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?