Yellow Peril: cops and robbers, qilai and collapse
66 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Maori ancestry traced back to Taiwan
Sure, the indigenous Taiwanese ethnic groups are part of the Austro-Polynesian language group and prehistoric Austro-Polynesian diaspora, as are a lot of ethnic and language groups in Southeast Asia (eg Malays, Javanese, etc). None of these people like the Han Chinese terribly much. Pretending that Maori and Chinese (rather than the meaningless epithet 'Asian' for purposes such as these) share whakapapa and should therefore like each other, is convenient and simplistic. Even though it is almost always wielded with good intentions, it is still a lie. And even if it were true, the notion of belonging to a common 'race' is a dubious reason to suddenly treat someone with respect, where previously you scorned them as an outsider.
-
In a discussion this morning over coffee a friend who spends a lot of time working in South East Asia mentioned that for instance Cambodia is full of people who look like Han Chinese at one extreme and like polynesian at the other.
I accept that we should recognise differences in culture looks and personailty but is there not a danger that we create divisions by selecting our arguments?
We should celebrate our differences but do not make judgements based on race
"None of these people like the Han Chinese terribly much", is a potentially racist comment and saying I do not like ...... for whatever reason is potentially damaging for some less enlightened souls. -
"None of these people like the Han Chinese terribly much", is a potentially racist comment
Alright then: "None of these ethnic groups have a reputation for liking the Han Chinese terribly much. And vice versa."
-
You sound as though you are about to chase us into the sea!?
Nah, no one else would want ya! Seriously though, its rare to find a Maori, and I'm guessing any other NZ ethnic minority club member, that seriously advocates the resumption of armed conflict let alone the expulsion of the settler population. Aside from the social, ethical, economic and practical considerations of such a task, the simple fact is most Maori at least have Pakeha wives, husbands, in-laws, friends, mothers, etc. Some of us, like myself, are Pakeha and Maori.
The comment was really just an expression of the reality that one ethnic group dominates the social, political and economic power in New Zealand. And this imbalance of power is to the disadvantage of all other ethnic groups. If you dispute that then I suggest you read the latest stats by ethnicity from the ministries of health, justice and social development. Then go visit the emergency and ICU wards of your local hospital to see the lived reality behind the statistics.
A skeptic might point out it conducted precious little research even when it did have staff.
A skeptic might also provide some evidence for her/his skepticism? Evidence that shows that an apparent lack of research outputs was the result of slack staff rather than obstruction from the institution, lack of funding, etc etc. I'm not that familiar with the history of The James Henare Centre, but judging on the way University governance stonewalls and marginalises other Maori, ethnic, female initiatives (See Webster's Patrons of Maori Culture for an interesting history of the formation of Waipapa Marae) I would be surprised if any lack of productivity wasn't at least heavily the result of external factors.
In the near decade of experience at the Uni of Auckland I have accumulated, I have seen Uni governance make an art of pressuring certain groups and research institutes to breaking point, while claiming credit for their existence on paper.
Che, its interesting how those terms are considered insulting when used by outsiders, but become terms of endearment when used by insiders. I have no problem calling my Maori brothas and sistas hories, but I'd never consider calling one of best mates, Samoan-Palagi, a coconut. One of those fascinating emic-etic dynamics that beguile multi-cultural societies. I think it boils down to ownership (of the term and its history as an insult) and expression of the groups ability to disempower the term as an insult. Outsiders using the term cuts across those objectives.
-
As for serious analysis of the Bill English treaty analysis: not necessary. It's been done before.
The view he espouses is just another version of the 70s and 80s Pakeha liberal arguments, which exhaustively described and analysed (alongside the Maori counter-arguments) by Andrew Sharp in Justice and the Maori. The 'debate' which English 'presents' in his lecture plays out in quite an interesting way in the book he mentions - Sharp and McHugh (eds) Histories, Power, and Loss. (Which, incidentally, has been used in at least one university course, and I would hazard far more than that).
The lecture presents itself as a cool, calm, balanced, evenhanded look at the Treaty in our public life. But it is polemical. All the standard liberal arguments against indigenous rights are presented lovingly, as the common sense wisdom of ordinary New Zealanders. All the "treatyology' arguments - that that the Treaty might bind the Crown or found our political society - are 'ideological', 'specious', history-worshiping, guilt-tripping, separatist, and implicitly racist. And all cooked up by Lord Cooke in the 80s. Ok, the stuff about devolution is nice, but haven't we heard that somewhere before... oh yeah, in the 80s.
It's better than what Brash and Bassett presented us with. But surely we can do better than just trot out the tired old arguments again and again. Why not look at what is being done overseas - the US, Canada, Australia (eg see McHugh Aboriginal Societies and the Common Law). Or actually engage with the nuanced historical/political arguments the academics (eg, cited above) are making - what are they for if they do not influence our public debate.
-
mark, i agree completely. andrew sharp has always been an assimilationist in very liberal garb. but it's hard to know what the motivation is. is he an assimilationist because he genuinely wants a 'single nation' nzl that is a melange of all peoples, or because he doesn't like maori?
having spoken to sharp a bunch of times i'm inclined to think the former, and i get the same vibe from english (philosophically speaking). it is however a viewpoint i can't agree with. assimilation is assimilation, minorities always lose.
brash and bassett? the complete opposite. they're also fond of a heterogenous nzl, but one where eevryone plays by the same rules.
their rules that is.
but the australian model? i could not disagree more. the common law/black letter law approach has failed aboriginal people miserably. it's been exploited by howard to undermine aboriginal rights at every, single, opportunity in favour of hard assimilation, ie "be brown-skinned white men, no other alternative is offered".
and manakura, again, i agree. it's the *real* white man's burden, you can't take take the piss without looking like a colonial oppressor... sigh... ah well, at least i'm easily employable and tend to get paid more than everyone else. :)
-
i am pakeha, although not even sure of the exact definition of this: isn't it "white pork" or something? can anyone remind / enlighten me? should i be upset?
i am married to a coconut (with alleged kwangsi canton ancestry).
a big, grey / latte-coloured PC zone lies in between calling someone "black" "boong" "hori" "coconut" as a term of endearment and calling them the same, out of ignorance.
judging by these threads, these zones are called "suburbs" in auckland.
if i can get away with using these terms would it be because my friends have a sense of humour, or because i have mana? -
Maori ancestry traced back to Taiwan
Surely none of that was actually <i>new</i> discoveries by July '05?
-
a linguist told me that phonetically 'pa-ke-ha' breaks down into "feels different".
'white pork' is a anti-maori-rights backlash meme floated in the 80s.
-
great, cheers for that. i certainly don't mind feeling different - or take umbrage being described as such.
does anyone know any good te reo classes in wellington? they are so hard to find; i have researched & emailed around with no luck.
hot in thorndon today innit!
-
Che,
I wasn't suggesting that Sharp is a liberal assimilationist, nor would I even suspect that he 'doesn't like Maori'. I haven't read his book properly in a few years and I have a brain like a sieve, but it seemed to be more descriptive and analytical than stating his own views, and as pretty respectful of Maori conceptions of justice. He is certainly not a fan of putting too much store in the Treaty, but does not argue that Maori cannot justify differentiated rights. One (very readable and concise) example of some of his arguments is here.
I don't really see what distinction you are drawing between the English line and the Brash line - they both want a homogeneous liberal democratic citizenship "one law for all", in a diverse (ethnically, religiously, etc) society. Which obviously means that the dominant ethnie will impose its cultural mores on the others, unless the minorities can bargain for some respect of their own.
Don't know exactly what you mean about "common law/black letter law" approach in Australia, as the common law has given some protection of native title there: government legislation and policies is the main problem. I definitely don't disagree with your conclusions - Australia is the place that we would be hard-pressed to find any policies worth replicating here. Though it would be useful as an example of strategies to counter odious governmental policies. Again, McHugh Aboriginal Societies and the Common Law provides a comprehensive analysis.
-
I've heard a few theories about where the term "pakeha" came from, one being that it is a Maori transliteration of what Maori heard early white people in NZ calling each other, namely "bugger", as in "you silly bugger". Seems to me that it's as good as any theory.
I don't think there's any decided origin of the word, or indeed a meaning, what's clear is that pakeha is not offensive or insulting to pakeha.
Besides which Maori means common (I think), normal, ordinary. Maori would probably have referred to each other, in terms of their ethnic identity, on the basis of hapu and iwi, prior to the arrival of those who didn't fit into that structure (tau iwi).
-
span, dunno, i reckon that's probably a further mythology of the word. for one, 'bugger' and 'pakeha' don't sound anything alike. if someone could correct me, wouldn't a transliteration of 'bugga' be 'paka'. 'buggery' would be 'pakari'?
and mike, always good to kick off a friendly debate with a statement of positions!
what seems to distinguish the 'english' and 'brash' positions, to my understanding, was the degree to which the minority influenced the majority as it assimilated.
so yes, assimilation was the outcome, but in the english position, the majority evolves under the influence minority assimilation. in the brash position all minorities became like the majority.
an example of the former is the assimilation of migrant peoples into white colonial society in australia during the 1950s-1980s period. the nature of australian society changed dramatically during that time. not all of which can be attributed to the presence of a sizable "wog" population (globalisation being an obvious variable), but a heck of a lot of the cosmopolitan attitudes of major australian cities are.
the "english position" if we can separate that from the man, seems to advocate a similar line using polynesian cultures, i.e. "assimilating maori and pacific islanders will permanently change white new zealand's culture, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing".
and, will try to read that sharp article.
-
if i can get away with using these terms would it be because my friends have a sense of humour, or because i have mana?
Probably neither is the salient factor, the more important factor would be the consider you an insider in the context of your social group. Be interesting to see what would happen if you called one of them a dumb hori on their home marae, or in front of their parents or nannies.
a linguist told me that phonetically 'pa-ke-ha' breaks down into "feels different".
more exactly, the linguistic breakdown reads as 'smells different', which makes sense if you consider the personal hygeine of your average 17th century sailor. They would have smelt very strong, (as would have Maori). Its a mark of the respect Maori have for guests and visitors that they were restrained enough to denote the early European explorers and whalers/trader as smelling different, as opposed to smelling bad.
But, most scholars of te reo Maori would warn against breaking words down into their constituent syllables in oder to derive meaning. Its not always a valid method.
Span, you're sort of right - Pakeha is not inherently an insult, but it is considered insulting by many Pakeha. As I've mentioned on the thread that would not die, and Che alludes to above, the negative connotations is fairly recent and arises more out of the actions of the European ethnic majority over the 20th century.
-
-
Pakari
Or perhaps buggered = pakaru?
-
What about pakehakeha (the mythical pale-skinned people)?
-
Be interesting to see what would happen if you called one of them a dumb hori on their home marae, or in front of their parents or nannies.
i don't call them dumb anyway.
yep, humour has context (wow). my folks would look sideways at any friend of mine who came to their house & called me something traditionally disparaging like "white trash". unless it was exceptionally well delivered.
the learning media web site, while really useful for some quick online definitions, is not the best way to come to grips with te reo. i wonder what is - it's hard to find a course.
-
I was always told the best place to learn a language is in bed.
Seems to be working for my brother anyway, good planning on his part to find a multilingual girlfriend - I didn't even know Luxembourgish was a language! -
E, no need to be snippy it was a question asked in good faith.
the learning media web site, while really useful for some quick online definitions, is not the best way to come to grips with te reo. i wonder what is - it's hard to find a course.
Vic Uni would be your first stop, their Maori studies is called Te Kawa a Maui. It offers an excellent te reo Maori course I'm told. If what they offer doesn't suit then one of the tutors will be able to point you in the right direction to a tech course, night course or marae based wananga. And if you strike one of the nannies that teach at Vic they'll have you fixed up with one of their multilingual grand daughters if you're not careful! :)
-
Could we do "tauiwi" now?
I don't mind being called pakeha (although palagi sounds better to my ear) but I was once called "that tauiwi fella" on a marae, and not in a very nice way.
And I do sort of object to being defined as a foreigner, immigrant or stranger in a country where I was born and where I've had family for more than a century.
Thoughts?
-
You're up against the forces of inverted racism (which is a misnomer, I know) as supported by the opportunist brigade of the politically correct, so it's not advisable to sound miffed about being fingered as a dirty furrinner despite being a native.
Hmm, maybe I should guest blog about that?
-
I have been waiting to join this discussion all day - I can't quite bring myself to post from work. But now the kids are fed, washed and in bed, I have poured myself a glass of wine, and I'm ready to start doing real work.
is he [Sharp] an assimilationist because he genuinely wants a 'single nation' nzl that is a melange of all peoples, or because he doesn't like maori?
having spoken to sharp a bunch of times i'm inclined to think the former, and i get the same vibe from english (philosophically speaking). it is however a viewpoint i can't agree with. assimilation is assimilation, minorities always lose.I'm not so sure about that, Che. I guess my concern would be that if we don't have a little bit of assimilation, or at least some cross cultural fertilisation, or maybe a melange that allows room for difference, then we go to the other extreme, of sharply individuated cultures, in the mode of Kukathas' The Liberal Archipelago. And the problem with Kukathas' liberal archipelago is that group rights necessarily trump individual rights. Kukathas claims that if individuals have a right of exit (and by that he means a formal right, not a substantive right), then group rights don't trump individual rights, but I think that although that might be nice in theory, in practice (and afterall, political theories should work in the real world, no?) it's not enough to allow only a formal right of exit. Hence the need for some degree of cultural exchange.
This is not to say that assimilation a la the 1950s in New Zealand, or the more recent version dragged stinking from the grave by Dr Brash, wasn't a very bad thing indeed. It wasn't cultural exchange - it was 'there should be one rule for all, and it had bloody well better be European rule'.
I think English has a good point - there is a degree of reverse assimilation going on, if only in tiny forms so far, like the casual use of words of te reo in everyday discourse. In fact is such a small degree thus far that it would be better to describe it as cross cultural fertilisation. Nevertheless, I think the cultures gathered here are now creating something new, which might provide a basis for binding us all together, while allowing us our differences.
Do minorities always lose? Absolutely, under Brash-style assimilation. But in terms of creating something new which forms a basis for the ties that bind, or at least a mode of living together - I'm not so sure.
I think that this sort of view allows for something different from the liberal archipelago, and in particualr, it allows individuals the ability to be part of more tahn one culture. Someone else on this thread (Manakura?) has mentioned that he is both Maori and pakeha, and there can't be too many of us these days who don't have family members who are, or who have married into, other cultures. We simply don't have distinct edges between cultural groups anymore.
My worry is that if we talk of minority groups as though they are hard edged, well-defined groups, and reject the possibility of merging into each other, then we end up where Kukathas has positioned us.
I'll take the rosy tinted glasses off now....
-
Deborah,
I agree, up to a point. Nations don't seem to do that well where they have sharply individuated cultures. But that is not the case here. There are diverse cultures, some more isolated than others, but none so isolated as Kukathas imagines. Like he and you suggest, cultures are not billiard-balls that crash off each other when they come into contact. They're more like... er... balls of paint, which... um... come into contact and take some of the colour of the other, or might merge to create another colour completely. Speaking totally metaphorically.
The major problem I see with our current debates is that these commonplaces about cultures are being used to discredit the Treaty and Maori rights, when nothing of the sort flows from them. Cultural apartheid is a bad idea; therefore we must abolish the Maori seats (note who 'we' is...), and so on.
What Brash/English et al argue is that there can be only one stream of political authority in a nation. What the Treaty recognises is (a) that political authority can be conditional, and (b) that a nation can have multiple streams of political authority, so long as they can ultimately be reconciled. There is nothing inherently illiberal or undemocratic about the Maori seats and they acknowledge that many people in New Zealand still belong to a culture that sees itself as part of the wider nation, but only because that nation gives (minimal) recognition of one of their continuing streams of political authority. If you look at the demands of indigenous people around the world, you see the same demands for political autonomy. And if you look at the legal and constitutional position in the US and Canada, you see that that's roughly what they get, to a far greater degree than here.
-
I was once called "that tauiwi fella" on a marae, and not in a very nice way.
At least there's some useful content left in the Urban Dictionary "Smile when you say that"
Post your response…
This topic is closed.