Some suggest 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 not?

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

Please don’t take offence at the mention of these positive things in our history.

I feel sure that some reading this will feel uncomfortable. The point is – why? (And we’ll come to that – because the question here is both of balances and also truth).

There are many positive stories in our nation’s history that are still not yet told – that would build unity and national pride were they 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 colonisation then followed.

However, to say the above isn’t to say they didn’t also bring bad. But what about the idea of balance and truth? 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 even greater good. Ways of war, revenge, infanticide, human sacrifice, scary superstitions – and cannibalism within the mix… all ended.

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 – including an equal silence regarding the significant negatives of pre-European Māori society. (Two imbalances – to what end?)

This is a strange silence – because our Celtic ancestors were exactly the same in all these things except cannibalism as far as I’m aware, as also the Nordic and Germanic tribes. ALL of our ancestors were like this – if we go back far enough!

Consider also the amazing values we have. This is our history and story – yet also regarding which we are silent. 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 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?!!

(This is what cultural prejudice looks like.)

The negative stories of history – which we wisely tell (or don’t!) 

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 can cause them to live out of bitterness and pain – as if seeking redemption through the admission, apology and recompense from another. They inadvertently place their emotional wellbeing in the hands of another. They become victims – rather than masters of their own destiny. They 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.

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’ 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. However, knowing the negative stories is necessary – but for how long?

An example of the continuing pain

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 our neighbour-of-14 years’ Tangi 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 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 recommenced. 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.

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

(An example)

Do I have authority to suggest the above need for Māori to one-day forgive? I’m not Māori – and 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 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 clearly not in that place yet.)

I come from a home with emotional trauma sufficient to literally cripple the lives of 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 the intense pain they still feel and live under because of it. 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 significantly affects some of those I most love, and 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. This took place overseas – due to a partisan will – and this is why my Grandad came to New Zealand, to remove himself from the injustice and start afresh. He died owning nothing.

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

The balancing points (Restoring the idea that two things can be true at once)

In balance to these, 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 us accept the injustices suffered – just as Christ unjustly suffered for us, so as to then ‘wash out’ the need for vindication or redress.

As another point of balance, a pursuit of redress for injustices is concurrently just. The question is, is it beneficial – and how much so? 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. In the same way, reliving experiences that caused deep trauma would be unhealthy – which is sadly what some are tempted to do regularly. (This is their processing of the grief).

In addition, there would be no wisdom in passing on a knowledge of things that happened to our children, along with any sense of the pain and injustice involved!

For perspective, I also 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 also – having personally lost a mixture of lands, homes, businesses, finances and country.

A conclusion

I therefore state that GRACE is the ultimate need.

This is the only possible conclusion, when all has been said and done – which might take a decade or two yet.

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. While it would be nice, it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level. Who we are is defined by or choices, not our past – even though our past can shape us.

We each get to choose the person we will become.

For an application:

• We all need GRACE to journey graciously with those who are living and even re-living their past hurts. 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
• Concurrently, all who have experienced pain and injustice need GRACE within them – to come to the point from which they can forgive, ending the matter.

Also, by learning a wider scope of history, we can make our nation a better place.

We’d bless others by telling the myriad of positive stories that exist in our history about which we’re currently strangely silent. This includes stories from both our bicultural era (1814 onwards) as well as from our values history which traces 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 coming next – while understanding the grief is part of the current journey – concurrent with defining the nature or scope of independence inferred in Article 2 is the debate of the present day.

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.

• 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 opinion and 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 3 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 high level of authority over their own people, on their own lands – all under the common law. 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 this 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 – while under the national law (Article 1) all people remain equal (Article 3).

But how far should that independence go – and at what cost will that come?

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. So, what are we fighting for really? Also, 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.)

Other blogs by Dave Mann on this general topic

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.