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.

4 Comments | Maori issues, Politics, Race relations | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

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

National smoothes way for Maori – I didn’t expect that!

May 7, 2009

I may be wrong but . . . . . . the National government seems to be helping Maori to achieve key aspirations better than many of us sceptics imagined would be possible, and better than traditional allies Labour was capable of achieving.

I was one of those “lefty” pundits who, leading up to last year’s elections, believed a National-led government would damage the development of a more bicultural (and therefore multicultural) New Zealand, and that post-election Maori (and the Maori Party in particular) would align themselves even more firmly with the Labour party. Certainly if Don Brash had been the new prime minister, this would likely have been the only rational outcome.

But new prime minister John Key has been very astute on this policy area. By drawing the Maori Party into government (even though he didn’t need to) and talking positively with them rather than taking too haughty a stance, and in particular by accepting their input on certain key policies (with a few notable exceptions), he is drawing the country down the line of stronger acceptance and appreciation of tangata whenua.

Labour’s problem on the handling of Maori policy has always been impacted and shaped by “mainstream” pakeha problems with “Maori getting too much and taking over”. While Labour tried to set up programmes like “closing the gaps” that appeared to favour Maori, it was repeatedly cut off at the knees by conservative negativity, be it due to racism, arrogance or simply ignorance.

This came to a head with the Foreshore and Seabed issue, which Michael Cullen correctly (I believe) now acknowledges was a mistake. This sop to the prejudices of the dominant Treaty partner was driven at the time by Labour’s fear that middle pakeha New Zealand would associate any fair and just policy with trendy lefty, nanny-state Labour.

But the new National government, as part of an agreement with the Maori Party, is investigating big changes to the Foreshore and Seabed Act that could make it far more acceptable to Maori. And – and this is the biggie – most of National’s constituency, which would previously have complained mightily at Labour’s softness toward Maori, will go along with this.

Now I hear on the radio this morning that the National government is looking at signing a contentious (at least in NZ) United Nations convention on the rights of indigenous people, one which the previous Labour government refused to sign presumably because of fear of the ferocity of the inevitable backlash from right.

If our government does sign it, not only will Maori feel they are making progress, but much of the tory electorate will accept it as a safe and non-threatening action. Pakeha will take another step toward accepting the benefits and enrichment that come from living cultural tolerance and a fair society; and Maori will stand just a little taller and take more pride in their heritage and their equal Treaty partnership.

Sadly for Labour, on race issues it cannot win right now. It tried to do what was right and faced scorn from half the population; now it watches as National does much the same but without all the agro.

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

Next Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.