麻豆淫院

There's a term that crops up whenever Aotearoa New Zealand's political debates turn to the Treaty of Waitangi and its contemporary relevance: "race relations."

We've heard it most recently attached to and about the ACT Party's contentious Treaty Principles Bill, in former prime minister to "take the temperature down a wee bit" in that debate, and now during the in Ng膩ruaw膩hia.

But the term is a misnomer. Used or understood in the wrong way, it has the potential to harm social cohesion, increase political polarization, and distract from the actual policy issues being debated.

What we are really talking about are M膩ori-Crown relations. But the distinction is not something we teach particularly well in schools or universities. It isn't a debate about "race relations"; it's about the Treaty.

Two groups signed that treaty in 1840: hap奴 (kin-based groups) and the British Crown. Those who signed te Tiriti consisted of rangatira鈥擬膩ori leaders (or chiefs) representing hap奴鈥攁nd representatives of the Crown.

"Te Tiriti o Waitangi" is now commonly used to demarcate the version written in te reo M膩ori from the English-language one, "the Treaty of Waitangi." But neither version refers to "race."

M膩ori and the Crown

We now have many decades of scholarly and legal work defining the rights that came from te Tiriti. But if we did not have a treaty, as is the case for many Indigenous groups, international conventions and laws would guide the situation.

A central one would be the United Nations 鈥攊f one even dare mention it. Stopping any involvement in implementing the declaration was part of the . Nonetheless, Indigenous rights are increasingly being recognized globally.

Indigenous groups are political groups. Yes, they are based in kin and a continuing culture and language, but not so often based in "race." Internationally, if a country recognizes Indigenous peoples, those groups generally get to determine their own membership.

This too varies depending on their history and relations with the state. Some groups still use "blood quantum" rules, based on fractions of one's total ancestors. Others use citizenship rules that allow them to welcome in whoever they choose.

M膩ori, of course, have long used a -based model to recognize belonging, tracing descent back to particular ancestors, places and .

An outdated concept

The term "race relations" was in the 1960s and '70s to contrast M膩ori鈥揚膩keh膩 relations with what was happening in other countries, particularly South Africa. This led to the widely accepted myth of New Zealand having the "best race relations in the world."

The terminology was still used quite widely to describe M膩ori鈥揅rown relations in the 2004鈥�05 period, when the Foreshore and Seabed Act became a .

It is still even in official use, embedded in New Zealand's human rights bureaucracy with the role of , and observation of .

However, it is now widely recognized that "race" is an outdated concept. The M膩ori Affairs Amendment Act in 1974 moved us away from a race-based categorization system by defining "M膩ori" on the basis of descent.

In the decades since, other key government activities, such as , also moved away from the construct of race in favor of ethnicity.

Electoral law also changed in 1975, abandoning a blood-quantum rule for enrollment on the M膩ori or general electoral rolls to one based on self-identified descent. Previously, someone who had identified as being of more than half blood quantum but to be on the M膩ori roll.

Furthermore, many have highlighted limitations in the definition and scientific basis of "race" as a concept. As the American Association of Biological Anthropologists , "Humans are not divided biologically into distinct continental types or racial genetic clusters."

Ultimately, the so-called "race relations" issue is more a discussion of the rights of political groups (iwi and hap奴), on the basis of te Tiriti and being tangata whenua (their indigeneity). The "relations" in question are between M膩ori and the Crown.

Social cohesion

In the current political climate, the very term "race relations" can make it sound as though all M膩ori and all P膩keh膩 are in a difficult relationship and in danger of not talking to one another.

I've even heard the terms "race war" or "racial tensions" used. Yet we know from that (on average) different ethnic groups' views of one another have been consistently improving over time in New Zealand.

A M膩ori or protest does not represent a single M膩ori view of ordinary P膩keh膩. It is targeted at the Crown, or those with decision-making power. The idea of tensions between "races" heightens the perception of a zero-sum standoff between New Zealanders.

Using the term "race" also positions groups of regular people against one another. It is often used in a way that ignores multiculturalism and the sizable New Zealand populations with Pacific and Asian ancestry, among others.

We know that, individually, M膩ori are politically and culturally diverse, as the composition of the current parliament shows. A multitude of factors, from active choice to experiences of disconnection, contribute to this diversity.

The idea of "race relations" homogenizes M膩ori, whereas we know M膩ori sit on both sides of any given M膩ori-Crown relations debate.

The key target of M膩ori dissatisfaction is the Crown, for not upholding its part of the Treaty deal across various laws. Using the terminology of "race relations" is outdated and imprecise. Ironically, it also erodes social cohesion鈥攖he very "relations" we are trying to talk about.