South Islanders should empathise with Maori Language Week

July 31, 2009

I may be wrong but . . . . I expect all non-Aucklanders, and South Islanders in particular, should know what it feels like to have to justify the promotion of te reo during Maori Language Week.

We know how a minority culture feels, and how helpful it would be if the majority would only pay us more heed and appreciate our contribution to New Zealand.

I’m a South Islander. Throughout the 40 years I’ve lived in Christchurch, I’ve heard countless complaints of how North Islanders, and Aucklanders in particular, ignore us down here. If we do actually exist, we’re not worth paying much attention to.

This grizzle, which early on focussed mainly on electricity supply and the Cook Strait cable (cutting it), has become more frequent over the past 15 years or so, particularly since television news services shifted operations to Auckland. The prevalent perception down here is that TVNZ, TV3 and Prime can’t be bothered sending their news teams far from the Auckland region, mainly reporting from the south when there is some natural disaster or weather event here, along with perhaps a few cute farm or animal stories and crime cases.

What we get now, we southerners say, is primarily Auckland TV news along with Auckland radio stations, talkback, etc. And our taxes too often go to paying for Auckland’s infrastructure and roads and Auckland-based sporting events such as the Rugby World Cup.

I’m not going to argue the merits or even the accuracy of these popular claims. I’ll use it as an analogy (hopefully not stretched too far) for the way in which many ordinary pakeha Kiwis handle Maori cultural issues. These ideas came to me during this past week – Maori Language Week – as I pondered the sadly predictable array of responses from pakeha to hearing te reo spoken on popular media.

One news channel presented the weather report in Maori, and was inundated with complaints from the usual suspects about pandering to Maori using a language that they claim no-one uses or understands. One went so far as to say that he or she was waiting for a special week for whites! Well, yes, actually we celebrate English Language Week 51 weeks of the year.

If you’ve read my previous article published yesterday on this blog (about the New Zealand flag), you’ll notice a similar theme running here – about how the dominant culture within a bicultural society become so embedded and ingrained into the common ethos that those for whom this culture is “inherited” cannot see how their assumptions, symbols and practices can so easily reinforce the trend and subsume the minority culture(s). With the best of intentions of those supporting cultural diversity, it is a difficult trend to counter.

My thoughts on this have been stirred while reading ‘Mata Toa: The Life and Times of Ranginui Walker’, a book which is helping me to look again at my own long-held assumptions from a different (opposite) perspective.

So . . . . back to my attempted analogy. In New Zealand there is an attitudinal rift between Auckland and the rest of the country, and particularly between Auckland and the South Island. The majority culture (the heavily populated Auckland region) holds sway, while we in the minority just want to be acknowledged, taken notice of and appreciated. It is also pertinent to note that many Aucklanders are largely unaware of this divide and/or couldn’t care less.

I’m not offering any suggestions as to how this demographic divide may be healed. I’m merely opining that all South Islanders who are annoyed by it should at least have a feel for how a minority race/culture feels, and how helpful it may be to be lauded and appreciated a little more often, in a manner which is neither condescending nor patronising.

Just as inclusion of the South Island makes New Zealand a better and stronger nation without diminishing the status of Aucklanders, so promotion of the use of te reo makes for a more inclusive, proud national cultural mix, hopefully without threat to those who want to retain and live by their own cultural heritage.

Leave a Comment » | Maori issues, Media reporting, Race relations | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

Two New Zealand flags won’t help race relations

July 30, 2009

I may be wrong but . . . . I believe race relations in New Zealand would gain a huge boost if moves to allow the flying a Maori flag alongside the current NZ ensign were bypassed by simply adopting a new singular flag that is agreeable to all races and cultures in this country.

I am of the camp that believes that, representing tangata whenua, Maori symbolism should in principle be equally displayed in ceremonies along with the current English-based flag. Why not? It doesn’t threaten me or any well-adjusted, open-minded pakeha. I recognise the value added to this country by both cultures and heritages, along with others added via other immigrants over the past 170 years.

When I put my mind to it, I also intuitively feel that the current flag – apart from looking embarrassingly similar to Australia’s – represents a dominant culture, and that while this seems totally appropriate to the pakeha majority, to the indigenous minority it represents a subtle reinforcement and continuation of past subjugation or marginalisation.

Now I’m sure that for many readers, this comment reflects yet another example of a pakeha liberal on a guilt trip trying to make amends for injustices wrought by his ancestors. Not so. I want what’s right. And it’s not right that one of the two cultures on which New Zealand is based (and indeed chronologically the first one) has over many years been marginalised and patronised from a great height, and that now any attempt to gain parity of influence is seen as separatist, inverted racism and just plain cheek.

Yes, we are one country and should only need one flag. But that flag should represent all citizens, not just the culture which became dominant through often oppressive actions past. The problem for us pakeha often is that we assume that the institutions and symbols we have set in place – including the English-based flag with its Southern Cross nod to our antipodean location – are there by mutual consent, whereas in fact they were placed there by our European forebears as a sign of benevolent conquest, probably with very little if any consultation with the Treaty partner.

Around the world, dominant cultures are often unable to see that to their minority culture partners this is an ongoing statement of supposed superiority or pre-eminence.

Unfortunately, I think that choosing a flag to represent Maori in ceremonial settings alongside the current New Zealand flag may only prolong and exacerbate angst and anger over our differences.

Over the past decade or so there has been occasional debate about replacing the NZ flag with something more suitable for our proud young nation in this unique geographic location. Trouble has been, so far the marketing folk have run the debate as they try to find a design which, like a product logo, will help sell NZ in a global marketplace.

We need a new flag that represents our pride and uniqueness. Try as I may, I cannot go past the silver fern on black background. It is now commonplace and widely accepted at sporting and other events at which we are represented. It is neither pakeha nor Maori (nor Asian for that matter). It is of the land and the spirit.

Some critics say that to the uninitiated it looks like a feather (implying surrender?). But Canada’s striking and unique maple leaf flag does not cause any concerns to people lacking knowledge of that country’s native flora. I say go the silver fern.

1 Comment | Maori issues, Race relations | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

Kiwibank must be allowed to grow organically

July 22, 2009

I may be wrong but . . . . I get a feeling that Big Business is making another push to get Kiwibank gobbled up into the game playing and greed of the more-market business world. And that possibility disappoints and concerns me.

Last Saturday (July 17th) the Christchurch Press newspaper published a feature report on Kiwibank in the Businessday pages, written by Roeland van den Bergh. As we’re all aware, Kiwibank was set up at the start of this decade, and in the eyes of ordinary, supportive Kiwis it had two clear primary purposes, as summarised by van den Bergh: to “look after ordinary New Zealanders and keep profits onshore”.

Through the 1990s large numbers of people were becoming unhappy at the growing fees being charged by the four main banks, all Australian owned, along with increasing profits remitted to their Australian shareholders. So . . . despite complaints from the ideologues and big players of the business world, Kiwibank was set up and initially funded by the government to provide a viable nationwide, New Zealand-owned alternative. And it has done surprisingly well, putting some pressure on the big four and reminding us of the days when banking meant financial services for ordinary people rather than speculating on world markets to foster greed and maximise profits for remote shareholders.

Kiwibank, we’ve been told, has grown steadily to the point where its market share is edging up toward the space long occupied by the big four, especially among domestic customers. Apparently it’s been working mainly on the business model that I always thought (in my naivety?) is or should be the basic operation of banks – borrowing from people with excess money (paying interest for the privilege) and lending re-packaged money to suitable people who needed it (charging interest for the service).

As van den Bergh wrote, referring also to the other main locally-owned bank TSB, “both banks fund their lending almost entirely from domestic retail deposits, while the big banks have been hamstrung by their need to borrow on international money markets, which have been frozen”.

That confirmed for me something that has bothered since last year’s financial crash – why was it such a huge problem that nervous banks were not lending to each other, causing the system to grind to a halt? Shouldn’t banks just be borrowing from savers (people and businesses) and lending to borrowers (other people and businesses)? Why do they need to spend so much effort borrowing off and lending to each other? (Apart, that is, from extracting fees for every transaction.)

Back to Kiwibank. So far so good with the Press article. Then I became uneasy as I read that as Kiwibank “grows its balance sheet beyond $10b it will have to increasingly diversify its funding to include international wholesale lending to maintain its growth.” (my italics).

Here we see again the Big Business ethic that growth is imperative. Apparently it’s not enough to just do what you do well or better, to grow organically by getting more and more customers to use and appreciate your core services. And according to the growth imperative if the growth rate is not being maintained, then it’s not enough to operate on a plateau.

Why does Kiwibank need to keep growing in size and reach, even when it may mean that its whole raison d’etre is imperilled? Ah yes, of course . . . it’s because the people pulling the strings – the government – are aligned with the business world. They’re not satisfied with providing a service that can pay for itself, grow organically, and offer the bonus of an optional, modest dividend. Forget about serving customers and retaining income within NZ, just make money for the government and its business friends!

As van den Bergh wrote, “The Government has discussed expanding Kiwibank amid calls for it to beef up the State-owned bank to help push interest rates lower.” OK, beef it up and take advantage of the bank’s ability to affect domestic interest rates, but don’t get into the same silly corporate money games with overseas markets that have caused so much grief recently to the private banking industry and society as a whole.

Leave a Comment » | Business, Politics | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

Not only teachers are against national standards

July 20, 2009

I may be wrong but . . . . I get a feeling that supporters of government moves to introduce literacy and numeracy standards in all primary schools have adopted the mean-spirited strategy of pointing to teachers, with their presumed vested interest, as the main opponents of the policy.

I was a secondary school teacher for 5 years back around 1970 and that experience, which I found was way too hard for a person of my temperament and constitution, has imprinted in my psyche the conviction that teachers do an important job, that it is not easy work, and that the majority of teachers are professional and have pupils’ interests as a leading priority. (But I would acknowledge, again from personal experience, that as with any profession, a small minority of teachers are less altruistic in their motives.)

Over the years I’ve heard teachers slagged regularly, almost always by people who have never tried it. The holidays, the teacher-only days, the short official working day, the lack of interest shown by their Charlie’s teacher in their son’s academic endeavours, etc. Sometimes I just let it pass, other times I suggest the critic try the work themselves.

I well remember the boss in one of my later places of employment, a long-time bachelor, business man and occasional morning-tea critic of teachers, who late in his working life married a woman who was a good teacher. It was astonishing (and gratifying) to hear his tearoom conversations turn 180 degrees after he realised, presumably from seeing how hard his new wife worked, how tough teachers had it and how dedicated they were.

It is with some annoyance and concern that I’ve heard several times in the past few weeks prominent opponents of the government’s new “national standards” policy (and particularly of the intention within it to make the results public and therefore used for league table rankings of schools) saying that the main opponents are teachers who have a closed shop mentality and don’t want their work to be open to view or “accountable”.

The National-led government clearly has decided this is the easiest tactic in getting the voting public onside. I’ve heard both the PM and the Education Minister saying that they won’t be swayed by the teachers unions and academic educationalists. And the right-wing commentator Matthew Hooten, who normally I credit with considerable intelligence, went ballistic on Kathryn Ryan’s radio programme a few weeks ago, trying to convince listeners that teachers are trying to run a Soviet-style education system and are afraid to open their work to public gaze. Did you forget your medication that morning, Matthew?

I know many, many non-teachers who are firmly against this policy. It’s NOT just a clique of self-interested teachers. They are convinced by evidence as well as common sense that building an education system around publicly-scored standards is just too limiting in today’s evolving society.

1 Comment | Education, Politics | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

Them and us

July 2, 2009

Relaxing at home, warm and dry, watching the All Blacks vs Italy rugby test on the telly last weekend, I was jolted from my lethargy by an attempt by SkyTV commentator Murray Mexted to inject some human interest to the rather dreary match. The camera picked up three cheering spectators clad and face-painted in All Blacks colours and obviously descended from East Asian parentage.

“Good to see they’re on our side,” or something to that effect, said Murray.

Eh? Asian faces, ergo, not New Zealanders. They’re not ‘of us’, but at least they’re cheering ‘for us’. How could Murray tell that they were not New Zealanders? Of course he couldn’t, but it’s another sad example of the deeply embedded assumption among so many ‘European’ (and probably many Maori) that ‘us’ New Zealanders means indigenous people or those obviously of European lineage.

After generations of mono-cultural colonial dominance, most of us (there you are – I too am using ‘us’ to meaning ‘us European Kiwis’) are just getting used to seeing ourselves as a bicultural nation, but we have a step further to take. ‘Us’ should really be used to talk about all people who call New Zealand home.

I’m not aiming to bag Murray. It must be hard to comment live on telly, and I’ve made my share of little cultural bloopers over the years. But when we are trying to build a harmonious, forward-looking country in which all citizens and residents are valued, those that have the public ear should try harder.

It took a while, but I’m now getting used to hearing Asian-looking people speaking as Kiwis, accent and all. It’s great when you can shut your eyes and not tell the difference. Same goes for an increasing number of people whose ancestry is African and Middle-eastern. Clearly these are people from families who have lived here for more than one generation. They are New Zealanders, us. Their parents or grandparents (or whatever) were immigrants, just as mine were. (I’m of British ancestry.)

The use of the word ‘us’ is a natural result of assumed cultural dominance. When you look for it used in this way by pakeha, you find it everywhere, and increasingly it’s making me feel uneasy. For example, so many letters to editors on race relations (particularly in relation to Maori, Pacifica and Asian people or groups) talk about what ‘they’ are trying to do to ‘us’. How ‘they’ should be moiré like ‘us’. The use of ‘us’ always presumes that the writer is representing European-originated New Zealanders in their argument.

I hope that in time we will all come to see people of the full spectrum of cultures and races who choose to live here, as New Zealanders. I have no answers as to how this can be done, except to say that the more ‘we’ (all new Zealanders, but particularly those of the dominant culture) become aware of what ‘we’ are doing, the sooner we will learn to take a broader, more inclusive view.

Thanks to Mr Mexted for reminding me of how easy it is to slip into patronising language.

Leave a Comment » | Race relations | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong