Why do we feel the way we do as Tongans in relation to the passing on of our Beloved King?
During my research for developing a personal hermeneutics, I came across this little article by Mele'ana Puloka called "Why do we feel the way we do as Tongans in relation to the passing on of our Beloved King?"
I posted up an earlier blog called "Our Sitz im Leben", its purpose is to describe a brief background of the responsibilities of the commoners to their families, villages and to Tonga. This article tend to give another brief explanation to one of the areas of the responsbilities of the tu'a (commoners), that is, to explain the ontology of the tu'a in relation to Tonga (King).
The following is the article:
Our ontology of 'eiki / tu'a (chief / commoner) principles influence us as Tongans the way we see reality. Our 'uhinga (reason / identity) is a communal process, not an individual process. We judge every body (rightly or wrongly) from the perspective that one should have related to God and in turn should have done the right thing. But this sense is embedded on the tu'a / 'eiki (commoner/nobility-royalty) principles based on our blood - relation to the King (through his court under our hingoa matapule [tribal names]). Having to relate to the King is a symbol only of how we corporately need to relate to the ultimate 'eiki, God. On the individual level, every Tongan is in a position to be a 'eiki (noble) or tu'a (commoner) based on our ranking criteria of gender and seniority (mehikitanga and lahi). Everyone then needs to relate personally to God in order to carry out his or her duty over the tu'a (commoner) he or she is 'eiki (noble) to. I believe our ontology was put there by God for us to have a sense that we cannot afford not to relate to our leaders but at the same time, our leaders and individuals must relate to God if we are to live in peace. But before Christianity came to our land, our ancestors had a rather obscured understanding of what the 'eiki (noble-royalty) / tu'a (commoner) principles meant.
Those in authority thought that because they were the God's descendants and the commoners were descendants of a worm, there was much oppression of the tu'a (commoner) by the 'eiki (nobility? Royalty). Christ's teachings and examples gave a new interpretation through King Tupou I who reinterpreted the principles to mean that it is God who rules the Tongans. He replaced the heathen Gods and their representatives with Christ and his new representative (Tupou I). A new interpretation / epistemology came to being. This meant a new relationship came into existence. It was a relationship between an Eternal Father and a Son-King. Out of Tupou I's relationship with God, he liberated the tu'a (commoner) to own possessions, to have rights over their lives, to own rights to land etc. This transformation by the King of Kings (Jesus Christ) over the life of our King Tupou 1, gives Tongans the Christian heritage of 'ofa (love), toka'I (respect) , melino (peace) and fetokoni'aki (helping one another). Remove our Tongan ontology and replace it with foreign principles will only confuse us and change our God-given Tongan-ness.?I mourn the passing on of our King. I guess he understood well (and lived it up) what his great grandfather King Tupou I, fought for and gained - the understanding that the former relationship between the 'eiki (noble-royalty) and the tu'a (commoner) was to be transformed (through Constitution) from one between a tyrant master and a compliant servant, into one between an Understanding Father and Sons or Daughters.
So we are parting with the Father of our land whom God gave to care for us on His behalf. He indeed has done his best and did put Tonga in the lead in the Pacific in many respects for many years. We give our thanksgiving and praises to God for the life of our King. Let us pray for Tupou V and support him that he may rule under the power and the guidance of God whom he represents.
God has change Tonga through King Tupou 1, what is the influence of technology in such an ontology?
I posted up an earlier blog called "Our Sitz im Leben", its purpose is to describe a brief background of the responsibilities of the commoners to their families, villages and to Tonga. This article tend to give another brief explanation to one of the areas of the responsbilities of the tu'a (commoners), that is, to explain the ontology of the tu'a in relation to Tonga (King).
The following is the article:
Our ontology of 'eiki / tu'a (chief / commoner) principles influence us as Tongans the way we see reality. Our 'uhinga (reason / identity) is a communal process, not an individual process. We judge every body (rightly or wrongly) from the perspective that one should have related to God and in turn should have done the right thing. But this sense is embedded on the tu'a / 'eiki (commoner/nobility-royalty) principles based on our blood - relation to the King (through his court under our hingoa matapule [tribal names]). Having to relate to the King is a symbol only of how we corporately need to relate to the ultimate 'eiki, God. On the individual level, every Tongan is in a position to be a 'eiki (noble) or tu'a (commoner) based on our ranking criteria of gender and seniority (mehikitanga and lahi). Everyone then needs to relate personally to God in order to carry out his or her duty over the tu'a (commoner) he or she is 'eiki (noble) to. I believe our ontology was put there by God for us to have a sense that we cannot afford not to relate to our leaders but at the same time, our leaders and individuals must relate to God if we are to live in peace. But before Christianity came to our land, our ancestors had a rather obscured understanding of what the 'eiki (noble-royalty) / tu'a (commoner) principles meant.
Those in authority thought that because they were the God's descendants and the commoners were descendants of a worm, there was much oppression of the tu'a (commoner) by the 'eiki (nobility? Royalty). Christ's teachings and examples gave a new interpretation through King Tupou I who reinterpreted the principles to mean that it is God who rules the Tongans. He replaced the heathen Gods and their representatives with Christ and his new representative (Tupou I). A new interpretation / epistemology came to being. This meant a new relationship came into existence. It was a relationship between an Eternal Father and a Son-King. Out of Tupou I's relationship with God, he liberated the tu'a (commoner) to own possessions, to have rights over their lives, to own rights to land etc. This transformation by the King of Kings (Jesus Christ) over the life of our King Tupou 1, gives Tongans the Christian heritage of 'ofa (love), toka'I (respect) , melino (peace) and fetokoni'aki (helping one another). Remove our Tongan ontology and replace it with foreign principles will only confuse us and change our God-given Tongan-ness.?I mourn the passing on of our King. I guess he understood well (and lived it up) what his great grandfather King Tupou I, fought for and gained - the understanding that the former relationship between the 'eiki (noble-royalty) and the tu'a (commoner) was to be transformed (through Constitution) from one between a tyrant master and a compliant servant, into one between an Understanding Father and Sons or Daughters.
So we are parting with the Father of our land whom God gave to care for us on His behalf. He indeed has done his best and did put Tonga in the lead in the Pacific in many respects for many years. We give our thanksgiving and praises to God for the life of our King. Let us pray for Tupou V and support him that he may rule under the power and the guidance of God whom he represents.
God has change Tonga through King Tupou 1, what is the influence of technology in such an ontology?
posted by sea at 10:34 AM
2 Comments:
Sea, your post raises a hermeneutical question. Someone else may see the structure in Tonga as one that oppress, while as you have always argued, not in the minds of many Tongans.
The same I believe applies to the mediums of communication. If I took my Granny an internet connection at her door step - I'm she would pass it by. I will be tempted to call her all those names suggesting she is not modern (back home the term used is the P. O BOX GENERATION)
If I gave her a chance to explain - she would be more than willing to embrace my modernity but not ready to surrender the medium she loves so intimately- Oral culture.
I still believe non replaces the other... we borrow from each other.. but sticks to what suits us most.
Sorry, i switched from Tong'a to talking about my grandmother/////ha ha
Does the update to these posts mean you are about to start blogging again?
Post a Comment
<< Home