Maori Entrepreneurship- Potiki-ranga balance
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
1 j'aime•758 vues
This document summarizes an article about indigenous entrepreneurship in a Maori context in New Zealand. It discusses how Maori social organization was based on a balance between elders (rangatira) and youth (potiki). Traditionally, the tribal system supported collective access to resources and balanced individual interests. In contrast, British colonizers promoted individualism and private land ownership. They exploited tensions between rangatira and potiki for political gain. However, the article also notes some initial compatibility between Maori and British ideas of trade. It recognizes the importance of preserving indigenous models of entrepreneurship for balancing social and economic roles in a Maori context.
![Tapsell, P., & Woods, C., (2008), Potikitanga: Indigenous Entrepreneurship in a Maori Context, Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Community, 2(3) INTBUS705 Assessment One Jess Maher [ARTICLE SUMMARY]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/jessslidesfinal-tapsellwoods-100924200154-phpapp01/85/Maori-Entrepreneurship-Potiki-ranga-balance-1-320.jpg)
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Similaire à Maori Entrepreneurship- Potiki-ranga balance
Similaire à Maori Entrepreneurship- Potiki-ranga balance (7)
Plus de Jess Maher
Plus de Jess Maher (15)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Maori Entrepreneurship- Potiki-ranga balance
- 1. Tapsell, P., & Woods, C., (2008), Potikitanga: Indigenous Entrepreneurship in a Maori Context, Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Community, 2(3) INTBUS705 Assessment One Jess Maher [ARTICLE SUMMARY]
- 2. Indigenous People in Modern Societies Maori are Warriors Similar principles of land ownership 1642 initially saw harmonious commence & trade between Maori & Crown Comparatively, what is unique about Maori as an indigenous community? “Cook's arrival offered immediate benefits, both for the weary European travellers and for the Maori in New Zealand. Both parties, eager to capitalise on the opportunities offered by the arrival of the newcomers, traded material items, ideas, values and worldly information with each other….” BBC History Article, Colonising Aoteroa
- 4. Complimentary Dualisms driven & balanced social order Maori Social Structure Collective nature of kin accountability Underlines by dualism and balance of principles fundamental to Maori: Potiki (youth) are balanced by the Rangaita (elders) by definition of social order
Notes de l'éditeur
- This is my article..Taking a risk as Chris co-wrote this… so hopefully I have done it justice in review..Clear relevance to this weeks topic and our current context, being NZ;However, it also has significance due to the comparatively strong standing in society than other indigenous people internationally while New Zealand is widely accepted to be a representative sample of Western markets, being used as a test case for large MNCs, for example Vodafone, which is the reason that initially brought me to NZ…Particular personal relevance…in Tim’s article, comparisons are completed across very different indigenous contexts, its interesting to consider the nature of how these indigenous peoples are treated and valued in society (at least in the case of Maori in NZ and the Aboriginal people of Australia) differs significantly in a wide range of measures…The way the countries where colonised and settled, the way the native people and the “white man” interactedThe government treatment and settlement deals subsequently, the ongoing place and position they hold in societyThe “public” perception of the indigenous population today, the remaining artificats and ongoing presence & strength of their “traditional roots” in modern societyWhen I moved to NZ from Australia, as I mentioned before-because of Vodafone, my Dad had been given a position in the management team here and after discovering boarding school really wasn’t for me, I joined my family here in Auckland… Joining the schooling system in fifth form at 15, provided me some vast examples of numerous comparible differences from a very niaeve and objective stand point… In reterospect, those early ‘culture shocks’ really highlight some obvious & interesting differences in the approaches taken by each side from colonialism right through to today.. Some of these were;-the pronauction of Maori words was something that I instantly struck by. Literally the first time I landed in Auckland - onehunga & one tree hill Street & Place names are not something the aborignial people lack, but those which do feature an aboriginal name, sterotypically take little concern for the indigenous accuracy.. In fact kids in school learning songs in Maori was something I found difficult to pathem, but the everyday use of Maori words really hard. But Maori is an offically listed language in NZ…-cultural aspects of Maori are embedded and embraced by people internationally relating to them as aspects of being “kiwis” – its difficult to think of a nation who has a equivilent representation to that of the Haka at Rugby Test games. WHY SO DIFFERENT? [ask for input]
- 2 critical aspects as I understand it:-MAORI ARE WARRIORS -LAND OWNERSHIP – whilst Maori were one of the few indigenous people to fight the “white man” , tricked in treaty, Grey intentionally disrupt the potikitanga balance; Retrospectively, at a more fundamental, an important element of the colonisation process was how land was treated. Aboriginal culture was nomadic, they travelled as the conditions changed or required it (remembering that over 40% of Australia's landmass in uninhabitable desert conditions) This was KEY as the Crowns interpretation of “ownership” was determined by modifications to the existing land by pre-existing inhabitants. Aboriginies were therefore by the very core definition seen as equivalent to any other native animal (and held no right over claims to ownership or even pre-exsisting or expired residency- they weren’t considered to have lived there in Crowns understanding). Maori on the other hand had only beaten the “white man” here by a few thousand years from their polynesianorigns. Unlike the nomadic Aborigines and not only did they feel the right to protect their sovereignty here but they were much more aligned and comprisable to the “white mans” way of doing things. Political disputes typical to NZ’s political & socio-economic context regarding the accepted “indigenous people” of our nation are unique. Arriving in NZ less than a century before European explorers, the Maori social organisation which had developed by that time encompassed the entrepreneurial spirit. Since Abel Tasman visited Kiwi shores in 1642, the Crown & Maori kingdom happily co-exsisted and positive evidence can be found of tribal-commerical development.... “Cook's arrival offered immediate benefits, both for the weary European travellers and for the Maori in New Zealand. Both parties, eager to capitalise on the opportunities offered by the arrival of the newcomers, traded material items, ideas, values and worldly information with each other…. ....Tamaki Makaurau (which means 'Tamaki of 100 Lovers'), later called Auckland, was aptly named, as many tribes were drawn to the rich isthmus, where they established villages and cultivated land on the volcanic cones, valleys and bays of the area. In the first stages of colonisation, and having been invited by the NgatiWhatua leaders, the British likewise set up their own government and settlement there…”http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/cook_tupaia_maori_01.shtml
- NB: Man & his family (Schumpeter, 1911) The breakdown occurred fundamentally at the differences in collectivism/individualist focuses being misunderstood by the various parties… The various “Land Wars” between the two governments was “often new settlers did not appreciate that Māori owned their land communally and that permission to settle on land did not always imply sale of that land. Under pressure from settlers, the colonial government gradually ignored the provisions of the Treaty and permitted settlers to settle in areas that had uncertain ownership…”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Land_WarsNZ- one of the last colonised & settled bodies of land in the world and the Maori people can be considered one of the traiditional entrepreneurs- consider the concept that Potiki or “entrepreneurship” is the reality of our current societies which like contemporary Maori culture, apears to lack the balance of complimentary dualisms which are intrinsic to the nature of our world...
- Sir George Grey- highlighted in this article for his role of the third governer of NZ during the 1840s. collected NgaMahi a ngaTupuna (The Deeds of the Ancestors), collected by Sir George GreyMansion House Bay, Kawau IslandAfter the Second World War, the Hauraki Gulf became Auckland’s playground, and its islands were frequently visited by yachts and fizz boats. These boats are moored in front of the late Sir George Grey’s mansion at Kawau Island.http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/nearshore-islands/3/4Grey became deeply interested in the cultures of indigenous peoples. In 1840 he wrote a paper for the Colonial Office setting out his theories on racial assimilation. The hope was that through his mana and authority he could make peace. In 1861 he introduced a system of "new institutions" - local tribal councils. Known as rūnanga, they would have some administrative and judicial functionsAfter a short period in England Grey retired to his New Zealand home on Kawau Island, where he studied ethnography. He later entered Parliament, and becamePremier in 1877. http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/george-grey-paintinghttp://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=DSC18760108.2.16Grey was liberal and humanitarian, but also devious, erratic and autocratic – in other words anything but grey. He pedalled myths that still linger. After spending time inBritain, he returned in 1870, retreating to Kawau Island, where he indulged his interests in books, Maori lore and exotic plants and animals.As our most famous governor, he ruled autocratically from 1845 to 1853 (greatly shaping our constitutional arrangements) and returned for a second term in 1861. http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/people/sir-george-greyn the period of adjustment, during which their own religious beliefs were being abandoned and some Christian ones were being accepted, the Maori people created cults which provided an outlet for repressed fears and tensions. The best known of these was Hauhauism. //// Although it combined Maori and Christian customs it was not an advanced doctrine. Its appeal was simple and direct. It promised eternal salvation from the Pakeha and it could well have become a national religion involving some degree of political unity had its prophecies been fulfilled more successfully.
- Ongoing conflict between the Crown & Maoridom , which largely revolve around conflicts between ownership and governance began after the treaty of Waitangi and subsequent events following 1840, before that time (1769-1853) ____________________________________________________Clearly such misunderstanding appears to continue to have impacts, such as the widely dicussed public topic of “Foreshore & Seabed ownership” In Response to NZHerald article on June 7th, 2010, Kiwiblog post titled “Iwi now argue against property rights” provided a very topical insight into this… krazykiwi (6,393) Says: June 7th, 2010 at 2:24 pm The core is what is an “indigenous person”?Indeed. Take a square meter of land anywhere in central Europe and ask who is indigenous to that bit of land. The answer, of course, is nobody. The whole idea of land ownership in perpetuity is simply nuts, but it’s espoused by the Marxist leaning crowd as a cornerstone of their continued assault on private property rights.In the NZ context, if indigenous refers to ‘first peoples’ then someone needs to do a better job of convincing me that Maori where the first human inhabitants of our islands 1000 years ago, when the neighbouring aborigines have been calling their turf home for more than 50,000 years.hj (403) Says: June 8th, 2010 at 9:48 am In 1840 there were believed to be 60 to 70,000 (or maybe 100,000) Maori in NZ and about 2000 Europeans. The carrying capacity was limited by a lack of food species (before Europeans arrived there was only kumara – a subtropical tuber. Major food species had been hunted to extinction). Maori chiefs had no idea how many colonists were about to arrive and the British side gambled that Maori would be assimilated. At that point there was no chance there would be a lasting agreement on sovereignty and hence a treaty with two versions. The alternative was no treaty (and the negotiators didn’t get to go home …it wasn’t their idea after all). Colonisation would have continued one way or another by hook or by crook. Today with a population of 1.4 million decedents of .1 million think they should own the sea land around the coast.http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/06/iwi_nor_argue_against_property_rights.html__________________________________________________________