Multiculturalism in New Zealand

John Lowe's thesis entitled Multiculturalism and its exclusions in New Zealand: the case for
cosmopolitanism and indigenous rights has shed light to a lot of conflicts and contradictions when it
comes to the distribution of rights in, not just New Zealand, but also to most Western countries. In
this study, the author has emphasized both the surface, and the greater depth within the situation of
biculturalism in New Zealand in utter, and maybe even desperate attempt to share land and rights
with their indigenous fellows, Maoris. The study also tackles the Treaty of Waitangi which was a
settlement between The Crown and the Maori. While the Maoris interpreted this treaty as a
declaration of independence as nation, British royals saw it as an opportunity to mark New Zealand
under their sovereignty. At the same time, the treaty was a major mark of the origin of biculturalism
in a nation where two tenants reside: Pakehas (or white New Zealanders), and Maoris.

Although biculturalism had been going on for years in New Zealand, the claim to social justice
and commitment to honoring both sides as civilizations had been compromised a few times over when
New Zealand's borders were let down for non-European civilizations. With the fact that the treaty
also acts as compensation for historical faults and hostility towards the Maori standing, it is
indubitable that The Crown had failed to make biculturalism an effective method to get two extremes
to meet harmoniously in the middle without attenuating, and offending the indigenous status of the
Maoris–in the first place, the treaty was always questionable holding in itself multiple layers of
political paradoxes. According to Lowe (2015) the Crown failed to be fair to the Maoris in the
simple sense of informing them of sudden shifts of "traditional source" or policies in accepting
immigrants. The author even cited Maaka and Fleras (2009) stating "Efforts to find a sustainable
compromise between each of these constitutional principles–that of partnership, protection, and
participation versus that of governance, surrender, and control–have proven both elusive and
infuriating." The paradox here is that while the Maori's are driven to expand their power, the Crown
will always be looking over their shoulders to maintain their governance, and authority; the two rules
would still be (and is still) divided.

The study sought to look for an alternative to the existing biculturalism in New Zealand.
However, if under biculturalism the attempt seems almost like a punch to the wind, how much more
if they considered going under multiculturalism wherein everyone in a society gets to have equal
opportunities, privileges, and rights without disregarding anyone as important? In addition, going
multicultural could compromise one side or the other's culture–multiculturalism is actually convicted
guilty of possibly being able to allow practices that are oppressive to women, and children country-
wide said a feminist named Okin (1998). Multiculturalism would be a very obvious mistake since
everything begins to falter at the wake of the difference of beliefs; the framework or model simply
just does not seem to fall into the vision of a greater, and more equal nation,

By the end of the study, Lowe concluded that the better alternative to the regressing
biculturalism is not multiculturalism, but cosmopolitanism, but not by itself. Cosmopolitanism
introduces a better way of governance, and equality may it be political cosmopolitanism, or moral
cosmopolitanism. Lowe cited Pollock et al. (2000) stating that cosmopolitanism is an impossible task.
However, cosmopolitanism is a philosophical concept that is very pleasing, and grand since the socio-
philosophical framework recognizes the ideal that all humans belong to one community based on a
shared morality said Delaty (2015). In light of this conflict, the study introduced four modalities
encompassing the interplay of cosmopolitanism and biculturalism wherein both the comparisons of
biculturalism and cosmopolitanism was emphasized along with how they could possibly coexist as
the better alternative to the standalone biculturalism that was deemed ineffective in the study.

It is not only in New Zealand that the conflict to share land with each other is manifested–the
same things could be said about the Philippines. While it is not exactly evident, there is division in
the republic of the Philippines throughout its colonization, and even now as it stands as a democracy;
rampant racism taken as jokes, fascism, and even division of culture may it not be according to race,
but according to belief and religious practices. In essence, if in New Zealand there is a treaty that
cannot be fully distinguished that brought forth much miscommunication to their indigenous people,
we Filipinos had the same misinterpretation when the war in Marawi took place just recently–from
the very beginning, domains have never been clear to us, and each of the Filipino civilization just
identified each other as different, or as a completely different civilization even when we share the
same islands, and the same lands. Along with this are the Lumads who continue to fight for their
rights against hostility, and violence; they continue to be harassed for asking for the same kind of
justice, and rights. The Maoris had the benefit of consideration from the Crown, but the Filipino
Government still chooses to ignore the issues of our Filipino tribes.

With everything said, the same solution Lowe came up with in the conclusion of his study on
culture could be applied in the same sense in the Philippines; the Filipino people could use the
coexistence of biculturalism, and cosmopolitanism as a defense to address the issues and challenges
at hand in the nation that is the Philippines.