American historian Arthur Schlesinger jun asserts in his recent autobiography that a knowledge and an understanding of the past gives the present a new sense of purpose, possibility and dignity.
What he is suggesting is that historians have at least the potential capacity to study the past, identify in it what
is of continuing importance by way of values and experience, then to communicate these things to a contemporary audience, saying, "This is what we've done that we can be proud of, or not proud of; these are the values of our forebears that provide good signposts for future directions and behaviour." In this way good history absorbs the past, but at the same time creates new orientations for the present and foreshadows the future.
All that, of course, is by way of easy generalisation. Precisely what elements of our past suggest principles by which New Zealanders might define themselves - principles which might tell themselves and the world who they are and what they want to be?
Because of the nation's founding treaty with Maori, and because of the resilience of Maori culture, one of the most fundamental things New Zealand prides itself on is its identity as a bicultural country. This does not mean that every adult and child will speak Maori and English and have a confident knowledge of the protocols of both peoples.
What it does mean is that for the past two decades successive New Zealand Governments have made a conscious decision to recognise the position and the importance of the country's first culture, that of Maori, and to put the resources of the state behind an attempt to rebuild the language, values, protocols, rituals and expressions of that culture - all of which had been considerably eroded by the 1 1/2 centuries of colonisation which followed the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.
I am proud that successive New Zealand political administrations have chosen to support this genuine renaissance, sometimes in the face of disquiet on the part of some sections of the majority culture. And I would see continuing support for such a bicultural vision and programme as one of the major features of the stance which New Zealand presents to the wider world.
I won't go as far as to say that we have shown how settler and indigenous cultures can live in harmony; but we are, jointly, discovering ways in which two peoples can coexist equitably and equably in the one country.
Reference to indigenous matters should, of course, include some of the values that Maori offer to the wider culture and which, I hope, would be accepted and cherished by all New Zealanders.
One is whenuatanga, or respect for the land as the basic resource on which all human, animal and plant life depends. We need to learn, to a far greater extent than we have in the past, how to use resources sustainably rather than simply extractively; and to call a halt to the unthinking destruction of habitats, flora and fauna which have so much changed the character of our landscapes and pushed too many of its endemic creatures close to, or over, the precipice of extinction.
We would also benefit from embracing the degree of respect which Maori show for kin, and for ancestors and ancestral thought - not to the extent that tikanga or custom becomes immutable even though circumstances have changed, but in a way that recognises that the Polynesian forebears of the Maori were resilient and adaptable and modified their customs to meet new conditions and challenges.
New Zealanders as a whole should also adopt, wholeheartedly, the tradition of manuhiritanga, or hospitality to visitors and strangers - not simply because a culture of warmth and generosity is admirable in itself, but also because it provides another bridge by which one section of the community can interact fruitfully with others, with all the beneficial social effects that flow on from that.
What of Pakeha culture, derived from Europe but changed in all manner of interesting ways as it has engaged with both the land and the tangata whenua culture? This is a subject on which I have written with some frequency in recent years, partly because it has been necessary, to my astonishment, to assert that there is indeed such a thing as Pakeha culture.
The elements of Pakeha culture with which I identify most strongly include: a strong relationship with the natural world intensified by living by the sea, boating, fishing, camping and tramping; an engagement with the history of the land which, in my case, began with boyhood encounters with Maori, whaling and battle sites around Paremata Harbour; a relationship with the literature of the country, especially the writing of such people as Robin Hyde, Charles Brasch, Frank Sargeson, Eric McCormick, Keith Sinclair and Janet Frame; and a relationship with Maori people, Maori writing and Maori history, all of which conditions the perspectives I have about the preceding ingredients.
My identification with Pakeha culture is also a consequence of an accumulation of other New Zealand attitudes, values and habits which accrue to one living here like iron filings to a magnet. I am referring to such things as a willingness to have a go at any kind of job opportunity that presented itself, and to learn about the job on the job (I recall Stephanie Dowrick saying that in London publishing houses, an English staff member could edit a manuscript or tie up a brown paper parcel, whereas a New Zealanders in the same office could do both); an instinctive concern for the underdog; compassion for those in need or in trouble; an unwillingness to be bullied, or to be intimidated by class or status; not undertaking to do something without seeing it through.
Pakeha culture does, of course, share some of its ingredients with its largely European cultures of origin, and many of these, too, are ones which both Maori and Pakeha have had cause to embrace with enthusiasm.
These include the English language itself, allowing one to participate in international discourse; the Westminster Parliamentary system, which has eventually delivered equal voting rights to all citizens regardless of their race, rank or gender; and the conventions of the open society, in which every person is entitled to seek truth through a process of unfettered investigation and open disputation.
All of these latter values I have characterised as arising out of Pakeha culture, but most of them are in harmony with those of the indigenous partner - including an obligation on the part of both peoples to nurture a mutuality of respect between the cultures. I believe above all that a strong and confident Pakeha culture - one that knows its own history and feels positive about allegiance to its own origins - is more likely to sustain an equitable relationship with Maori.
All the foregoing is one step short of the actual definition of core New Zealand values. But it is part of the process of reflection which, I believe, must necessarily precede such a definition.
* Michael King is an historian and visiting professor at Georgetown University in Washington. He is the author of Moriori: A People Rediscovered.
Herald Online feature: Common core values
We invite to you to contribute to the debate on common core values. E-mail dialogue@herald.co.nz.
American historian Arthur Schlesinger jun asserts in his recent autobiography that a knowledge and an understanding of the past gives the present a new sense of purpose, possibility and dignity.
What he is suggesting is that historians have at least the potential capacity to study the past, identify in it what
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.