
increasingly divisions in many spheres of government.
Despite the lack of any clarity on the meaning of ‘Maori’, the above definition insists on the
inclusion of all who have any degree of ancestry. This is a wider definition of racial identity
than those of apartheid South Africa (which referred to the full blooded as black, with those
of mixed ethnicity defined as coloured), Nazi Germany (at first requiring half or more
ethnicity for a Jew), being that of the ‘Jim Crow laws’ re-establishing racial segregation in
the American South. 2 Here is the affirmation of a very wide definition of race as the basis of
a national ideology, to be written into all law.
In practice these Maori are descendants of some Polynesians who came in the 13 th century
(including now anyone with any degree of such ancestry, no matter how small). Research in
the early twentieth century by the distinguished Maori scholar (doctor, military leader, health
administrator, politician, anthropologist, and museum director) Sir Peter Buck (Te Rangi
Hiroa) identified three series of migrations to New Zealand; Buck referred to the first group
as the ‘tangata whenua’. Each new influx of settlers found numerous people living here;
many were killed so that the newcomers could possess the land, often in wars of
extermination, resulting in the practical extinction of the men, while the women and children
were absorbed by the conquerors. The first to come, according to Buck, was around the 9 th
century; later research has suggested a much earlier date for first human settlement. The
canoes bringing the ancestors to today’s Maori were probably the third of these migrations. 3
But all reports of settlers preceding the Maori have been deleted from history, with an
insistence that they only are the first people, tangata whenua’, and the ‘indigenous’ people.
That assumption is then held to support a claim that they are a special race, demanding higher
status and better treatment.
Such division by ancestry or first settlement, with race-based privileges, has been universally
condemned. This is made clear in the introduction to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which includes a powerful rebuttal of inherent differences between peoples.4
“Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating
superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious,
ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally
condemnable and socially unjust.”
This statement of a condemnation of superior status based on national origin or ethnic
difference and refutes the many claims of that Declaration which demand special race-based
rights for the (undefined) indigenous people. Nonsense is not unique to New Zealand.
There is no such thing as race. Humans cannot be, and should not be, divided by race. To do
so is to reverse the struggle over past centuries in opposition to division by race and the
subsequent racism, a struggle that brought equality to New Zealand when this nation was
founded.
This is the first of four short articles noting the nonsense that is driving New Zealand ever
further into apartheid, with different treatment based on race and two race based governments
and sets of law. Only a ship of fools would sit back and allow this happen.
1 Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974
2 Robinson J 2024. Who really broke the Treaty? Tross Publishing, page 41
3 Buck P (Te Rangi Hiroa) 1938. Vikings of the sunrise. Whitcombe and Tombs, republished
as Vikings of the Pacific in 1959 by University of Chicago; Buck P (Te Rangi Hiroa) 1949.
The coming of the Maori. Reprinted 1982, Whitcoulls Ltd.; and Robinson J 2020.
Unrestrained slaughter, the Maori musket wars 1800-1840 Tross Publishing, page 9
4 United Nations 2007. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf