THE MAORI PRESENCE AT RWC CELEBRATION OR CO-MODIFICATION

I've watched from the opening ceremony, only missing one or two games until the end of our World Cup and I thought wow, what an amazing opportunity for the World to see Maori in such a positive frame. But, while thinking of my essay topics and reading Walker and Pihama on the 'co-modification of Maori' I started to question if this was the case here...

The opening ceremony was littered with traditional Maori tikanga and imagery, the waka, haka, karanga and amazing light show all the branding including a Maori design. I had originally surmised that this was an amazing display of acceptance of our countries indigenous Maori heritage a coming of age as such, where all the people of Aotearoa could celebrate such an amazing event Maori and non- Maori while celebrating the Maori Culture too.

You quickly realise when talking with overseas guests that our manuhiri are far more interested in Maori culture than many New Zealanders are, I guess this can be a case of semi-familiarity and the euro centric gaze on the 'exotic'. I felt really proud of our Country what we had achieved coping with visitors/manuhiri and hosting/ WINNING a Rugby World Cup. My rugby mad family have embraced all the teams and when an opportunity came to see a game (sadly not the All Blacks) play live and in the fan zones they've been so excited to have the best teams in the world in our country. My youngest son was so excited to see the waka come in, the haka's errupt spontaneously as the parties passed. The amazing koru unfold in the digital light show, it seemed our country had embraced the 'mauri' and it was so fitting that we Maori were represented to the world positively dominantly and in such an awesome format as the Rugby World Cup.

When you analyse whether or not we have 'co-modified' Maori I guess its in the way you look at the regular representation of Maori and the way they appear in this scenario.

When you consider that you were more likely to see Maori tikanga, arts- haka, images on a Sunday morning or afternoon on most of the 'mainstream channels' I think there could be a strong case for 'co-modification' . Kirsten Zemke-White posed a question in her lecture which was 'is this type of entertainment Maori or cheesy?" she was referring to the entertainers like the 'Maori Volcanics etc singing in small part Maori songs in a European style... You could I suppose say the same about the Maori warrior at the opening of each game with the pipe.

But when I consider the Rugby World Cup having no Maori input I can't, nor would I want to.

I think it was right and good that there was so much Maori input. Would I like to see more effort made daily to engage rather than it requiring a special event yes, but I hope that this can become a new trend or a habit of inclusion of things Maori in all areas of everyday life.

Positive portrayals of Maori and tikanga not being referred to as" a waste of tax payers money" or unimportant. It is very important for children (like mine) to see positive Maori image whenever and wherever possible, for us to move forward from Pihamas' rightful claim that re-enforcement of consistent negative stereotypical European constructions of Maori are harmful and 'dangerous' and into a period of Maori presenting Maori positive anti-stereotypical depictions of Maori People as leaders and contributors.

Donald Brown

In response to Donald Browns opposition to Maori broadcasting in week 2, Browns admission is highly inaccurate as Maori Television has not lead to any type of separatism or division in New Zealand society. Up to 70% of the viewers of Maori television are non-Maori which proves Brown’s separatist beliefs are clearly wrong. Brown also claimed that there is a reluctance to waste public money on Maori broadcasting and that Maori broadcasting would only facilitate modern racism. It is actually racist of Brown to suggest that there is reluctance to waste public money on Maori broadcasting and comments such as Brown’s symbolise modern racism which demotes any future claims he makes in relation to Maori broadcasting.

Browne goes on to argue that there was and still is a predominant belief in Pākehā society that New Zealand is an open, discrimination-free nation, where anyone who really wishes to succeed can do so, regardless of their gender, ethnicity or present economic circumstances. In light of that belief, no special efforts on behalf of Māori are necessary and may even be counterproductive. Browns ideal or utopian interpretation of the opportunities available to all New Zealanders from a Pakeha perspective may be apparent to him however, when one observes the distribution of Maori in top positions of the political and economic institutions it is evident that Maori are outnumbered by Pakeha or the mainstream. The audacity of Brown to suggest that no special efforts of Maori are required and that any such efforts may be counterproductive provokes a question to Brown such as “counterproductive to what? “ the mainstreams dominance over Maori? Brown’s contributions show sympathy for the status quo that maintains the Pakeha or mainstreams hegemonic grip over Maori. Brown’s perception of Maori broadcasting has most likely been shaped by colonisation which also provides more support for decolonisation so that Maori can remove the social, cultural and political barriers that oppress Maori in New Zealand society.

French accepting haka challenge = IRB fine?

In an article written y Christopher chang regarding the latest fine dealt out by the IRB committee, France was fined $5000 for crossing the line during a haka.

How dare the IRB commodify the haka and demand payment be made for an ancient cultural rite that the French team unknowingly honoured. The crossing of the line shows the same significance to the throwing or vicious picking up of the rau in a wero preformed during a powhiri. It signifies that the challenge has been made and the crossing of the line shows that the French were ready.

It seems wrong that the IRB should be able to make money off one of if not the most internationally iconic haka/Maori art piece. Should the money from the fine instead go back to the iwi from which the haka came or should it infact be up to the iwi as to wether or not there be any fine at all.

Just something i had been pondering. Feel free to share your ponder also.

Film

According to Patricia Grace books are dangerous if they do not reinforce values, actions culture, identity and if they include stories about a group or people that are “untrue” or are negative and insensitive. New Zealand made or set films such as Jane Campion’s The Piano reveal that Graces theory is considerably accurate as The Piano lacks the reinforcement of Maori values, actions, culture and identity and portray Maori men as simple, sexually focused, playful and are to provide helpful assistance to Pakeha.

The Piano also portrayed a social hierarchy with Pakeha at the top culturally, in terms of wealth, intelligence and authority while Maori were place at the bottom being culturally primitive, and made to provide physical labour for Pakeha. Themes such as these are degrading to Maori and slow the process of decolonisation by reasserting the assumptions of colonisation.

Pihama states that New Zealand films are constructed and controlled by the colonial gaze are dangerous for Maori people. Looking at The Piano shows that Pihama’s argument seems to have considerable weight due to inaccurate portrayal and stereotyping of Maori.

Another problem with movies that stereotype Maori is that Maori are cast as being all the same regardless of the fact that Maori have distinctive Iwi, dialects, ancestors and beliefs while also sharing some similar qualities. People overseas may see a movie such as The Piano and may view the stereotypes that are assigned to Maori as a collective identity for Maori as a whole which is damaging to Maori image and identity. A possible solution may be that film writers and directors should be required by some form of policy that ensures that the Iwi(s) that are being portrayed have a sufficient level of involvement (with that level to be determined by Iwi themselves) in relation to the portrayal of their respective images. Further problems may arise in a sense that film writers and directors may find it difficult identifying the appropriate Iwi leaders or Kaumatua for consultation purposes but in contrast to this, the large budgets and lengthy periods involved in film making should also allocate the time and resources needed to meet with the appropriate Iwi leaders as it is they who own and will be reflected through those images. Maori images in all audio visual media should be held with deep understanding and value due however film writers continue to fail achieving these ends.

In the film The Piano Stuart is the villainous character which may represent the negative side of colonialism and the arrival of Pakeha however, Baines character can also be viewed as the film writers efforts to show that “hey, colonialisms not so bad, some Pakeha also embrace Maori qualities and sympathise with Maori”. Additionally Dyson views Baines partial moko in a positive light however, Pihama rejects this notion and claims that is an example of the appropriation of Maori identity. I agree with Pihama as it seems that mainstream film writers such as Campion believe that they can borrow cultural material such as the Maori moko without seeking permission from the appropriate Iwi that they are borrowing from again revealing the hegemonic mind frame that mainstream film writers and directors operate from.

Only one of the Maori characters is identified with a name which also demonstrates the inequalities of colonial discourse with a colonial character having control over giving Maori characters the ‘privilege’ of being identified by name demonstrating the significance of decolonisation for Maori.

Homai Te Pakipaki

Just want to comment on week 3 part ones lecture slide 16. Viewers stated that Homai Te Pakipaki is based on ideals of “inclusiveness”,” fairness”, “respect”, and “achievement”, whereas the mainstream shows of a similar genre were based on “humiliation”, “embarrassment” and “degradation”, ethical values which were not considered by any of the focus group members to be identifiable ‘Kiwi’ traits.

This is true because reality talent programmes such as American Idol and the X Factor thrive off humiliating competitors rather than showcasing talent. Furthermore the fact that X Factor and American Idol produce millions of dollars every year indicates that these shows are more commercially focused whereas Homai Te Pakipaki does not attempt to benefit from poking fun at their contestants but rather celebrates all contributions and being Maori.

TO BE IN MAORI, OR NOT.

In a recent article i read about multi language signage on floatation devices, and how if they were in Pacific or Asian languages then the rate of drownings per year would be considerably reduced, i thought what about smoke packaging?

At the moment smoke packaging is translated in Maori but my question is, how many Maori actually know what the packaging says without reading the english translation, and how effective is the bi-cultural message being whacked on ciggarette packets. If this was an initiative say over twenty to thirty years ago then i would understand the effectiveness of the initiative however it seems that this initiative is outdated.

I do understand that we live in a "bi-cultural" country but i still feel that until the levels of fluency and proud Maori speakers are higher in New Zealand then NEGATIVE Maori messages should be kept to minimum and more positive translations should be brouhgt to the forefront instead of many New Zealanders who do smoke considering all things in Maori to be negative.

Slight exaggeration but most people associate things they see with things they hear so that means that if their mainly exposed to negative Maori translations that would be their first thought when hearing Maori.

He aha ou whakaaro

Emails; Do we take all information at face value?

I received an email from an aunt, which was headlined “Check this out and pass in on, Maori Women beware of Shariah Muslim Law” These sort of emails fill up my inbox everyday which at times is very annoying. However, I don’t know why, but I opened this one up. In this email it was a cutting out of a newspaper discussing a recent review on a book written by Nonie Darwish, a ex Muslim now born again Christian who recently came to New Zealand to discuss her new book titled “Joys of Muslim Women.” Darwish came to New Zealand as she had heard that the Maori Women were in the forefront of society and considered ‘equals’ with their fellow men. This in her eyes was a great opportunity to discuss the seriousness of the Shariah Muslim Law. To pin it down in a nut shell, Shariah Muslim Law gave all rights to a Muslim Husband to class his wife as ‘property’ to him for the rest of her life.

I as a Maori was astonished and petrified that this law may come in to play in New Zealand law in the future. Because of this I felt that it was important to spread the word and forward this email to all my aunties and nannies on my email list with the message “Whakaarotia ki o tatau tamaahine, mokopuna kotiro e heke iho nei. Tukuna hei tirohanga ma te ao whanui. Think of our future daughters, granddaughters. Pass this around so the world can see.

At face value this message to me was saying to stand up for women’s rights, however a reply came from a female cousig saying “would this incite fear and hate towards muslim followers? This now changed my view towards the situation, in my opinion, causing a very dangerous mindset. Is this classed as propaganda?

After consuming all this information? How does one take information like this from emails into perspective? Do you take it with a grain of salt, or do you become gullible and believe everything that is on the internet?

He whakaaro?