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.

Who / What is "indigenous"?

In many discussions on Maori media, the word “indigenous” is often used to indicate the similarities of the cultures and the social situations of Maori and other indigenous people. In those discussions, we can often see Indigenous/ Colonizer (or Western) binary, which is relevant to Maori/ Pakeha binary in New Zealand context.

However, in those discussions, who is assumed to be the indigenous? What is indigenous?
“Indigenous” people are often attached some distinct attributions from “western” culture, such as spiritual, close to nature, community orientated, and so on. But, is it real? Can we see “indigenous” perspective as one, which is very different from “Western” perspective? Can we really essentialize indigenous cultures in this way?

Of course, there are many similarities in the social/ cultural suffering and struggling of indigenous people in the history of colonization and the present post-colonial movement to re-claim the sovereignty. As a result, it is often very reasonable to discuss the struggling of the peoples in the common context. There may be some similarities of their culture and world view. However, I believe that it is also important to consider those questions rather than following the conventional/ widespread binary, because following the framework without deep consideration may just insist the binary and damage the accuracy of discussions.

In my case, my own experience and ethnicity is one of the reasons why I got the question. While I am staying in New Zealand, I have asked a question many times to myself --Is Japanese Indigenous?

As Japanese, I feel sometimes I am seen as “Indigenous”. For example, one of my friends, who is a researcher of indigenous psychology, have told me that she was reading some articles on Japan to examine the indigenous world view in all over the world. At that time, I became confused and said “I am not sure if Japanese is indigenous or not”. In addition, many people have showed me their acknowledgement to Japanese culture, and often they mentioned about the similarity of their (Maori) culture and Japanese culture. “Our culture and your culture are very similar. Respectful, humble...” I agreed with most of them, because I think Japanese culture is very respectful and humble, and I sometimes feel my culture is similar with Maori culture. However, I still feel uncomfortable when I feel Japanese is placed in the “indigenous” half of the Western/ Indigenous binary. Yes, Japanese might be indigenous for some area, but I know Japanese (Japanese mainland people) is also a colonizer. Japanese colonized Ainu people in north part of Japan, and south part of Japan. Japan has also tried to colonize Korea and China in the past. (It might be similar that Maori is indigenous in Aotearoa and Wai pounamu, but not indigenous in Chatham/ Rekohu.)

I believe Japanese culture loves nature and have big aroha as (conceptualized) “Indigenous” culture. However I sometimes feel very difficult to follow the Indigenous/ Western binary. Moreover, I believe it is very important to consider the word “indigenous” rather than just following the binary, in order to consider what happening in the real world.

The danger of Mainstream Media.

The danger of Mainstream Media.

With our ever-changing society, the dominance of media becomes much apparent. Magazines, newspapers, television and films enclose significant messages within them. However what happens when these underlying themes and messages are contradicting, negative and perpetuating a particular stereotype, social group or people?

This is where we are presented with Linda Pihama’s idea that films are dangerous influenced by Patricia Grace where she mentions:

• if books include stories about ourselves but are “untrue” or “are negative and insensitive” then they are dangerous.

• if books never tell us about ourselves, then they are saying “you don’t exist”.

• if books include stories about ourselves but are “untrue” or “are negative and insensitive” then they are dangerous.

The message of danger within books and films can be extended to the wider media inclusive of newspaper, news coverage and the internet. There is a strong need for one to be educated about the constant dominance and power media holds. I would primarily like to highlight how Maori are represented in these forums and convey the idea of how and why they are dangerous to the vast majority.

The internet is something which anyone can access and anyone technically literate is able to contribute to the social networking sites, public forums etc. For example Facebook, a social network site which is internationally popular. On the website everyone is able to create pages which one can then “Like”, through “liking” the group you agree and support the main message of this particular group. The groups typically consider witty and humorous ideas which we as an audience can relate to. Liking these groups has become very popular and because of this has seen the emergence of thousands of new ideas. Some very controversial, one which stroke my attention was

“GETTING A UNI SCHOLARSHIP IS SOOOOO HARD lol jk i'm 1/64th maori”

A mass of 13,068 people have liked this group, and to make matters worse the comments are fueled with even more ignorance, uneducated and racist comments including:

“Yeah, white privilege doesn't exist. In this country there's only Maori privilege and the rest can f off!”

“kick them out of parliament aswell”

“…because by 2050 half of nz will be maori. At the rate now, that means like a third of the country will be on the benifit…”

The main messages I understood from other comments were that Maori are being advantaged and Pakeha are disadvantaged. Having Maori scholarships is “racist” and that university is free for Maori.

These people clearly have no understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, New Zealand History, Te Ao Maori and the structures of Media. These stereotypes of Maori are generated through the Media and are “untrue…negative and insensitive” therefore dangerous.

The idea of the Government “pandering” Maori has stemmed through the representation of Maori converge on the mainstream news channels, typically when covering a story to do with land settlements, initiatives to improve disparities between ethnic groups or broadly anything political to do with Maori.

Another interesting feature of the Facebook page was putting Hone Harawira as the profile picture. It is almost as if he is the mascot for all negative things associated with Maori. Through publishing his photo will of definitely evoke tension to its Pakeha audience. It is as if the media have done their job so well that they are not needed anymore. The community is voicing their inaccurate views by themselves even including the right images to market their story. Hone is framed so negatively by the media that everyone will associate the Maori scholarships as “racist”.

“Colonisation has not ceased; it continues through the capture of our

images”. As Leoni Pihama explains Hone’s depiction and association with

Maori being “unfairly advantaged” is a form colonisation.

These are the new forms of colonisation that emerge from our media are

dangerous. Such colonisation is embedded through one buying into ideas of

the media and taking the information like it is gospel.

When is something significant going to happen to stop this negative

representation of Maori?

How are Maori supposed to strive for further education such as University

when they discriminated against?

This page degrades the efforts of Maori who have received Maori Scholarships but furthermore Te iwi Maori. The view is from a “colonist perspective and gaze” and the argument is based on no factual evidence.

Something needs to be put in ensure proper representation of things Maori of we want to see change in perspectives and ideologies in our society.

WILD MAORI - TAME MAORI

It's interesting to see how media have portrayed Maori and categorise them into 2 particular groups widely known as "Wild Maori" and "Tame Maori" or "Us" and "Them"

Recently we apppointed a new governor general, Jerry Matepaere. He was once the chief of the NZ defence force and served in the NZ army for many years. This is an example of who media proposes to be a "Tame Maori" or one of those as discussed in a reading by Sue Abel as one of "Us" someone who appears to fit into mainstream media without causing a fuss.

Hone Harawira on the other hand is famous for his radicalism. Continuously speaking out of turn and causing what some would argue to be chaos amongst society. However, he is a minister of parliament and holds quite a powerful position but he is still labeled as a "Wild Maori" or as mainstream media purports to be an example of "Them" - those who do not conform to what is considered appropriate behaviour.

Waitangi celebrations have been a popular ground for protestors. "Us" or "Tame Maori" seen as conforming to celebrations of the treaty while "Them" "Wild Maori" seen as disrupting the occasion by demanding that the treaty should not be celebrated.

These wild Maori are what media label as trouble makers and find them to be newsworthy. John Fiske brings an excellent theory to the table to explain what is considered news worthy. A state of equilibrium is or social harmony that is usually disrupted by a villain...example, Hone. Newsworthy events are those that disrupt or restore equilibrium, for example, Hone protests against injustices of the treaty which causes a disruption to the equilibrium known as disequilibrium - Police then arrest him and therefore restore the equilibrium. This from a pakeha narritive.

Ian Stuart discusses differences between Maori and Pakeha narratives - from a protestors point of view, Maori would see the equalibrium being restored by acknowledgement and settlement of treaty injustices a recent example government introduced legislation to negate Maori rights of entitlement to foreshore causing a disruption. Maori party repeal the legislation by restoring the equilibrium. (Although many Maori could argue that the repeal enforces the initial disruption)

A "Tame Maori" like Jerry Matepaere or poi swinging kapa haka performers are seen as boring and not disrupting the equilibrium, therefore are not considered newsworthy from a Pakeha narrative and not reported on.

So how do we change what the hegemonic of society construe to be a "Wild Maori?" Simple, by media displaying more in the way of positive recognition of Maori initiatives! Also, educating our up and coming generations on the misinterpretations of The Treaty of Waitangi. My son is in his last year of college and was under the impression until recent that there was only one version of Te Tiriti. What does this say for our education system? It could certainly be argued that education and media intertwine. Mainstream schools continue to enforce and teach misinformed or one sided arguments to the Treaty while Media enforce these arguments by portraying the issues of the treaty in a negative frame, therefore allowing our future generations to believe what they are being taught in school to be true.

Is there a way a Maori can disrupt the equilibrium but stay what media would consider to be a "Tame Maori?" From a Maori narrative definitely but from a pakeha narrative, most unlikely.

Will changes to the education system like allowing a Maori perspective of history be helpful to overcome such stereotypes of a "Wild Maori" My answer...A change in how we teach our children about Maori history will make a phenomenal difference. They are the future and how they are taught from a young age will help them understand why Maori fight for certain changes.

Do you think education changes will help? Do you see Fiske and Stuarts theories on whats newsworthy to be true? Can you think of other means of changing the hegemonic societies perceptions of Maori? - He aha to koutou whakaaro?

BLAST FROM THE PAST

He Taua - The Haka Party

Recently while doing an essay for sociology I did an array of research on Maori gangs and the sociological theories on why they emerged. It's interesting to see that 30 years ago, the media still interpret news to what the hegemonic of society deem as newsworthy. Its also interesting to see that 30 years on, this has not changed.

I'm guessing many of you have been told the story on The Haka Party? An incident where a group of engineering students devised a yearly event in which they dressed up in Maori attire and pranced around while making a mockery of the haka.

Ranginui Walker wrote a book that has newspaper clippings from those dates in question. He remembers the chant that the engineering students cheered as they celebrated:

Ka Mate! Ka Mate!

Hori! Hori!

I got the pox from

Hori! Hori!

In addition to this obscene performance Walker reports that their bodies were painted with obscene sexist slogans and caricatures of penis and testicles - Some of the obscenities included:

Root more! Drink More!

I fu@k chooks!

I am a cu@t watcher!

Absolutely disgusting if you ask me!! Anyway, to cut a long story short, a group of young Maori and Pacific Islanders took a stand for the respect that the Maori Haka deserved and took the law into their own hands by physically dealing with the engineering students that later cost them periodic detention.

My anguish is over the media that reported on this event - Headlines in the Star (1/5/79) stated: Gang Rampage at Varsity - it later went on to describe how the students were bashed during a haka practise for capping week.

Another report by the NZ herald (2/5/1979) features - Attack on Students Condemned which also goes on to state that the haka performed by these students made Maori uneasy. (making out it was a normal haka)

Both of these newspaper articles neglect to report on why it made Maori uneasy. They neglected to tell the public how disgraceful they were acting and how they were disrespecting the culture as a whole by vast displays of sexual connotations that had nothing to do with the haka itself let alone the culture.

A similar case of recent was the news with regards to protesting within Auckland University - Although facts differ quite significantly, the fact remains is that media focused on the person who was arrested and made a point in saying that he was not a student. In effect, this took the main focus of radicalism off the students and blame was then placed on those who were not students here.

Both of these cases tell me that media are willing to push the blame of any form of radicalism, racism or violence onto those other than university students. After all, they can't portray Auckland University Students in a negative frame as it is their parents who are the mainstream of society.

This only proves that hegemony plays a very important role in how the media portray their views to the public. For example, the Maori and Pacific Islanders involved in the incident were not a gang as we see gangs today. They were apart of a radical movement which emerged out of sociological disparities and retaliation against a crook government who blatantly ignored Te Tiriti O Waitangi. Media are the ones who labelled them a "Gang" and did this to exaggerate a story in order for public to have condemning thoughts, but also to create a sense of fear when there actually wasn't one. This was also another way for them to display the "wild Maori!"

Although I do not condone to violence and the other side of this story is that race relations was about to intervene before this came to a crashing holt, it is in my opinion that the engineering students got off lightly. How I wish I was a university student of the 70's!!

The Haka Party story is still told today and is used as case law for first year law students. Truly a story that could be told for generations to come!

Isn't it funny that 30 years down the track that this image of Maori has not changed? What would you have done if you were a student here in the 70's?

ARE FILMS DANGEROUS?

Leonie Pihama asks a very relevant question: Are films dangerous?

In a recent lecture we were shown trailers of two famous New Zealand Films which answered this question. One was Whale Rider directed by Niki Caro and the second was The Piano directed by Jane Campion. Both films made headlines both nationally and internationally and were either known for being nominated or winning many prestigious awards. Besides the commonality of both films displaying Maori characters, the other feature that they have in common is that they were both directed by Pakeha females.

Is this really relevant you may ask??

I actually didn't realise how relevant this particular fact was until I watched the trailers and noticed issues that I previously had disregarded. For example, the feministic views that Whale Rider has towards Maori culture without explicitly saying it in the movie. The most memorable part in the movie I can refer to is where Paikea Is told by her grandfather that she is to sit at the back of the men while speeches are being performed. Yes, I didn't notice that previously due to it being a well respected practice on all Marae, however, looking closely at the demographics that this movie would have been displayed to, I am beginning to rethink what others may have thought of Whale Rider the movie.

I asked a non-Maori friend of mine to tell me what she thought of the movie, besides the cultural and spiritual aspect of the film she copiously rattled on about a number of scenes in which she thought could be argued from a feminist point of view. (her sociological side prevailing)

It seriously made me wonder and begin to think that Leonie is indeed correct! Not only do these types of films promote Maori culture in a sense, they can also be the ruination of it by a story being told by a pakeha perspective as in this case of the Whale Rider.

The second film shown to us was that of the Piano, where Leonie describes the portrayal of Maori in the film as: "happy go lucky, native, simple minded, barbarians who only spoke in terms of sexual innuendo."

Wow, I had simply not seen this movie like that before. I use to think how awesome it was for Maori to be displayed in a top featured film without thinking of the actual consequences of how this may wrongly display our culture.

Leonie describes this as a series of constructions of Maori people which are located firmly in a "colonial gaze." She answers her question by stating, that yes, this is dangerous. Dangerous in the fact that the portrayal of Maori people is continuously paraded as "the way we were"

I too would see this as dangerous as obviously our culture has evolved since colonisation and we are no longer seen as primitive barbarians as the Piano shows. Also, the feministic views of the Whale Rider. Within Maori culture our female are held in high regard, although most Marae would prefer women not to speak, it is simply because both male and female have their particular roles in which my grandmother has always taught me, the women actually run the Marae (but don't tell the males that) My concern really is that this form of media distorts the true conception behind Maori culture.

Knowing that these films are watched internationally, how might another audience react to such displays of Maori culture? Are films including indigenous people in fact dangerous? Also, how might we be able to deconstruct the "colonial gaze?"