For centuries nomadic cultures have moved from place to place, searching for a l ivelihood wherever one could be found. Eighteenth and nineteenth century colonial expansionism generated an i nter-continent and intra continental nomadic culture, nomads who moved beyond the bounds of their traditional territories i nto those of others, displacing them from their homes and l ivelihoods or ann ih ilating them altogether. New nomads travel the globe in search of career advancement, greater economic opportunity and an appealing l i festyle. Loosened ties to former homelands and greater attachment to economic opportunity have seen flows of people crossing borders from one nation to another searching as nomads of old for i mproved
l ivelihoods. Movement at this level has generated an emphasis on legitimating the place of the mobile, the assertive claims of diasporic identity over i ndigenous identity, valorising disassociation from place, and through theory and practice, inculcating a justifying logic of the diasporic.
Romanticised identities serve to gloss over the realities of the appropriation of mind and space, seeding key institutions with the language of the diaspora, words such as
'discoverer, pioneer, settler, adventurer, scientist, governor, m issionary, saviour, benefactor, protector, teacher' all convey a positive representation of actions of a dubious nature. Each colourful description pervades the folktales of the diaspora, dictating the boundaries of perception, submerging the realities of the takeover actions, reflecting them positively for all to inspect. Indeed they are not all totally unfounded for it is the elements of truth in the claims that allows them to persist. The elemental grains of truth are wrapped in tissues of exaggeration and denial.
Independent of sponsonng nations, the diasporic population 7 reforms on foreign ground, adopting a new host, propelling the alien into place amidst a plethora of strategies legitimating representation for the new formations.
The diaspora is a continuation of a grand narrative, once colonial imperialism, once multiculturalism now fashioned into a multitude of representations. But what has not changed is the primary reference group, those who move out of their originating localities to settle in another in an act of displacement. Strangely, the modems, the post modems and the post colonials all subscribe to the universalising agenda, that their position, whatever its c laims, can be all encompassing. Post labels are a matter of conjecture rather than statements of fact. But what of the diaspora that settles, does it remain diaspora or does its adaptation to its host ex.tend to a takeover of the host identity?
There are arguments that question the indigeneity of Miiori, that claim Miiori as the bridgehead of diaspora, the first settlers rather than the first people. The so-called traditional Miiori account, as Michael King ( 1 989: 17 1 ) puts it, saw Maori tradition stating that "the people found in New Zealand were black and that their culture was extremely primiti ve", the inference being that Maori found people already settled in New Zealand upon their arrival. King c ites the view that "the Moriori were a different people from Maori and that they had been driven from New Zealand when the more enterprising and combati ve Miiori arrived there" (ibid). The publication of the book Moriori by Michael King, gave rise to as much conviction that Maori were not 'original' i nhabitants as it did that they were. King's book places Moriori in w hat is now known as the South Island and more particularly on the Chatham Islands group that he refers to as Rekohu in .deference to the Moriori nomenclature. King quotes the work of Henry Skinner, an ethnologist from Otago University, whom he says set about disproving the myth that contained an implicit j ustification for European conquest of New Zealand whic h was that "Our ancestors only did to the Maori what the Maori did to the Moriori" (King, M . 1 989: 1 74-S).
Apart from Maori tradition citing numerous voyages across the Pacific too and from Hawaiki or Rangiatea, earl iest oral history does not include meetings with strangers so much as meeting up with descendants of ear i ier voyages. Voyages between the South Island and the Chathams were clearly possible and King makes mention of at least Te Ati Awa activities in the Chathams, referring to testimonies to the Native land court in the nineteenth century and to oral evidence collected by Alexander Shand from Ati Awa elders between 1 868 and 1 900. (ibid: 1 2) The ethnologist Skinner, is quoted as having concluded that the evidence derived from Moriori material culture is:
decisively in favour of the New Zealand ongm of that people . . . their relationship is closest with what I have elsewhere called the Southern culture of New Zealand . . . . The Moriori culture and the southern culture of the Maoris have points of relationship far and wide in the Pacific regions and . . . this relationship seems closest with eastern Polynesia and particularly with Easter Isl and. (cited i n King, M . 1 989: l 76)
King makes mention of contradictory theories about the ongms of the Moriori, including that they are extinct, that they never existed, and lastly that they are ali ve today.
Research carried out of Human Mitochondrial DNA shows what the authors refer to
as:
"a markedly reduced variability in Polynesians compared to other groups and that this variability decreases from West to East Polynesia". They go on to say that "variability is the l owest i n New Zealand of any sizable human group studied so far. The decrease in diversity in Polynesia they consider, is consistent with predictions from a series of founder effects from small populations settling small island groups" (Murray-McIntosh , Scrimshaw, Hatfield, Penny, 1 996).
What can be concluded from the range of evidence is that Polynesian peoples did move around the Pacific as Maori oral h istory dictates, that founder effects are evident in the low variability of human mitochondrial DNA, the greater the expanse of ocean the lower the variability. Maori must either have moved with Polynesian migrations, east in Polynesia, or, as the lowest variability associated w ith New Zealand might also suggest, Maori have the longest uninterrupted occupation of the largest Pacific Islands group, Aotearoa-New Zealand.
In the squeeze between New Right reactionary onslaughts and the retreat of the Welfare State, Maori have been in the middle, not convinced by raw capitalism nor quite taken with democracy as it exists in Aotearoa-New Zealand. Instead Maori are attempting to forge a different system that takes account of a Maori cultural identity, of Maori aspirations and Maori development. Maori as tangata whenua are seeking to exercise a different set of rights, indigenous rights that might be seen as undemocratic or against the interests of capital or even a 'knowledge economy ' . Paul Spoonley touches on the counter to Maori development present in one New Zealand world view, the assumption that separate facilities, even separate electorates:
"are either unacceptable because they reinforce division or because the same resources are not available to other minority groups. B ut the arguments go farther than this, they associate positive discrimination in New Zealand with the system of apaltheid in South Africa . . . . It is claimed that Maori, and to a lesser extent Pacific Islanders are privileged in New Zealand and that this patronage by the S tate is a form of invidious separatism." (Spoonley, P. t 993 : t 7)
Rightly, Spoonley notes the move to portray Piikehii as v ictims. as those who are deprived of a share of resources when there is perceived privileging of Maori and Pacific Islanders. Yet Pakeha domination over Aotearoa-New Zealand is undeniable and no system is able to guarantee j ustice. The socio-economic and political realities that structure Maori l ives are u ndeniable, for example Moana lackson estimates that Maori dispossession has been legalised by over 1 00 pieces of legislation since 1 840 (J ackson, M. 1 993 :77) Maori gains since this time are presented as concessions from Pakeha, as dispensations rather than compensations for past i nj ustices. But the compensatory view is still not where Maori want to be for once again Maori are hostage to the nexus of Piikeha power. Against these views is the visionary Maori view of tangata whenua autonomy, a rights driven position that is not a compensatory view, not the standard view of M1iori disadvantage or a need for equity. Dispossession and urbanisation have not been e nough to destroy an underlying sense of Maori cohesion and with it the notion of a common Maori good or a collective Maori vision of society that rises beyond getting equal.
Maori development methodologies based upon a concept of indigenous rights have impl ications for the kind of state that might develop and the type of education Maori learners might expect. M.iori research by Maori researchers for Maori development
holds promise for a healthy Maori future.
While Maori are not a homogeneous group, i t is possible, despite the differences in the experiences from one iwi to another of colonisation practices, of inter-tribal conflict, of the degree of intermarriage, to describe some generalisations in the forces of identity construction. Most obvious are the forces of colonisation, and urbanisation, on a tangata whenua identity. Who Maori are has a significant bearing on research for Maori benefit.
CHAPTER SIX
A PARADIGM FOR MAORI RESEARCH : NGAKAU lVIAORI