A reasoned perspective on Maori flag decision

December 17, 2009

I may be wrong but . . . . it seems I’ve finally found one issue on which I appear to agree 100% with John Key.

I heard him speak on National Radio on Tuesday about his decision to allow the flying of the popularly chosen Maori flag (the one used by tino rangatiratanga) on certain ceremonial occasions, alongside the good old boring New Zealand one.

Every argument put forward by the interviewer he rebuffed in a way which tallied entirely with what I would have said if asked (assuming I could have thought that quickly).

Here are some of his comments: “It’s a small but positive step (to show) that we are embracing cultural diversity”. Precisely. And those who don’t want to embrace cultural diversity but instead believe that one dominant culture should set the standards and the rules will of course be unhappy with another flag.

“It isn’t always flown in protest. Team New Zealand flew the flag at Valencia. You see it at lots of kapa haka competitions …. (and at) the sevens tournament.” Certainly this flag means different things for different people in different contexts. So get over it!

“I don’t believe it’s a political flag …. It was there long before the Maori Party”. Yes, a bit of historical accuracy does no harm in this debate.

“A little perspective needs to be seen. If you go back some years in our history, (person named, I didn’t pick it up) was fired for saying ‘kia ora’. Would we today seriously consider firing someone for saying this? We’re a young country that’s evolving.” You bet. I cannot understand how anyone cannot be heartened by the increasing use of Maori culture, language and symbols in everyday life.

“There will always be some (Maori) that won’t accept that flag. That’s why there was only 80% support in the submissions process, not 100%. But then there are plenty of New Zealanders who also think that the current New Zealand flag should be replaced.”

This is a powerful but simple argument. How often have I heard comments among my pakeha friends to the effect that “Maori cannot even agree among themselves on what they want; how can we take them seriously?” It’s so easy to be blind to the fact that, like Europeans who continually scrap amongst ourselves, or like South Islanders who sneer about Dorklanders, Maori too can hold diverse opinions about each other and about issues within Maoridom.

“When I look at those two flags on Waitangi Day …. I’m going to be reminded …. how lucky we are in New Zealand that we chose to build a country on peaceful foundations. Any New Zealander that takes this out of context is really missing the point, that there’s a lot to be celebrated.”

I too am always heartened and uplifted when I see pride being shown by any cultural group in New Zealand, and particularly by tangata whenua, which for me translates into a richer and happier society for all of us.

“You don’t see New Zealanders running around objecting if the haka is performed by the All Blacks at a test match. In fact there’s wild outcry when there’s suggestions from British sporting journalists every so often that it should be dropped.” Yes, we can easily be selective in our acceptance of cultural symbols.

And as for politicians (particularly Maori ones) like Labour’s Shane Jones using its association with the unpopular Hone Harawira (calling it “Hone’s flag”) to object, well that just shows how shallow and weak their arguments are. Not the sort of thing I would expect from someone who wants to lead positive nation-building. You’ve dropped in my estimation, Shane.


Observations on racism and Hone Harawira’s outburst

November 19, 2009

I’ve pondered the issues and events around Hone Harawira’s run-in with most of white New Zealand and, it seems, many Maori as well (specially his own Maori Party) and I’ve found it very hard to put together a coherent single position. I guess that could be put down to profound ambivalence on many aspects.

What has concerned me most though, from a pakeha perspective, is the way in which events – particularly Hone’s angry email message and his reaction to the resultant publicity – have thrown up all sorts of side issues and exposed underlying attitudes, like lifting a large garden rock to observe the creatures beneath.

In the workplace I was inhabiting at the time of the radio announcement, the reaction was pure venom, as if Hone had just walked in the office and thrown fresh excrement at all the white occupants. Much comment then and since has centred on the two popular themes, summarised as: “he should be sacked” (no-one suggested by whom and from what), and “if a white person said those things they would be crucified”. Well, sorry, but I hear the sort of language that Hone used every second day around here.

I am challenged by Hone’s comments and attitudes, but I’m afraid I can’t seem to be able to work up any real anger about it. And when I try to explore if he makes me feel offended, I find myself becoming more offended by people’s reactions to him than by Hone himself.

As I said, I have no single coherent position to put here. I’ve read several good commentators and columnists who have placed the whole (on-going) episode into some sensible political and social perspective, but for my part I’ve only come up with some observations about various facets. Here goes.

My first arose from the coincidence that both Harawira and Rodney Hide got into trouble with their mouths around the same time. Hide admitted it in his seemingly honest apology to the nation: How easy it is to let your position and status, as a politician with your hands on power, go to your head. I wouldn’t want to get too judgmental here, because I can easily imagine getting a bit of strut into my stride if I had my every word listened to and analysed, and perhaps feared, on a regular basis!

Both men need to learn the responsibilities that go with power, that a dash of humility can go a long way, and that posturing rarely produces lasting and worthwhile results.

Then there was the language Harawira used. As I said above, I hear that stuff every second day, and you’ll hear worse every Friday night on the brilliant television comedy show, 7 Days. Sure, we’d like to think that politicians were somehow one level up in their use of language, but they are human and have been subject over the years to a variety of sources of crude talk. I only have to listen to my neighbours shouting at their kids in expletives to wonder how those kids could possibly end up not using the same language as standard adult talk.

And we do need to remember that Hone’s expletive-laden outburst was part of a private email.

There has also been comment about Hone’s liberal use of vernacular slang and phrases, and in particular that Labour leader Phil Goff should be lined up to be shot for his support of the Foreshore and Seabed legislation. Again, I’ve heard this used plenty of times by all manner of people who, like Hone, don’t mean it in any literal sense. You know: “Look at the way Joe treats his dog, he should be shot for it”, or “Those boy racers kept me awake all last night – I’d like to line them all up against a wall and shoot the lot”. It’s the sort of phrase you use in anger. It’s a metaphor. Get over it! (Fortunately Phil Goff recognised it as such and didn’t hire himself bodyguards as a result.)

Then there’s the small matter of Hone being basically correct on historical matters. Set aside the language and the association of the race relations issue with the Paris trip, and what he’s saying is an accurate representation of historic events.

One facet of the issue that has amused (as well as dismayed) me is the reaction of the so called anti-PC brigade, those who say people should be able to say what they think, call a spade a spade, regardless of who may be offended. When they themselves are offended by a spade being called thus, one of the first things they call for is the Race Relations Conciliator to take action against Harawira!! (Wow, that’s classy!)

Freedom of speech is an important feature of a healthy democracy, especially if it’s in private correspondence. How many pakeha who are currently venting against Harawira and Maori in general have never made offensive comments about them in private? Sure, Hone gave permission to publicise his email, but my reading of his reasons for doing so were not that he wanted it to be public and to offend, but rather that he didn’t want to follow the normal practice of expressing anger and disgust privately but sweet-talking about the same issue in public – which most politicians normally do. At least you cannot accuse Harawira of being two-faced, you know where he stands.

My reaction to the common attitudes expressed in many of the country’s Letters to the Editor pages over the past week goes as follows:

Whether it’s blatant racism, cultural arrogance or just plain ignorance, I’m not sure. But the common theme – that Maori should get over the wrongs done to them in ancient and recent history and be thankful for all the good things that the big white man has brought to them – stinks of paternalism, condescension and …. well, it simply stinks.

White settlers did not bring with them television, cars, iPods and shopping malls. These so-called advances grew up in an already mixed society, often imported from countries with populations of many races and colours.

As I see it, the sub-text of the Treaty of Waitangi is that both founding cultures accept, respect and value each other’s views and offerings, with no sense that one is intrinsically better than the other, and that both equally have contributions to make to New Zealand’s future.

It’s fine to express opinions about Hone’s place and worth in politics, but don’t use his actions as a stick to strike out at all things Maori.

SO how do I see Hone Harawira now? I feel some sadness that such a strong and driven man can allow his sense of victimhood, justifiable or not, to control so much of his life. Clearly he believes in his message and mission strongly, but he’s missing half of the message.

He could take Ranginui Walker and Pita Sharples as his role models – it’s OK to be angry and driven and express strong opinions, but posturing and being abusive doesn’t get you very far and tend to make things worse in the long run.

If he’s representing his electorate and many of them think this way, then Hone has a duty to work with them and lead them to a better relationship with pakeha, even when pakeha act badly to him.

He should follow the example set for my wife and me (and a few other tourists) by the Maori tour guide who showed us around Waitangi last year. We could tell he had strong views, he knew his history and he knew the people involved. But he didn’t use the hour-long tour to harangue us or to preach. He applied his quiet charm, his mana, and gently led and educated us to see his perspective and the history and current relationship as local Maori see it. And it worked!

And if my thoughts sound like yet another example of patronising racism, then I’m sorry ..


Pita Sharples shows the meaning of mana

August 25, 2009

As an average middle-aged pakeha, I have over the years occasionally used the word mana without fully understanding the depth of its meaning. But now I think I get it.

I have had a quiet admiration for Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples for some years now, since I heard him interviewed at length on the radio sometime in the 90s I believe. After hearing so much waffle and political posturing from so many people in the New Zealand political scene for so long, I remember feeling refreshed by the straightforward, respectful and generous-spirited way he spoke.

My appreciation of him has grown since he entered parliament. No insincere and manipulative soundbites from his lips, just basic common sense and respect for his audience. When others block the path of his beliefs and convictions, he smiles (humbly, not through gritted teeth) and gently replies that he’s disappointed but will continue to work for a better deal for the people he represents.

I have written before of my unhappiness with populist, kneejerk posturing of many politicians and leaders – how their reactive attitude to social problems more often than not makes those problems worse or produces other unintended, negative consequences. The more I look and listen, the more convinced I am that real leaders should model their attitudes on Sharples’ generous spirit.

The events of the past week, around the issue of Maori representation within the leadership of the new Auckland city, show starkly the contrast of attitudes, and lead me to the conclusion that Sharples displays what mana must be. And that Rodney Hide will never be able to claim any of that priceless substance.

I’m not going to set Peter on a pedestal and worship him (even if think he’d make a better prime minister than all the alternatives on offer at present). I’m sure he’s a fallible human just like the rest of us. But I draw inspiration from his mana, and take comfort that such leaders with such qualities can still exist and survive in this fractious, conflicted and self-serving country.

To me, Peter demonstrates humility and determination, intelligence and humour, and a touch of the “common man”. When his convictions are thwarted, he tells the truth (he’s disappointed), he avoids slagging his opponents (he respects that they have a point of view to), and he keeps going (there is more than one way to skin a cat).

[As I write, I remember an incident during, I think, the 2005 elections (I hope I’ve got this right) when his electorate workers and those of his main opponent John Tamihere were defacing each others’ billboards. Other aspiring politicians may have worked themselves up into a lather and started a media campaign of reprisal, but Pita Sharples just smiled, shrugged his shoulders, said his team would do whatever it was they were doing, and apologised to his rival. At least, that’s how it came across on telly.]

Mana is something that Rodney Hide does not have and I suspect never will have. No matter how much we may applaud people who stick to their beliefs and ideology, democracy would be under severe strain – perhaps even unworkable – if all politicians used threats of non-cooperation whenever they don’t get their way. Throwing the toys out of the cot may make Hide feel better, or more powerful, or more ideologically pure, but it is hardly a mana-enhancing response to political disagreements.


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.


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.