Seeing the tino rangatiratanga flag flying over prominent New Zealand landmarks will swell the pride of many Maori. But should a flag representing only one people only fly from government buildings? Is it exclusive? And what does it stand for?
Today, anyone strolling around Wellington or driving across Auckland will notice a new flag flying from prominent landmarks. Despite it being our national day, it will not be our national flag. Should that vex us?
I've long been in favour of a new flag and believe we need to be discussing the alternatives, just as I think we should be investigating a range of constitutional changes. But this week I feel fonder of the current flag than I have been for a long time. It may just be for a day, but raising the tino rangatiratanga flag above our national institutions has powerful symbolism and I confess I'm uneasy about that, in part because I'm unclear about exactly what it is saying.
Does it symbolise a desire for separate government, or devolution, or absolute sovereignty? If so, is the government saying it supports that? Is it an acknowledgement of the tino rangatiratanga promised in the treaty, and what are the political implications of that?
Does it simply recognise the place of Maori in New Zealand, as Treaty partners? If so, should it be the Maori flag and the union jack flying side by side? What does it say about Maori unity versus iwi identity?
Or is it a patronising token that gives Maori the 21st century equivalent of a musket and a blanket while at the same time distracting them from genuine political change?
We're in a transition phase in our history as a nation, rebuilding the Aotearoa part of the New Zealand duplex; adding on some rooms, slopping on some paint. The building's still a little shaky, and to that end, I'll delight in seeing the Maori flag flying because it's inclusive of Maori and represents Maori aspiration.
My nagging concern is that while it's inclusive of Maori, it's exclusive of pakeha.
Some Maori will say that's the way they've long felt about the existing New Zealand flag; that it's not their flag. And looking at the tino rangatiratanga flag, I can understand that. Some will say it's the Crown flag. It's not, that's the Union Jack. But those who argue that it's the pakeha flag can make a strong case, given that it was chosen by a predominantly pakeha parliament in the midst of a colonial war in South Africa and is still dominated by the union jack, the great emblem of a faded empire.
But at least there is room for Maori under that flag; room to be Maori New Zealanders under the Southern Cross. By dint of history, that flag has flown over Maori on battlefield, school field and sports field for more than a century. It has flown during the Maori renaissance of the past 30 years. Sure, it has been a symbol of loss and of a state that has not always treated its Maori citizens well, but it has also symbolised the good that New Zealand government's have done, from the welfare state to the Waitangi Tribunal.
I'm not sure there is room for me under the tino rangatiratanga flag, however. I don't know what it stands for, beyond that the black represents Rangi, the red Papatuanuku and the white the physical world. That's explained here, along with info about other alternative flag designs.
Perhaps I can read an invitation into the flag; that Maori are willing to share their myths and values with me as a pakeha. Perhaps I should take a message from the fact that the flag has been flown in anger many times. My point is, it's not clear who or what the flag represents, except that on this day, it doesn't represent me.
Whatever values are woven into that design, I suspect they are particular to Maori. Otherwise, what's the point? So it's simply not a flag that speaks of me and my place in the world, and in this country .
That's fine inasmuch as it represents Maori aspiration and mana. I can support those without needing to be included. I can accept that its meaning has evolved to be more than just a protest flag. I can get behind the empowerment such a flag gives Maori, I welcome a debate about what self determination means in practice.
But it's not my flag . So when it flies on Premier House, Te Papa and other government buildings, I'm discomforted. Any flag that flies from government buildings should stand for something that seeks to encompass all New Zealanders, just as government buildings should be for all New Zealanders.
How does this story end? Does the tino rangatiratanga just get rolled out for Waitangi Day? Does it extend to other national occasions? As it's used more often, does the New Zealand flag mean less to Maori and is there a greater divide, however emblematic?
I'm not one to pretend 'we're all one people'. But we are many peoples in one nation and those things that unify us as a nation across ethnic, gender and class divides – amongst others – are precious.
We are a small, prosperous country that has every right to be proud of its race relations, however imperfectly executed. We have not had to deify a flag to instill unity into individual souls, in the way America and other countries have done. Most of us can debate with flag without feeling that to lose the argument is to lose our identity. And thank goodness for that.
At the same time, a flag must mean something bigger than ourselves. And the political capital spent getting this flag onto government buildings must mean something as well. I'm not sure I like what two flags could come to represent.
This move by the Key government to fly the flag from eight government buildings must give new impetus to discussion about a new flag; one that honours our ancestors' voyages from both Europe and Hawaiki, says something of our place in the world now, and represents our shared values and partnership. We need one flag big enough to inspire and include many peoples.
Comments (10)
Tim, at the risk of sounding hopelessly postmodern, does the tino rangatiratanga flag (or the New Zealand flag, for that matter) have to have a single, fixed meaning? I suggest that symbols never have fixed meanings, and that no one can provide definitive answers to the questions you have asked. But it's healthy for us in Aotearoa New Zealand to be discussing the kinds of questions you've raised, and a flag can be a useful focus for such discussions. Even the fact that some people may be discomforted by the tino rangatiratanga flag is not necessarily a bad thing, so long as it makes them think about where they stand, rather than simply alienating them.
If there's a flag of the Crown, I'd imagine it was probably this one (the Queen's personal flag for New Zealand). I certainly don't think it would be the Union flag (which isn't a jack), which the Crown (here or in the UK) doesn't use: you'll no doubt recall the furore over its (lack of) use following the Death of Diana.
Ewan, I take your point that flags mean different things to different people. One the other hand, if they don't represent national values and identity, what's the point of them? They are emblems of something, expressing some shared history or values. Otherwise they're just a few colours on a rag.
Graeme, I suspect you're being a bit literal, even mischievous. You'll recall the famous image of the treaty being signed, with the Union Jack, or Union flag (for most, the terms are indistinguishable and inter-changeable) draped across Hobson's table. That was the symbol of Britain with which Maori were treating. So I stand by description of the Union Jack as the flag of the Crown, certainly in this instance.
It would be nice to have a uniting symbol of cultural identity - but the current political divide seems to growing rather than shrinking, and the flag issue seems to be adding to that.
You'd think a competent herald'd be able to illustrate the issue - a flag in two halves - a fern sable on a field argent and a fern argent on a field sable. Easy. So of course we'll have two different ones and a foolish argument instead - for our leaders are rubbish.
Ewan, I agree that a flag means different things. Perhaps we need to develop an interpretation for us, more recent settlers. For example,
The red represents the "red sky at night, shepherds delight" of another great day to come.
The white represents the long white cloud of Aotearoa
The black represents the good soil of NZ on which all our fortunes are based.
The koru represents the koru or the waves breaking on the shore of our island.
The black is at the top of the flag to show "down under" and that our ancestors came around the world to be here.
I would also like to see the Southern Cross is the top right as a link to the past.
Some others might want to see blue and green replace the black and red. Is there any rule that says the flag can't keep the same design but be different colours?
Tim, I think you're aiming too high if you want a flag to represent common values. The thing about symbols is that different people can identify with the same symbol even though they don't have common values - this is what one writer has called "solidarity without consensus". It is reasonable to ask, though, who a particular symbol is meant to represent. Clearly, as you acknowledge, the tino rangatiratanga flag is meant to represent Maori, and is not there to represent you or me as Pakeha. That then raises the question, which you also allude to, of who the New Zealand flag represents. Does it represent Maori as well? If so, is it legitimate for Maori to be represented twice, as it were? I personally don't have a problem with this, just as I don't have a problem with the idea of a relationship between Maori and the Crown, even though the Crown is also meant to represent Maori. But it's a conversation we need to have.
I think it is time to adopt a new flag. But it can only happen after a dialogue with everybody, and it has to represent everybody.
I wish the Tino Rangarira flag did not have such divisive associations because it is certainly a very handsome and exciting bit of design.
However, there is a problem within this country, to which public speakers and social commentators seem pretty blind and that is the very unpleasant, in your face bullying on a racial basis that any young New Zealander has to live with.
From my office in a middle sized North isalnd town, at least every week, I see the flag out the window of a van or car accompanied by a range of raised fists and other finger extended gesticulations.
That kind of rules it out as a unifying symbol for a lot of people.
You write well ... and I hear and understand your concerns about the significance of the Tino Rangatiratanga flag flying on Waitangi Day.
Maori are as diverse in thought and opinion as Pakeha. It is wrong to assume that the flying of Tino Rangatiratanga means the same thing to every Maori, this just is not true and if you were watching the news closely you would see some Maori flatly refuse to acknowledge Tino Rangatiratanga.
I answer your article as a Maori woman with her own opinions carved from 43 years of life experience which includes leaving college with my University Certificate, 10 years as a government worker, 6 years as a musician living overseas, owning my own business and now studying for my teaching degree at a Maori University.
I consider myself an extremely lucky individual because I know where and who I come from. I know the canoe that brought my ancestors to Aotearoa, and I can whakapapa from the present day all the way back to the Kurahaupo waka. My relationship then to the land of Aotearoa is not one of ‘ownership’ by Pakeha interpretation .. but one of Tangata Whenua – people of the land. And that is “the land owns me.” Even though my lands have been sold or stolen, I will always always belong to that whenua. Even though I may have strong differences of opinion about our lands with other whanau members ... I am still.. Tangata Whenua.
My feeling towards our current national flag are ... indifferent. I am always proud to have a symbol from New Zealand fly at international events to support our sports people etc but I also wish its design, colour and history included the Tangata Whenua of Aotearoa. My reasons are as much about aesthetics as they are about spirit and loyalty.
My knowledge of the Tino Rangatiratanga flag has only been solidified in the last year. I have supported the TR flag flying this year not because of its history or reputation as a protest flag ..but because to myself it signifies a willingness to open up dialogue and consideration of Maori as equals in this country. We count, we are acknowledged, we have mana.
You express being ‘uncomfortable’ about what flying the TR flag may mean because you worry about what impact this will have on your ‘status’ in this country. I ask you then .. how do you think we have felt all this time? To be treated as a nuisance, a pain, a ‘tarbaby’, a radical. How uncomfortable do you think I feel with people like Michael Laws, Rodney Hide and Don Brash chasing down my Maori heritage all the time? How would you feel if Peter Sharples, Winston Peters and Tariana Turia held their roles with the same venom and hatred? And yes .. I do remember the recent hot views of Hone Harawira ... didn’t feel good did it? Have we seen the same deck of cards fall around the ears of Michael, Rodney and Don for their adverse opinions about Maori? Whilst I don’t agree with the method of delivery ... I do understand the frustration and anger of Hone Harawira.
My life has never been a burden to New Zealand society and yet I am still considered thus simply because I am Maori. My light skin has made me privy to some painful conversations by Pakeha on their opinions of Maori and it has not been pretty ... mostly hurtful. My face crumbles in despair and they bellow with laughter.
I want to point out that my pro-Maori approach has never ever been about ostracising or negating the citizenship of tauiwi who now call New Zealand home. It has always been about being fair and equal. I would not be here were it not for the union of my Scottish father and Maori mother.
As a Maori/kiwi/ New Zealander I am ready for something different. Through sheer will and determination Maori have managed to hold on tight to their culture and the return of lands taken by ill means. John Key has given me hope that I may live to see a different ethos in New Zealand society. The healing process is a painful one.. I never doubt that and neither should you. There will be lots of insecurities shared and bared before solutions and moving forward.
Maori symbolism is used constantly to promote business and the tourist dollar. If our cultural icons are good enough to make money and promote the images of New Zealand overseas, then would it not be fair to have it represented in our national flag?
I do indeed support a new identity for Aotearoa so that we can move forward on a symbol we have made together.
“Our lives improve only when we take chances - and the first and most difficult risk we can take is to be honest with ourselves.” - Walter Anderson
@ Ewan. Yes and no. You say it well, that a flag unites different views. But surely it must unite us in more than mere nationalism. The US flag, for example, means many different things, but says a few core things as well about independence and price, at the very least.
@ Myra. Welcome to Pundit and thanks for your thoughtful comments. I didn't mean to imply Maori think alike. Having spoken to both Hone H and Shane J in the past fortnight, I'm very aware of that! Indeed, my 10 month-old son would be eligible for the ABs, the Maori ABs and for the US rugby team, so I understand diversity.
I'm glad the flag flying has given you, and presumably others, a sense that you count as Maori. But I would have liked to think that the pakeha encouragement of the Maori renaissance since the 70s, Waitangi Tribunal and its subsequent extention to consider historic grievances, various government's attempt to 'close the gaps' and indeed the efforts made by both Maori and the pakeha-dominated parliament that have led to steadily improving Maori social statistics would have already done that. For all the Orewa speeches and other insults, the overall tide of history has been good to Maori in the past generation; indeed, better than any other colonised people. I think both Maori and Pakeha deserve huge credit for that, and I'm afraid your generalisation about being treated as a nuisance and a tarbaby discounts that too easily.
Throughout our history there have been crimes against Maori by Pakeha – please don't think I'm glossing over that – but also remarkable generosity.
I appreciate your pro-Maoriness not negating pakeha citizenship, but the morning after I wrote the post I heard Margaret Mutu on Maori TV saying again that as a Pakeha I was a guest/manuhiri in NZ. This isn't a competition over who's the most insulting, but while you point to Laws et al, don't forget that insults do flow both ways. I don't take pleasure in Pakeha racism, so I hope your question about how it felt to hear Harawira's comments wasn't an excuse for Maori racism. Myra, it's easy for you to sympathis with Harawira. The hard thing is to understand Laws and the others.
I think this idea of indigeneity is core to our race relations conversation, because, while I understand Mutu's characterisation, I can't agree with it. Pakeha are unique to these islands, as are Maori. I am indigenous to this place and, like you, this land has claimed me, bringing me home from other countries on several occasions. I too know the stories of how my ancestors came here.
I never said the flag threatens my 'status' in this country. My concern is over meaning and where this may lead.
Without getting into specifics. I'm just going to respond by saying, one step at a time.
Maori will have its place in Aotearoa New Zealand more and more, and only one step at a time. From spectrum to constitutional changes, Maori will have its place.
Post new comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.