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?

A Man Kicked Out of a Bar

Recently there has been a lot of news around a bar that has a ‘no tattoo’ policy, resulting in a Maori man being kicked out. Tunahau Kohu went for a drink in a Christchurch bar and was asked to leave because of his ta moko. The bar explained that they did not serve anyone that had gang, neck or facial tattoos and asked him to leave. Kohu tried to explain the significance of his moko but according to the media, the bar did not want to listen. This started major public debate with people being disgusted that he was asked to leave, resulting in the bar apologising and the Human Rights Committee being complained to.

I find it very interesting and great that something positive may have come out of this unfortunate event; people standing up for Maori in the public eye. Instead of the majority of people saying things like, ‘he deserved it’ or ‘he shouldn’t have put it on his face’, people gave backlash towards the bar saying that it was unacceptable to treat somebody like this. Showing that mainstream media does not always put Maori in a bad perspective. Even though it is very very rare for stories like this to come about, I really do believe that the only reasons they came about is because of the huge support he received. If nobody cared than nobody would bother about writing about something, linking back to the hegemonic devices of mainstream media. This story I feel ultimately shows the workings of society as a collective and how its interests usually decide what goes into the media. Otherwise, the reality is nobody would watch or read the stories talked about, hurting the mainstream entities that wrote them because they are commercial entities that need ratings to survive. The general rule of thumb is, the juicer the story the better the ratings.

Although the discussed event was not a pleasant one, it has shown that society must care for it to have reached a mainstream newspaper. Putting emphasis on the idea of hegemony because in reality societies interests fuel the demand for the stories to be written. I think it is great that the story received so much support because it is almost as if ‘us’ and ‘them’ were not relevant and everybody was included as ‘us’.

Modern Racism

Modern Racism

Browne argues 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.

The concept of “Modern racism” had huge relevance to me because Maori are constantly depicted as being “pandered” by the government. The establishment of Maori Television in 2004 was a landmark for Te Ao Maori but Browne’s argument explains that some Pakeha would not understand the value Maori Television and show modern racism as Maori Television “ violate values traditional to mainstream.” The white backlash generated from the establishment of the MTS is an obvious cry for one to be educated about the Treaty of Waitangi.

A book that supports Browne’s argument is ‘Indigenous peoples, racism and the United Nations’ claiming “Despite the fact that Maori have suffered and continue to suffer as a result of Pakeha racism however, racism in Aotearoa is essentially a Pakeha problem….Pakeha have insecurities and guilt therefore…cast one in the role of victim…that any initiative designed to assist Maori is automatically detrimental to Pakeha”.

This concept was not only common during the establishment of Maori Television but when anything Maori appears rather frequently in newspapers and on the mainstream news networks. The article “Fed up with pandering to Maori radicals” is yet another example of how the media portrays and positions Maori to be more privileged than Pakeha. This depiction of the Maori culture and Te Ao Maori disadvantages Maori as they are discriminated against in the wider public. Ignorant and non-educated views and ideas come about as a result of modern racism.

The question lies on whether race relations in New Zealand have improved because there is definite evidence that it still exists (even though it may be underlying). The media continues to fuel and perpetuate Maori stereotypes, disadvantaging Maori at the same time as victimizing Pakeha.

Maori Culture vs. Commercial Imperatives.

Maori Culture vs. Commercial Imperatives.

Since the Rugby World Cup it seems as though more Maori concepts have been more prominently incorporated in Aoteroa. Concepts include the waka at the Viaduct, several flash-mob haka, and a beautiful performance at the Rugby World Cup opening ceremony.

This is a great way to show Maoritanga to the rest of the world and to promote our Maori heritage and culture. The Maori culture during the RWC has been framed in a very spectacular manner. What continues to astound me is how NZ waits for RWC until Maori are not stereotyped but shown in a positive light. National Kapa Haka performers Te Matarae took out the title for overall best group in February (shown on Maori Television) but the group was not shown on mainstream television until the RWC. Competitions such as the Matatini are a celebration of the outstanding talent, why does it take an international event to show this on mainstream media?

This extreme contrast of representations of Te Ao Maori can be attributed to the idea that the Maori culture is a commercial investment. Maori culture has been appropriated to suit the economy and the overall representation of New Zealand. Through capturing aspects of the Maori culture New Zealand can internationally appear as bi-cultural, diverse and a country of equality- a perfect travel destination! Is this really the case? Or is this again a bias representation from the media?

Is it because highlighting the Maori culture hints at racial harmony in our country? Does the haka depict what it means to be a “Kiwi” or a “New Zealander”? Is it because the Maori culture is only good for advertising and commercial purposes?

It seems as though that when Maori are doing something good, both Maori and non-Maori are labeled with the term “kiwis” but when one of those so called “kiwis” commits an offence the label changes to “ A Maori man was arrested today”.

Non-Maori and the media are picking and choosing when and where they want to incorporate the Maori culture as if culture was thing that can be brushed under the carpet. Maori have protested to have things such as kohanga, kura kaupapa, wananga which instill Maoritanga (with little support from non-Maori) but when international things come around it’s Non-Maori who want Maori who still practice Maoritanga to come and “put on a show”.

Overall, it is something positive that the Maori culture is being represented in a positive manner however there is need for big improvements and things that need to be stressed. For instance George Andrews comments on how a Pakeha would never speak for Maori nowadays but who was the commentator and journalist at the RWC opening?

Barry Baclay explains “Every culture has a right and a responsibility to present its own culture to its own people. That responsibility is so fundamental it cannot be left in the hands of outsiders, nor be usurped by them.”

Were Maori given the opportunity to comment on their own culture at the RWC? Were the fundamental aspects of our culture really explained to outsiders?Was their even someone on hand to make sure Pakeha fairly depicted and explained some of the Maori concepts which prominently featured in the opening ceremony? I don't think so!

It is evident that there needs to be more acknowledgements to the histories and understanding of Te Ao Maori if non-Maori are going to use and appropriate our culture. Why can’t aspects of Maoritanga be included in everyday life and education on the basis that the Maori culture and people are important. Cultural practices are more than “just a show”. Culture is what defines someone, their whanau and whakapapa, their basis and understanding of the world. Why strip these positive aspects of a culture and use them to gain international recognition and money. Where are we to draw the line?

Decolonization in the film ‘Once were Warriors’

Since as the lecture mentioned about Renan’s statement that 1) the nation is always created with the violence and 2) the successful creation of nation is achieved by forgetting those violence, decolonization seems to require the recall of forgotten violence among people in some way. Therefore the Hip hop and rap music those which have an elements of anger will suite for the way of decolonization in marginalized minority groups such as African-American in slum or Maori people in New Zealand.

Then, what about the violence representation in New Zealand film which depict Maori? For example, the film ’Once were warriors’ is the film about Maori family. In the film, the eldest son of the family, named Nig, was a member of the street gang, ‘Teo Aoteaora’. Since the film is based on the novel, there are some arguments about the differences between the film and the novel. The difference of representation of the violence is the one. While the film celebrates gang culture, the original novel repeats the condemnation of gangs. And also while Nig who died early in the novel is arrived and support his mother in the film.

What these differences means if we see the film as one of the way of decolonization like what Kirsten Zemke talked about pop music in terms of decolonization in her lecture?? It can be said that by depicting young gangs as people who seek their Maori identity, and by giving Nig a positive image to help his mother who suffered a domestic violence from her husband rather than people who employ their violence to discriminately anyone, the film accept the violence as a means to protect their own right and identity. These representation of violence are distinguished from the violence by family’s father, Jake, toward his family and children which is all used to express his own dissatisfaction toward the world surrounding him. Also the difference of these violence emphasized the role of violence which was used to protest in many histories.

By depicting different kinds of violence, the film ‘Once were warriors’ reminds the audience of forgotten violence and struggle which was used to create the assimilated nation in a history. Therefore, the film’ Once were warriors’ can be said that it have a aspect of decolonization media for the marginalized people similar to Hip Hop or Rap music as the essay of Dean Hapeta argued.

Use of Maori elements to express to be ‘New Zealander’

When I searched the term ‘Maori pop music’ online, a page of ’music of New Zealand’ by Wikipedia comes on the top. According to wiki, ‘as the nation grew and established its own culture, local artists combined these styles with local influences to create music that is distinctively New Zealand.’ Then, what is ‘own culture’? This seemes to remain the controversy against the question ‘who are ‘we’ in New Zealand. There is an irony that pakeha people tends to regard their identity as a nationality, though it is Maori culture that is used to represent New Zealand when it comes to show their cuture with song or dance. Is the Wikipedia statement means that majority people thinks New Zealand has already achieved its establishment of unified New Zealand culture? Or people distinguish Maori pop music as a ‘Maori music’ and not ‘New Zealand music’??

Below are the top comments for the ‘Boy 2010 Movie Maori Thriller Ending Credits’ on the youtube:

‘thumbs up if your proud to be a new zealander’　

‘195,435 views....mean, everyone in NZ's seen it then?:D

Love being a Kiwi !’

‘im proud to be a kiwi! :D’

These comments demonstrate us that many of the audience tends to think or believe that they are unified ‘New Zealander/ Kiwi’. Also, according to the 2006 census, people those who assert their ethnic self-recognition as a ‘New Zealander’ is increasing.

As Kristine said in her lecture, new music contains Maori music elements are one way of decolonization. It can be said that they are on the way for the success for the purpose if they are gradually regarded as just ‘New Zealander music’ : normalized culture in New Zealand, not destroying their tradition.

However, when I was watching Rugby world Cup match with my friends, one of the European New Zealand guy said ‘Hey, stop, you’re not a Maori’ to the European All Blacks player when he showed facial contortion with his tongue. This might connote his feeling for Haka as Maori’s culture, not entirely New Zealand one. Also it might expressed his hesitate toward saying those Haka as a New Zealand normalized culture.

Is it just Pakeha people are ignoring their identity as a Pakeha, which is related to colonial history between Maori? Or it means that people those who accept Maori culture as not a marginalized culture but an important element to construct the nation are increasing among all over the nation??

It can be said that the statement on Wikipedia about establishment of New Zealand ‘own culture’ is partly true. But it is also true that some people do not admit culture such as Haka, which is used to reflect New Zealand as the ‘New Zealand’ culture, but it as the ‘Maori’ one. However, I assume music is more easy way for people to accept those as a own ‘New Zealand culture’ to be proud of since it is ‘new genre’ even if contains Maori traditional elements compared to more traditional exihibiton such as Haka in Rugby game. Therefore what the Kristine talked about the power of decolonization of music was very understandable for me.

Representation of Maori in the film 'Crush'

What we learned in the lecture of the Maori in the film, Lynda Dyson noted that ‘the representation of Māori as sexually available, and as engaging in sexual banter that is “raw” and ‘crude”, in contrast to the eroticism of the relationship between Baines and Ada’, I think this statement are also applicable in the film ‘Clush’. There is a quote from IMDB about ‘Crush’:

‘On the way to interview a novelist, Lane and Christina are involved in a car crash which leaves literary critic Christina brain-damaged. Lane undertakes the assignment and becomes attracted to the novelist's 15 year old daughter, leading to stormy emotions.’

The film is constructed with mainly 4 people. Lane, Christine, novelist who named Collin and his daughter Angela. Angela is depicted as an adolescent girl who was struggling between jealousy toward Lane who was in sexual relationship with her father, and a Maori singer guy appeared as a person who made Angela more into confusion. Relationship between Lane and Collin, who are European New Zealander and an American, are depicted as more erotic and as having interactive relationship. Meanwhile, Maori singer, who are called Horse, is depicted as not only a symbol of big happy family for Angela as (what Bell Hook said)‘happy-go-lucky’ person, but also related to ‘raw’ and ‘crude’ sexual things. For example, he was represented as a　promiscuous guy who used Angela as a means of his masturbation in his hospital room in spite of her desire to get contact sense of happy family circle compared to her own family.

Crush was directed in 1992, the year before ‘The piano’ was directed. Therefore, I can assume that these two films are both based on similar notion toward Maori people at that time as ‘happy-go-lucky’ people. Also, between these films, Maori people are both just exist as ‘backdrop’ of the white main characters.

It is interesting that we can find such a similarity in films, which have a very different form. On the one hand, ‘The Piano’ was accepted as a ‘romantic story’, and the other hand ‘crush’ was accepted as a story of ‘revenge’ between two females. However, these difference of the films more emphasized the common representation of Maori people and may be the Leonie Pihama’s statement which is ‘Films are dangerous’ because there are danger to prevail a negative images of Maori through the films.

Unity of New Zealand or Partitioning of the World??

The 2nd lecture and some of the course readings, such as Maori Television, Anzac Day, and Constructing “Nationhood” by Abel, pointed out how Maori TV are/has been constructing New Zealand national identity as “New Zealander”. The context which those discussions pointed out as the construction is the nation-building policy by the past labour party government. The perspective was new for me, and it obviously very different from the discussion by Stuart on “Nation-building”, and also from the discussion by Yasunobu Ito, a Japanese anthropologist who has researched on the Maori education systems (especially about Kohanga Reo and Kura Kaupapa Maori) and Maori TV.

In his doctor thesis and the book（伊藤 2007）, Yasunobu Ito discussed the emergence of Maori total emersion schools as the partitioning process of Te Ao Maori/ Maori world and Te Ao Pakeha/ non-Maori or ‘main stream’ New Zealand in the education social sub-system. His discussion is, though not necessarily mentioned clearly in his writing, related to the sociological system theory by Luhmann. As the extension of this discussion on the Maori educational system, he also described the establishment of Maori TV as the partitioning of Maori world and Pakeha world in the media subsystem(伊藤 2010) . In addition, he focuses on the launch of Te Reo channel as the reflection of the dispute between fluent Te Reo Maori speaking Maori and non-Te Reo Maori speaking Maori, as well as points out the variety of the demand among Maori people. In this discussion, some of the fluent Te Reo Maori speakers are described as the people who desire a ‘pure’ Maori language condition and non-Te Reo Maori speakers as the majority in urban area. It is obvious that he regards the launch of Te Reo channel as the 2nd partition which is occurred inside Maori. In short, his discussion is about the potential partition process of this New Zealand society, between the main stream Pakeha world, the ‘purist’ Maori and other non- Te Reo Maori speakers.

In short, Ito points out that the establishment of Maori TV and Te Reo Channel is the partition of the world. This discussion reminds me of the discussion by Stuart in the course reading.　He equates　"nation"　as　"Maori",　and　discusses　about the development of Maori media as “Maori” nation　building in New Zealand. In his article, the “Maori” nation is considered as what is distinct from “Pakeha” nation within the state of New Zealand and also distinct from the former “iwi” based nation. Those two discussions are relevant at the point that both of them points out the partitioning process within New Zealand. There is also a difference about Te Reo channel that Ito regards the establishment of Te Reo channel as the second partition within Maori.

On the other hand, the point made by Abel is very different from those two former discussions. She points out that Maori TV is used to create including force to construct the national identity as New Zealander while it encourages the tikanga maori and te reo maori. The context is at economical/ political sphere, or the nation building policy of the former labour government.

When we think about the establishment of Maori TV, the establishment can be seen as the portioning process within New Zealand, and Ito and Stuart’s discussions seem logically reasonable. However, for me, Abel’s discussion is very fascinating because her perspective is broader and considering broader social/ economical/ political context beyond the binary of Pakeha/ Maori world. Maori TV has developed in the seeking of Maori sovereignty, but it is also real that Maori TV is embedded in the social/ political context of New Zealand.
However, what about the launch of Te Reo channel? Is this another partition within Maori? Or the attainment of Maori nation? It is hard to answer the question here, but Ito arises the interesting arguing point.

Why “developmental media”?– Question on Stuart

The discussions by Stuart in the course reading are interesting, and especially the one in 2003 provides stimulus view point through conceptualizing Maori as a nation within the state of New Zealand. It is convincing discussion to see the colonization as the power of disruption against iwi based Maori nation, and the social/ cultural revitalization movement as the re-establishment of Maori nation. In this discussion, the nation which Maori media has been/ is building is something more than the iwi based nation in the past, that is, pan tribal.

However, in his discussion, his critique and attempt to revise Robie(2005) is not fully explained and often seems to confuse Robie’s point. I could not find the answer even for a simple question, “why does he regard Maori media as third world media, not as forth world media?”
In my understanding, the most important feature of the 4th world media is that the media is embedded in the society in which another social group/ culture has power. In the social circumstances, forth world media is seeking different ways from “main stream media” to represent themselves in their perspective, often with their own language.
For me, it sounds more reasonable to see most of the Maori media as 4th world media because primarily Maori media is motivated to broad cast Maori culture/ voice/ language in different way from main stream or “Pakeha” media. Many aspects Robie pointed out as the feature of third world media suit to Maori media, too. However, the third world media and the fourth world media share many aspects in Robie’s discussion. Only one difference is if they are sharing the nation ( country) with other media in the present, and if they have been/ are in underprivileged social situation under the bigger power of others.

In short, Stuart’s attempt to regarding Maori as nation is very interesting (and also reasonable if we see many researches dealing with “nation” and nationalism beyond state or country). However, the notions of “nation” in those two discussions are different, and we should confine “nation” in Robie’s discussion to “country”.

Maori and the RWC

A couple of weeks ago Sue gave an interesting lecture around Maori and film, which brought to my attention the notion of appropriation. It got me thinking and I asked myself, has the ruby world cup used cultural appropriation against Maori?

Firstly one needs to identify what exactly appropriation means. According to the Oxford Dictionary online it is; “the act of taking something that belongs to somebody else, especially without permission.” Therefore, cultural appropriation must be the borrowing, or theft of an element of a culture of one group by another.

I would argue that Maori culture to a degree has in fact been used in the current rugby world cup, because there has been a major influence of Maori culture. One of course is the haka, although this is nothing new, it is still Maori culture being used, other examples are the use of art, waka and other various forms. When it comes to the rugby world cup there has been huge influence from Maori culture on display.

I personally think this is wonderful, with the culture being promoted through a well-loved sport. It is very positive in the fact that people from all over the world can be educated and immersed into the culture. Potentially having great opportunities arise, with Maori becoming recognised more and more (is not this what development is all about – to be recognised and heard). It is very clear that the use of Maori culture in the rugby world cup has positives but arguably, there are some negatives to it as well.

It is not the fact that the culture has been used without permission; it is more or less the fact that it takes the whole world to be on New Zealand’s doorstep for Maori culture to be celebrated. Before the rugby world cup, I personally have never seen so much positive Maori culture on the Mainstream media. From having kappa haka groups performing to traditional waka being used, it has been amazing but why now. I can only think the only reason it has been brought to the forefront is that everybody is looking at New Zealand, they want to be wowed and what is more exciting than an indigenous group of people? Something that they may have never seen or heard of before, something that is unique.

One has to realise that culture belongs usually to a group of people, how it is used relies upon context as well as knowledge. This I believe can be classed as intellectual property and in a western world; someone owns this type of property. Maori are trying to achieve this acknowledgement through the WAI262 treaty claim that seeks to find who has a degree of power over Maori intellectual property as well as flora and fauna. So if the haka can be seen as intellectual property who actually owns it? Well according to the messages given by mainstream media New Zealanders do, it is a ‘kiwi’ thing and not much if any acknowledgement is given to Maori. I would not be surprised if less than 40% of New Zealand even knew the real origin of the haka and what it actually means. To me this does not seem right, education is key and everybody I feel needs to learn more about the true meanings.

It does seem that Maori are used when New Zealand wants to stand apart from the rest because otherwise Maori culture will be celebrated every day. According to Barry Barclay’s model, New Zealand is talking out to the whole entire world trying to entice them into coming and exploring the unique wonders that the country has to offer. Tracy Johnson made a statement relating to the film, Whale rider and I think it can be used here. She stated that a negative effect could occur as certain usage can be seen as promoting tourism to New Zealand, resulting in Maori culture becoming a commodity. This is not an ideal result because in the end it degrades Maori culture into becoming a marketing venture.

So yes, there are positives to this occurring but the negatives are huge because the consequences can be very unforgiving, especially if a culture is downgraded to a marketing venture. Although this may not turn out to be true and Maori culture may stay at the forefront even when the world decides to leave. I just hope that New Zealand steps up and does prove me wrong.