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?"

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.