Post by Kiwi Frontline on Mar 8, 2024 9:15:16 GMT 12
Graham Adams: THE TOHUNGA SUPPRESSION MYTH THAT WON’T DIE.
Few commentators seem to feel the need to actually read the four short clauses of the Act, or examine the circumstances in which it arose, or acknowledge that the legislation was presented to Parliament by Sir James Carroll — one of Māoridom’s most-eminent statesmen, who was the first Māori to win a general electorate seat and who served as Acting Prime Minister in 1909 and 1911.
Furthermore, the four MPs holding the Māori seats — Apirana Ngata, Hōne Heke Ngāpua, Tame Parata and Henare Kaihau — supported the bill.
It was also strongly backed by Māui Pōmare, who became New Zealand’s first Māori doctor in 1899 — and Minister of Health in 1923.
Appointed Māori Health Officer in 1901, Pōmare was a fierce critic of the practices of some tohunga. These included treating feverish patients by putting them in cold water and plying them with alcohol, as well as exorcising devils. Much to his outrage, the ministrations of tohunga had led to the deaths of 17 children in one pā alone.
Former Cabinet minister Willie Jackson knows his history and is a rare exception among politicians in being willing to publicly correct the myth. In an article in Stuff in 2017, he acknowledged that Apirana Ngata took a bold stand in backing the Tohunga Suppression Act — and pointed out that the influential politician was “more concerned about mortal risks posed by charlatans dispensing lethal concoctions than any diminishment of Māori traditions and knowledge”.
Yet the latter falsehood persists — and is repeatedly propagated in the media — as the truth limps a long way behind it.
On December 31 last year, for example, The Post published a column by Treaty lawyer Roimata Smail that stated: “In the English version of the Treaty, the Crown asserted sovereignty — power to make laws affecting everyone, including Māori. [This] had swift and severe consequences, as the Crown enacted laws intruding into every aspect of Māori lives. The Tohunga Suppression Act criminalised Māori healthcare and science…”
Later in the same column, Smail doubled down: “The Tohunga Suppression Act once criminalised Māori healthcare…” It did nothing of the sort, of course. The Act was solely aimed at those using traditional Māori healing practices who also presented themselves as having supernatural or spiritual powers. It was directed specifically at anyone who — as the second clause put it — “gathers Maoris around him by practising on their superstition or credulity, or who misleads or attempts to mislead any Maori by professing or pretending to profess supernatural powers in the treatment of cure of any disease, or in the foretelling of future events”.
The law made no attempt to prohibit many of the traditional treatments used by tohunga, such as medicinal plants and herbs, even if they turned out to be worthless.
The Post’s editors presumably don’t know much about the Act themselves or they might have made sure the correct information reached their readers. Perhaps they simply took Smail at her word on account of her background. The biographical notes on her publisher’s website describe her as a “lawyer specialising for two decades in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. She represented lead claimants in the Waitangi Tribunal inquiry that led to the watershed Hauora Report and the establishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority.”
The Listener didn’t appear to be better informed either. In an article published in that magazine a week later, Smail wrote:
“In the arena of health, the wisdom of Māori healers — some of which included what would today be described as very much in-vogue ‘wellness’ — was outlawed through the Tohunga Suppression Act 1907.
That’s right, laws were made banning Māori from using traditional healing practices that have since undergone a revival.” Again, that is not what the historical record shows. And, in fact, the Act was regarded as largely ineffectual. Some suspected it was aimed principally at the prophet and faith healer Rua Kēnana, but it was never used against him.
Not only was the legislation used sparingly — leading to only nine convictions — but prosecutions included a “White Tohunga”, Pakeha nurse Mary Anne Hill, of Grey Lynn, Auckland. Several of her patients (presumably Māori) died after she had treated them.
Smail’s columns — as well as positive reviews of her booklet on Stuff and The Spinoff — were part of a promotional push for her very slender publication ‘Understanding Te Tiriti — A Handbook of Basic Facts about Te Tiriti o Waitangi’, which went on sale early this year. Its basic premise is that the rangatira who signed Te Tiriti never ceded sovereignty to the Crown, and therefore the government had no constitutional right to make laws that applied to Māori.
In her opinion, such laws included the Tohunga Suppression Act — which, she says, “made Māori healthcare and science illegal”.
This is gross misinformation. And even if Smail’s argument that Māori never ceded sovereignty has currency in some quarters, that is no justification for misrepresenting the purpose and effect of the Act itself. Furthermore, not mentioning that the law was a Māori initiative, and thus providing important historical context, is intellectually dishonest.....
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/03/graham-adams-tohunga-suppression-myth.html
Few commentators seem to feel the need to actually read the four short clauses of the Act, or examine the circumstances in which it arose, or acknowledge that the legislation was presented to Parliament by Sir James Carroll — one of Māoridom’s most-eminent statesmen, who was the first Māori to win a general electorate seat and who served as Acting Prime Minister in 1909 and 1911.
Furthermore, the four MPs holding the Māori seats — Apirana Ngata, Hōne Heke Ngāpua, Tame Parata and Henare Kaihau — supported the bill.
It was also strongly backed by Māui Pōmare, who became New Zealand’s first Māori doctor in 1899 — and Minister of Health in 1923.
Appointed Māori Health Officer in 1901, Pōmare was a fierce critic of the practices of some tohunga. These included treating feverish patients by putting them in cold water and plying them with alcohol, as well as exorcising devils. Much to his outrage, the ministrations of tohunga had led to the deaths of 17 children in one pā alone.
Former Cabinet minister Willie Jackson knows his history and is a rare exception among politicians in being willing to publicly correct the myth. In an article in Stuff in 2017, he acknowledged that Apirana Ngata took a bold stand in backing the Tohunga Suppression Act — and pointed out that the influential politician was “more concerned about mortal risks posed by charlatans dispensing lethal concoctions than any diminishment of Māori traditions and knowledge”.
Yet the latter falsehood persists — and is repeatedly propagated in the media — as the truth limps a long way behind it.
On December 31 last year, for example, The Post published a column by Treaty lawyer Roimata Smail that stated: “In the English version of the Treaty, the Crown asserted sovereignty — power to make laws affecting everyone, including Māori. [This] had swift and severe consequences, as the Crown enacted laws intruding into every aspect of Māori lives. The Tohunga Suppression Act criminalised Māori healthcare and science…”
Later in the same column, Smail doubled down: “The Tohunga Suppression Act once criminalised Māori healthcare…” It did nothing of the sort, of course. The Act was solely aimed at those using traditional Māori healing practices who also presented themselves as having supernatural or spiritual powers. It was directed specifically at anyone who — as the second clause put it — “gathers Maoris around him by practising on their superstition or credulity, or who misleads or attempts to mislead any Maori by professing or pretending to profess supernatural powers in the treatment of cure of any disease, or in the foretelling of future events”.
The law made no attempt to prohibit many of the traditional treatments used by tohunga, such as medicinal plants and herbs, even if they turned out to be worthless.
The Post’s editors presumably don’t know much about the Act themselves or they might have made sure the correct information reached their readers. Perhaps they simply took Smail at her word on account of her background. The biographical notes on her publisher’s website describe her as a “lawyer specialising for two decades in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. She represented lead claimants in the Waitangi Tribunal inquiry that led to the watershed Hauora Report and the establishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority.”
The Listener didn’t appear to be better informed either. In an article published in that magazine a week later, Smail wrote:
“In the arena of health, the wisdom of Māori healers — some of which included what would today be described as very much in-vogue ‘wellness’ — was outlawed through the Tohunga Suppression Act 1907.
That’s right, laws were made banning Māori from using traditional healing practices that have since undergone a revival.” Again, that is not what the historical record shows. And, in fact, the Act was regarded as largely ineffectual. Some suspected it was aimed principally at the prophet and faith healer Rua Kēnana, but it was never used against him.
Not only was the legislation used sparingly — leading to only nine convictions — but prosecutions included a “White Tohunga”, Pakeha nurse Mary Anne Hill, of Grey Lynn, Auckland. Several of her patients (presumably Māori) died after she had treated them.
Smail’s columns — as well as positive reviews of her booklet on Stuff and The Spinoff — were part of a promotional push for her very slender publication ‘Understanding Te Tiriti — A Handbook of Basic Facts about Te Tiriti o Waitangi’, which went on sale early this year. Its basic premise is that the rangatira who signed Te Tiriti never ceded sovereignty to the Crown, and therefore the government had no constitutional right to make laws that applied to Māori.
In her opinion, such laws included the Tohunga Suppression Act — which, she says, “made Māori healthcare and science illegal”.
This is gross misinformation. And even if Smail’s argument that Māori never ceded sovereignty has currency in some quarters, that is no justification for misrepresenting the purpose and effect of the Act itself. Furthermore, not mentioning that the law was a Māori initiative, and thus providing important historical context, is intellectually dishonest.....
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/03/graham-adams-tohunga-suppression-myth.html