One nation, two peoples, many cultures: exhibiting identity at Te … · 2013-11-03 · 296 One Nation, Two Peoples, Many Cultures exclusion that is linked with all changes of New

295

ONE NATION, TWO PEOPLES, MANY CULTURES:

EXHIBITING IDENTITY AT TE PAPA TONGAREWA

SENKA BOZIC-VRBANCICUniversity of Auckland

The Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa presents a postmodern simulacrum. In Te Papa, New Zealanders can find their own reflections, their double, “a mirror on their lives, a place where their stories are told, a place to lose yourself and to find yourself” (MNZTPT 1998:1). Te Papa makes an effort to present New Zealand’s nation, to harmonise different historical narratives and to provide a display that reflects the national imaginary of biculturalism.1

During the last three decades, biculturalism has been defined in official government policy as “a fundamental characteristic of New Zealand’s heritage and identity” (www.govt.nz). In commonsense language, biculturalism, as a national imaginary, is constructed on the back of the recognition of the historical interaction of two peoples, Mäori (the indigenous people) and Päkehä (the settler population). However, in contrast to the commonsense understanding of this word, the official government policy defines biculturalism as a celebration of cultural diversity, a celebration that includes not just “Two” (that are celebrating and that are being celebrated), but “Many”: “We are One nation, two peoples and many cultures” (www.govt.nz): the One, the Two and the Many. By suggesting that biculturalism is not just about the TWO, but at the same time the ONE and the MANY, this statement powerfully touches the Real of New Zealand society.2 In other words, beyond the One, the Two and the Many there are complex articulations, different imaginaries of New Zealand social space, different senses of closure that mark repressed histories of colonisation, racial violence, the trauma of colonial settler society and separation from imaginary homelands, immigration control, discrimination and so on.

In this essay I will explore a complex articulation that produced the MANY within New Zealand bicultural discourse through an analysis of the way it is represented in the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. In doing so, I will concentrate on the Croatian community and the way it has been positioned as one of the MANY, its relation to the TWO (Mäori and Päkehä) and its role in the construction of the ONE (the New Zealand nation). Croats, as one of the MANY minority ethnic groups in New Zealand, could serve as a sort of crystal, reflecting the complex interplay of power relations, the interplay of tolerance and intolerance, inclusion and

296 One Nation, Two Peoples, Many Cultures

exclusion that is linked with all changes of New Zealand’s nation-building processes (colonialism, assimilation, multiculturalism or biculturalism).

WELCOME TO “OUR PLACE”

The Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa opened in 1998. A large building located in the “heart” of New Zealand’s capital city, Wellington, Te Papa is presented as the main cultural attraction of the country, for both foreign visitors and local people:

Te Papa is different from any other museum on the planet... playful, scholarly, imaginative, educational, interactive, bold—Te Papa speaks with a Kiwi accent (www.tepapa.govt.nz/who_we_are/nmonz.html).

Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (1998:139) points out that the word “museum” brings to mind all sorts of adjectives: boring, uninteresting, tedious, dull, drab, prosaic, monotonous and lifeless. Dead. Museums are very often regarded as places full of dead, forgotten things enclosed in glass cases, far from the bustle of life, interesting only to fastidious academics. But in Te Papa, the key words are experience and adventure:

Te Papa—passionate about learning, serious about fun—a place of exact imaginings.Te Papa takes you inside the New Zealand experience (www.tepapa.govt.nz/who_we_are/nmonz.html).

As Kirshenblatt-Gimblett argues, the word “experience” has become the most important symbol for the new consumer-entertainment orientated museology; it suggests a new link between museums and tourism, and “indexes an engagement of the senses, emotions and imagination. Museums were once defined by their relationship to objects. Today, they are defined more than ever by their relationship to visitors” (1998:138). Hundreds of thousands of tourists move around the world, most of them seeking an unforgettable experience. To attract their attention and to lure them into the museum, each country tries to define its uniqueness in a complicated and intricate world market, where varied places, cultures, landscapes compete among each other. What is most important to prove and to compress into a few vibrant metaphors is uniqueness. This uniqueness competes with thousands of other national uniquenesses in a seemingly coherent world of postmodern pleasure. Thus, New Zealand tends to present its uniqueness as a tourist destination as biculturalism, through indigenous Mäori culture and Päkehä culture.

297

Te Papa plays a special role in both the tourism industry and in the national imaginary (see Goldsmith’s essay in this volume on New Zealand “culturespeak” and “cultural celebrationism”). Seen from the point of view of tourists, however, Te Papa is contextualised within a broad frame of consummations offered worldwide, as expressed in this visitor’s statement. “We have seen nothing to match Te Papa in the many museums we have visited in many countries. It is stunning!! Well done!” (MNZTPT 1998:2).

But from the point of view of New Zealanders, Te Papa offers a new way of imagining the nation, “one in which all New Zealanders are travellers” and “the destination is collective self-understanding” (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1998:139). As one visitor put it: “Your concept of displaying Maori and European history is inspirational. It gives you shivers down your spine and makes you so proud (and glad) to be a New Zealander” (MNZTPT 1998:2-3).

A unique Te Papa “experience” is encapsulated and explicitly directed by a threefold concept:

PAPATUANUKU—The earth on which we live. The earth, the sea, the flora and fauna and the environment of Aotearoa—New Zealand, the Pacific and the wider world.TANGATA WHENUA—Those who belong to the land by right of first discovery.The cultural identity of the Maori people of Aotearoa, including art, heritage, history, language, marae skills, science, society, technology and relationship with the land, and their place in the Pacific and the wider world.TANGATA TIRITI—Those who belong to the land by right of the Treaty.The cultural identity of the more recent settlers of New Zealand, including art, multicultural heritages, history, science, society, technology and relationship with the land, and their place in the Pacific and the wider world (Museum of New Zealand 1989:4-5).

This threefold concept shapes the politics of display. The first floor is devoted to Papatuanuku, to the land “where it all begins”. It highlights the natural environment of New Zealand, the “awesome forces” of nature, “spectacular geological events, such as earthquakes and volcanoes”. But in Te Papa information is not enough, visitors are encouraged to imagine how it all started, “the massive forces that broke up the southern super-continent, Gondwanaland, and moved New Zealand down into the Southwest Pacific”. They can “feel [the earthquake] in the shaking of the earth beneath [their] feet”, they can find themselves in the primeval forest, “filled with the

Senka Bozic-Vrbancic


sounds of birdsong”, they can be given “eagle-vision” and “pursue the moa through the bush”, in short, they can have a most amazing experience of New Zealand (MNZTPT 1998:4-13). But, the “experience” of New Zealand cannot be fully imagined without its people, hence, the fourth floor is devoted to Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti, to the celebration of two peoples, many cultures and One Nation. The overall organisation of the floor literally illustrates the bicultural concept of the Nation.

In the central position is displayed Signs of a Nation, contemporary commentary on the Treaty of Waitangi, the very document on which the concept of biculturalism is based. The Treaty, signed in 1840 by the representative of the British Crown and representatives of the indigenous Mäori people of New Zealand, the Treaty was written in two languages, Mäori and English. The Mäori translation failed to express the meaning of the English version and “each party to the treaty was left with expectations about the power they would exercise. Difficulties of interpretation dogged the colony’s early years and were to continue” (Orange 1988:1). It is not my intention here to discuss the gap between Mäori and European expectations of the Treaty, but to outline the main narrative of Te Papa where different interpretations of the Treaty are offered through the interplay of different stories told by “ordinary New Zealanders”: “The Treaty of Waitangi is a living social document. Debated, overlooked, celebrated. A vision of peaceful co-existence, or the cause of disharmony?... [I]t is impossible to live here and not have an opinion about the Treaty” (MNZTPT 1998:34).

The space where the exhibition stands reflects on the meaning of the Treaty for the New Zealand nation. It is a “stunning space… underneath a very high, wedge-shaped ceiling”. The words of the Treaty are inscribed on the walls of “the monumental, cathedral-like space”. For Te Papa, “this place is sacred, powerful and dignified—a place where the clarity and simplicity of the actual words of the Treaty express the vision of two peoples seeking to co-exist peacefully in one country”. Visitors (moving through a thicket of pole clusters) can hear different recorded voices of people, voices of “ordinary New Zealanders”, expressing their views on the Treaty. These voices are “like snapshots in time, with quotes from the time of signing through to current opinions” (www.tepapa.govt.nz/communications /Press_Releases/pr_signs.html).

On the left side of the Signs of a Nation, visitors can enjoy the representation of Mana Whenua; they can experience “the living dimensions of Maori arts, language and culture” (MNZTPT 1998:36). The permanent display is supplemented by an ongoing temporary exhibitions of different Mäori tribes (the Tuhoe exhibition on display in 2002, followed Te Ati Awa and Te Aupouri exhibitions) that aim to show the heterogeneity

299

of Mäori society. On the right side of the Signs of a Nation under the section called Passports, different stories of people who migrated to New Zealand are presented:

The New Zealand story is about journeys and arrivals. A thousand years of people leaving home to come here. Now, concentrating on the 19th century and onwards, you can meet the immigrants. Who were they? What did they bring? What did they leave behind? How would you fare?….Passports explores and celebrates the remarkable stories of the people who migrated to New Zealand…. As a visitor to this exhibition, you will embark on your own dynamic, interactive journey of discovery (www.tepapa.govt.nz/communications/Press_Releases/pr_passports.html).

Let me concentrate on this representation of immigrants, because the interplay of ONE, TWO and MANY in the construction of the New Zealand nation is related to this display. Päkehä, as an immigrant culture, are presented as One of the Two peoples who constitute the New Zealand nation, but there is an intriguingly different mode of presentation for Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti. While for Tangata Whenua the display stresses their Mäori heritage, it is emphasised that Tangata Tiriti have “multicultural heritages”, numerous cultures to be acknowledged. And these cultures constitute the MANY of New Zealand’s official discourse of the Nation, the MANY that in terms of multiculturalism within a bicultural nation belong (according to Te Papa) to the Päkehä side.

PASSPORTS, PASSPORTS, PASSPORTS

Passports starts with the story of British (English, Scots, Welsh and Irish) immigrants. Their stories are screened on video and maps. Stories and photos of immigrants other than British and Irish (Chinese, Indians, Dutch, Greeks, Croats and so on) are exhibited on huge panels and tell of their regional lifestyles. Visitors to Passports are encouraged to buy a passport in the Museum’s shop and “get involved in the great personal stories” of different people who are immigrants from different regions of the world.

The first time I visited Te Papa, I bought Greek, Polish and Croatian passports. On the cover page of each was written “our people came this way”. The Croatian passport tells the story of Vlado Barbalich, and how he arrived in New Zealand in 1951. I learned that he did not like the communist system in his country and escaped from the island of Krk to Italy, where he was based in a refugee camp at Trieste and was given opportunities to migrate to either Australia or New Zealand. “I chose New Zealand” he said,



“Why? Because it was about as far away from Yugoslavia as you could get”. Furthermore I learned that Vlado imagined New Zealand as a tropical paradise and his first impression of the new country was a shock, but he soon started to like his “new homeland”. He worked hard, he opened a coffee shop, he hired a Greek band and he served Mediterranean food and nice wine. When I entered the exhibition, I had “my passport” stamped and then moved to the place where the panels telling the Croatian story are placed. Through the Babich family story, I learned that Croats have been in New Zealand since the 1880s, that they worked hard as gumdiggers but that many of them also became good winemakers.

The passport, I suggest, is a sign of hospitality: immigrants do not get a passport by a birthright, but it is given to them. The Te Papa passport experience underlines this hospitality. Let me explain this point. Te Papa stresses that the Passports exhibition focuses on all nationalities other than Mäori. And indeed, temporary exhibitions highlight the contributions made to New Zealand by different ethnic communities. (The contribution made by the Chinese community was followed by a celebration of the Dutch community, and since 2002, the focus has been on the “astonishing contribution made by the Indian community” [www.tepapa.govt.nz/communications/Press_Releases/pr_passports.html]). The exclusion of Mäori from Passports explicitly constructs the idea of an indigenous New Zealand culture and the correlation that other cultures are “bicultural” (remember, Te Papa’s Mission is biculturalism) in relation to that “no-passport” Mäori culture. So, this other element of the bicultural dichotomy, the “Passport” culture, is not a homogeneous one, but intrinsically diverse. There are further, critical divisions within this “Passport” culture expressed in the way it is displayed. Te Papa presents British and Irish migrants’ cultures as cultures that together with the indigenous culture of New Zealand produced something unique in the world, “Kiwiana”, that is represented under yet other sections such as Exhibiting Ourselves, Parade. Other ethnic groups, even though mentioned as a part of this new “Kiwiana” culture, are presented as locked into their ethnicity. They appear to “enrich” New Zealand society by their mere presence, or more precisely, they enrich “non-Mäori New Zealand society” with their different “lifestyles”. In the case of Croats, this is through wine making.

Ghassan Hage’s (1998) analysis of multiculturalism in Australia is pertinent here. A children’s book, The Stew that Grew, aimed at explaining the multicultural notion of Australia, is taken as a text. In it an Anglo-Celtic couple (the Anglo male having primacy) cook a stew to which all ethnic groups add their ingredients. Hage explains that the discourse of enrichment expressed in this “Eureka stew” not only places “the dominant culture in

301

a more important position than other migrant cultures”, but “also assigns to migrant cultures a different mode of existence to Anglo-Celtic culture. While the dominant culture merely and unquestionably exists, migrant cultures exist for the latter” (Hage 1998:121, emphases in original). Similarly, in Te Papa different ethnic groups are included in the representation of the Tangata Tiriti side of the bicultural imaginary, but it is clear that temporary exhibitions are tied just to migrants from countries other than Britain. As minority groups, they give different flavours to immigrant culture and Croats contribute the wine industry to this flavouring. This discourse of enrichment operates also in the way Mana Pasifika is represented: “Many people of Pacific Island origin live in New Zealand, adding to the richness and diversity of life here. Mana Pasifika acknowledges the strong bonds between New Zealand and other Pacific nations” (MNZTPT 1998:24).

While Croats, Indians, Dutch, Chinese, Greek, Italians, Polish, Samoans, Fijians, Tongans and so on underline the richness of society by their mere presence, the culture of British immigrants and Mäori culture are represented as “two very different cultural streams [that in early New Zealand] began to run together” (MNZTPT 1998:30), and whose traces can be followed to the present. Hence, in the Museum’s booklet we can read:

What we value depends on who we are.What we like depends on who we are.What we make depends on who we are…and we are “ONE nation, TWO peoples, MANY cultures” (MNZTPT 1998:30).

“NATION” AND FANTASY

In its specific and entertaining way, Te Papa seeks to (re)define the national imaginary. Its rhetoric is clearly a political tool in the service of developing a sense of bicultural national identity. How can we understand this representation of national identity? Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s (1985) reflection on the concept of “identity”, or rather of different identifications, and the construction of the social emphasises how identities and the social do not exist as givens at any moment in time, but are always processes, always incomplete—a fissure. All societies and identities are constructed within specific discursive formations, and they are results of articulatory practices. The practice of articulation consists of different discursive attempts to fix the meaning of the social. Laclau and Mouffe call these partial fixations of the social “nodal points”. Hence we can recognise that biculturalism as an official policy in New Zealand is a “nodal point” that fixes all meanings in the society. Seen from this point of view, Te Papa’s



narrative presents the past in a specific way to construct a picture of society understood as the harmonious coexistence of different groups of people, in other words, a utopian ideal of contemporary New Zealand. According to Laclau and Mouffe, the full closure of society is impossible, but it is exactly the idea of closure that functions as an ideal. It is a fantasy that emerges in support of this ideal, and it is a fantasy that covers over the impossibility of any closed system. In Slavoj Žižek’s (1996) words, it is through fantasy that we experience our world as a wholly consistent and transparently meaningful order. Therefore, I argue that the display represented in Te Papa is structured by the fantasy of an ideal social vision in which all groups of people live peacefully and which is based on the discourse of tolerance. Žižek stresses that fantasy has a stabilising dimension, “the dream of the state without disturbances out of reach of human depravity” (1996:24). But at the same time, he reminds us of fantasy’s destabilising dimension that creates images that “irritate us”. In other words, the obverse of a harmonious community always produces some disconnected fragments, some stereotypes that try to conceal the lack in the “reality” itself. What is repressed in Te Papa’s story about nation building is exactly this destabilising notion of fantasy, a fantasy of nation building, where the discourse of tolerance has a different meaning. In the following pages I will explore the complex interplay of these two aspects of fantasy in the construction of the MANY cultures of the nation, through Croatian immigrants’ experience in New Zealand.

ONE (COLONIALISM)

The political debate about multiculturalism and biculturalism in New Zealand has been alive for the past 30 years. Until the 1960s, the most common story of national imaginary, expressed by various politicians, was a story of the unity of the peoples in one nation (Sharp 1997). It is important to say that this story of integration was based on the European idea of a homogeneous national culture but, as in all settler societies at the beginning of colonisation, also in New Zealand this idea was connected with “a transplantation” of the mother country’s culture—British culture. Thomas Richards (1993:6) argues that in the 19th century the British saw their Empire as a sort of unity, but that this unity was based on the imperial “fantasy of knowledge”. The Empire’s scientists and administrators collected much information (they surveyed, mapped, took censuses, they described different people and their customs, religions, languages, etc.) which they organised into a series of classifications. According to these classifications, mostly based on Darwin’s theory of evolution, some people were seen as

303

“good” and “superior” and others as “bad”, “abnormal” and “inferior”. That meant that the British race was put on the highest level, above all others, and domination of the “inferior” by the “superior” was considered a natural condition.

At the beginning of colonisation in New Zealand, according to these classifications, Mäori were ranked “higher than most other ‘savages’”, due to their agricultural and some artistic skills (Sorrenson 1975:97). It was argued that they had capacity to be civilised through their contact with the “superior” British race. Some prolific writers on New Zealand expressed their opinion that, through marriages, New Zealanders (Mäori) and Europeans could become one people (Wakefield and Ward 2000:29). But what we have here is, rather, inclusionary rhetoric combined with exclusionary practices. In reality, far from being equally included into the social, Mäori lost most of their land, and by the 1890s, Europeans saw them as a “dying race”, owing to a sharp decline in their numbers. By that time, the British (predominantly English, Scottish and Irish) “outnumbered Maori by fourteen to one” (Sorrenson 1992:141). New Zealand nationalism emerged and gradually the feeling that New Zealanders (British by origin) were a distinct people with their own language (English with New Zealand intonation and a few Mäori words) spread. Loyalty to the British Empire coexisted with this new national idea, and often New Zealanders talked about themselves as “the best British” (Bassett 1999:155). In the late 1880s, when the first groups of Croats arrived on New Zealand gumfields in search of a “better life”, the idea of cultural homogeneity based on British values, on which New Zealand tried to build its new nationhood, was very strong. Social divisions operated among the British population as well (based upon ethnicity, wealth, occupation, age, gender…), but the idea of cultural homogeneity excluded people whose origins were not British (Bassett 1999:155).

The construction of political space based on exclusions and inclusions can be analysed through Laclau’s and Mouffe’s concept of the logic of equivalence and difference. According to them, the logic of difference tends to expand political space, enabling a proliferation of different meanings and positions. By contrast, the logic of equivalence creates a second meaning by subverting each differential position. For example,

in a colonized country, the presence of the dominant power is every day made evident through a variety of contents: differences of dress, of language, of skin color, of customs. Since each of these contents is equivalent to the others in terms of their common differentiation from the colonized people, it loses its condition of differential moment…thus equivalence creates a second



meaning which… though parasitic on the first, subverts it, the differences cancel one other out insofar as they are used to express something identical underlying them all (Laclau and Mouffe 1985:127).

Clearly, in New Zealand at the time when Croats arrived, the logic of equivalence prevailed. This entailed the simplification of New Zealand’s political space and the expansion of the paradigmatic pole of meaning over different strata of population. We can say that almost everyone was ensnared by some kind of metaphor. The logic of equivalence, something identical to the ideal type of New Zealander, first operated on the level of “whiteness” and excluded indigenous people—Mäori. But “whiteness”, in terms of creating the “we” of the nation, operated on different levels and at different intensities. There were “pure white” or “dirty white”, one white more equal than another. In this classification Croats, who were mainly working as gumdiggers in the far North of New Zealand, were considered “not white enough”, an inferior race, and consequently they were not welcome: “New Zealand for New Zealanders. Our ambition is assuredly not to colonize our country with Chinese or Kanakas or Austrians [Croats]. Neither are we ambitious to have a mixed race—a hybrid or mongrel people…. On the contrary we are all anxious to preserve the purity of our race” (New Zealand Observer... 1893b, 27 May, p.2).

Žižek’s (1993) analysis of nationalism and the idea of the purity of race are relevant here. For Žižek (1993:201) the element that links together members of a given community

always implies a shared relationship toward the Thing, toward Enjoyment incarnated. This relationship toward the Thing, structured by means of fantasies, is what is at stake when we speak of the menace to “our way of life” presented by “the Other”: it is what is threatened when, for example, a white Englishman is panicked because of the growing presence of “aliens”. What he wants to defend at any price is not reducible to the so-called set of values that offer support to national identity.

There is something more there, something that is “present” in these values, something that “appears through them”. But, paradoxically, even though the nation always appears to us as “our Thing”, as something accessible only to us, as something “they”, “the others”, cannot grasp; nonetheless we believe that it is something constantly menaced by “them”, we believe that “the other” wants to “steal our enjoyment” (by ruining our way of life). Žižek argues that to the racist, “the other” is always either a workaholic stealing our jobs or an idler living on our labour (1993:203).

305

Croats in New Zealand were certainly treated as “the workaholic other”, “the other” who wants to steal “the legitimate rights for work” of the British population. Croats worked in groups and their efficiency was highly visible, hence there was some fear that the “invasion of Croats” would seriously affect the economic growth of the young British colony. The following statements given by British diggers and published in various newspapers at the time serve as an illustration of this point: “The Austrians [Croats] on the fields are a great evil at the present time.… the North will be destroyed by the Austrians…(AJHR 1898: H–12:48)

Croats were called Austrians because, at the time of their arrival in New Zealand, Croatia was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. But, as one of the British gumdiggers put it, they were not Austrians and consequently according to the imperial classification of peoples “much more undesirable as colonists than Austrians would be”:

It is unquestionably time that the people of New Zealand woke up to a recognition of the evil consequences that must follow this influx of Austrians. Did I say Austrians? Well, I am wrong. They are not Austrians…. They are Russian Slavs…. The Russian Slav, like the Chinamen is “peculiar” in many of his little ways. He has a frugal mind, for example, oh very frugal! Lives, like John, on the smell of an oiled-rag. And like John again, he is extraordinarily industrious…. If steps are not taken to drive these Russian Slav invaders away the result will be this: These foreigners will band together to lease our gumfields… and they will boss the situation… (New Zealand Observer... 1893a, 13 May, p.2).

The writer of this letter compared Croats with the Chinese. There are certainly many parallels between the Croatian and Chinese migrations to New Zealand. At the beginning early Chinese labourers in New Zealand working in the gold fields were considered “industrious, frugal, moral, healthy, and law-abiding” (Pearson 1990:76), but by the 1870s their productivity was seen as an “economic threat” to the colony. Like Croats, Chinese immigrants were overwhelmingly male and they worked and lived in separate communities. If we read some of the stereotypes applied to Croats and Chinese together, we come to the conclusion that a deep psychic fear of “the other” was interwoven into the fabric of colonial New Zealand. Neither Chinese nor Croats met the stereotyped view of the “desirable coloniser” and, more importantly, they were blamed for all misfortunes colonisers faced (high unemployment, bad conditions of life). As Žižek (1993) argues, “the other” is very often constructed as somebody who prevents the community from achieving its full closure—the state of happiness and harmony. This creation of the fascinating image of “the



other” in colonial New Zealand, i.e., “the other” who steals our jobs and creates economic crisis, resulted in the constant control of all people who were not considered good enough to populate what was represented as a “working paradise”. Everyone was under constant surveillance. In the case of Croats, in 1898 the colonial government formed the Kauri Gum Investigation Commission to check them. In a remarkable series of encounters, the Commissioners questioned British settlers and diggers about Croatian behaviour on the gumfields. Even though they found that Croats were “laborious, energetic, resourceful, well behaved” (AJHR 1898 H–12:7), the Kauri Industry Bill was passed to reduce the number of Croats on the gumfields. In 1908 and 1910 other restrictive laws against “aliens” on the gumfields were passed, protecting the interests of British gumdiggers.

What was therefore at stake in the exclusionary politics in early New Zealand was the coloniser’s belief in the possession of the national Thing. This Nation-Thing staged a fantasy space of possible “fullness” of society, and all failures to reach this fullness were explained through the construction of “the other”, “the other” that stands in the way of achieving it. In colonial New Zealand, where the logic of equivalence predominated, society was clearly divided into two camps: us (the nation) and them (foreigners, strangers, others).

Interestingly enough, there were some arguments that Croats were a “danger” not just to colonisers, but to Mäori as well. But on the gumfields, Mäori and Croats connected and developed a relationship, marked by a significant number of intermarriages.

ONE (ASSIMILATION)

Colonialism, as one of the New Zealand’s “nodal points”, helps us to locate the notion of the new “suture” (assimilation), where the colonial ties of the homogeneous British community were torn and replaced by the new vision of a New Zealand whose constituents were well assimilated citizens united in one nation. It is important to stress that passing from one “nodal point” (colonialism) to another one (assimilation) cannot be analysed as “a story of progress” or “cumulative improvement”, because these points are constituted through antagonism. As Laclau and Mouffe argue, it is exactly antagonism that is the limit of the social order, “the limit of all objectivity” and “the negation of a given order”. But this limit of the social is not external to it. It “must be given within the social itself as something subverting it, destroying its ambition to constitute a full presence” (1985:126-27). For Žižek (1996), antagonism is the Lacanian Real, something that cannot be

307

incorporated into the symbolic and yet is created by the symbolic, something that cannot be signified and yet is shining through the very impossibility of a signifier. The moment of dislocation of the social, the moment of negation of the identity, is precisely what causes new social constructions that seek to suture the fissure created by dislocation. Laclau and Mouffe’s explanation of the logic of equivalence and difference in the social can again be a useful tool to analyse the new political space that emerged under the policy of assimilation, the logic that operated through the interplay between the promotion of an assimilatory inclusion of others and the exclusion of “non-assimilated” others. While in colonial New Zealand the interplay of equivalence and difference created a clear enemy/friend form, during the assimilationist period this interplay resulted in the combination of inclusions with exclusions. Let me illustrate the point by showing how this new “nodal point” created a new articulation of the Croatian position that simultaneously included their New Zealand past within the national space, but socially excluded them from the construction of the “we” of the nation.

When the gum industry collapsed, gumdigging became part of New Zealand history and a number of local museums mushroomed around the abandoned gumfields. Under the policy of assimilation, the past was perceived in a specific way: life on the gumfields was purified and shifted into the artificial museum scenery, presenting what now was seen as a “heroic pioneering past”. In this new context of reading the past, Croatian gumdiggers became the property of the mythical pioneering story, although a marginal part of that story, which portrays the world of the ideal coloniser who, by emigrating to the colony, had “a chance to face life in the raw, to show courage and physical strength” (Phillips 1987:5).

For example, in the Matakohe Kauri Museum, built in 1962 as a memorial to the district’s pioneers, there is “the typical way of the life on the gumfields” on display. The Kauri Gum Collection exhibited in Matakohe is described in a brochure written for visitors as “the largest display to be seen anywhere and unique in the world” (Sterling and Cresswell 1985: n.p.) There are two life-size mannequins of gumdiggers, modelled after real people, on display in the basement of the museum. One of them is a Croat called Stipe Yelavich. They are set in a corner against a mural backdrop of the gumfields. On the wall, behind the gumdiggers, is a framed poem:

The happy gumdigger who lived in shackTi tree for a bed and a mattress of sack…An era has gone of the gumdigger’s boom



—and the ti tree brush he used for a broomTo sweep out his shack—that was the wayFor the happy gumdigger of yesterday

The message is clear: the beginning was full of hardships but, despite these, gumdiggers had a good life and succeeded in establishing community. The memory that is repressed is not just the memory of exclusion and intolerance on the gumfields, but that gumdiggers as a class were not respected at all. The expressions “He is just a gumdigger” and “vagabond occupation” (Smith 1952) were common in earlier times. In this new setting, Croats are represented as “honest industrious Yugoslavs”, and it is mentioned that they developed “a good relationship with Maori”. So, this exhibition offers a singular vision of a highly romanticised past, using different elements to tell its story and clearly displacing the memory of the past in order to paint a new picture of New Zealand as “one happy nation” (Bell 1996).

But this “happy nation”, even though including the Croatian gumdiggers’ past in national space, contains an exclusionary intent as well. As in many other settler societies, the main purpose of assimilation politics in New Zealand was to legitimise a dominant group as naturally national. As in colonial times, this dominant group saw itself as a group that can judge others and their degree of assimilation. Croats, with their way of life and outlook were seen as a group that could not fully assimilate. Hence, in the New Zealand Encyclopaedia (1966) Wilson (1966:627-28) writes:

Some Yugoslav families have reached their second New Zealand born generation, but they are still a problem as their assimilation is not easy. This has been partly due to the feelings of loyalty to the Slav people and partly to the feeling that any government… is an unnecessary evil…. It will take time for the Yugoslav to have the same fundamental feelings and outlook as the British New Zealander.

It is interesting to note is that at the same time, many Croats were becoming economically successful, especially in the wine and fishing industry. This success again challenged the assimilationist concept of inclusion and exclusion in such a way that Croats were positioned as economically assimilated or included, but socially unassimilated or excluded from society. As Hage (1998:137) argues, this construction of the categories “assimilated” and “unassimilated”

did not only indicate the division of the population between two sections—one seen as central/assimilated and the other as marginal/unassimilated. More

309

importantly, it also constructed non-assimilation such that it empowered the “assimilated” to see in the unassimilated a negative, problematic group and actively to exclude them from the social, political and cultural spheres of society.

MANY (MULTICULTURALISM OR BICULTURALISM)

The anticipation of a unique Te Papa experience, the context that would lead to the birth of a new national museum (as a response to the new play of equivalences and differences) was signalled by political changes during the 1970s and 1980s. The vision of the nation that is not just ONE but MANY, the shift to the concept of multiculturalism, was announced in 1973 by Prime Minister Norman Kirk. He proclaimed New Zealand a multicultural country and decided that 6 February would be a national holiday known as New Zealand Day. A special programme, a live performance called Aotearoa, was prepared for the Waitangi celebration. The main goal of the programme was to picture New Zealand’s “journey towards nationhood and the part played by peoples of many cultures on this great voyage of discovery” (Orange on www.nzhistory.net.nz). The programme started with the staged arrival of the first inhabitants, Mäori, who were followed by English, Scots and Irish; other European peoples arrived on stage as well—Danes, Germans, Croats, Greeks, Dutch, Italians—and they were followed by Pacific Islanders and Indians. A giant moa was built that laid an enormous egg exactly on the place where the Treaty was signed. The egg symbolised the new nation, the New Zealand nation, where the harmonious coexistence of different groups of people was celebrated.

But this move towards multiculturalism and the interpretation of the Treaty as the unifying symbol of the new nation raised Mäori protests that resulted in some constitutional changes and a shift towards biculturalism. This move towards biculturalism was not an easy one either. Some politicians clearly supported the multicultural idea. For example in 1984 Prime Minister Robert Muldoon said:

We take our culture from all the ancient tribes of Britain, as well as from the ancient tribes of Maoridom; but in addition, the Dalmatians who came to dig the gum and later made the wine; the Chinese who came to work the goldfields; the Dutch and the refugees…. Modern waves of Polynesian migration have also washed on our shores. So, we are a mixed people (Muldoon quoted in Sharp 1997:44).

Some Mäori intellectuals strongly opposed this interpretation of New Zealand’s history because, as Ranginui Walker put it, “the reduction of



Maori to a position of one of many minorities negates their status as the people of the land and enables government to neutralise their claims for justice” (Walker 1995:292). So the concept of multiculturalism was seen as radically opposed to the Mäori interest and justice in the country. In a pragmatically political piece written for the Institute of Policy Studies in 1988, Raj Vasil explains the tension between biculturalism and multiculturalism in this way:

For the present it is better to accept the notion of a bicultural New Zealand, as preferred by Maori, than to create an unnecessary and damaging controversy by insisting on multiculturalism…. Some Pakeha… insist on arguing with a certain vehemence that New Zealand, in view of the existence of many ethnic minorities, can properly be viewed only as a multicultural…. In many cases it is a fact that this argument provides a convenient means by which many Pakeha can deny Maori what they want…. It would be advisable for Pakeha to view New Zealand as a bi-racial and bi-cultural nation for the time being (Vasil 1993:1-2).

In 1988, the government decided to build the new national museum because the old national museum “no longer served the wider community” and in order to emphasise the essential biculturalism of the nation, a biculturalism that includes the celebration of many different cultures (see www.tepapa.govt.nz/who_we_are /history.html).

The concept of biculturalism in Te Papa, however, is highly problematic. A 1999 report prepared by Te Papa on bicultural developments in museums of Aotearoa says: “Te Papa… is working in partnership with museums, iwi and related organisations to promote bicultural development in museums of Aotearoa New Zealand”. But biculturalism as a concept is clearly seen differently by Mäori and by Museums.

To museums, biculturalism is about bringing Maori and non-Maori together as one… for Maori there is a link between colonisation and current moves towards bicultural development.… Grievances relating to the loss of guardianship of artefacts are not seen in isolation from other grievances, such as those concerning land, language and cultural property (Murphy 1999: n.p.).

Te Papa’s concept of biculturalism that aims to bring Mäori and non-Mäori together is most visible in the display of Te Marae O Te Papa Tongarewa, a living, contemporary marae operating within the museum, a marae that gives sense of belonging not just to Mäori but other migrants as well. The leaflet written for the marae is titled Nau Mai Haere Mai, Welcome to Te Marae o Te Papa Tongarewa, and reads in part as follows:

311

For Maori, the marae is a focal point for groups who share kinship—whanau, hapu, iwi. Here they can meet to discuss and debate, to celebrate, to welcome the living, and to farewell those who have passed on.… Te Marae o Te Papa Tongarewa is like any other in the country, except that its “kinship group” encompasses all the iwi and cultures whose treasures and stories are held at Te Papa…. Iwi will identify and relate to their ancestors through the striking contemporary carvings—so too can other cultures.

In one way Te Papa’s idea of building a new marae, dissimilar to any other marae in the country, and of a kind which we cannot find outside the museum world, is very similar to Kirk’s idea of building a giant egg as a symbol of a new nation. Both the moa’s egg and the marae can be understood as attempts to eradicate the previous symbolic order and to create a new one; one where all people of New Zealand will feel at home. “Through a shared whakapapa this wharenui embraces the peoples of this country, making Rongomaraeroa a forum for the nation” (MNZTPT 1998:38-39).

So in this context, the Croatian community enters the “we” of the New Zealand nation. The antagonisms of the past are replaced with a celebration of their cultural difference. In her analysis of multiculturalism in Australia, Sara Ahmed argues that in this new context “the nation still constructs itself as ‘we’ not by requiring that ‘they’ fit into a standardised pattern, but by the very requirement that they ‘be’ culturally different” (2000:101). Croats are not seen as “typical New Zealanders”, but together with other ethnic groups—Chinese, Dutch, Indians, Pacific Islanders, etc.—they fit into the New Zealand nation precisely because they allow the nation to imagine itself as heterogeneous. For example, commenting on the position of the Croatian community in New Zealand, Helen Clark, the present Prime Minister of New Zealand, said:

In one way New Zealand is a multicultural society… we have many different communities here, different people from all around the world live in this country and that’s good for us. We want them to keep their own languages and their customs. Difference gives richness to our society. The Croatian community is a good example, Croats have been in New Zealand for a long time but they have preserved their customs and language. At the same time they have fully participated in New Zealand society (Helen Clark pers. comm., Auckland 2001).

The Prime Minister’s statement was full of references to the need to tolerate difference and indeed the need to celebrate difference. But, as I have already mentioned, we need to ask the question about “who is tolerated” and “who is tolerating” and who is celebrating and what is celebrated (see also



Goldsmith’s essay in this volume). Hage (1998) argues that the discourse of tolerance in societies that celebrate diversity is not completely opposed to the discourse of exclusion and intolerance, as it may seem to be at first glance. According to Hage, both tolerant and intolerant discourses presuppose that the dominant group “practises the same imaginary position of power within a nation imagined as ‘theirs’”(1998:85). In other words, in the discourse of tolerance, the dominant majority is structurally placed in a position of power inasmuch as it is granted the active power to tolerate, while minorities can only be at the receiving end of tolerance. During the colonial era, Croatian difference excluded them from the “we” of the nation; during the assimilation politics their cultural difference excluded them, but economically they were included, while in contemporary New Zealand their cultural difference is celebrated and their business (wine-making and fishing) is seen as their tradition.

During the colonial era of New Zealand many Croats developed relationships with Mäori and intermarriages were common. In 1999, Mäori-Croatian descendants decided to build a monument to commemorate the close bonds established between these two peoples. They also discussed the idea of building a special marae for Tarara people (Mäori used to call Croats Tarara but today the term is mostly used for people who are Mäori-Croats).

* * *

There is nothing on display in Te Papa about this relationship. Te Papa built its own marae, one that tries to impose a shared whakapapa on all ethnic groups in New Zealand. But what is repressed in Te Papa’s narrative of a “shared whakapapa” of the nation is a constantly repeated trauma in New Zealand society. First, the trauma of the indigenous and colonised, on which everything is based; second, the trauma of the immigrant who is separated from his or her imaginary homeland; third the trauma of exclusion of non-British migrants; and finally the feeling of postcolonial guilt constantly reframed and rearticulated. All of these compose a political space where Te Papa, as the Museum of New Zealand, clearly functions as a phantasmic support of reality. It has reconfigured New Zealand’s history in such a way that national identity becomes a domain of fun culture or entertainment and an endless circulation of simulacra. This imagined reality ignores unpleasant intrusions of the past, yet it pretends to correspond with the past in a way that gives a new vision of New Zealand society. It is a representation of New Zealand identity as being in a process of becoming,

313

rather than being stable. In this sense, Te Papa is much more about “who we might become” than “who we were” and “who we are”. By shifting to this seemingly empty authority of the future, Te Papa hides the operation of discursive machinery in the present. Paradoxically, the most conservative traits of the new museology lie in this authority of the future, in its attempt to deny the traumas of the past, or even to project an imagined future into the past.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Associate Professor Julie Park and Dr Christine Dureau for comments on all versions of this paper.

NOTES

1. See Anderson (1991) on the “imaginary” aspect of community.2. I am using “Real” in the Lacanian sense of the word as that which cannot

be symbolised.


AbbreviationsAJHR — Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives of

New ZealandMNZTPT — Museum of New Zealand Te Papa TongarewaNBR — The National Business ReviewNZH — New Zealand HeraldTMTB — Tainui Maori/Maaori Trust Board

Ahmed, S., 2000. Multiculturalism and the proximity of strangers. In S. Ahmed, Strange Encounters: Embodied Others in Post-Coloniality. London: Routledge, pp.95-114.

Aimer, P., 2001. The changing party system. In R. Miller (ed.), New Zealand Government and Politics. Auckland: Oxford University Press, pp.271-82.

Anderson, B., 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.

Anderson, J., 1998. The new feudalism: Waitangi settlement funds are re-establishing a Sone Age social structure. NBR 12 June: pp.1, 22-24.

Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives of New Zealand, various. Auckland/Wellington: Government Printer.

Armitage, A., 1995. Comparing the Policy of Aboriginal Assimilation: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Attwood, B., 1996. Mabo, Australia and the end of history. In B. Attwood (ed.), In the Age of Mabo: History, Aborigines and Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, pp.100-16.

——2000. The burden of the past in the present. In M. Grattan (ed.), Reconciliation: Essays on Australian Reconciliation. Melbourne: Black Inc., pp.254-59.

——2001, “Learning about the truth”: The stolen generations narrative. In B. Attwood and F. Magowan (eds), Telling Stories: Indigenous History and Memory in Australia and New Zealand. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, pp.183-212, 241-60.

Ballara, A., 1998. Iwi: The Dynamics of Maaori Tribal Organisation from c. 1769 to c. 1945. Wellington: Victoria University Press.

Barcham, M., 1998. The challenge of urban Mäori: Reconciling conceptions of indigeneity and social change. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 39(3):303-14.

Barkan, E., 2000. The Guilt of Nations: Restitution and Negotiating Historical Injustices. New York: W.W. Norton.

Bassett, J., 1999. Colonial justice: The treatment of Dalmatians in New Zealand during the First World War. New Zealand Journal of History, 33(2):155-79.

Beckett, J., 1988. The past in the present; the present in the past: Constructing a national Aboriginality. In J.R. Beckett (ed.), Past and Present: The Construction of Aboriginality. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press, pp.191-217.

Belich, J., 1986. The New Zealand Wars; and the Victorian Interpretation of Racial Conflict. Auckland: Auckland University Press.

Bell, C., 1996. Inventing New Zealand. Auckland: Penguin.

REFERENCES

315

Bennett, D., 1998. Introduction. In D. Bennett (ed.), Multicultural States: Rethinking Difference and Identity. London/New York: Routledge, pp.1-25.

Benton, R., 2002. ‘Te Matahauariki—The Imminent Dawn’: Customary Law in a Globalized Society. Keynote Address, “Preservation of Ancient Cultures and the Globalization Scenario” Conference, November 2002.

Bishop, J., 1992. The Treaty and the Universities. In G. Oddie and R.W. Perrett (eds), Justice, Ethics and New Zealand Society. Auckland: Oxford University Press, pp. 109-125.

Boston, J. (ed.), 1991. Reshaping the State. Auckland: Oxford University Press.Bourdieu, P., 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Bradford, S., 2002. Morning Report programme, National Radio, 7 February.Brown, M., 1996. On resisting resistance. American Anthropologist, 98:729-35.Buddle, Rev. T., 1860. The Maori King Movement in New Zealand, with a Full

Report of the Native Meetings Held at Waikato, April and May 1860. Auckland: “New Zealander” Office.

Butterworth, G.V., 1988. The tribal principle and government: An extract (1987). In J.E. Ritchie (ed.), Resource Papers: Working in the Maaori World. Hamilton: University of Waikato, Centre for Maaori Studies and Research, pp.74-82.

Chapple, S., 2000. Maori Socio-Economic Disparity. Paper for the Ministry of Social Policy, Wellington.

Cheater, A. and N. Hopa, 1997. Representing identity. In A. James, J. Hockey and A. Dawson (eds), After Writing Culture: Epistemology and Praxis in Contemporary Anthropology. ASA Monograph 34. London/New York: Routledge, pp.208-23.

Clark, I.D., 1994. Sharing History: A Sense for All Australians of a Shared Ownership of Their History. Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Key Issue Paper No.4. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Clendinnen, I., 1999. True Stories: Boyer Lectures 1999. Sydney: ABC Books.Dalziel, M. and P. Fox, 1996. Ethnic Disparities in Economic Attainment: A

Survey of Economic Literature. Unpublished document prepared for Te Puni Kokiri/Ministry of Mäori Development, Wellington.

Deed of Settlement, 1995. Parties: Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand and Waikato-Tainui, 22 May.

Department of Statistics, 1990. New Zealand Official 1990 Yearbook. Wellington.Docker, J. and G. Fischer, 2000. Adventures of identity. In J. Docker and G. Fischer

(eds), Race, Colour and Identity in Australia and New Zealand. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, pp.3-20.

Dodds, S., 1998. Justice and indigenous land rights. Inquiry, 41:187-205Douglas, E.M.K., 1982. Tainui population—The human resource. In E.M.K.

Douglas and I. Nottingham (eds), Proceedings of the Tainui Lands Federation Conference. Occasional Paper No.18. University of Waikato, Centre for Maaori Studies Research, pp.27-36.

Durie, M., 1994. The CHI Model: A Culturally Appropriate Auditing Model. Wellington: Public Health Commission.

Dworkin, R., 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. London: Duckworth.

316 References

Eller, J.D., 1997. Anti-anti-multiculturalism. American Anthropologist, 99(2):249-56. English, W., 2003. Unity and Development are Better than Division and Dependency.

Speech delivered 22 January, Channel View Lounge, Takapuna, Auckland.Fabian, J., 1983. Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object. New

York: Columbia University Press.Firth, R., 1959 [1929]. Economics of the New Zealand Maori. Wellington:

Government Printer.Fraser, N., 1995. From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a

“Post-Socialist” age. New Left Review, 212:68-93.——1999. Social justice in the age of identity politics: Redistribution, recognition,

and participation. In L. Ray and A. Sayer (eds), Culture and Economy After the Cultural Turn. London: Sage, pp.25-52.

——2000. Rethinking recognition. New Left Review, 3:107-20Friedman, J., 1994. Cultural Identity and Global Process. London: Sage.Frow, J. and M. Morris, 1999. Two laws: Response to Elizabeth Povinelli. Critical

Inquiry, 25:626-30.Gaita, R., 2000. Guilt, shame and collective responsibility. In M. Grattan (ed.),

Reconciliation: Essays on Australian Reconciliation. Melbourne: Black Inc., pp.275-87.

Gardiner, J., 2001. Forget the porridge—Where’s my fish and chips? New Zealand Herald, 15 December, p.A5.

Gardiner, W., 1996. Return to Sender: What Really Happened at the Fiscal Envelope Hui. Auckland: Reed.

Geertz, C., 1983. “From the native’s point of view”: On the nature of anthropological understanding. In C. Geertz, Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. New York: Basic Books, pp.55-70.

Goldsmith, M., 2003. “Our Place” in New Zealand culture: How the Museum of New Zealand constructs biculturalism. Ethnologies Comparées, No.6 <http://alor.univ-montp3.fr/cerce/r6/m.g.s.htm>

——n.d. Culture and its Dangers. Paper presented to ASAO Conference, Vancouver (2000).

Gooder, H. and J. Jacobs, 2000. “On the border of the unsayable”: The apology in postcolonizing Australia. Interventions, 2(2):229-47.

Gorst, Sir John E., 1864. The Mäori King; or, the Story of Our Quarrel with the Natives of New Zealand. London/Cambridge: MacMillan.

Grattan, M. (ed.), 2000. Reconciliation: Essays on Australian Reconciliation. Melbourne: Black Inc.

Gray, G., 1999. The past is never finished. In L. Manderson (ed.), Reconciliation: Voices from the Academy. Canberra: Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, pp.15-29.

Hage, G., 1998. White Nation: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a Multicultural Society. Sydney: Pluto Press.

Hannerz, U., 1999. Reflections on varieties of culturespeak. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 2(3):393-407.

Harley, R., 1994. Gluing New Zealand together. In W. Ihimaera (ed.), Vision Aotearoa/Kaupapa New Zealand. Wellington: Bridget Williams, pp.76-84.

317

Harrison, L.E. and S.P. Huntington (eds), 2000. Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress. New York: Basic Books.

Heads of Agreement between the Crown and Waikato-Tainui in respect of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Lands Claim, 21 December 1994.

Hopa, N., 1995. No different from the Tauiwi. Mana, 8 (February-April):36.——1999. Land and re-empowerment: “The Waikato Case”. In A. Cheater (ed.),

The Anthropology of Power: Empowerment and Disempowerment in Changing Structures. London/New York: Routledge, pp.103-17.

Hopa, N. and A. Cheater, 1996. Trusteeship and Mäori Commons. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, Berkeley (USA), June 1996.

Howard, J., 2000. Practical reconciliation. In M. Grattan (ed.), Reconciliation: Essays on Australian Reconciliation. Melbourne: Black Inc., pp.88-96.

Hunn, J.K., 1961. Report on Department of Mäori Affairs. Wellington: Government Printer.

Huntington, S.P., 1996. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Ivison, D., P. Patton and W. Sanders (eds), 2000. Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jackson, D., 2000. ‘Inappropriate’ rescue service ditched. New Zealand Herald, 21 September, p.A1.

Jackson, M., 1999. Displacement, refugee experience and the critique of cultural fundamentalism. Sites, 37:3-16.

James, C., 2002. Triple bottom line to the fore. New Zealand Herald, 29 October, p.C1.

Jones, B., 2001. Mumbo-jumbo alive and well. Waikato Time, 7 August, p.6.Jones, Pei Te Hurinui, 1959. King Potatau: An Account of the Life of Potatau Te

Wherowhero the First Mäori King. Auckland: The Polynesian Society.——1968. Maori kings. In E. Schwimmer (ed.), The Maori People in the Nineteen-

Sixties. Auckland: Blackwood & Janet Paul, pp.132-73.Jones, Pei Te Hurinui (compiler) and B. Biggs (editor/annotator), 1995. Nga Iwi o

Tainui: The Traditional History of the Tainui People / Nga Koorero Tuku Iho a Nga Tupuna. Auckland: Auckland University Press.

Kelly, L.G. (Te Putu), 1949. Tainui: The Story of Hoturoa and his Descendants. Wellington: The Polynesian Society.

Kelsey, J., 1990. A Question of Honour? Labour and the Treaty 1984-1989. Wellington: Allen & Unwin.

——1993. Rolling Back the State: Privatisation of Power in Aotearoa/New Zealand Wellington: Bridget Williams.

King, M., 1977. Te Puea; A Biography. Auckland: Hodder and Stoughton.——1981. Between two worlds. In W.H. Oliver and W.R. Williams (eds), The Oxford

History of New Zealand. Wellington: Oxford University Press, pp.279-301.Kirsch, S., 2001. Lost worlds: Environmental disaster, “culture loss”, and the law.

Current Anthropology, 42(2):167-98 (including “Comments” and “Reply”). Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B., 1998. Destination Culture: Tourism, Museums and

Heritage. Berkeley: University of California Press.

318 References

Kymlicka, W., 1995. Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. New York/Oxford: Clarendon Press.

——2000. American multiculturalism and the “Nations Within”. In D. Ivison, P. Duncan and W. Sanders (eds), Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.216-36.

——2001. Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

LaCapra, D., 1999. Trauma, absence, loss. Critical Inquiry, 25:696-727.Laclau, E. and C. Mouffe, 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a

Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.Lashley, M.E., 2000. Implementing Treaty settlements via indigenous institutions:

Social justice and detribalization in New Zealand. The Contemporary Pacific, 12(1):1-55.

Lattas, A., 1990. Aborigines and contemporary Australian nationalism: Primordiality and the cultural politics of otherness. Social Analysis, 27:50-69.

——1991. Nationalism, aesthetic redemption and Aboriginality. The Australian Journal of Anthropology, 2(3):307-24.

——1992. Primitivism, nationalism and individualism in Australian popular culture. Journal of Australian Studies, 35:45-58.

Love, R.N., 1977. Policies of Frustration: The Growth of Mäori Politics. Unpublished DPhil thesis, Victoria University of Wellington.

Maaka, R.C.A., 1994. The new tribe: Conflicts and continuities in the social organization of urban Maaori. The Contemporary Pacific, 6(2):311-36.

Mahuta, R. Te Kotahi, 1981. The Maori People in the Waikato and Beyond. Hamilton: University of Waikato, Winter Lecture Series.

——1990. The Issue of Land in New Zealand. Paper presented to Conference on “Resources, Development and Politics in the South Pacific”, Canberra: Australian National University, Department of Political and Social Change, 7 November 1990.

——1995a. Tainui: A case study of direct negotiation. In G. McLay (ed.), Treaty Settlements: The Unfinished Business. Wellington: New Zealand Institute of Advanced Legal Studies and Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, pp.67-87.

——1995b. Tainui, Kingitanga and Raupatu. In M. Wilson and A. Yeatman (eds), Justice and Identity: Antipodean Practices. Wellington: Bridget Williams, pp.18-32.

Mäori Affairs Records, National Archives, Wellington, New Zealand.Mäori Affairs Select Committee, 2001. Inquiry into the auditing and monitoring of

“closing the gaps” programmes. Report of…. 46th Parliament.Mäori Law Review, various. Wellington, N.Z.: Esoteric Publications.Malinowski, B., 1926. Myth in Primitive Psychology. London: Kegan Paul,

Trench and Trubner.Manne, R., 2001. In Denial: The Stolen Generations and the Right. The Australian

Quarterly Essay, Issue 1. Melbourne: Schwartz.Mauss, M., 1969. The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies.

London: Cohen and West.

319

May, S., 2002. ‘Biculturalism First’—Inaugural Professorial Lecture. On Campus (University of Waikato), 5/2002 (July):2.

McCan, D., 2001. Whatiwhatihoe: The Waikato Raupatu Claim. Wellington: Huia.McClean, S., 1950. Mäori Representation 1905 to 1948. Unpublished MA thesis,

Auckland University College.McGhie, Gerald, 2002. New Zealand and the Pacific: Diplomacy, defence, development.

New Zealand International Review, (November/December), 27(6):13-16.McIntosh, Ian S., 2000. When will we know we are reconciled? Anthropology

Today, 16(5):3-11.Meijl, T. van, 1990. Political Paradoxes and Timeless Traditions; Ideology and

Development Among the Tainui Mäori, New Zealand. Unpublished PhD thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.

——1993. The Mäori King Movement: Unity and diversity in past and present. In P. van der Grijp and T. van Meijl (eds), Special Issue of Bijdragen tot de taal-, land- en volkenkunde “Politics, Tradition and Change in the Pacific”, 149(4):673-89.

——1994. Mäori hierarchy transformed; The secularization of Tainui patterns of leadership. In M. Jolly and M.S. Mosko (eds), Transformations of Hierarchy; Structure, History and Horizon in the Austronesian World. Special Issue of History and Anthropology, 7:279-305.

——1995. Mäori socio-political organization in pre- and proto-history; On the evolution of post-colonial constructs. Oceania, 65(4):304-22.

——1997. The re-emergence of Mäori chiefs; ‘Devolution’ as a strategy to maintain tribal authority. In G.M. White and L. Lindstrom (eds), Chiefs Today: Traditional Pacific Leadership and the Postcolonial State. East-West Center Series on Contemporary Issues in Asia and the Pacific. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp.84-107.

——1999. Settling Mäori land claims: Legal and economic implications of political and ideological contests. In T. van Meijl and F. van Benda-Beckmann (eds), Property Rights and Economic Development: Land and Natural Resources in Southeast Asia and Oceania. London: Kegan Paul International, pp.259-91.

——2000. The politics of ethnography in New Zealand. In S.R. Jaarsma and M.A. Rohatynskyj (eds), Ethnographic Artifacts: Challenges to a Reflexive Anthropology. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, pp.86-103.

——2003. Maori tribal organizations in New Zealand history: From neglect to recognition and the implications for the assimilation policy. Ethnologies Comparées, No.6 <http://alor.univ-montp3.fr/cerce/revue.htm>

Messer, E., 1993. Anthropology and human rights. Annual Review of Anthropology, 22:221-49.

Ministry of Mäori Development, 1999. Mäori in the New Zealand Economy. Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington (July).

Moerman, M.l, 1988. Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversation Analysis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Monsalve, F., 2002. Playing the race card. New Zealand Listener, (26 October) 186(3259):32-33.

Moran, A., 1998. Aboriginal reconciliation: Transformations in settler nationalism. Melbourne Journal of Politics, 25:101-32.

320 References

——2002. As Australia decolonizes: Indigenous settler nationalism and the challenges of settler/indigenous relations. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25:1013-42.

Morris, B., 1997. Racism, egalitarianism and Aborigines. In G. Cowlishaw and B. Morris (eds), Race Matters: Indigenous Australians and ‘Our’ Society. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press, pp.161-76.

Morton, J., 1996. Aboriginality, Mabo and the republic: Indigenising Australia. In B. Attwood (ed.), In the Age of Mabo: History, Aborigines and Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, pp.117-35

——1998. Essentially black, essentially Australian, essentially opposed: Australian anthropology and its uses of Aboriginal identity. In Jürg Wassmann (ed.), Pacific Answers to Western Hegemony: Cultural Practices of Identity Construction. Oxford: Berg, pp.355-85.

Morton, J. and M. Macintyre (eds), 1995. Persons, Bodies, Selves, Emotions. Special issue of Social Analysis, 37.

Mulgan, R., 1989. Mäori, Pakeha, and Democracy. Auckland: Oxford University Press.

——1998. Citizenship and legitimacy in post-colonial Australia. In Nicolas Peterson and Will Sanders (eds), Citizenship and indigenous Australians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.179-95.

Murphy, H., 1999. Bicultural Developments in Museums of Aotearoa: A Way Forward. Wellington: Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa.

MNZTPT, 1998. Te Papa, Our Place, a Souvenir. Wellington: Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa.

——1989. A Concept for the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. Wellington: Museum of New Zealand.

Myers, F.R., 1986. Pintupi Country, Pintupi Self: Sentiment, Place and Politics among Western Desert Aborigines. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Nagengast, C. and T. Turner, 1997. Universal human rights versus cultural relativity. Journal of Anthropological Research, 53:269-72.

Neumann, K., N. Thomas and H. Eriksen (eds), 1999. Quicksands: Foundational Histories in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Sydney: UNSW Press.

New Zealand Herald, 1988a. Taxes may fund land settlements. 14 Sept.——1988b. Wetere “leak” claim by Peters. 15 Sept.——2000a. “Desire to act alone” brought Tainui leader down. 18 July.——2000b. Maori Queen rescues Sir Robert. 14 Aug.——2001. MP attacks Maori trip to Thailand. 14 July. ——2002a. Biggest Treaty of Waitangi claim to get urgent hearing. 2 May.——2002b. Tainui back to uncertain future. 15 June.——2002c. Tribe to vote on $10.5m offer. 19 Oct.New Zealand Observer and Free Lance, Auckland, 1893a. [untitled]. 13 May, p.2.——1893b. Cheap alien labour. 27 May, p.2.Nola, N., 2000. Exploring disallowed territory: Introducing the multicultural subject

into New Zealand literature. In J. Docker and G. Fischer (eds), Race, Colour and Identity in Australia and New Zealand. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, pp.203-17.

Oppenheim, R.S., 1973. Maori Death Customs. Wellington: Reed.Orange, C., 1987. The Treaty of Waitangi. Wellington: Allen & Unwin.

321

Owens, J.M.R., 1981. New Zealand before annexation. In W.H. Oliver and B.R. Williams (eds), The Oxford History of New Zealand. Wellington: Oxford University Press, pp.28-53.

Pearson, D., 1990. A Dream Deferred: the Origins of Ethnic Conflict in New Zealand. Wellington: Allen & Unwin.

——1991. Biculturalism and multiculturalism in comparative perspective. In P. Spoonley, D. Pearson and C. Macpherson (eds), Nga Take: Ethnic Relations and Racism in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press, pp.194-214.

——David, 1995. Multi-culturalisms and modernisms: Some comparative thoughts. Sites, 30:9-30

——2001. The Politics of Ethnicity in Settler Societies: States of Unease. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Phillips, J., 1987. A Man’s Country? The Image of the Pakeha Male. Auckland: Penguin.

Pool, I., 1991. Te Iwi Mäori. A New Zealand Population Past, Present & Projected. Auckland: Auckland University Press.

Povinelli, E.A., 1998. The state of shame: Australian multiculturalism and the crisis of indigenous citizenship. Critical Inquiry, 24:575-610.

——1999. Settler modernity and the quest for an indigenous tradition. Public Culture, 11:19-48.

——2000. Consuming geist: Popontology and the spirit of capital in indigenous Australia. Public Culture, 12(2):501-28.

Privy Council, 1994. New Zealand Mäori Council v Attorney General. 1 NZLR 513 Broadcasting Assets.

Rata, E., 2000a. Maori and Pakeha in New Zealand: A Model of Interdependent Relations. Paper presented to the ASAA/NZ Conference, Hamilton.

——2000b. A Political Economy of Neotribal Capitalism. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

——2000c. Constructing the gaps. New Zealand Political Review, (October/November), 9(3):24-30.

Report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System, 1986. Wellington: Government Printer.

Richards, T., 1993. The Imperial Archive: Knowledge and the Fantasy of Empire. London: Verso.

Rimoldi, E., 2000. Generic genius—How does it all add up? In M. Strathern (ed.), Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy. London: Routledge, pp.90-105.

Roberts, N. and S. Levine, 1994. The New Zealand electoral referendum and the general election 1993. Electoral Studies, 13(3):240-53.

Rosaldo, R., 1989. Culture and Truth: The Remaking of Social Analysis. Boston: Beacon Press.

Rowse, T., 1999. A spear in the thigh for Senator Evans. In K. Neumann, N. Thomas and H. Eriksen (eds), Quicksands: Foundational Histories in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Sydney: UNSW Press, pp.199-217.

Seymour, G. (ed.), 1997. Raupatu Tuarua: He Kohikohinga. Hamilton: Te Runanga o Waikato.

322 References

Sharp, A., 1997 [1990]. Justice and the Maori: The Philosophy and Practice of Maori Claims in New Zealand since the 1970s. Auckland: Oxford University Press.

Sinclair, K., 1959. “Introduction” and “Appendix: The election of the Maori king”. In J.E. Gorst, The Mäori King; or the Story of Our Quarrel With the Natives of New Zealand (1864). Hamilton/ Auckland: Paul’s Book Arcade, pp.ix-xxv, 263-74.

——1961 [1957]. The Origins of the Maori Wars. Auckland: Auckland University Press/Oxford University Press.

——1969. Te tikanga pakeke: The Mäori anti-land-selling movement in Taranaki 1849-59. In P. Munz (ed.), The Feel of Truth: Essays in New Zealand and Pacific History. Wellington: Reed, pp.77-92.

Sissons, J., 1995. Tall trees need deep roots: Biculturalism, bureaucracy and tribal democracy in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Cultural Studies, 9(1):61-73.

Smith, A.W., 1952. The Development of the Kauri-gum Industry and Its Role in the Economy of Northland, N.Z. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Washington.

Somerville, Judge, 1998. Ausage v Ausage. New Zealand Family Law Reports [1998]. Wellington: Butterworth’s of New Zealand.

Sorrenson, M.P.K., 1975. “How to civilize savages.” New Zealand Journal of History, 9 (2):97-110.

——1986. A history of Mäori representation in Parliament. In M.J.J.H. Wallace (ed.), Report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System. AJHR, B–1-107. Wellington: Government Printer.

——1992. Maori and Pakeha. In G.W. Rice (ed.), The Oxford History of New Zealand. Auckland: Oxford University Press, pp.141-67.

St John, G., 2001. Australian (alter)natives: Cultural drama and indigeneity. Social Analysis, 45(1):122-40.

Statistics New Zealand, 2002a. Household Labour Force Survey: Status by Ethnic Origin. Wellington.

——2002b. http://www.stats.govt.nz/Sterling, M. and J. Cresswell, 1985. Otamatea Kauri & Pioneer Museum, Matakohe.

Matakohe: The Museum.Stolcke, V., 1995. Talking culture: New boundaries, new rhetorics of exclusion in

Europe. Current Anthropology, 36(1):1-12.Strathern, M. (ed.), 2000. Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability,

Ethics and the Academy. London: Routledge.Sullivan, A., 1995. Mäori Affairs Policies 1984-1994 and Mäori Trust Boards.

Unpublished DPhil thesis, Waikato University, Hamilton.——2001. Mäori affairs and public policy. In R. Miller (ed.), New Zealand

Government and Politics. Auckland: Oxford University Press, pp.479-89. ——2003. Mäori representation in local government. In J. Hayward (ed.), Local

Government and the Treaty of Waitangi. Sydney: Oxford University Press, pp.135-56.

Sullivan, A. and D. Margaritis, 2000. Public sector reform and indigenous entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 6 5):265-75.

Sullivan, A. and J. Vowles, 1998. Realignment? Mäori and the 1996 election. In J. Vowles, P. Aimer, S. Banducci and J. Karp (eds), Voters' Victory. Auckland: Auckland University Press, pp.171-91.

323

Sutch, W.B., 1969. Poverty in Progress. Wellington: A. H. & A. W. Reed.Sutton, P., 1988. Myth as history, history as myth. In I. Keen (ed.), Being Black:

Aboriginal Cultures in 'Settled' Australia. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press, pp.251-68.

Tainui Maaori Trust Board, 1947, 1993, 1998, 1999. Annual Reports.——1988. Devolution Contracts Package. Ngaruawahia: Tainui Maaori Trust Board.Taylor, C., 1992. Multiculturalism and “The Politics of Recognition”. Princeton:

Princeton University Press.——1995. The politics of recognition. In C. Taylor, Philosophical Arguments.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp.225-56.Te Anga N., 1996. Future may be academic as Tainui plays catch-up. Waikato

Times 20 November, p.7.Te Hokiooi, Newsletter from the TMTB, April 1997-February 1998.Te Hokiooi, Newsletter of Waikato-Tainui, February 1999-May 2000.Te Puni Kokiri/Ministry of Mäori Development, 2001. He Tirohanga o Kawa ki

te Tiriti o Waitangi. A Guide to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as Expressed by the Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal. Te Puni Kokiri/Ministry of Mäori Development, Wellington.

Thaman, K.H., 2000. Cultural rights: A personal perspective. In M. Wilson and P. Hunt (eds), Culture, Rights, and Cultural Rights: Perspectives from the South Pacific. Wellington: Huia, pp.1-11.

Thompson, R.H., 1997. Ethnic minorities and the case for collective rights. American Anthropologist, 99(4):786-98.

Trouillot, M-R., 2000. Abortive rituals: Historical apologies in the global era. Interventions, 2(2):171-86.

Turner, T., 1993. Anthropology and multiculturalism: What is anthropology that multiculturalists should be mindful of it? Cultural Anthropology, 9(4):411-29.

——1997. Human rights, human difference: Anthropology’s contribution to an emancipatory cultural politics. Journal of Anthropological Research, 53:273-91.

Vasil, R., 1993. Biculturalism, Reconciling Aotearoa with New Zealand. Wellington: Institute of Policy Studies.

Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995Waikato Times, 1955. Tainui claims mandate for deal despite low vote. 1 May.——2000. Court rejects Tainui sacking. 16 August.——2003a. Setting course. 5 Feb.——2003b. Tainui ‘s Executive backs name change. 3 May.——2003c. At the double. 5 Sept.Wakefield, E.G. and J. Ward, 2000 [1837]. The British Colonization of New Zealand.

Christchurch: Kiwi Publishers.Walker, R., 1990. Ka whawhai tonu matou: Struggle without End. Auckland: Penguin.——1995. Immigration policy and the political economy of New Zealand. In

S. Greif (ed.), Immigration and National Identity in New Zealand: One People, Two Peoples, Many Peoples? Palmerston North: Dunmore Press, pp.282-302.

Waitangi Tribunal, 1994. Maori Electoral Option report (Wai413). Wellington: Brooker’s.

Waymouth, L., 2003. The bureaucratisation of genealogy. Ethnologies Comparées, No.6 <http://alor.univ-montp3.fr/cerce/revue.htm>

324 References

Webster, S., 1975. Cognatic descent groups and the contemporary Mäori: A preliminary reassessment. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 84(2):121-52.

——1997. Maori hapuu and their history. The Australian Journal of Anthropology, 8(3):307-35.

——1998. Patrons of Maori Culture. Dunedin: Otago University Press.——2002. Maori retribalization and Treaty rights to the New Zealand fisheries. The

Contemporary Pacific, 14(2):341-76.Wetherell, M. and J. Potter, 1992. Mapping the Language of Racism: Discourse and

the Legitimation of Exploitation. New York: Columbia University Press.Wikan, U., 1999. Culture, a new concept of race? Debate: Culture in the nation and

public opinion. A Norwegian case. Social Anthropology, 7(1):57-64.Williams, J.A., 1969. Politics of the New Zealand Maori: Protest and Cooperation,

1891-1909. Auckland: Auckland University Press/Oxford University Press.Wilson, J.O., 1966. National Groups: Yugoslavs. In A.H. McLintock (ed.), New

Zealand Encyclopedia. Wellington: Government Printer, pp.627-28.Wilson, M., 1995. Constitutional recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi. In M. Wilson

and A. Yeatman (eds), Justice and Identity: Antipodean Practices. Wellington: Bridget Williams, pp.1-17.

Wilson, M. and P. Hunt (eds), 2000. Culture, Rights, and Cultural Rights: Perspectives from the South Pacific. Wellington: Huia.

Wilson, Margaret and Anna Yeatman (eds), 1995. Justice and Identity: Antipodean Practices. Wellington: Bridget Williams.

——1995. Introduction. In M. Wilson and A. Yeatman (eds), Justice and Identity: Antipodean Practices. Wellington: Bridget Williams, pp.vii-xvi.

Wittgenstein, L., 1958. Philosophical Investigations. New York: Macmillan.Wolfe, P., 1994. Nation and miscegeNation: Discursive continuity in the post-Mabo

era. Social Analysis, 36:93-152.Young, A., 2002. Curlew and culture in plan to cut youth crime. NZH 27 April:A5Žižek, S., 1993. Enjoy your nation as yourself. In S. Žižek, Tarrying with the

Negative: Kant, Hegel and the Critique of Ideology. Durham: Duke University Press, pp.201-86

——1996. Re-visioning “Lacanian” social criticism: The law and its obscene double. Journal for the Psychoanalysis of Culture & Society, 1(1):15-27.1996.

World Wide Web sites:

www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/IndigLRes/car/2000/16/www.govt.nzwww.mch.govt.nz/publications/bim/index.htmlwww.stats.govt.nz/www.tainui-corp.co.nz/ (discontinued)www.tainui.net/ (discontinued)www.tainui.co.nz/www.tepapa.govt.nz/who_we_are/nmonz.htmlwww.tepapa.govt.nz/communications /Press_Releases/pr_signs.htmlwww.tepapa.govt.nz/communications/Press_Releases/pr_passports.html

Documents

One nation, two peoples, many cultures: exhibiting identity at Te … · 2013-11-03 · 296 One Nation, Two Peoples, Many Cultures exclusion that is linked with all changes of New