Having reflected on how we might advance a healthy bicultural dynamic in our churches in a prior article (found here), this article purposes to consider where solutions to tensions might lie. It is a challenging article – and please feel free to disagree.

Sometimes telling negative stories is unwise.

My grandmother took her own life. Her two children (my mother and uncle) have both avoided ever talking about it. My cousins didn’t even know it had happened. Was it wisdom to not pass on the stories of pain to the next generation? I suspect it was.

What then of the negative stories of history? When might their telling be healthy – and when telling them not be healthy?

The positives of history we do not tell (How crazy is this?)

I feel sure that some reading this will feel uncomfortable. The point is – why? (We’ll come to this – but first…).

There are many positive stories in our nation’s history that are still not told. These would build unity and national pride if were they were told.

The English brought enormous good to this nation. They were an advanced civilisation. They expanded technologies and food supplies. The overall condition Māori lived within was greatly improved – even though telling this story almost considered a social-crime today because of our grief at the colonisation that followed.

However, to say the above isn’t to say they didn’t also bring bad. What about the idea of balance and truth as a way forward? It’s possible for your parents to be good people – while still having done bad things, right? Are we not all the same?

Christianity also brought good – and it was a greater good than the above by far! Ways of war, revenge, infanticide, human sacrifice, scary superstitions – with even cannibalism in the mix… all ended. This change in our history came as the result of a SPIRITUAL renewal – despite many efforts to ‘explain it away’ by other means (or to simply ignore it).

The above merely illustrates how we can be selective in the history we tell.

Māori, and indeed our whole nation at this time, seems scared to talk about the positives of our history.

An equal silence is found regarding the significant negatives of pre-European Māori society. To what end do we deny these aspects of our history?

This is an especially strange silence when noting that our Celtic ancestors were exactly the same in all these above things except cannibalism, as also the Nordic and Germanic tribes. ALL of our ancestors were like this if we go back far enough. (There need be no criticism inferred on any one culture when we mention these things – which are common to our pre-Christian history).

Consider also the amazing values we have. This is a huge part of our history and story as a culture about which we are likewise silent at this time. As I often write, we live in one of the most free, prosperous, equality-based and charitable societies on our planet, and in human history. How did we get it so good? The answer really is, because of Christianity!

The values of the Christian faith are like the air we breathe – taken for granted, and yet intrinsic to who we are. We wouldn’t be equality-based and charitable like we are without Christianity. We wouldn’t have Te Tiriti without it – or be admitting our wrongs in an effort to now honour Te Tiriti in 1875 and 1985 also. How crazy and real is the prejudice within us that this entire spectrum of our history is currently disregarded – and this by almost all of us?!!

(Here’s the ‘kicker’: This is what cultural prejudice looks like. While we oppose prejudice, we concurrently live in the midst of it – and maybe even reflect it.)

The negative stories of history – Are we wise to tell them, or not?

For the negative view: If we tell the negative stories of history we can create a context within which new generations are caused to re-live and carry the mamae (hurt) through this storytelling. This could cause our Māori to live out of bitterness and pain – then seeking their redemption through the admission, apology and recompense of another. They inadvertently place their emotional wellbeing in the hands of another. They become victims – rather than masters of their own destiny. They potentially also pursue their own good – rather than the good of all people as Christ would have us do.

If we can think clearly about this for a moment, passing on the pain can be very unhealthy.

For the positive view: I, however, defend the wisdom of storytelling regarding some (not all) of our past injustices. It is right to recognise wrongs that were done, especially where their scale is significant, and their impacts upon us today are real. This is the case for many Māori regarding their loss of the significant (not complete) autonomy – as implicit within the ‘guarantee’ of a high level of self-autonomy as defined in the use of the term ‘tino rangatiratanga’ in Article 2 of the Treaty / te Tiriti. We are in the season of history in which this is being discussed and addressed – to consider what can be done. Knowing some of the negative stories is necessary – but for how long, and to what extent?

An example of the continuing pain from my neighbour

Losses Māori suffered here in the Tauranga Moana (Tauranga sea/harbour area) are incalculable. The effects last through to today – because they still don’t have their land. They don’t have crops. They don’t have the incomes these would bring. They are sidelined on their own whenua.

We recently attended the Tangi of our neighbour-of-14 years at a local Marae. Many times I heard her say that she just wanted to be on her own land. The point: She felt something of a stranger in our city, despite a heritage here dating back centuries.

While we know that knowing Christ is EVERYTHING in life (all other things will pass), this doesn’t concurrently justify being dismissive of past wrongs.

Māori still don’t feel these injustices have been properly or fairly recognised or recompenced. The grace and wisdom of God is yet needed in this space – including amongst Māori to one day collectively forgive, so we can move forward in peace together. Both of these dynamics are needed.

The need for eventual forgiveness – and the strange silence regarding this

(An example)

This is a touchy subject – so I will simply illustrate personally.

Do I have authority to suggest the above need for others to one-day forgive? Re forgiving pain from betrayals NZ history – I’m not Māori. Some might think, what right do you have to say this? How could you possible understand?

Absolutely I understand – even if the pain we each have is different!

(I also note that many Māori have forgiven – and there will be kaumatua who’ve stated the same as representatives of their people. However, collectively, I suggest we’re not in that place yet.)

I come from a home with emotional trauma sufficient to literally cripple the lives of some family members – so I understand injustice, pain and trauma. I am also personally free – even though hardly a week goes by without me being drawn into a context or conversation related to the past, journeying with others who still feel and live under intense pain from the past. This is my ‘normal’, with intense emotions attached if not managed, which I juggle in the course of every week. This also sits somewhere within my thinking and consciousness almost every day, because it not only affects some of those I most love; injuries remain even in myself – despite healing sufficient to live a genuinely contented life.

How and why am I free? It is only by the grace of God, even while others whom I love are not.

Intriguingly, our family also suffered land loss. If not for this injustice I have no idea how wealthy we might otherwise have been. Our family have never discussed the matter, and I’m only aware due to passing comments. This took place overseas – only one generation ago – due to an unjust partisan will. This is why my Grandad came to New Zealand, to remove himself from the injustice of land loss and start afresh – with nothing. He also died owning nothing.

So I state with authority that healing is possible – and also that forgiving is necessary.

The balancing points (Two things can be true at once)

Each person has to journey to their place of being ready to forgive. This is the difficult part. Somehow, God’s grace needs to work through us, to help we who feel hurt to accept and forgive the injustices suffered – just as Christ unjustly suffered for us, so as to then ‘wash out’ the need for vindication or redress.

And yet a pursuit of redress for injustices is concurrently just. The question is, is it beneficial – and how much so / for how long? What would love do? At what cost will seeking redress from past wrongs come – and to whom? Is it therefore loving?

Wisdom is needed, because the troubles caused by seeking justice can outweigh the benefits.

This would certainly be the case were our family to re-live the unfair loss of land and livelihood. Reliving experiences that caused deep trauma would be unhealthy. We could justify it as a healthy processing of grief – but for us, I think it would more-so be a negative temptation to embrace victimhood in our thinking – even though some struggling relatives could benefit from financial (and other) help (and even charity) due to effects that could all be blamed on generational pain if desired.  

And so – what of the story of the injustice we suffered? Do we pass it on? In our family there would be no wisdom in passing on this knowledge of things that happened concurrent with any sense of the pain and injustice. Even if a financial benefit were possible (which is not), it would run the danger of shifting those who are struggling from being the masters of their destiny to victims, now seeking validation from others.

For perspective, I point out that Rhodesians and many South Africans have significant authority on this matter – no less than that of our Māori. (Many – not all). Many of these understand these kinds of injustices from first-hand experience – having personally lost a mixture of lands, homes, businesses, finances and country. Some have also lost family members who were murdered.

A conclusion

I therefore state that a combination of WISDOM and GRACE is the ultimate need.

This is the only possible conclusion and future conversation – when all has been said and done – though this might take a decade or two yet.

(But is it possible without Christ? I’m not convinced it is!)

To reiterate and illustrate the point: No amount of talk or apology in my wider family could make up for the trauma, pain and enormous loss suffered as a result of things that happened in our childhood. Were $10 million given to us each – that would be lovely, but still wouldn’t bring the greater treasures of genuine peace or contentment within in contrast to pain, anxiety and fear. While the money would be nice, it would address the problem at the wrong conceptual level.

Who we are is defined by our  choices, not our pasts – even though our pasts shape us.

We each get to choose the person we will become – as my various relatives have each done.

For some application:

• We all need GRACE to journey graciously with those who are living and even re-living their past hurts. This is no different to the way I must journey with family members. It’s their journey, and there is nothing more we can do than to seek to understand, empathise and show love. The negative stories of our history are being told – and need telling. There is a process in play.
• Concurrently, all who have experienced pain and injustice will need GRACE within them to eventually come to that point at which they can forgive – just as Christ will so willingly forgive them for their wrongs if they will just turn to him and his ways and ask. This is something we are wise to be praying about and for!

As another application point: By learning a wider scope of history (in NZ and amongst our cultural ancestors elsewhere), we can make our nation a better place.

We’d can bring blessing by telling more of the myriad of positive stories that exist in our history, about which we’re currently strangely silent as a culture. This includes stories from both our bicultural era (1814 onwards) as well as from our values history which traces back through Europe to the Middle East.

• In case the reality of our history is missed, our heritage isn’t actually from ‘European culture’; it is from ‘Jesus culture.’  If we study pre-Christian Europe, it’s no different in dynamic to pre-Christian New Zealand. Our values are ‘Christian’ – not ‘European’!
• This history directly explains some of the most significant aspects of who we are – including most of our most-treasured values.

Final comment: If not for this grace to one-day let the matter be healed, the Treaty will never be honoured.

This is a significant statement and irony – yet to be discovered or comprehended by many.

This is the conversation that I believe is coming next – having felt the grief, while considering the scope of independence inferred ‘upon’ Māori in Article 2 – which is the pressing present debate.

I believe the Treaty clearly articulates a balance of factors – which in the present day could include privilege for Māori from Māori trust / iwi investments and initiatives. To articulate some balancing points:

• We are supposed to be one people, with one system of law and Government (Article 1),
• …in a society marked by equality (Article 3).
• …Yet Māori should (in my interpretation) have freedom to exercise a reasonable level of autonomy over their own people – while all under the common law. I reach this conclusion by exacting a principle from Article 2 of the Treaty that goes beyond what it says – yet which I suggest was implicit in the recognising of the greatness of the chiefs. Specifically, I suggest it recognised that Māori had a (a) high level of authority (b) over their own people (c) on their own lands – (d) all under the common law. (Four components). The consequent taking of this was not justified. Redress could logically include autonomy by Māori over their own health, education, application of justice and welfare – and maybe more. Messy as the administration of this scope of ‘returned self-governance’ could be – the end result is no different to a wealthy family with its own enormous trust fund enjoying unequal privileges. This is what Māori could become, with privileges attached from their own trusts – while under the national law (Article 1) all people still remain equal (Article 3).

But how far should that independence go – and at what cost will that come to our relationships and nationhood?

Only Māori can decide this – but I suggest that a wisdom greater than what I see reflected in current rhetoric is needed.

• Why? This pursuit could be at the cost of our joy, unity and freedom as a people – because this could yet tear us apart!
• In short: Article 2 can be leveraged to undermine Articles 1 and 3.
• The balance of the Articles of this Treaty are therefore the substance of both the current and coming conversation – and it is a very important conversation!

What would love do? This is a costly question,

…and the same question remains true for my wider family!

(By God’s grace, none in our family seek further redress – while sadly, not all are healed.)

DAVE MANN. Dave is a networker and creative communicator with a vision to see an understanding of the Christian faith continuing and also being valued in the public square in Aotearoa-New Zealand. He has innovated numerous conversational resources for churches, and has coordinated various national nationwide multimedia Easter efforts purposed to open up conversations between church and non-church people about the Christian faith and its significance to our nation’s history and values. Dave is the Producer of the ‘Chronicles of Paki’ illustrated NZ history series created for educational purposes, and the author of various other books and booklets including “Because we care”, “That Leaders might last” and “The Elephant in the Room”. Married to Heather, they have four boys and reside in Tauranga, New Zealand.