On 26 Dec 2023 07:38:21 GMT, Gordon <
Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/local-democracy-reporting/301032431/the-challenges-of-relocating-offensive-weeping-woman-monument
My hope here is that this does not be fuel for an us and them situation. For >this has some interesting aspects to it.
One sentence in the history section stood out.
" It commemorates 15 M?ori and one European killed in an 1864 battle with >upriver M?ori at Moutoa island, 80km from Whanganui.
Europeans saw the incident as proof of loyalty by "friendly natives at >Wanganui" defending the fledgling settlement against a taua (war party)
from the upper reaches."
So it appears that some Maori were on both sides, and that on the settlers >side there was both Europeans and Maori.
The statue, or the wording on the statue, is offensive to a group (Whanganui >iwi members) who want the state relocated. The reason why it is offensive
is not given in the article, which would be helpful.
The article includes: "The 158-year-old Weeping Woman monument will be
removed from Pakaitore after objections to its inscription condemning
upriver Maori for "fanaticism and barbarism". "
There is information about Featherstone in a number of internet sites, including:
https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/1f4/featherston-isaac-earl
and there is information about the 1864 conflict here:
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/war/wanganui-war/moutoa-island
All parties seem in agreement to the statue being relocated and for some >content to to balance the existing wording. My guess is that it is the >placement of the statue which has a lot to to do with its offending.
No, while the site of the statue is not seen as now being appropriate,
it is part of the wording that offended - see the quote above, and
also again from the article:
"We are still working through legalities and discussions we want to
have to make it happen smoothly. Once we firm up the plan, we will
relay that to the community."
Rerekura said iwi had asked for appropriate context to go alongside
the monument when it is relocated.
"Something we expect to hear from the wider community is that in
removing this monument we're removing history.
"It is not about removing history. History gives an account of what
happened in the past and if only one side of that history is being
told then that history is flawed.
"We want to add our voice to that account and then the history will be
fair."
Appropriate signage and wording would be one way to present a balanced
history, Rerekura said.
"My personal belief is that our stories were held in korero, waiata
(song) and whakairo (carving). If the story is going to be shared,
that's the way that we will share the story."
____
This is good factual reporting of a local interest that possibly has
wider implications; certainly it is understandable that some would see
the inscription as not representing the motivations of all involved in
that conflict; giving a balanced history agreeable to all seems to me
to be good local politics, and an example of how recognition of
different perspectives may well enable a better long term solution
than an arrogant decision that denies the reality of different
perspectives of this unfortunate incident so long ago. It is entirely appropriate that such an article should get New Zealand-wide coverage
- well done to Radio New Zealand - and to government for funding such
stories: - from the article:
"Local Democracy Reporting is funded through NZ On Air"
or from
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/ldr/505547/the-challenges-of-relocating-offensive-weeping-woman-monument
"Local Democracy Reporting is Public Interest Journalism funded
through NZ On Air"
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)