posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 01:00 AM
Having lived in central Australia, my family have lived there twice, I know *something* of indiginous peoples and the problems/semi-subjugation they
face.
I guess the difference between the Aborigines/Kooris and the Maoris as far as Aussies are concerned was always the fact that the Maoris reisisted,
actively and relatively successfully. They were a tough-guy warrior race. The Aborigines were hunter-gatherers who got royally screwed.
The Maoris lived in a much smaller and more abundant area and were far more socially integrated (tribally) with each other, to the point where Potatau
Te Wherowhero was made the first Maori King in an effort to give the Maoris a spokesman/focal point for negotiations with the Brits.
The (native) American Indian analogy is far closer to the Maoris than the Australian Aborigines. I guess they got political at about the same time as
well. I don't know a great deal about American Indian history, just a few PBS-style doco series, a little reading, the film Thunderheart (which
regardless of accuracy is just way COOL) and the accompanying doco about Leonard Peltier, but it seems that AIM got the Indians angry about the same
time or just a little before the Maoris began to assert themselves in New Zealand. It took the government of Bob Hawke (with some exceptions) for
anything to happen for the Aborigines.
If the Maoris want precedent, just look at Uranium royalties in Kakadu. The government gives them to the Kooris because its cheaper than giving them
money straight out of the budget. Plus it's conscience money.
I find it interesting that such a self-confessed, left-wing, small-L liberal as Helen Clark would ignore the Waitangi committee's recommendations,
that just smacks of John Howard's refusal to say sorry to the "stolen generation".