I do know the meaning of the word but it appears you do not. Look it up in your OED or your Funk & Wagnall. The word means "native to". Maori arrived here from elsewhere - therefore they are NOT indigenous. Any other inference is spurious.
But “native to” just means “born in”. In that sense, many of us are indigenous. So the word is used to indicate those who have been native to colonised countries longer - since before they were colonised.
What you reason here is quite wrong. You are skewing the meaning to suit yourself.
The classic meaning and intention of the word "indigenous" is "born of that country" or "native to" it. So indigenous New Zealand plants are those that have always been here and don't exist naturally anywhere else. They could be introduced to other countries but then wouldn't be indigenous in that place. There is just one classic meaning of the word. Skewing away to your heart's content will not make anything else valid
In that strict sense, then, if we look far enough back in time, no humans are indigenous to countries outside Africa. The Māori were in Aotearoa for 600 years before Europeans arrived. Maori language and culture have no other native home than Aotearoa, therefore they are indigenous there.
is increasingly favoured by indigenous people, to state that they were the original nation in the place where they’re based. Whereas arguably now the descendants of the colonisers are a later indigenous culture: Aotearoa/New Zealand is the home of Kiwis as it is to Maori - they too are now native to that country. (The days when UK-descended colonists referred to the UK as “Home” are long past.) But it’s correct to refer to “native species” as distinct from “introduced species”, which still have a home somewhere else.
Thanks, Grant. That is helpful. I like the way the document says there's no authoritative definition of what indigenous peoples are - but sets out criteria for being called indigenous that Maori certainly meet. That's the thing with language - if you interrogate it closely, it starts to look shifty, evasive. It's always changing. In the end meaning is like a referendum - the majority decides what a word means at a given time. We editors learn to be pragmatic.
Not so. Maori came from elsewhere as they themselves will tell you. They arrived here on 7 waka. If Maori had been here from the beginning of time, they would be indigenous. BUT THEY CAME FROM OTHER ISLANDS.
Your being a PhD makes you an intelligent chap - I suppose. But "widely accepted" doesn't make usage correct does it? You are stoking the fire of misunderstanding whereas you are in a position to speak the truth and be helpful. Reading your article - and your reply - doesn't encourage me to continue reading Politics Happens. Most disappointing.
So Mr Birss are you saying Māori are not the original inhabitants of Aotearoa? Maybe you should check again the meaning of the word.
I do know the meaning of the word but it appears you do not. Look it up in your OED or your Funk & Wagnall. The word means "native to". Maori arrived here from elsewhere - therefore they are NOT indigenous. Any other inference is spurious.
But “native to” just means “born in”. In that sense, many of us are indigenous. So the word is used to indicate those who have been native to colonised countries longer - since before they were colonised.
What you reason here is quite wrong. You are skewing the meaning to suit yourself.
The classic meaning and intention of the word "indigenous" is "born of that country" or "native to" it. So indigenous New Zealand plants are those that have always been here and don't exist naturally anywhere else. They could be introduced to other countries but then wouldn't be indigenous in that place. There is just one classic meaning of the word. Skewing away to your heart's content will not make anything else valid
In that strict sense, then, if we look far enough back in time, no humans are indigenous to countries outside Africa. The Māori were in Aotearoa for 600 years before Europeans arrived. Maori language and culture have no other native home than Aotearoa, therefore they are indigenous there.
This document is helpful on defining 'who are indigenous peoples'.
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/fs9Rev.2.pdf
Another major piece on Te Tiriti is the 2014 Waitangi Tribunal report He Whakaputanga me Te Tiriti
This may be why the term “first nations”
is increasingly favoured by indigenous people, to state that they were the original nation in the place where they’re based. Whereas arguably now the descendants of the colonisers are a later indigenous culture: Aotearoa/New Zealand is the home of Kiwis as it is to Maori - they too are now native to that country. (The days when UK-descended colonists referred to the UK as “Home” are long past.) But it’s correct to refer to “native species” as distinct from “introduced species”, which still have a home somewhere else.
First nations hasn't really caught on in NZ. And, oddly, I might say that I'm a native-born Kiwi, but not indigenous. Language!
Thanks, Grant. That is helpful. I like the way the document says there's no authoritative definition of what indigenous peoples are - but sets out criteria for being called indigenous that Maori certainly meet. That's the thing with language - if you interrogate it closely, it starts to look shifty, evasive. It's always changing. In the end meaning is like a referendum - the majority decides what a word means at a given time. We editors learn to be pragmatic.
I agree. I daresay not all dictionaries have caught up with the now widely accepted uses of the term.
Not so. Maori came from elsewhere as they themselves will tell you. They arrived here on 7 waka. If Maori had been here from the beginning of time, they would be indigenous. BUT THEY CAME FROM OTHER ISLANDS.
Why do you continue to say Maori are indigenous? Do you not know the meaning of the word?
In this context, the way I've used the word is widely accepted. I know what you're getting at though.
Your being a PhD makes you an intelligent chap - I suppose. But "widely accepted" doesn't make usage correct does it? You are stoking the fire of misunderstanding whereas you are in a position to speak the truth and be helpful. Reading your article - and your reply - doesn't encourage me to continue reading Politics Happens. Most disappointing.
I am only in favour of a four year term if all select committees are run by and have a majority of opposition members.
Fair point, Trudi. I imagine we'll only get a choice of 3 or 4 years.