Waitangi and Indigenous Rights: Revolution, Law and Legitimation by F.M. Brookfield (review)

204 New Zealand Journal of History, 36, 2 (2002) demonised but more frequently ignored' (p.97). Head proposes a broader consideration of Maori motivation, particularly their willingness to engage in the possibilities, as they saw them, of 'citizenship' and especially the material, administrative and intellectual benefits (economic/technological, governance, literacy, Christianity). This is thoughtful analysis, but hardly revisionist. If anything it is quite retro, certainly to the times before Treaty syndrome in the 1980s. If she said then what she is saying now, nobody would have taken exception. And indeed her ideas are also very reminiscent of some nineteenth-century interpretations of Maori strategy, for example John Gorst's interpretation of the King Movement as an attempt at engagement with Pakeha systems rather than a rejection of them. What makes Head's article significant, and I think it is a very significant contribution, is perhaps less any novelty in her views and more in the fact that it is cause for us to reflect upon the extent to which New Zealand's historical paradigms have changed so much in the past 20 years. I have perhaps unfairly selected only three articles for comment, but they are the standout ones for me. Other contributions from Andrew Sharp, J.G.A. Pocock, Angela Ballara, Judith Binney, Mark Francis and P.G. McHugh all make useful contributions, making this, collectively, a most stimulating publication. I notice some editorial sloppiness. Oliver has the New Zealand Journal of History wrongly starting in 1972, and Angela Ballara refers to the Journal of Pacific Studies when in fact it should be Journal of the Polynesian Society (n.40). K.R. H O W E Massey University — Albany Waitangi and Indigenous Rights: Revolution, Law and Legitimation. By F.M. Brookfield. Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2000. 253 pp. NZ price: $39.95. ISBN 1-86940184 -0. AS DAVID BARAGWANATH STATES in the foreword: 'This is a timely book', no less so if this review is a little late. The book offers some expert and in-depth analysis into the very heart of what most people simply (often unquestioningly) assume is the legitimacy of our democratic constitution. Internationally the West is crusading for democracy as actively (and brutally) as it ever has, and issues of national self-determination are a major focus of international attention. This work is so timely and contains such a wealth of legal knowledge and solid thought that a review of a few hundred words hardly does it justice. It is a highly detailed book, richly tlavoured with case law and underpinned by an expert understanding of the legal process. Every page or two provokes such thought that reading it is slow going, though rewardingly so. The first part builds the concepts of revolution and legitimacy, and the second applies them to the experience of New Zealand. This book works from a definition of revolution that is broad, in fact, probably too broad, embracing peaceable and gradual change. While interesting, the definition teases the reader a little — what, for example, becomes of the great, distinctive, sudden and violent revolutions of 1789 or 19177 If all but the absolute preservation of the status quo is revolution, does the word not begin to lose its meaning? It is an unfortunate sounding example, but I have always thought Hitler's rise to power was a revolution in Germany, yet no one calls it such and Hitler himself, after the Munich Putsch of 1923, deliberately sought a constitutional path to power. Does this not bring us right to the issue? Brookfield may be right, the assumption of British sovereignty in 1840 may well have been more than Maori conceded in the Treaty and this is a useful field of debate in itself. Brookfield argues that the pre-1840 constitution (based on hapu/ REVIEWS 205 iwi custom) was usurped by a new 'revolutionary' constitution brought by the British. But what if the Treaty was a starting point, and what authority the British assumed beyond 1840 was assisted by Maori co-operation, more than resisted by Maori opposed to change? Government and Maori spent vastly more time at peace than in conflict between 1840 and the end of the nineteenth century. One...