The Meaning of Mandela

Mandela was part of a radical anti-colonial movement.
Pictured are heroes of the movement at the
Riviona trials.

Revisionism isn’t an event. It’s a process. A sustained exercise in narrative-building. We’ve seen it every hour since the 6th of December when Nelson Mandela died. Mandela’s beliefs and legacy have been white washed. Pun intended. 

In a report on the 7th One News recounted the toolshed version of Mandela’s life. They praised his commitment to reconciliation and added, as a conclusion, that it made him:

“An exception on a continent with a bloody history of long-serving autocrats and violent coups”.

Coming from the perspective that I do, I thought that One News was referring to the “bloody history of long-serving” colonial autocrats and thugs. But I know better than that. The idea that Mandela was above other post-colonial heads of government and state is part of a pattern. The effect is to elevate Mandela above the struggle rather than acknowledge his position as part of the struggle.

But the problem isn’t unique to New Zealand. Nor has it taken the same form every time. The trend has been towards sanctification by reconciliation. Ed Miliband touches on it in the Guardian writing that Mandela’s “spirit of reconciliation” has “been so widely acknowledged in the days since his death”, but he pushes back against that narrative – admittedly in the innocuous way that politicians do – and writes that “the liberation of South Africa was won by a movement”. But the strongest push back has come from people of colour.

Musa Okwonga has written a storming piece: “Mandela will never, ever be your minstrel”. Okwonga launches a fiery critique of the revisionists who will forget Mandela’s “Malcolm X” and only emphasise his Martin Luther King Jnr. 

Yet why does it matter? Mandela was a reconciliator too. It matters because the meaning of Mandela is more than reconciliation, more than forgiveness for the oppressors. Teju Cole captured the absurdity of it all: 

“The prisoner finally dies. The torturers take a moment to praise him (to praise themselves). Then they return to work”.

A lime quarry on "The Island" where Mandela and
others would work in prison. 

In his head, his heart and in his bones Mandela was a humanist. He lived ubuntu. But his humanism didn’t only manifest in his unhuman capacity for forgiveness: it manifested in his anti-colonialism, his anti-imperialism, his commitment to armed resistance. But those aspects of Mandela are at risk of being forgotten. How many media outlets have aired Mandela’s recent views on US and UK foreign policy and the conflict in Iraq and Palestine? Very few. It may seem strange to quote Robert Mugabe, but he captures what Mandela was to people of colour: he was “the great icon of African liberation… [a] freedom fighter”.

But for the white establishment, Mandela represents something different. He represents reconciliation. Writer and historian of colour Jelani Cobb is right in arguing that, for the white establishment: 

“[Mandela’s] capacity to emerge from twenty-seven years in prison without bitterness broadcast the hope that this country’s own racial trespasses might be forgiven”. 

Framing Mandela as a figure only of or primarily of forgiveness is self-interested.

The four former colonies of the Anglosphere share a common history with South Africa.  All are former English colonies and have forged their national identities on that basis. And all have committed atrocities against their indigenous and non-white populations. Indeed, de jure apartheid was partly modelled on Jim Crow laws from the United States and the Indian Act from Canada. 

New Zealand took a different trajectory. (Less brutal, thankfully). But it’s still in the white establishment’s interest to highlight, to celebrate and to push upon us their interpretation of Mandela. Highlighting his reconciliatory aspects gives the white establishment hope that Maori might – no, should! – let go of the past and let the status quo remain.

But that misunderstands the meaning of Mandela. He knew reconciliation was a moral response, but more so it was a matter of survival. When Mandela was released from prison he entered a world that was vastly different from the one he left. Neoliberalism was ascendant and the post-colonial project had collapsed in comparator countries. In Zimbabwe capital flight had ruined the economy and incompetent government had destroyed the optimism of liberation. Closer to home the far right had armed itself and the government security apparatus was sowing tensions between the Inkatha Freedom Party and the ANC. Although it would have been just to arrest, prosecute and imprison the criminals of apartheid it would've ended the post-colonial project by civil war. First and foremost, Mandela was a shrewd politician who knew how to achieve what he needed to achieve. 

Mandela the radical on a commerative
Soviet stamp.

So Mandela emerged at that rare moment where “idealism and pragmatism were practically indistinguishable”. The white establishment honours Mandela’s idealism because it dignifies their argument that people of colour should forget history and move on, but people of colour know that Mandela's real idealism was his commitment to the post-colonial movement.

It has to be remembered that Mandela:

“Was always a maverick within the ANC… In the 1940s and 1950s, when the ANC was the preserve of conservative ‘Black Englishmen’, he advocated taking up arms and fomenting insurrection”. 

Mandela sanctioned armed resistance right to the very end of the apartheid regime.

So don’t forget that Mandela was as much Malcolm X as he was Martin Luther King Jnr. Don’t forget that it is self-serving for the white establishment to portray Mandela as a jesus-like fount of forgiveness ready to absolve the oppressors of all crime and retain the status quo. It is true that Mandela was a source of moral authority. But don’t forget that he was more than that. Anti-colonial, anti-imperial, a liberator and a radical. Amandla!

Post script: I wrote this out of frustration. On reflection, it wasn’t the right headspace. But if I had written it in contemplation, in peace, the words wouldn’t have come. I would have liked to have written a tribute rather than a rant. But words are too small for him. The meaning of Mandela goes deeper than words can. 

Stephen Harper and the logic of colonialism: why Maori should care

Prime Minister Stephen Harper (looking far too pleased with himself)
By Remmy Steinegger

"We also have no history of colonialism. So we have all of the things that many people admire about the great powers but none of the things that threaten or bother them" – Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada. 

That's funny. In 2008 Harper apologised in Parliament for residential schools - one of the most insidious expressions of colonialism in Canada. In a moment of lucidity he explained that:

"Two primary objectives of the residential school system were to remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, and to assimilate them into the dominant culture. These objectives were based on the assumption Aboriginal cultures and spiritual beliefs were inferior and unequal... 

Today, we recognize that this policy of assimilation was wrong, has caused great harm, and has no place in our country".

There's a galaxy between the first quote and the second. But Harper's wrong in both quotes to frame colonisation as a historical event. Colonisation is a series of events. Harper should know, but the state and its agents never admit how they came to occupy their privileged positions. Canada's economy was was built off of the back of the theft of indigenous lands. But admitting that would be to deny Canadian exceptionalism. It’s better to practice the politics of amnesia.

In 1920 Duncan Campbell Scott, the then Minister of Indian Affairs, said this:

"Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question". 

Scott is describing colonialism as a strategy. Like Harper explains, assimilation ideologies are about removing and isolating indigenous people from their culture. But that leaves some aspects unexplained. In short, the logic of colonialism is this: occupy indigenous land, subjugate indigenous people and exploit their labour and resources.

Duncan Campbell Scott, evil Canadian
bureaucrat

In 1583 Sir Humphrey Gilbert declared Newfoundland the first English colony. Gilbert claimed to act under the royal prerogative. That act marked the first stanza in Europe’s colonisation of Canada. Successive waves of English, French and other European colonists pushed west. Occupation begun.

But the country wasn’t terra nullius. Where indigenous people were met, they were pacified. First Nations people were never conquered in the sense of, say, raupatu. The preferred method was treating. The government derived its authority from Treaties signed with First Nations people. The core promise was equality. But (as we know) the Crown only recognises its own sovereignty. Subjugation begun.

The government wasted no time in acquiring an economic base. In 1876 the Indian Act was passed and worked to dispossess indigenous people of their land and resources. The roots of economic exploitation took hold. The parallels with New Zealand colonists, the Treaty of Waitangi and the Native Lands Act 1862 are obvious and uncomfortable.

And the pattern continues. In 2012 the Idle No More movement erupted. The movement appeared in response to Bill C-45, an omnibus bill that didn’t recognise indigenous fishing rights and reduced environmental protection. The movement also opposed a suite of other omnibus bills including the First Nations Private Property Ownership Act and the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. The first act allowed private property ownership within Reserve boundaries. The second act imposed standards on First Nations governments that far exceed standards for municipal, provincial and federal officials. Underlying it all is the assimilation of First Nations people and the destruction of their culture.

The newest expression of the colonial state is the suppression of the Elsipogtog. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (including snipers) are engaged in repressing protests against seismic testing (a precursor to fracking operations). Harper knows that the "Indian problem" is only resolved through assimilation into the "body politic" or total exclusion. There's no middle ground. 

As Maori, we should play an active part in opposing colonial tactics. Why? Because it's own experience too. Colonialism isn't a historic event - it's an ongoing process. It's about being a good ally. If Harper succeeds in eliminating “the Indian question”, then maybe he can claim that Canada has no history of colonialism. History is written by the winners. 

#IdleNoMore

What’s Idle No More? Who is Chief Spence? Why is Stephen Harper tweeting about bacon and should we care?

Idle No More is an indigenous movement calling on the Canadian government to protect the environment, honour First Nations sovereignty and respect the “Nation to Nation” relationship. The movement appeared in response to Bill C-45, an omnibus bill that doesn't recognise aboriginal fishing rights and reduces environmental protection. The Bill, for example, alters the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The Act requires environmental assessment for 2.25 million rivers and 32,000 lakes. Under Bill C-45, environmental assessment will only apply to 62 rivers and 97 lakes. First Nations people were not consulted and believe that the changes reduce environmental protection. The movement also opposes a suite of other omnibus bills including the proposed First Nations Private Property Ownership Act and the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. The first act would allow private property ownership within Reserve boundaries*. The second act would impose standards on First Nations governments that far exceed standards for municipal, provincial and federal officials. For example, First Nation‐owned businesses (unlike non-First Nations' businesses) will be required to publicly report income and expenses. The proposed legislation is based on the racist assumption that First Nations’ officials are corrupt. But beyond the racist assumptions and unilateralism is a more sinister motive – the assimilation of First Nations people and the destruction of their culture. A 21st century way of continuing God’s work – well, Duncan Campbell Scott’s work - of eliminating the “Indian problem”.

Although these bills acted as the catalyst, the movement speaks to deeper themes: sustainability, the subjugation of indigenous values, laws and systems, a partnership between the Crown and First Nations that is only respected where it is expedient and… te tino rangatiratanga (self determination). These issues aren't peculiar to Canada, or New Zealand, or anywhere else. They’re part of a global story arising wherever Europe collided with indigenous cultures.

In many respects Canada was years ahead on indigenous rights. Much of the New Zealand case law on Maori rights is developed from reference to the Canadian authorities. In the Muriwhenua case** President Cooke made extensive reference to the Canadian cases and commented that the Canadian common law was, in respect of indigenous rights, “more advanced than our own”. However, Maori have pulled ahead of our First Nations tuakana (seniors). From 1840 onwards Maori have, generally speaking, maintained and exercised a greater degree of political power. As a political body, First Nations people are marginal players. Power in a capitalist democracy is contingent on several factors including numerical strenth and economic power. First Nations have neither, as a result their values, laws and systems have remained subordinate to the Queen in Right of Canada***.

However, Idle No More might represent a permanent shift in Canada’s power dynamics. Stephen Harper has bowed to pressure and agreed to meet with Chief Teresa Spence, an Aboriginal leader whose hunger strike helped inspire the movement, but being a classy Tory Harper first tweeted “mmm… Bacon” while Chief Spence was striking and stood by his flimsy claim that “Canada has no history of colonialism”. These actions have fed further domestic protests, including the disruption of key economic routes, and international solidarity is increasing. Importantly, the Idle No More movement is taking ques from the Occupy Movement, the successful Quebec Student Movement**** and utilising social media to organise near instantaneous demonstrations and spread information. The movement is also maintaining a level of intensity and coordination unfamiliar to Canadians and their government. The Ottawa Citizen compares the movement to an event in 1969:

1969 was the last time the federal government put forward an assimilation plan for First Nations. It was defeated then by fierce native opposition, and it looks like Harper’s aggressive legislative assimilation plan will be met with even fiercer resistance.

It is important to remember that First Nations people were never conquered. The Crown derives its authority through the Treaties they signed with the First Nations people. Although each Treaty is different, the core promise is that a partnership exists between First Nations and the Crown and that the wealth of the land will be shared equally. Relations are conducted on a “Nation to Nation” basis. However, as in other Westminster democracies like New Zealand, the Crown only recognises its own sovereignty*****. First Nations are considered intra-nations with a lesser form of authority devolved from the sovereignty of the Crown. Its legal, political and cultural imperialism at its zenith.

The oppressive and discriminatory conduct of successive governments has meant that only one treaty partner has seen any wealth. While the minerals and other resources from traditional First Nations’ lands have been used to give Canadians one of the highest standards of living in the world, the indigenous people remain at the bottom of every indicator and the needle isn’t moving.

I remain optimistic about Idle No More and the First Nations’ struggle for tino rangatiratanga. Chief Spence’ hunger strike is, I think, somewhat symbolic of what has and will happen to the First Nations people. For every day that Chief Spence did not eat, she withered and weakened like her people have for the past three centuries, but after winning a dialogue with Harper, his government and the Governor-General, Chief Spence gains in strength and mana and so do her people.

Post-script: Big ups to Te Wharepora Hou for their support of Idle No More and props to Te Karere and Te Kaea for covering the movement too. It is also important to note the role of women. Idle No More was created by four women and is led, in spirit, by Chief Spence, a female chief of huge mana. In New Zealand the strongest support has come from Maori women.

*Aboriginal property is held collectively, consistent with their values, legal system and the stated goals of many First Nations. The Act would also open land to non-Aboriginal buyers.

**See Te Runanga o Muriwhenua Inc v Attorney-General (1990)

***The Queen in Right of Canada is used to express the sovereignty of the Crown, or more simply the Parliament.

****The Quebec Student Movement involved thousands of students taking direct action to defeat proposed fee hikes.

*****See the orthodox doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.