Rights, Resistance & Māori Resurgence · Unit spine · Keep this in the front of your book
Five kinds of claim that are not the same thing, four questions you ask of every one of them, and one table you fill in across the whole unit.
Rights, Resistance & Māori Resurgence in Aotearoa · Year 10 Social Studies · Keep for the whole unit
The five kinds of claim in Part A get treated as five words for the same thing. They are not. A movement can be making more than one kind of claim at once — and the kind of claim changes who has to answer it, and what counts as a win.
When you write “they wanted their rights”, stop. Which kind? Claimed by whom? Made on whom?
Held by every person simply because they are a person — not given by a government, and not lost by moving country.
Named in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948. The UDHR is a declaration, not a binding treaty: it sets a standard rather than creating a court you can go to.A claim made on a particular state for equal treatment under that state’s own law — the right to vote, to be free of discrimination, to be treated equally by police and courts.
You only have civil rights in a state that recognises you. That is why the argument is usually about who counts as a full citizen, and whether the law is applied evenly.Held by peoples as Indigenous peoples — collective rights to land, language, culture and self-determination, not individual rights held one person at a time.
Set out in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted 13 September 2007 by 143 states in favour, 4 against — Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States — and 11 abstentions. Also non-binding. New Zealand announced its support in April 2010.Rights arising from a particular agreement between particular parties — te Tiriti o Waitangi, signed in 1840 between rangatira and the Crown. Not universal: specific, and owed by one named party to another.
This is why a Te Tiriti claim is argued differently from a human-rights claim. It does not ask “is this fair to everyone?” It asks “did the Crown keep the agreement it made?”Authority that comes from te ao Māori itself. It is not one more item on this list. The other four are claims made on someone else — on a state, on the UN, on the Crown. Tino rangatiratanga does not depend on being granted, recognised or declared by any of them.
🪶 Teach this one carefully. The phrase appears in Article 2 of te Tiriti o Waitangi, but it did not begin there and its meaning is not created by that document. See the kaiako note below before teaching.🪶 Kaiako note — tino rangatiratanga: the card above deliberately does not give a short definition of tino rangatiratanga, and it should not be reduced to “Māori sovereignty” or to a generic “Indigenous principle”. Comparing it with the other four claims is legitimate teaching; treating it as their Māori-language equivalent is not. Use an authority’s own wording instead of a summary — the quotations below are NZHistory’s — and where a kaiako Māori or mana whenua is available to lead this part of the kōrero, they should.
Quoted from NZHistory (Manatū Taonga), “Differences between the texts”. These are the source’s words, not a summary — read them exactly.
Article 2, Māori text: “In the Māori text, Māori were guaranteed ‘te tino rangatiratanga’ or the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages, and all their property and treasures.”
Article 2, English text: “In the English text, Māori leaders and people, collectively and individually, were confirmed and guaranteed ‘exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries and other properties’.”
Article 1: “In the English text, Māori leaders gave the Queen ‘all the rights and powers of sovereignty’ over their land. In the Māori text, Māori leaders gave the Queen ‘te kawanatanga katoa’ or the complete government over their land.”
Why it matters: “The word ‘sovereignty’ had no direct translation in Māori. Chiefs had authority over their own areas, but there was no central ruler over the country. The translators of the English text used the Māori word ‘kawanatanga’, a transliteration of the word ‘governance’, which was in current use. Māori knew this word from the Bible and from the ‘kawana’ or governor of New South Wales. Māori believe that they kept their authority to manage their own affairs and ceded a right of governance to the Queen in return for the promise of protection.”
The source spells kawanatanga without a macron inside these glosses; the quotations follow the source.
Your task: in Article 1, write down what Māori leaders gave the Queen in the English text, and what they gave her in the Māori text. Are those the same thing? One sentence on why the difference still matters today.
Ask these of every claim, in this order:
Question 4 is the one that separates the five kinds in Part A. A human right gets its authority from being human. A civil right gets it from a state’s own law. A Te Tiriti right gets it from an agreement two parties actually signed. Follow the authority and you will know what kind of claim you are looking at.
Run the four questions on each of these, and write which kind of claim it is:
Fill one row per case study, in the lesson it belongs to. Column 3 is the important one — it is Part A applied. Print landscape (A3 if you can).
| Movement / event What happened, and when? | Injustice / problem What was wrong, in one sentence? | Right or claim — WHICH KIND? Human / civil / Indigenous / Te Tiriti / tino rangatiratanga. By whom, ON whom? | Who acted Name the people and groups. No “Māori activists” in general. | Method Petition, march, occupation, legal claim, building an institution… | State / public response What did the Crown do? What did the public do? | Change achieved What actually changed, and when? | Limitations What did NOT change? | What this shows about social change Your reasoning. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lesson 3 · Ngā Tamatoa and the 1972 te reo Māori petition | ||||||||
| Lesson 4 · The 1975 Māori Land March | ||||||||
| Lesson 5 · Takaparawhau / Bastion Point | ||||||||
| Lesson 6 · The 1981 Springbok Tour | ||||||||
| Lesson 7 · The Waitangi Tribunal | ||||||||
| Lesson 7 · Kōhanga reo and kura kaupapa Māori | ||||||||
| Your own choice (from Lesson 2 or your own research) |
Look down the Method column and the Change achieved column together. Then answer:
Print: Part A and B on one A4 (portrait), Part C on A3 landscape. Students keep both for the whole unit; Part C is the evidence base for the final inquiry, so collect it at the mid-point to check it is being filled in as you go rather than reconstructed at the end.
The teaching move this sheet exists for: students — and plenty of resources — collapse “human rights”, “civil rights”, “Indigenous rights”, “Treaty rights” and “tino rangatiratanga” into one blur. Column 3 forces the distinction every time a row is added. Expect students to argue about which box a case belongs in — that argument is the learning, and the answer is often “more than one, and here is why”.
What this sheet does not do: it does not define tino rangatiratanga, by design. See the flagged note in Part A.