As discussed several times in the lectures, English subtitles are one of the controversial issues relating Maori TV and other Maori Medias. The discussion ranges from the necessity of subtitle itself to the accuracy of subtitles or the possibility of translation of Maori language into English.
Though Maori TV and other media should never give up improving the subtitle on the accuracy, we should be aware that universally we can never translate different language in fully accurate way. However, the fact does not lead the conclusion that we cannot communicate with each other or understand each other.
For example, it is simply impossible to express exactly same thing in Japanese and in English. You might see Japanese Animation with English subtitle, but it is never exactly same with Japanese version. Japanese expressions have unique nuances which are embedded in Japanese custom and culture, and English expressions are simply different from that in Japanese language. There are sometimes apparent mistranslations in movies or televisions and so on. Even if you think you can understand the other language through the subtitles, it is never fully attained. However, I do not think we should give up communicating with others, trying to know others. For example, even if the English subtitles of Japanese movie are just funny or even completely wrong sometimes, I do not think they—non Japanese speakers-- should not watch the movie, or they should not make English subtitles for Japanese speakers. That is because otherwise they cannot know anything about the movie and also about Japanese. Without subtitles, it is impossible to communicate with each other on media. Abandonment subtitles are giving up communication or the possibility to understand each other. It is naturally same with Maori and English (or Japanese or whatever). As discussed in the lectures, there are naturally difficulties to translate Maori to English (or English to Maori—though interestingly this direction of translation is not often discussed). It is easy to say “they do not understand Japanese/ Maori way”. However, we should not give up seeking the way to understand each other. I believe, it is possible to understand English speakers to know understand Japanese culture, as “Pakeha” or other ethnicities are able to know about Maori. It is not efficient to just complain how the subtitles on Maori TV are inaccurate. It is highly important to make accurate subtitles because it is only information for non- speaker of the language to understand the content. In addition, we should be more aware it is never possible to translate a language into another in fully accurate way (even about English to Maori though it is hardly discussed), and positively seek the way to improve the subtitles and communicate more, rather than giving up communicating.
I was always wondering why the translation from English to Maori is hardly discussed about. That must be a result of fact that almost all Maori speakers are able to speak English, too. (That could be also the reason of harsh complain on the inaccuracy of English subtitles of Maori language.) It seems unbalanced for me. It is also unbalance that there is no Maori language subtitles of English though Te Reo Maori is often attached English subtitles on Maori TV. It is obvious that Maori TV does not assume the demand of the Maori subtitles or the existence of Maori speakers who do not speak English. For me, the fact seems to symbolize the situation of Te Reo Maori and how people think about the situation itself. However, the number of native Te Reo Māori speakers is supposed to be increasing as the result of Kohanga Reo and Kura Kaupapa movement. It is possible that the Maori subtitles of English will be demanded in the future. If many Te Reo Maori native speakers who are not fluent in English come out, the issue of subtitle would be more and more serious.
In short, what I would like to say here is that it is necessary to think about the problem on subtitles seriously but positively as the tool of communication rather than just complaining the inaccuracy of the current subtitles. Otherwise we are just becoming apart from each other and confirmed into our own cultures or language groups.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
What is “decolonization”? ――Decolonizing “Colonizers”?
As Hinerangi mentions, decolonization is one of the main topics in the first few classes. It is said that Maori TV is/ should be the tool of decolonization.
“Decolonization” is a key concept of indigenous movements in this postcolonial world. The word is widely used and it represents the purpose of the movement or the ideal situation of the world. However, I often wonder if the concept is clear enough and the meaning is shared. Though many people use the word like a magic spell, do people share the concept accurately? If somebody says “Maori TV is the tool of decolonization”, does everybody understand how Maori TV should be and what the goal is?
It must be efficient and essential to examine the meaning of “colonization”, because the word “decolonization”, which is composed of “de” and “colonization”, means “the opposite of colonization” or “remove something from colonization”.
Basically, “colonization” means “to take control of an area or a country by the outsider, especially using force”, that is originally about property or power over the property. However, “colonization” also includes diverse invasions in different levels, either “visible” or “invisible”.
In the case of the Maori, the visible colonization can be confiscation of the land, discouragement of the religion or belief system, suppression of the language/Te Reo Maori and the protocol/Tikanga, and so on. In this visible level, it is relatively easy to assume the content of “decolonization”. For example, the revitalization of Te Reo Maori and Tikanga Maori, which is clearly mentioned as the purpose of Maori TV, is obviously the process of resisting against the impact of Te Reo Pakeha or English and reclaiming their own language.
In addition, “colonization” can be about invisible domains, such as the value and the representation of colonized people, as presented in the lecture as “the historical processes of colonisation …racialised Māori as ‘deficient’ (as individuals and culturally), which in turn justified the transfer of resources such as land to settlers and the subjugation of cultural practices” (Paul Spoonley: Nga Patai 1996 p.62). At this level, the process of “decolonization” seems more complex. Though it is highly important to reclaim the value system and self-representation for resists dominant power, it is sometimes controversial what is a result of colonization and what is not. For example, cigarette is introduced by non-Maori after the contact, but is the idea that “cigarette is unhealthy” a result of colonization? “People should not have cigarette in maraes because of the tapu restriction” is a Maori value or a result of colonization although tipuna used to smoke in the marae? Because the value system has always changed, it is necessarily to redefine what the value system is to promote the pre-colonization or indigenous value as decolonization.
Although the decolonization at invisible level is not as simple as at visible level, decolonization of mind is often more emphasized. For example, Jessica Hutchings in the course reader says,
Decolonisation is also about my right to determine how I will live with and within Maori communities; to reject non-Maori analysis of situations and events that concern me; and to value myself as a Maori woman. Decolonisation is an essential part of being a Maori woman; it recognises the colonial reality we still live in and provides space for Maori women to be visible, by valuing Maori women’s on-going analysis of all areas of life, such as education, language and health systems.(Hutchings 2002)
However, the discussion on the invisible level of decolonization becomes more and more complex when she mentions about the decolonization of dominant non-Maori. It is obvious that she assumes the dominant non-Maori as so called “Pakeha” who is set against the indigenous people Maori as the colonizer.
This agenda is not confined to only indigenous peoples, but is also valuable for the unlearning that non-indigenous peoples, as part of the dominant colonial grouping, can attain. Decolonisation can lead non-indigenous peoples to examine how stories, history and worldviews are constructed and to understand their position in them. Non-indigenous peoples have an opportunity to speak out and challenge hegemony and the continual colonisation of indigenous peoples. Non-indigenous peoples also have a chance to understand how they themselves are being colonized by techno-industrial development.(Hutchings 2002)
What does Decolonization of Colonizers mean?? If it still can be called decolonization, is it part of the decolonization Maori TV seeks?
The notion of colonization or decolonization has been extended, and the meaning and the process which Maori TV is/ should be seeking seems becoming vague. What is decolonization? Who should be decolonized? What should be reclaimed? How is it become possible? Those details do seem still not clear neither shared, but they are often overlooked when people talk with the word “decolonization”. The word works like a magic spell. It is important to examine the notion itself and consider the role in the complex society beyond the “decolonization” as a widespread discourse in the indigenous movement.
“Decolonization” is a key concept of indigenous movements in this postcolonial world. The word is widely used and it represents the purpose of the movement or the ideal situation of the world. However, I often wonder if the concept is clear enough and the meaning is shared. Though many people use the word like a magic spell, do people share the concept accurately? If somebody says “Maori TV is the tool of decolonization”, does everybody understand how Maori TV should be and what the goal is?
It must be efficient and essential to examine the meaning of “colonization”, because the word “decolonization”, which is composed of “de” and “colonization”, means “the opposite of colonization” or “remove something from colonization”.
Basically, “colonization” means “to take control of an area or a country by the outsider, especially using force”, that is originally about property or power over the property. However, “colonization” also includes diverse invasions in different levels, either “visible” or “invisible”.
In the case of the Maori, the visible colonization can be confiscation of the land, discouragement of the religion or belief system, suppression of the language/Te Reo Maori and the protocol/Tikanga, and so on. In this visible level, it is relatively easy to assume the content of “decolonization”. For example, the revitalization of Te Reo Maori and Tikanga Maori, which is clearly mentioned as the purpose of Maori TV, is obviously the process of resisting against the impact of Te Reo Pakeha or English and reclaiming their own language.
In addition, “colonization” can be about invisible domains, such as the value and the representation of colonized people, as presented in the lecture as “the historical processes of colonisation …racialised Māori as ‘deficient’ (as individuals and culturally), which in turn justified the transfer of resources such as land to settlers and the subjugation of cultural practices” (Paul Spoonley: Nga Patai 1996 p.62). At this level, the process of “decolonization” seems more complex. Though it is highly important to reclaim the value system and self-representation for resists dominant power, it is sometimes controversial what is a result of colonization and what is not. For example, cigarette is introduced by non-Maori after the contact, but is the idea that “cigarette is unhealthy” a result of colonization? “People should not have cigarette in maraes because of the tapu restriction” is a Maori value or a result of colonization although tipuna used to smoke in the marae? Because the value system has always changed, it is necessarily to redefine what the value system is to promote the pre-colonization or indigenous value as decolonization.
Although the decolonization at invisible level is not as simple as at visible level, decolonization of mind is often more emphasized. For example, Jessica Hutchings in the course reader says,
Decolonisation is also about my right to determine how I will live with and within Maori communities; to reject non-Maori analysis of situations and events that concern me; and to value myself as a Maori woman. Decolonisation is an essential part of being a Maori woman; it recognises the colonial reality we still live in and provides space for Maori women to be visible, by valuing Maori women’s on-going analysis of all areas of life, such as education, language and health systems.(Hutchings 2002)
However, the discussion on the invisible level of decolonization becomes more and more complex when she mentions about the decolonization of dominant non-Maori. It is obvious that she assumes the dominant non-Maori as so called “Pakeha” who is set against the indigenous people Maori as the colonizer.
This agenda is not confined to only indigenous peoples, but is also valuable for the unlearning that non-indigenous peoples, as part of the dominant colonial grouping, can attain. Decolonisation can lead non-indigenous peoples to examine how stories, history and worldviews are constructed and to understand their position in them. Non-indigenous peoples have an opportunity to speak out and challenge hegemony and the continual colonisation of indigenous peoples. Non-indigenous peoples also have a chance to understand how they themselves are being colonized by techno-industrial development.(Hutchings 2002)
What does Decolonization of Colonizers mean?? If it still can be called decolonization, is it part of the decolonization Maori TV seeks?
The notion of colonization or decolonization has been extended, and the meaning and the process which Maori TV is/ should be seeking seems becoming vague. What is decolonization? Who should be decolonized? What should be reclaimed? How is it become possible? Those details do seem still not clear neither shared, but they are often overlooked when people talk with the word “decolonization”. The word works like a magic spell. It is important to examine the notion itself and consider the role in the complex society beyond the “decolonization” as a widespread discourse in the indigenous movement.
He Timatanga tenei.
TE TIRITI O WAITANGI.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the founding document of New Zealand. Signed in 1840 by many chiefs of the North and South Islands along with Pakeha aristocrats. Overall it promises the ultimate chieftainship of a Pakeha law to a Maori lore. It includes the seas surrounding Aotearoa, everything special to the Maori people and everything natural on the land.
But... a Maori sees it being spat on to every side of the compass.
A Facebook page named TangataWhenua.com has recently posted a link titled "American Maori King beer is offensive and ignorant". A blunt overview is an American beer company named one of its beverages "Maori King" and subsequently there is anger amongst the Maori people. Personally these traits of ignorance, absolute arrogance and chauvinism annoy me alot and quite frankly Pakeha seem to be proud of these traits, because they are seen often today. What a people dont you think?
According to this post the company co founder Brad Lincoln has the cheek to say that "he found out there was a Maori King only when a New Zealander walked into their bar and told them". Shows how ignorant they are aye? He further adds "King Tuheitia would probably enjoy the beer and he is quite happy to send him a crate of bottles". Now this is absolute disrespect to elders. Do they know the simple rule respect elders? Obviously not!
Thank God Tuku Morgan has taken the role up to deal with these disrespectful people through establishing a "dialogue". They have already caused deep offense among the Maori. Under pakeha law we have our own "aristocrats" too.
KO MUTU.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the founding document of New Zealand. Signed in 1840 by many chiefs of the North and South Islands along with Pakeha aristocrats. Overall it promises the ultimate chieftainship of a Pakeha law to a Maori lore. It includes the seas surrounding Aotearoa, everything special to the Maori people and everything natural on the land.
But... a Maori sees it being spat on to every side of the compass.
A Facebook page named TangataWhenua.com has recently posted a link titled "American Maori King beer is offensive and ignorant". A blunt overview is an American beer company named one of its beverages "Maori King" and subsequently there is anger amongst the Maori people. Personally these traits of ignorance, absolute arrogance and chauvinism annoy me alot and quite frankly Pakeha seem to be proud of these traits, because they are seen often today. What a people dont you think?
According to this post the company co founder Brad Lincoln has the cheek to say that "he found out there was a Maori King only when a New Zealander walked into their bar and told them". Shows how ignorant they are aye? He further adds "King Tuheitia would probably enjoy the beer and he is quite happy to send him a crate of bottles". Now this is absolute disrespect to elders. Do they know the simple rule respect elders? Obviously not!
Thank God Tuku Morgan has taken the role up to deal with these disrespectful people through establishing a "dialogue". They have already caused deep offense among the Maori. Under pakeha law we have our own "aristocrats" too.
KO MUTU.
Amazingly racist
Dont know if this made the telvision news so here goes.
Recently I came across a story online about people making racist comments about Maori on a tademe auction that was for a personalised number plate with "MAORI" on it. The writer also mentioned that the comments showed the ugly side of social networking, I thought it more directly showed the ugly side of New Zealand society rather than social networking. I think that social networking actually exposed the truth about some of the characters in New Zealand. For a point of clarity Im not saying that all mainstream or non-Maori are racist towards Maori but that racism present in New Zealand. I know that you didnt need anyone to tell you this but these comments actually proved that racism exist in New Zealand and it got a modern method of extending it tentacles, the internet.
This particular auction was listed for $99,000 and attracted a large number of racist and anti-Maori comments such as (this one is actually mild) "Any Maori that can afford this plate stole the moni" when i read this I thought rreeeeaaalllyyy, like how the Brits stole (or confiscated) Maori land, made millions and continue to use that money to maintain economic and political domination over Maori.
Another below the belt comment was "Maybe donate half the money to a charity to help prevent Maori throwing their babies into walls. I thought that this was a pretty sick comment, its like the writer searched for a level lower than pathetic and found it. Himself!!
Recently I came across a story online about people making racist comments about Maori on a tademe auction that was for a personalised number plate with "MAORI" on it. The writer also mentioned that the comments showed the ugly side of social networking, I thought it more directly showed the ugly side of New Zealand society rather than social networking. I think that social networking actually exposed the truth about some of the characters in New Zealand. For a point of clarity Im not saying that all mainstream or non-Maori are racist towards Maori but that racism present in New Zealand. I know that you didnt need anyone to tell you this but these comments actually proved that racism exist in New Zealand and it got a modern method of extending it tentacles, the internet.
This particular auction was listed for $99,000 and attracted a large number of racist and anti-Maori comments such as (this one is actually mild) "Any Maori that can afford this plate stole the moni" when i read this I thought rreeeeaaalllyyy, like how the Brits stole (or confiscated) Maori land, made millions and continue to use that money to maintain economic and political domination over Maori.
Another below the belt comment was "Maybe donate half the money to a charity to help prevent Maori throwing their babies into walls. I thought that this was a pretty sick comment, its like the writer searched for a level lower than pathetic and found it. Himself!!
Child abuse scapegoat.
Saw this online
Social work lecturer Raema Merchant said focusing on Maori parents diverts attention away from the fact Pakeha harm children too. When you come across child abuse in the media it is always presented in a way that portrays Maori as synonymous with child abuse while the mainstream have no mention or stigma that ties them to child abuse in any way. The media have created a norm of that type casts Maori as the 'bad guys' always abusing their children and it is these kinds of norms that facilitates further misrepresentation and oppression for Maori. Perhaps stories that involve child deaths or abuse in relation to Maori are like gold to a news gatekeepers as these are the types of stories that maintain primetime ratings so that viewers will stay glued to the tube in facination with advertising during hour, but also with repulsion towards Maori. So armed with an education of child abuse supplied by audio visual media such as television and news papers the mainstream use this as a further means to maintain their dominance.
Merchant stated "I'm not denying it's a problem for Maori, but if we're just focusing on Maori we're ignoring the Pakeha side," she said.
"It's almost as though Pakeha are putting their heads in the sand and saying there is no Pakeha child abuse." This sounds fairly accurate as many cases of child abuse conducted by the mainstream slip benneath the radar which extends the one-sided approach that the media adopt when dealing with child abuse stories.
Merchants master's thesis at Massey University found about half of the children killed in New Zealand died at the hands of a Pakeha abuser. Almost 9000 children were victims of physical abuse between 2000 and 2008, yet only 21 became "household names"' in the media, she said.
Just one-third of child deaths were reported in the press, and they were predominantly Maori cases. Finally someone has gone out and done the hard yards to literally prove that the attrocious stereotypes that the media have cast on to Maori are simply garbage.
Merchant urged the public and media to focus on real problems of child abuse, rather than making Maori the "face of abuse".
"The real danger I have seen from a social worker point of view is that there are a lot of children being abused but as far as the public are concerned they only seem to know about the ones that are Maori. "Child abuse is a problem for all people, not just for Maori."
Merchant is already planning her next thesis, which will look at a bigger issue: whether focusing on Maori child abuse victims leads to skewed views by health professionals and the public. Just noticing that the Nia Glasssie case was on the News recently in relation to a policy named after Glassie which proposes the state to set up authorities to inspect homes or families to search for signs of child abuse. Using a child with a Maori background as the face for a policy such as this shows that even the state is not immune to utilizing labels so the question is 'where does the abuse of Maori by both the media and the state end?'
Social work lecturer Raema Merchant said focusing on Maori parents diverts attention away from the fact Pakeha harm children too. When you come across child abuse in the media it is always presented in a way that portrays Maori as synonymous with child abuse while the mainstream have no mention or stigma that ties them to child abuse in any way. The media have created a norm of that type casts Maori as the 'bad guys' always abusing their children and it is these kinds of norms that facilitates further misrepresentation and oppression for Maori. Perhaps stories that involve child deaths or abuse in relation to Maori are like gold to a news gatekeepers as these are the types of stories that maintain primetime ratings so that viewers will stay glued to the tube in facination with advertising during hour, but also with repulsion towards Maori. So armed with an education of child abuse supplied by audio visual media such as television and news papers the mainstream use this as a further means to maintain their dominance.
Merchant stated "I'm not denying it's a problem for Maori, but if we're just focusing on Maori we're ignoring the Pakeha side," she said.
"It's almost as though Pakeha are putting their heads in the sand and saying there is no Pakeha child abuse." This sounds fairly accurate as many cases of child abuse conducted by the mainstream slip benneath the radar which extends the one-sided approach that the media adopt when dealing with child abuse stories.
Merchants master's thesis at Massey University found about half of the children killed in New Zealand died at the hands of a Pakeha abuser. Almost 9000 children were victims of physical abuse between 2000 and 2008, yet only 21 became "household names"' in the media, she said.
Just one-third of child deaths were reported in the press, and they were predominantly Maori cases. Finally someone has gone out and done the hard yards to literally prove that the attrocious stereotypes that the media have cast on to Maori are simply garbage.
Merchant urged the public and media to focus on real problems of child abuse, rather than making Maori the "face of abuse".
"The real danger I have seen from a social worker point of view is that there are a lot of children being abused but as far as the public are concerned they only seem to know about the ones that are Maori. "Child abuse is a problem for all people, not just for Maori."
Merchant is already planning her next thesis, which will look at a bigger issue: whether focusing on Maori child abuse victims leads to skewed views by health professionals and the public. Just noticing that the Nia Glasssie case was on the News recently in relation to a policy named after Glassie which proposes the state to set up authorities to inspect homes or families to search for signs of child abuse. Using a child with a Maori background as the face for a policy such as this shows that even the state is not immune to utilizing labels so the question is 'where does the abuse of Maori by both the media and the state end?'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)