MARCO CONCEPTUAL

In the social period that influenced Rewi’s Last Stand (1940) and Broken Barrier (1952) Måori members of Parliament had advocated recognition of the Treaty at the highest echelons of Parliament, with limited success. A common perception in New Zealand is that the Treaty of Waitangi was “lost” from the public consciousness for 150 years until the protest

movements brought the document centre-stage. While the public may not have been aware of unresolved issues regarding the Treaty, successive Governments most certainly were. In the social context of Utu, Parliament was not exempt from the protest activity. Although the State was the key target of protest movements at this time, there would be a very public protest by Matiu Rata, the Member of Parliament for Northern Måori (now known as “Tai Tokerau”), who in 1979, resigned from Labour to start his own political party, Mana Måori Motuhake.

Rata expressed his dissatisfaction at Governmental apathy toward Måori issues and pointedly identified the underlying cultural nationalist ideology of “one nation – one people” as a dismal failure:

We have, as a people, never felt more let down, more insecure, and more

economically and socially deprived than we are today … We will no longer tolerate policies, which take no account of our language, customs and lifestyle, nor will we continue to accept being governed or administered by anyone who does not

understand the way we think or appreciate our values.

(10 November 1979, Auckland Star; also cited in Walker 1990a, p.228).

Rata went onto declare that Måori needed to be “masters of our own affairs” and reiterated the slogan of Te Roopu by asking for “every acre of land wrongfully taken from us back”. Thus, cracks began to appear in the political alliances between Måori and Påkehå at the highest levels of power.

The relationship between Måori and Påkehå, which had been presented in earlier films as a cornerstone of nationhood, had become uncertain. One of the defining features of the protest movements was the coinciding of interests in Måori society between “radical” and

“conservative”. Organisations such as the Måori Council and Måori Women’s Welfare League, for example, showed support for the protest movements alongwith the radicalised youth of Måori society, such as in the He Taua incident.131 _{Some academics such as} Ranginui Walker (1990a, p.243) have emphasised this overt commonality in Måori society with comments such as:

Although Måori radicals are the cutting edge of social change, the conservatives are the slow grinding edge. Basically both radicals and conservatives pursued the same objectives of justice, resolution of Måori grievances under the Treaty of Waitangi, recognition of rangatiratanga and mana whenua, and an equal say with the Påkehå in the future of the country.

There is a tendency to collapse a wide range of groups with different interests and aspirations into such a description, a point which will be discussed further below. The coinciding, however, of the conservative and radical elements of Måori society around land alienation, Treaty issues and in the wider protest movements did change the political landscape between Måori and Påkehå which is evident in Utu.

In earlier films such as Rewi’s Last Stand (1940), Broken Barrier (1952) and To Love a Maori (1972), certain Måori characters such as Ariana, Johnny and Tama were employed to differentiate “friend” or “foe”. In the 1980s, however, Måori could not be so easily

categorised into “good and “bad” or used to make moral claims regarding race-relations and national harmony. The consolidation of the conservative and radical elements of Måori society in the protest movement blurred the boundaries of “who” constituted “friend” or “foe”. Groups such as the Måori Council and Måori Women’s Welfare League had worked in conjunction with the State since the 1940s and 1950s respectively, but were active in the protest movements. Those organisations which had once given assistance to the State, were now supporting those critical of the institution.

As evidenced there was an ambiguity in the relationship between Måori and Påkehå in the 1980s which is reflected in Utu. This theme is best illustrated in the interactions of Wiremu and the settler Williamson. Lt. Scott, who is leading a group of Måori soldiers hunting for Te

174

Wheke, stops at the Williamson farm to speak to the settler about the death of his wife. On seeing the Måori bushrangers, Williamson asks Lieutenant Scott “How can you tell they’re not his men”? Wiremu responds “I can tell”. Williamson then asks Wiremu “How can we tell you’re not one of them”? Wiremu states “You can’t”. It is argued this exchange symbolises the uncertainty in differentiating “friend or foe”. In the relationship between Måori and Påkehå it could be assumed, for example, that Måori, such as Wiremu (working on behalf of the State as a kupapa soldier) was a “friend”, but this encounter reveals that he may, in fact, be a potential “foe”.

The uncertainty in the loyalties of Måori is a theme in the film that centres on the position of Måori in the “national” framework. As discussed in earlier chapters, the State and its

institutions were arbiters of national identity and harmony through race-relations, and these themes have been reinforced in the cinematic record.132 _{The question of Måori “loyalties” are} replayed throughout the film and best illustrated with the Måori bushrangers leaving the army to join Te Wheke’s group. What this suggests is that Te Wheke’s cause of revenge,

independence and war against the “Påkehå” was seductive to Måori, including those who had been working for the Crown or British Army.

On examination, this theme of uncertainty and ambiguity can be seen as a metaphor for the new relationship of Måori and Påkehå, influenced by the protest movements. The protest movements had revealed that Måori support could not be assumed as part of a “one nation - one people” ideal of national identity. Such a view is evident in the Governor General, Sir David Beattie’s speech on 6 February (Waitangi Day) 1981 “I am of the view we are not one people, despite Hobson’s oft-quoted words, nor should we try to be. We do not need to be”. What this suggests is a fundamental social-level shift in attitude from the State-decreed assimilationist-integrationist policy, where Måori made all the concessions, to a re- examination of how race-relations may be conducted.