I just read your post about memories of curling in New Zealand. I am from that neighbour of NZ that has memories of actually winning the Bledisloe Cup (sigh).
I’d like to suggest a topic: the NZ Govt’s plan to give mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) equal standing with scientific fields such as physics, chemistry and biology.
Can I shoot myself first, please?
Admittedly, I’d probably be blissfully unaware of what you’re talking about if I didn’t read Jerry Coyne’s blog – this ‘controversy’ is a nothingburger as far as the mainstream media in NZ is concerned. I certainly haven’t seen any evidence that the right-wing opposition parties are prepared to expend any political capital opposing it – their attention is more directed at Three Waters.
Politics is about pendulums – and although I cannot help thinking that NZ education had too little Maori influence in my youth (in the 70s & 80s), it would seem that the pendulum is now at its apex in the opposite direction. One cannot help but hope that this pendulum has a dampening effect built into it.
Suppressing my knee-jerk reaction, that of running screaming into the night to avoid the topic, I put some further thought into crystalising my views on the subject.
Whilst I would agree that the Treaty of Waitangi is to a considerable extent the foundational document of New Zealand, I would demur from viewing it as in some way NZ’s constitution – as it was not drafted as a constitution, and thus not fit-for-purpose in this role.
I believe that the ToW does give the Maori legitimate rights to their land (and thus the right for redress for lands historically expropriated) and to their language and other cultural treasures, I do not believe that it should give the Maori (or politicians and/or academics purporting to act on their behalf) the right to impose those cultural treasures on non-Maori New Zealanders.
I believe that terming science as “Western Science” is racist, in that it obliterates the contributions non-Westerners have made to science, both historically and currently.
I believe that all cultures have their own traditional knowledge. I think any attempt to raise up any one culture’s traditional knowledge by political fiat, as being equal of science, and thus implicitly better than other culture’s traditional knowledge, is problematical both epistemologically and pedagogically, as well as bordering on ethnonationalism.
Hmm. This is getting difficult…. I think we’re meant to be having a disagreement
From what I can gather, the Treaty of Waitangai (1844) is pretty much unique in British colonial history. It’s significance to the recognition of Māori culture is something that we citizens of other countries know little if anything about. We really do need an explanation. Speaking as an Australian, at roughly the same time at TOW was signed, our Imperial masters were working overtime to exterminate Tasmanian aborigines. How does one reconcile these experiences with indigenous peoples?
Ironically while New Zealanders are planning to integrate mātauranga Māori into the national curriculum, Australians are voting this year in a referendum for an ”Indigenous Voice” (whatever that may mean) in Federal parliament. Regrettably the referendum does not enjoy bipartisan support and that alone is likely to consign it to the political ashtray in which one can continue to rub the noses our First Nation people.
I think the differences can be explained by a couple of circumstances:
NZ was colonised later than Australia, and that colonisation had barely begun by the time of the signing of the treaty. This meant that they would not have sufficient of a bridgehead already to take NZ by force if the Maori resisted.
NZ’s natives were far more organised and warlike (probably due to denser populations, as well as a more fertile environment, leading to a greater material surplus that could both provide resources for larger-scale warfare, and for there to be more to fight over) than Australia’s, and already had firearms by that time – see the Musket Wars for example. This tradition continued into the 20th Century with the Maori Battalion.
This made it sensible for Britain to seek peaceful entry into NZ. The Maori in turn preferred to have the British to the French, and so asked for Britain to be a “friend and guardian” of New Zealand.
I wouldn’t call this piecemeal approach unique – it has some similarities to how Britain went into India – entering through trade and agreements with local rulers, and only later, when they had built up sufficient presence, imposing direct rule.
Discussion promoted from The Argument Clinic. 
Let me know if I missed any related comments.