Research Commons
      • Browse 
        • Communities & Collections
        • Titles
        • Authors
        • By Issue Date
        • Subjects
        • Types
        • Series
      • Help 
        • About
        • Collection Policy
        • OA Mandate Guidelines
        • Guidelines FAQ
        • Contact Us
      • My Account 
        • Sign In
        • Register
      View Item 
      •   Research Commons
      • University of Waikato Research
      • Arts and Social Sciences
      • Arts and Social Sciences Papers
      • View Item
      •   Research Commons
      • University of Waikato Research
      • Arts and Social Sciences
      • Arts and Social Sciences Papers
      • View Item
      JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

      Who owns native nature? Discourses of rights to land, culture, and knowledge in New Zealand

      Goldsmith, Michael
      Thumbnail
      Files
      Goldsmith 2009 Native nature.pdf
      120.1Kb
      DOI
       10.1017/S094073910999018X
      Find in your library  
      Citation
      Export citation
      Goldsmith, M. (2009). Who owns native nature? Discourses of rights to land, culture, and knowledge in New Zealand. International Journal of Cultural Property, 16, 325-339.
      Permanent Research Commons link: https://hdl.handle.net/10289/3530
      Abstract
      Michael Brown famously asked ‘Who owns native culture?’ This paper revisits that question by analyzing what happens to culture when the culturally defined boundary between it and nature becomes salient in the context of disputes between indigenous and settler populations. My case study is the dispute between the New Zealand government and Maori tribal groupings concerning ownership of the foreshore and seabed. Having been granted the right to test their claims in court in 2003, Maori groups were enraged when the government legislated the right out of existence in 2004. Though the reasons for doing so were clearly political, contrasting cultural assumptions appeared to set Maori and Pakeha (New Zealanders of European origin) at odds. While couching ownership of part of nature as an IPR issue may seem counter-intuitive, I argue that as soon as a property claim destabilizes the nature/culture boundary, IPR discourse becomes pertinent.
      Date
      2009
      Type
      Journal Article
      Publisher
      Cambridge University Press
      Rights
      This article has been published in the International Journal of Cultural Property. Copyright © 2009 International Cultural Property Society.
      Collections
      • Arts and Social Sciences Papers [1423]
      Show full item record  

      Usage

      Downloads, last 12 months
      72
       
       
       

      Usage Statistics

      For this itemFor all of Research Commons

      The University of Waikato - Te Whare Wānanga o WaikatoFeedback and RequestsCopyright and Legal Statement