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?"

THE EVOLUTION OF MUSIC

Recently I came across some interesting music clips that show the evolution of NZ music.

During the past from the 60's through to the 80's we see attitudes towards Maori culture evolve.

Under the banner of 'Time, continuity and change' the influence of past events could be used to explore the evolution of music and its significance to New Zealand and New Zealanders.

Music is a type of media that plays a huge role in how public perceive a certain situation. I will argue that music is in a way a form of hegemonic media that conforms to what the mass population would like to hear and what they think is correct at that time.

For example:

Puha and Pakeha - Rod Derret

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CltZG7Cw0eo

The song was a light-hearted tale of Pāhekā in early New Zealand being eaten by Māori, and included the following lyrics:

I don’t give a hangi for the Treaty of Waitangi,

You can’t get fat on that

Give me some Puha and Pākehā.

You take a little umu and you get it very hot,

You catch a little Pākehā and put him in a pot,

Cook him all up in your old home brew,

And what have you got? Kiwi Stew.

Lyrics like these would not be considered politically correct today so what does that tell you about the attitudes of those in the 60's? This song portrays Maori as the savage cannibal which has passed on through time. My grandmother remembers the consequences of this song as negative towards Maori and their culture.

This song is an example of hegemonic media aimed at portraying Maori in a way that is agreed upon by the mass population who was not Maori.

Tim Finn however has a different view of Maori which he portrays in his lyrics of Parihaka.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4PvN7Zb4-w (performed by Herbs)

My friend, My friend, I hate to see you suffer,

Events conspire to bring us to our knees,

My friend, my friend, you've taken this the wrong way,

Rise up, defend yourself, never give in,

Look to the sky, the spirit of Te Whiti,

The endless tide is murmuring his name.

I know Te Whiti will never be defeated,

And even at the darkest hour,

His presence will remain.

I'll sing to you the song of Parihaka.

I can see the first verse of this song suggesting that the author (Tim Finn) felt a closeness with Te Whiti and Tohu and the devastation that their tribe had to endure. It becomes obvious that at this time there is pakeha recognition to the devastation that Maori had to overcome. Could this have changed the attitudes of many during this period towards Maori?

During the 70's and 80's a huge radical movement was taking place with regards to land ownership. This song is an example of how attitudes changed towards Maori as more pakeha were being educated in the mass murders of Parihaka. Yet another example of how hegemonic media have displayed lyrics to conform to the current situation.

Six months in a leaky boat -Split Enz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar7DgREshAk&feature=related

Aotearoa, rugged individual

Glisten like a pearl

At the bottom of the world

The tyranny of distance

Didn't stop the cavalier

So why should it stop me

I'll conquer and stay free

Ah c'mon all you lads

Let's forget and forgive

There's a world to explore

Tales to tell back on shore

I just spent six months in a leaky boat

Six months in a leaky boat

Their lyrics include the Maori word for NZ which I see as an endorsement of "Te Reo" Even if it is not pronounced correctly (laugh) it was an awesome effort. This song became a hit, not only nationally but internationally. What a great way to promote and acknowledge our country. This is a song that every Kiwi knows. I think is mostly metaphoric, a pre colonial adventure talking about the love of the sea and travelling to Aotearoa with the need to put our differences behind us.

During the 70's and 80's was also the time in where Maori language was being challenged to be recognised. The lyrics of this song exemplifies the use of Te Reo in a positive way, therefore considered hegemonic in the sense that Maori language is now acceptable so therefore we can display this in our lyrics.

These 3 examples show the change of attitudes towards Maori over 3 decades. Music media plays a huge impact on attitudes of the population towards certain situations, for example, lyrics including the mutilation of pakeha through cannibalism would not be approved today, however back in the 60's this was seen as acceptable which shows the evolution in our society today towards Maori. Music is indeed a form of hegemonic media that conforms to what the mass population would like to hear and what they think is correct at that time.

Do you agree? Or do you have any other examples to share?

Where does the racism truly lie? Concerning: ‘Call to sack academic over ‘racism’

It is still astounding how ignorant and one-sided mainstream news stories continue to be. Over time I feel New Zealand; Maori and non-Maori should develop and change in understanding of the past, present and future. ‘Call to sack academic over ‘racism’’ article yet again reinforces how New Zealand’s dominant culture remains entrenched with underlying racism.

The vast majority remains ignorant to the colonization, suppression and marginalization that was imposed upon Te iwi Maori. History concerning the Treaty, Te Reo, and land confiscations is prime example of blatant acts from Pakeha immigrants towards Maori. The imperative for New Zealand to fully recognize and comprehend these huge happenings in history is essential in understanding the complexities of the Maori culture and people of today. It is inevitable that there will be negative repercussions in our Maori people if we were stripped of who we were and continue to be disadvantaged today.

What continues to sadden me is the strong dominant culture in our country that sees no shift in opinion or action towards Maori, particularly in mainstream media.

Professor Margret Mutu, a wahine toa, educated in both Te Ao Maori and Te Pakeha, a huge rangatira for our Maori people. The article deeming that she is a “racist” yet again reinforces Maori in a negative way. She is a prominent, proud woman who has gained her tickets in the Pakeha education system yet she is stripped of these accomplishments through her portrayal in the media.

“…they will be having another look at her position and harm she is bringing to Auckland University…” –David Rankin

As a student of the University of Auckland and a student of Margret Mutu, I feel this comment is appalling. She educates and teaches Maori tikanga, Maori perspective, Maori language and Maori culture, something that is severely threated today and she supposedly brings harm? Of the little Maori who are in the education field she is the one who brings harm? Not the Maori Native Schools Act that sought to destroy the Maori Language, but an individual who lectures and educates the minority of people who choose to participate and take part in her Maori papers. Mutu merely states, “How it is” not fabricating or down playing what has happened, or what is happening, and she is labeled as a racist, not a activist or freedom fighter, or even someone that speaks of things in a candid manner, but a racist.

It is also interesting that the Herald has published David Rankin’s comments as Mutu’s comments have “caused offence to hundreds of thousands of New Zealander’s” yet the Herald chose to talk to a Maori. Why? Is it because a Maori goes against what another Maori says?

Does the media want to stir tension within our own people? It seems as if the media is creating us vs. them within our own culture, consequent portraying our people in a derogatory way. The news story is framed to severely undermine and take away what Margret Mutu has said positioning someone of her own heritage going against her. “If one Maori thinks she’s racist, it must be true because its coming from her own kind” is the attitude I’m gathering from story.

All in all, the media is fueling ignorance and close-mindedness within New Zealand. How are Maori supposed to revitalize their culture if the little resources and educators we do have are being threatened? Have they targeted Mutu because she is a threat to the Pakeha system? Does the system want to continue to keep Maori at the bottom of the heap? Whatever the reason is, mainstream media continues to do an amazing job at feeding uneducated stories to society.

Professor Mutu is most definitely NOT racist

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/academic-s-racist-comments-anger-iwi-leader-4383763/video

Interesting link right ? It amazes me that because a coment like this was said by profeesor Mutu she is automatically looked at sideways by all. I do realise that the results of this comment is only going to get worse. what i am more interested in, in regards to this "comment" is who was present when Mutu said this? Where was she ? What else was discussed in that meeting, forum etc. These are the vital parts the media have left out. Putting things into perspective helps people who only bother to read parts of information as opposed to being fully informed and aware of a range of opinions, issues and/or movements.

Another point for thought, would an academic like margaret Mutu make a comment so carelessly or so rudely? She is a woman who says things for a purpose. To insipre, encourage and create change. a change that at face value would look one-sided; but once Maori people have achieved their rights promised to them in the treaty, then Maori protest will stop and we will be a country moving forward as one.

Last point, if there is such a great need for overseas workers, why doesn't New Zealand put more funding together to get more New Zealanders trained or upskilled so as to fill this DESPERATE NEED for immigrant workers. rather than spending more money to head overseas to ask other people to move here and then letting them work.

New Zealanders can leigitmately worry about job losses when they know that finding a job at this time is hard let alone watching immigrants walk in and steal jobs.

Just something i thought was interesting and something to ponder on.

He aha ou koutou whakaaro?

A tribute beyond measures!

The recent passing of Sir Paul Reeves stirred the whole nation, both Maori and Pakeha into national mourning. His contribution to the country has been beyond the capability of any person these days, being the Maori Govennor General of New Zealand, and the Archbishop of Aotearoa, plus many other positions. The tangihanga at the Holy Sepulcre and his funeral at the Cathedral drew many local and international media interest wanting rights to covering the funeral of this great figure of New Zealand. However it was Maori Television who provided the country with front seats to the state funeral of this great man. Covering funeral services is nothing new to Maori Television.

2006 the passing of Te Arikinui Te Atairangikaahu was the very first for Maori Television to broadcast live from Turangawaewae Marae. Scenes that are very clear to my mind are the multitudes of people standing on the banks of the Waikato River watching their queen being guided on the river by Waka Taua leading her to her final resting place on Taupiri Mountain. Barely a month later saw our relations from Tonga mourning of HM Taufa ahau Tupou IV who passed away here in Auckland and returned to Nuku Alofa to be mourned by his subjects. Again Maori Television had the priviledge to broadcast live, giving the opportunity for our Tongan relations who were not able to return for the funeral to watch from their homes.This also gave Maori and New Zealanders an insight in Tongan traditions and protocol. The year later, It was thought that all of the islands of the Pacific were in sorrow, as it was now Samoa who was mourning the passing of their head of state, Malietoa Tanumafili. Maori Television had the honour of broadcasting the funeral of this monarch of the Pacific. In 2009 Maori entertaner, Sir Howard Morrisons tangihanga at Tamatekapua, Rotorua drew many Iwi on to Rotorua to pay tribute to this rangatira. Maori Television again gave the country the opportunity to feel the atmosphere from the comfort of their homes by providing households with live coverage. From 2006 to present, Maori Television has provided the nation this resource, enabling those who werent physically present the chance to be part of these momentus occasions, giving everyone the opportunity to grieve with those who mourn. When the pain heals, family can reflect on these funeral services as being shared with everyone, knowing that the pain they are feeling, is heard by all. Maori television has gone outside the boundaries to provide this resource, something that Mainstream media has yet to consider. This is truly a fitting tribute beyond measures.

Waka Huia; A new direction. Is this the right direction?

Every Sunday after church, we would come home to catch the weekly dash of Waka Huia, which was a ritual. Being bought up heavily influenced by my maternal grandparents, I was priveledged to be explained what was being mentioned or discussed on Waka Huia. The most grasping aspect in regards to the show and in Te Ao Maori in general is that Maori Kaumatua never ever tell a story in great detail, which leaves the audiences wanting more. This was evident in all Waka Huia programs.

First aired on New Zealand telelvision in 1987, Waka Huia was born under the guidance of the late Ernie Leonard and Whai Ngata who after the great Te Maori exhibition of the early 1980’s felt that there was a need to set up a resource in which would firstly collate korero tukuiho (ancestral knowledge) from Kaumatua around the Motu, and secondly viewing these taonga on air for the country to appreciate.

From 1987 to 2010, Waka Huia collated 800 hours of 1 hour advertisement free episodes captured for ever, showing visual interviews of many kuia, koroua who have passed on. This resource will be here for future generations and for Iwi to utilise in the many years to come.

It saddened me to here that Waka Huia had been shortened from an hour to ½ hour episode which makes me wonder, does this mean that the whole focus of what Waka Huia was established has changed? The main objective that made Waka Huia unique was that, the kuia and koroua determined how the show would role. Now that there is a time constraint, does this mean that the information which is given by Iwi is now restricted? Is this the direction where tikanga Maori is overridden by convenience? Thoughts???

“Maori” an advertisers dream

Currently there are a few debates around Maori culture being used as an advertising tool. As Curtis stated below there are the Americans claiming a beer named: Maori King, (even though they have no knowledge that there was even a Maori King to start with). And the English with their new Nike “Maori-style” t-shirts that depict a Maori style rose on the front. Is this somehow ironic because the crown (English) are the opposition to Maori claims, with the crown imposing their culture upon Maori but now they want to claim Maori designs for commercial gain.

It amazes me that these products even made it to the shelves without some sort of consultation. Did the makers even bother to consider the implications and consequences that they may hold towards the culture they are “ripping off”. The fact that these products are gaining opposition is probably because; NO, they have not taken into account how this could affect others.

Willie Jackson and Tuku Morgan felt very strongly against these products. Morgan felt, “deeply offended and wanted to talk to the makers”. While Jackson, stated, “I’m bewildered by how cocky these people are, how arrogant.” Showing that yes, indeed it has sparked debate from our corner of the world. Jackson also made a point that, “They think they can do anything because what are those little Maori going to do? And there is not much Maori can do.” However, this does not excuse other countries to use Maori culture as they please.

It disheartens me to think that through mainstream media Maori are either seen in a negative way or as being used as advertising in other countries. Again as I stated before this links to the hegemonic model of mainstream media and how the views of the masses seem to be the ones that are shown in the media. Nevertheless, this does not make “ripping off” a culture all right. I am sure Maori are not the only indigenous people to experience this type of advertising but where does the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples stand? Do they not have a right to say how their culture is used?

I think that if people would like to use an aspect of culture for advertising purposes they need to go about it in the right way. Maybe through consulting elders, or getting input from that particular culture, just to make sure that it is in no way offensive or degrading to that culture. If done correctly the use of different cultures could potentially have a positive effect, because this could get the culture known all around the world as well as symbolise an acceptance of that culture. But only if the advertising has been done correctly and there are no negative implications whatsoever.

Therefore, I am all for Maori culture being used as long as it is done in a respectful way: how this is achieved, I do not know but could probably identify it when I saw it. However, the two examples of product have been done in the wrong way and can be seen as offensive only because it is in the wrong context. The Nike one because it is England claiming an advertising scheme using a culture they have shunned for many years. The American one because they had no idea of the culture and that there actually is a king. So if aspects of culture are going to be used it needs to be done in the correct way.