Asa Kowals-Rose | Blog for RFILP

I’m hard at work writing and preparing for my presentation. Sleep is for the weak!

I’ve been reading about the history of Maori political representation in New Zealand. Since the implementation of the Maori Representation Act of 1867, there have been four special Maori seats in the New Zealand Parliament. Each of the seats represents a geographically distinct district; these districts are superimposed over regular parliamentary districts, and citizens of Maori descent can register to vote for either their Maori district or their regular one. Although this system guarantees some indigenous representation in parliament, most believe that it presents an extremely flawed approach to ensuring indigenous self-determination. Indeed, the seats were created to give only token representation to the Maori; the number of seats is fixed at four out of a total of ninety-nine, even though Maori comprise nearly fifteen percent of New Zealand’s population. Many believe that a separate Maori parliament should be created to better account for social and cultural structures that are ignored by the general parliament. This is only a brief discussion of the issue; there will be a much more in-depth explanation included in my paper, which I’ll begin writing in the next few days.

I’ve been combing through Ali Abunimah’s book, The Battle for Justice in Palestine, which compares the state of Israel to the United States in terms of their treatment of indigenous peoples. Just as the United States government disregarded tribal territorial integrity, the Israeli government continues to seize land in the West Bank, displacing Palestinians. What makes this situation unique is that, whereas disease decimated American Indian populations, the population of Palestinians displaced by Israeli settlers has been maintained, and millions of them live as refugees in Lebanon and Jordan. This makes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict different than other modern settler-indigenous conflicts; If Palestinians were given voting rights in Israel, they might be able to rely on popular representation to improve their situation, rather than being forced to resort to a byzantine justice system.

In my research, I’ve been reading about the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. This agreement between William Hobson, the first Governor of New Zealand and numerous Maori chiefs established British sovereignty over the islands. This treaty was different than most of the ones negotiated in the United States and Canada around the same time. Whereas American Indian treaties intended to strip tribes of land, the Treaty of Waitangi ostensibly protected Maori sovereignty, including control of tribal land. This, unsurprisingly, was frequently ignored by the government of New Zealand, but it nonetheless made indigenous-settler relations on the islands different from those in other British settler states.

Here are the sources I’ve selected. I’ll seek out more as I comb through these and begin my first draft.

Aboriginal Title and Indigenous Peoples: Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2010.

Abunimah, Ali. The Battle for Justice in Palestine. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books, 2014.

Bourassa, Steven C., and Ann Louise Strong. “Restitution of Land to New Zealand Maori: The Role of Social Structure.” Pacific Affairs 75, no. 2 (2002): 227–60. doi:10.2307/4127184.

Byrnes, Giselle M. “Jackals of the Crown? Historians and the Treaty Claims Process in New Zealand.” The Public Historian 20, no. 2 (1998): 9–23. doi:10.2307/3379416.

Crais, Clifton. “Custom and the Politics of Sovereignty in South Africa.” Journal of Social History 39, no. 3 (2006): 721–40.

Duffié, Mary Katharine. “The Treaty of Waitangi and Its Relationship to Contemporary American Indian Sovereignty Issues.” Wicazo Sa Review 14, no. 1 (1999): 45–59. doi:10.2307/1409515.

Echo-Hawk, Walter R. In the Courts of the Conqueror: The 10 Worst Indian Law Cases Ever Decided. Golden, Colo: Fulcrum Publishing, 2010.

Fleras, Augie. “From Social Control towards Political Self-Determination? Maori Seats and the Politics of Separate Maori Representation in New Zealand.” Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue Canadienne de Science Politique 18, no. 3 (1985): 551–76.

Gilbert, Shirli. “Jews and the Racial State: Legacies of the Holocaust in Apartheid South Africa, 1945–60.” Jewish Social Studies 16, no. 3 (2010): 32–64. doi:10.2979/jewisocistud.16.3.32.

Murphy, Michael A. “Representing Indigenous Self-Determination.” The University of Toronto Law Journal 58, no. 2 (2008): 185–216.

Mylonas-Widdall, Michael. “Aboriginal Fishing Rights in New Zealand.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 37, no. 2 (1988): 386–91.

Tong, Maureen. “Decolonisation and Comparative Land Reform with a Special Focus on Africa.” International Journal of African Renaissance Studies 9, no. 1 (January 2014): 16–35. doi:10.1080/18186874.2014.916857.

Tsuk, Dalia. “The New Deal Origins of American Legal Pluralism.” Florida State University Law Review 29, no. 189 (2001): 189–268.

Ülgen, Özlem. “Developing the Doctrine of Aboriginal Title in South Africa: Source and Content.” Journal of African Law 46, no. 2 (2002): 131–54.

Wotshela, Luvuyo. “Territorial Manipulation in Apartheid South Africa: Resettlement, Tribal Politics and the Making of the Northern Ciskei, 1975-1990.” Journal of Southern African Studies 30, no. 2 (2004): 317–37.

I’ve been focusing on two things this week. First, I’m gathering the last of the research materials I’ll be using as a foundation for my paper. I’ve also started more in-depth research on Maori land rights in New Zealand. This has focused on two important events: the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, and the 2003 Ngati Apa v. Attorney General case. I’ll post more information on these in the coming days, as well as my complete list of sources.

I began my research this week with the book Aboriginal Title and Indigenous Peoples: Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. It features several authors’ work on the social, political, and legal aspects of settler colonialism, and discusses ongoing legal battles over indigenous rights. I’ll be writing about the book in greater detail as my book review, so check back Friday for more information on this fascinating text.

This week I finalized my project idea and completed a rough outline of my research paper. I will be researching and comparing indigenous sovereignty in the United States, New Zealand, Apartheid South Africa, and Israel/Palestine. My paper will have a special focus on the role of the judiciary in indigenous sovereignty.