FULBRIGHT-HAYS SEMINARS ABROAD PROGRAM New Zealand 2004 CURRICULUM PROJECT Mana/‘Ike: Maori and Native Hawaiian Education and Self-Determination M. ‘Umi Perkins Kamehameha Schools Honolulu, HI November 17, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Summary II. Audience III. Key Questions IV. Objectives V. Materials VI. Strategies/Methodologies VII. Assessment APPENDIX A: READINGS: A History of the Maori, Hawaiian Land and Sovereignty: a Revised View APPENDIX B: COMPARISON WORKSHEET BIBLIOGRAPHY SUMMARY The Maori of New Zealand bear many similarities to Native Hawaiians, both in ancestry and history of contact with the West. Native Hawaiiians have, for several decades, looked to their Polynisan “cousins” for models of self-determination and cultural revitalization. My master's thesis, O ka 'Aina ke Ea: Land is Sovereignty, compared Maori and Hawaiian land alienation and reclamation and concluded that Maori have been more successful in reclamation of land and resources. I suggested three factors that may account for this discrepancy: the tribal structure of Maori, colonization by Britain, and Maori educational achievement. In this Fulbright-Hays seminar I follow up on this third factor by examining the effect of the New Zealand educational system on Maori and the resulting preparedness on the part of Maori to engage with, confront and create alternatives to political, cultural, economic and social practices in New Zealand. I currently present my thesis findings to my Honors Hawaiian History classes at Kamehameha High School. This project extends my findings on Maoris' ability to negotiate for greater control over Aotearoa/New Zealand's land and resources, a topic native Hawaiian students have a keen interest in. Mana is both the Hawaiian and Maori word for power. ‘Ike is the Hawaiian word for knowledge. Mana/‘Ike invokes Foucault’s concept of Power/Knowledge, in which knowledge constitutes power through the formation of discourses. The discourses in this case are the history texts, which determine their subject’s self-conception. New scholarship in the field of Hawaiian history has uncovered a story quite different than that traditionally understood in the twentieth century. Work on the Mahele – the 1848 land division – and annexation shows that traditional history texts have distorted subsequent generations’ views of Hawaiian history. A summary of this new scholarship is presented in the attached reading. The same was true to a lesser extent in New Zealand, particularly regarding the history of Maori. Newer history texts for schools at all levels reflect a progressive understanding of Maori history, particularly around the Treaty of Waitangi and land issues. This curriculum project involves students’ examining the way that Hawaiian history was recorded and critiquing that process by comparing it to recent New Zealand histories relating to Maori. AUDIENCE This lesson is intended for Hawaiian History students in grades 11 and 12 (17 – 18 year olds). At Kamehameha Schools, Hawaiian History is a required course usually taken in the senior year. Because of their Hawaiian ancestry, prior coursework in Hawaiian studies and exposure to other Polynesian cultures, including Maori, students at Kamehameha have a deeper understanding of these issues than do most other students in Hawai’i and the US. However, the readings are thorough enough that the lesson is applicable to students on the US mainland or in New Zealand. KEY QUESTIONS To what extent does the New Zealand education system allow or promote a Maori cultural consciousness for Maori children? How profound is students' understanding of the Treaty of Waitangi as facilitated by the history texts used? How well does the New Zealand education system prepare Maori for careers that allow or promote political engagement, i.e., law, politics, academia? What is the effect of the tribal structure on Maori political awareness relative to that gained in schools? What are the advantages and disadvantages of Maori educational institutions compared to the mainstream educational system in terms of preparation of politically engaged citizens? How do history texts for various age groups portray the political issues surrounding the Treaty of Waitangi and current treaty claims? How do Hawaiian history texts compare to New Zealand texts on issues of importance to the indigenous groups? How do these texts empower politically active indigenous peoples in their respective countries? OBJECTIVES The student will: demonstrate a basic understanding of Maori history and the parallels with Hawaiian history. examine history texts with a critical viewpoint, looking for discrepancies and biases between sources, particularly between sources written by native authors and those written by non-native authors, and by those who attempt to employ a native view point and those who do not. relate insights gained from this critical inquiry to current issues and views of Hawaiian history. MATERIALS History texts (see Bibliography) Comparison worksheet with questions (see Appendix B) Readings (see Appendix A) Grading rubric (see sec. VII ASSESSMENT) STRATEGIES/METHODOLOGIES The primary methodology employed in this lesson could be termed critical inquiry. The students will read historical texts “across the grain” to use Said’s phrase. By doing so they will gain insight into the ways that history is shaped or distorted by authors and historians. Using the historical perspective gained in Hawaiian history, students should then begin to see how the political views of historians and authors is related to the way they describe history. The lesson will be carried out in groups. Groups will collaborate by dividing readings and discussing and comparing their findings. Groups will collectively fill out the comparison worksheet and answer the accompanying questions with observations from their inquiry into the various texts.  ASSESSMENT Students will be graded as a group (the entire group will receive the same grade) according to a rubric (below) that assesses the quality of the groups’ insights and findings. BEGINNING DEVELOPING ACCOMP-LISHED EXEM-PLARY SCORE WORK-SHEET Very few entries [but answers are correct] Some entries included [but answers are correct] Entries for most questions [and answers are correct Entries for each question [and answers are correct] Entries are vague Little information included Most information included Entries complete, in-depth PRESENTA-TION Reference source omitted Source partially cited Most of source cited Source completely cited Very little summary Some information given Short summary, lacks detail Detailed summary RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS Answer does not provide explanation Brief answer with little explanation Answer gives some explanation  Answer is well-developed; show reasoning Many (> 6) mechanical errors make it hard to read Some (4-5) mechanical errors Few (2-3) mechanical errors Few (2-3) mechanical errors Very few (0-1) mechanical errors TOTAL APPENDIX A: READINGS A History of the Maori From M. ‘Umi Perkins, O ka ‘Aina ke Ea: Land is Sovereignty, ALM Thesis, Harvard University, 2002.         Maori society did not exhibit the centralization of Hawaiian society. Perhaps because the volume of available land did not force a centralization of power, Maori society was tribal, and its political structure remains so today. As was the case with Kanaka Maoli before Western contact, there was no pan-Maori identity or Maori nation. “Māori” simply means ordinary, as opposed to foreign (Pakeha). P.M. Ryan, The Reed Dictionary of Modern Māori (Auckland: Reed, 1995), 130, 252.   Tribal warfare was common, but was not devastating to the indigenous population until the introduction of muskets in 1810.         Abel Tasman, in 1642, was the first European to reach Aotearoa/New Zealand. Ranginui Walker, Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou: Struggle Without End (Auckland: Penguin Books, 1990), 78.    Over a century passed before James Cook arrived in 1769. By 1807, whaling ships from France, the US, Norway, Spain, and the East India Company were stopping in the islands. A period of open trade began that lasted into the 1830s and brought new resources to the Maori as well as the scourges of alcohol and disease, accompanied by general lawlessness in the Bay of Islands, a major trading region. This lawlessness was the motivation (on the part of the Maori) for signing the Treaty of Waitangi. This period also saw the beginning of a massive population decline. By 1840, the Maori population had been reduced by forty percent. Walker 80.         Economic colonization was followed quickly by Christian missionaries in 1814. Ironically, contact with missionaries led to the Maori leader Hongi obtaining the muskets with which he began the “musket wars,” a major cause of early Māori population decline. Walker 82.   Hongi’s campaigns across the North Island led to an arms race, which exacerbated this decline.         In 1835 British Resident James Busby organized a meeting of 34 chiefs from the North Island who drafted and signed a declaration of independence and confederation, legalizing and recognizing Maori sovereignty over Aotearoa/New Zealand. Walker 86. In lieu of an ambassador, the official “resident” was Great Britain’s diplomatic presence in Aotearoa/New Zealand.   This created the United Confederation of Tribes, and was in response to the actions of a Frenchman, Baron de Thierry, who planned to declare himself King of New Zealand, residing on land bought from Maori in Hokianga. The declaration prevented neither British colonization nor Maori warfare. New Zealand was annexed by Britain on January 14, 1840, and on February 6, 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi was signed.         The Treaty was a means for the Maori chiefs to delegate governance to Britain, primarily to control the situation in the port town of Russell – called “The hellhole of the Pacific” – and the Bay of Islands. British motivation for the Treaty was to allow for land purchases, as the Treaty gave the Crown the “first right of preemption,” i.e., the first right to buy land offered for sale. In return the Maori were guaranteed the “full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their desire to retain the same in their possession.” The Treaty of Waitangi, Art. 2. Debate has raged for more than 150 years over the meaning of the Treaty, particularly over whether governance or sovereignty was ceded.         With the Treaty in place, the Crown went about purchasing large amounts of land from the Maori. Between 1844 and 1863 the entire South Island was purchased in less than a dozen blocks for a total of £14,800. Walker 106.    One-tenth of this land was to be reserved for Maori, but many of these reserves did not materialize, and those that did were controlled by a Pakeha-dominated board. The more densely populated North Island was another matter.  As the burgeoning city of Auckland expanded, pressure for land purchase extended toward tribal land south of the capital creating an urgency that sparked a Māori nationalist movement. Walker 110.         The “King movement” was an effort to create a Maori monarch in whom to invest land title and slow the tide of land sales. In 1858, Te Wherowhero of Tainui was installed as the Maori King and took the title of Potatau I. Walker 112. This monarchy persists today. The Crown made attempts to weaken the position of the King, as the monarchy had slowed land purchases. In 1880, a depression led to a “back to the land” movement and undeveloped land only existed by this time in “King Country,” i.e., Tainui. Walker 137.    An institution was created in Aotearoa/New Zealand for the purpose of privatizing land tenure. This was the Native Land Court, established by the Native Land Act in 1865. Mason Durie, Te Mana, Te Kāwanatanga: The Politics of Māori Self-Determination, (Auckland: Oxford University Press, 1998) 121. Pressure from the Crown, privatization of land by the Native Land Court, and Pakeha control of Maori Reserve Lands, combined to cause a dramatic decline in Maori ownership of land. Two million hectares remained in Maori ownership by 1920, while 24.4 million hectares had been alienated. Walker 139.         Maori cultural preservation occurred through tribal kinship, the marae (Māori meeting house), and the tangi (funeral ceremony). In the 1920s and 1930s, Apirana Ngata, a Maori member of parliament, spearheaded a cultural renaissance. Walker 189.   Ngata focused on the marae as the vehicle of cultural revival and advised tribes to file some of the first lawsuits before the Native Land Court claiming the right to resources under the Treaty of Waitangi. Walker 191.  Ngata also was an advocate of Maori equality within the Anglican Church, resulting in the ordination of the first Maori bishop and revitalizing Maori language. Other aspects of the Maori renaissance occurred during this period: a petition drive for ratification of the Treaty of Waitangi, and formation of the Young Maori Conference, which discussed issues of urban migration, land tenure, and education before World War II. Walker 196.         World War II brought an urban migration as young Maori not eligible for military service were pressured into labor in essential industries. This led to two developmental challenges for Maori: engagement in a total cash economy of an urban industrial nature, and transplanting Maori culture to an urban setting. The perpetuation of Maori culture during the urban migration was accomplished through voluntary associations. These included churches, culture clubs, sports, family and tribal organizations, benevolent societies, the Maori Womens’ Welfare League, the Maori Councils as well as urban marae. Walker 199.   These associations diffused the alienation of the urban migration.         Although the organizational structure of the Maori Councils was artificially imposed by the conservative National Party, they were involved in opposing the “Europeanisation” of Maori land owned by fewer than four individuals. Walker 207.   The Councils were also active in addressing other problems of urbanization such as crime and educational achievement. Walker 208. Hawaiian Land and Sovereignty - A Revised View M. ‘Umi Perkins, 2004. Two issues that continue to be of primary importance to Hawaiians are land and sovereignty. The relationship between the two can be viewed in different ways. The contemporary view assumes the legality of the Hawai‘i’s annexation to the US. This essay presents the relationship between land and sovereignty during the Hawaiian Kingdom period, explores the legal status of Hawaiian sovereignty today, and recasts the relationship from this perspective. It presents an alternate view of the relationship between land and sovereignty that can be viewed alongside the current view within a US-state context. What was the relationship between land and sovereignty during the Hawaiian Kingdom era and the ramifications of that relationship today? Before addressing this question, it is necessary to explain the method by which sovereignty was attained. Efforts to secure Hawaiian independence - 1842-1843 In late 1842 through early 1843, Kauikeaouli sent three envoys (plenipotentiary) to Europe and the US to gain formal recognition from the US, France and Great Britain. This was a purposeful strategy to gain entry into the family of nations – the de facto international system of independent states which were (and are) subjects of international law. Kauikeaouli understood this international system because of lessons from William Richards, a missionary who left the mission to become teacher of political economy and the science of government and a government minister. Lilikala Kame‘eleihiwa, Native Land and Foreign Desires, (Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, 1992), 187. On November 28, 1843, the British and French Governments formally recognized Hawaiian Independence in the Anglo-Franco proclamation. While the envoys were away, Lord George Paulet responded to complaints of unfair treatment from British consul Charlton. Paulet made demands that were impossible for the Hawaiian Kingdom to meet, and Kauikeaouli ceded sovereignty to Britain in February 1843. When the commander of the British navy in the Pacific, Admiral Thomas arrived, he interviewed Kauikeaouli, and determined that the takeover had been illegal. Thomas restored Hawaiian sovereignty on July 31, 1843, a holiday in the Hawaiian Kingdom thereafter known as La Ho‘iho‘i Ea (Restoration Day). On December 20, 1849, a Treaty was signed between the United States of America and the Hawaiian Kingdom in Washington, D.C. this written recognition of Hawai‘i formalized the formerly verbal recognition of the US, and after this date there is no doubt that Hawai‘i’s independence was recognized by the US. The Hawaiian Kingdom’s independence was recognized by most independent states, including those with diplomatic representatives in the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893: United States of America, Portugal, Great Britain,France, Japan, Italy and others. The intervention by Paulet led William Richards to advise Kauikeaouli that a system of proprietary rights to land was necessary. Not only would this system deter would-be imperialists by showing Hawai’i to be a “civilized state,” it would provide for fee-simple title to land for native Hawaiians. In case of an overthrow, the maka‘ainana (commoners) would have ownership of land that the invading country would respect. Mähele and Kuleana Act The mahele was an effort to modernize the land tenure system in the Kingdom. The domain of the kingdom consisted of a three-tiered system of interest in land: the King, all classes of ali’i (chiefs) in their capacity as konohiki (land supervisors), and the maka‘ainana (commoners) each held a one-third undivided interest in all the land in the Kingdom. The system of proprietary interests, consisting of fee-simple title, leaseholds and life estates existed on top of this domain of vested rights in land. According to Kame‘eleihiwa (1992), the results of the Mähele were as follows: Ali‘i (and some foreigners) received 40%, the King 23%, the Government 37%, and the Maka‘äinana 0.8%. Kame‘eleihiwa’s examination of the mahele does not explore the mechanisms by which Hawaiians lost land after the mahele, but rather emphasizes the differing conception Hawaiians had toward land – that land was not a commodity. In 2003, Robert Stauffer wrote Kahana: How the Land was Lost, which found that maka‘äinana received majority of land value (i.e., the most valuable lands) and that they held on to this land for a generation. Further, Stauffer found that Hawaiians lost land after 1874 due to a non-judicial foreclosure law – a law that allowed foreclosures on mortgages without judicial oversight, a fact that explains the lack of written records. Robert Stauffer, Kahana: How the Land was Lost. (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2003). Stauffer agrees with Kame’eleihiwa that maka‘ainana received 1% of land. Research conducted by Keanu Sai, formerly of Perfect Title Company and Minister of Interior pro tempore of the acting Hawaiian Kingdom found that maka‘äinana received 155,000 acres (approximately 5% of all land in Hawai‘i) in the mahele, rather than the 28,000 claimed by Kame‘eleihiwa and Stauffer. This brings the total closer to 5% of the land in the Kingdom, and when combined with Stauffer’s finding on value suggests that Hawaiians received the vast majority of land value in the Kingdom. Further, Sai clarified “layers” of rights to land distinguishing between dominion of Hawaiian Kingdom and proprietary rights: fee-simple, leasehold, life estates (see fig 1.) Sai also points out that the constitution of 1840, and not the Mahele, grants an interest in land in fee to all maka‘ainana. This was a one-third undivided interest in all the land in Hawai‘i. This suggests a reason that maka‘ainana did not file land claims in larger numbers Much of the contention in the scholarship on the mahele stems from a failure to distinguish between vested rights in land based on Hawaiian Kingdom domain on the one hand, and proprietary rights (fee simple, leasehold and life estates) on the other. fig. 1 “Annexation” Contrary to popular belief, the annexation of Hawai‘i was asserted via a joint resolution, which is a law that is internal to the US and does not apply to foreign countries. Whether one considers that Republic of Hawai‘i the legitimate government or not, the joint resolution did not annex Hawai‘i under either international law or the US constitution. Because of petitions from Hawaiians against annexation, the proposed treaty failed to get the constitutionally required two-thirds majority vote to pass, and brought support for the treaty down to just above 50%. Under the US constitution and international law a treaty is required to annex territories The petitions against annexation show Hawaiian opposition to annexation may have been as high as 95 percent. Newlands Resolution The joint resolution annexing Hawai‘i stated: Whereas the Government of the Republic of Hawaii having, in due form, signified its consent, in the manner provided by its constitution, to cede absolutely and without reserve to the United States of America all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind in and over the Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies, and also to cede and transfer to the United States the absolute fee and ownership of all public, Government, or Crown lands ...belonging to the Government of the Hawaiian Islands, together with every right and appurtenance thereunto appertaining; Therefore Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That said cession is accepted, ratified, and confirmed, and that the said Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies be, and they are hereby, annexed as a part of the territory of the United States and are subject to the sovereign dominion thereof, and that all and singular the property and rights herein before mentioned are vested in the United States of America. The resolution of the Republic of Hawai‘i was drafted before the joint resolution, and referred to the proposed treaty in the US Senate: Of the Senate of Hawaii Ratifying the Treaty of Annexation. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Senate of the Republic of Hawaii: That the Senate hereby ratifies and advises and consents to the ratification by the President of the treaty between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America on the subject of the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States of America concluded at Washington on the 16th day of June, A. D. 1897 Thus, neither the resolution of the United States nor that of the Republic of Hawai‘i extends beyond the borders of their respective countries, i.e., no treaty of annexation was ever passed. In the ‘Iolani Palace ceremony ceding sovereignty to the US, the image normally seen is a close up of Sanford Dole in a formal ceremony. If one takes a larger view, one can see that the US military surround the palace, signifying Hawai‘i’s likely status as an occupied state. This is in contradiction with the conventional view that Hawai‘i is effectively a colony of the US. See Sally Engle Merry, Colonizing Hawai‘i: The Cultural Power of Law. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999). If Hawai‘i is indeed an occupied state under international law, the occupation of Hawai‘i began on Aug. 13 1898, the day that the US forces landed in Honolulu in order to use Hawai‘i as a staging area for the Spanish-American war. How is that this legal history of Hawai‘i has gone unnoticed for over one hundred years? There was a concerted propaganda campaign designed to obscure the legal history of the Hawaiian Kingdom. For example, the Historical Commission of the Territory of Hawai‘i commissioned Ralph S. Kuykendall to write his extensive history The Hawaiian Kingdom. The history produced by this effort cleverly skirted the issue of the legality of the overthrow and annexation. Another example can be seen in the statue in front of McKinley High School in Honolulu. According to one source, “ [in] 1901 Sanford Dole [leader of the revolution against the Hawaiian Kingdom] led a fundraising campaign to commission a statue of President McKinley; and he personally unveiled that statue where it stands today on the campus of McKinley High School in Honolulu. President McKinley’s statue is holding a book whose cover is entitled: ‘Treaty of Annexation.’” http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/dolebiog.html McKinley was President during Hawai‘i’s ostensible annexation, but the treaty never passed through congress. One outcome of this propaganda campaign is that many Hawaiians and other sympathizers have used this distorted history to construct a path out of this dilemma. In combination with using the precedents of other oppressed groups, Hawaiian scholars and activists have created a logic that casts Hawai’i as a colonized country, and seeks various routes toward self-determination including decolonization and autonomy within US wardship. According to the strictly legal view, a country that gains recognition and membership in the family of nations cannot be colonized, and can only be occupied. Figure 2 summarizes two diverging logical threads: the first summarizes the current situation for Hawaiians’ relationship to land if Hawaiian sovereignty still exists, the second is the more conventional view of Hawai‘i as a US state or colony. fig. 2  APPENDIX B: COMPARISON WORKSHEET SOURCES HAWAIIAN NEW ZEALAND/ MAORI OBSERVATIONS Elementary/ Primary texts The Hawaiian Monarchy The Treaty/Te Tiriti (Waanga) Ko Wai o Tatou Tipuna/ Discovering Our Ancestors (Salesa) General texts Ruling Chiefs of Hawai’i (Kamakau) The Story of a Treaty (Orange) Shoal of Time (Daws) High School/ Secondary texts A History of Hawai’i Menton and Tamura, Tagata Tagata:People and Change (Wendt Samu, et. al.) Hawai’i: A History(Kuykendall and Day) Tagata Tagata: Our People, Our Land (Wendt Samu, et. al.) Te Mana o te Tiriti (Naumann, et. al.) The Tauiwi (Naumann) Te Ao o te Maori (Naumann & Winiata) University texts The Hawaiian Kingdom (Kuykendall) Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou: Struggle Without End (Walker) Native Land and Foreign Desires (Kame’eleihiwa) QUESTIONS How respectful and informed is each text from a cultural and historical perspective? Would this text give an indigenous child an understanding of who they are? Are there any omissions or areas that are “glossed over?” How are critical events (Treaty of Waitangi, Overthrow of Hawaiian Kingdom) treated? How are legal and cultural issues treated in each text? Is the author indigenous? Is the native language used? Given the information in the reading, how accurately is the history portrayed in the history text? How are authors’ political views related to the histories they produce? BIBLIOGRAPHY Calman, Ross. The Treaty of Waitangi. Auckland: Reed, 2004. Kamakau, Samuel M. Ruling Chiefs of Hawai’i. Honolulu: Kamehameha Schools Press, 1992. Kame’eleihiwa, Lilikala. Native Land and Foreign Desires: Pehea La e Pono Ai? Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, 1992. Kuykendall, Ralph S. The Hawaiian Kingdom. Vols. 1, 2 & 3. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1938. Kuykendall, Ralph S. A History of Hawai‘i. New York: Macmillan, 1940. Menton, Linda and Eileen Tamura. A History of Hawai’i. Honolulu: Curriculum and Research Group, University of Hawai’i, 1989. Merry, Sally Engle. Colonizing Hawai‘i: The Cultural Power of Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999. Naumann, Ruth. The Tauiwi: The Later Immigrants. Auckland: New House Publishers, 1990. Naumann, Ruth, Lyn Harrison and Te Kaponga Winiata. Te Mana a te Tiriti. Auckland: New House Publishers, 1990. Naumann, Ruth, and Frank Winiata. Te Ao o te Maori: The World of the Maori. Auckland: New House Publishers, 1990. Orange, Claudia. The Story of a Treaty. Bridget Williams, 1989. Salesa, Damon. Discovering Our Ancestors. Wellington: Learning Media, 2004. Salesa, Damon. Ko Wai O Tatou Tipuna. Wellington: Learning Media, 2004. Stauffer, Robert. Kahana: How the Land was Lost. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2003. Wendt Samu, Tanya, Mona Papali‘i, and Alison Carter. Tagata Tagata: Contact and Change. Auckland: Addison Wesley Longman, 1996. Wendt Samu, Tanya, Mona Papali‘i, and Alison Carter. Tagata Tagata:Our People, Our Lands. Auckland: Addison Wesley Longman, 1996. Whaanga, Mere. The Treaty/ Te Tiriti. Wellington: Scholastic, 2003.