Zero Māoriness, Pākehāness in question

Barry Soper has raised issues over what ethnicity and culture one might identify with.

My Māoriness is close to zero, but my Pākehāness is also in question.

I decided some time ago that I didn’t mind being referred to as Pākehā – see The soft and loud of “Pākehā” – but I don’t identify as ethnically or culturally Pākehā.

So what am I? My Europeanness feels pretty much zero – I visited a few countries in mainland Europe, once, but have never been to the UK.

I live in Dunedin but my Dunedinness is by location of home rather than a feeling of belonging. I have lived here for about half my life, but that is on five different occasions (I’ve moved around quite a bit),  but when I was a child Dunedin was a remote, unusual place, rarely visited.

The closest I am to Scottishness, supposed to be a thing in Dunedin, is I have three grandchildren who are half Scottish, sort of – they have visited Scotland once or twice.

I don’t feel particularly Lowburnish, the place where I grew up until I left for the big smoke when I got my first career job (that lasted a year). I returned to live there thrice more at different times, but Lowburn doesn’t seen very Lowburnish now, since heavy machinery demolished and remodelled it, and it was then split in two by a lake. It is nothing like it was.

Perhaps Otagoness is my thing, having lived here nearly all my life, apart from a few years in Auckland in the seventies before I packed my life into a van and drove south again. But it’s difficult to identity what Otagoness means.

My father was born in Dunedin but moved to Central Otago when he was very young, living inland (in four locations) for the rest of his life, apart from a tour of the world with the NZ Army in WW2. My mother was also born in Otago, living in four places also, but also living in three parts of Southland.

I may feel some southernness, whatever that may be.

But further back it gets tricky. One grandfather was born Invercargill and lived also in Bluff, Port Chalmers, went to Europe for WW1 and remained for upskilling afterwards for a while, then  Dunedin and Clyde before going to Christchurch to work for the Army in WW2, where he died. But my other three grandparents were born and grew up on the other side of the world. In New Zealand they all lived in various places, mostly in southern New Zealand.

I’m just 1/8 Kiwi if I go back to my great grandparents, so can I claim any Kiwiness?

New Zealandness or Aotearoaness are stretches given that Christchurch seems like quite a different place to me, let alone the other islands south, east and north.

Maybe Earthness is my thing, I do feel some affinity with the planet I and my ancestors have lived on all our lives.

 

75 Comments

  1. Pickled Possum

     /  March 1, 2018

    Dear Pete
    You are a child of the universe
    no less than the trees and the stars;
    you have a right to be here.
    And whether or not it is clear to you,
    no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
    A worldly earth citizen to be sure.
    Go in peace grass hoppa. 😉

  2. Ray

     /  March 1, 2018

    “Pakeha” is a bit tricky and it’s origin can develop into the sort of angels dancing on pin head logic that surround the word “nigger”.
    It can be taken as to be a stranger or non Māori.
    I prefer New Zealander, we have been here since 1796, all my great grand fathers were born here and so it goes.
    Our male line and family name came out Portugal but a DNA test only gave 6% to that source, all those Scottish great grannies have diluted that.
    So NZer will do me, a South Islander astride the 45°S .

  3. robertguyton

     /  March 1, 2018

    Pete, you’re a mess.

  4. PartisanZ

     /  March 1, 2018

    What do folks on here think are some traits of feeling “ethnically or culturally Pākehā”?

    Pete your korero goes straight to the heart of the ongoing search for Pakeha indigeneity which is ‘addressed’ – one way or another – by such things as Don Brash’s Orewa speech (an extreme example) and Ani Mikaere’s 2004 Bruce Jesson Memorial Lecture ‘Are we all New Zealanders now?’

    Pakeha have largely defined the word, which I understand originally meant “stranger”?

    Now its come to mean “a white New Zealander” as opposed to a Maori – belonging to a hapu iwi – or indigenous New Zealander.

    There is a huge amount goes into a person’s feeling of ‘belonging’ or ‘sense of place’, regardless of their ethnicity … and influenced by and including their ethnicity …

    Ani Mikaere frequently refers to Pakeha as manuhiri: Visitors, if you like, who have been welcomed onto the marae and ‘treated with’. Who willingly engaged in a Treaty.

    Hence an oft forgotten (or disregarded) element of Pakehaness is Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

    In my mihi nowadays I refer to myself as Ngati Pakeha o te Tiriti.

    • PDB

       /  March 1, 2018

      PZ: “nowadays I refer to myself as Ngati Pakeha o te Tiriti.”

      Ngati professor might be more apt?

    • Trevors_elbow

       /  March 1, 2018

      I am not a stranger in this land. End of. Pakeha is a derogatory word in NZ…. just listen to Hone spit it out… in just the same tone I have heard it spat out in day to day life.

      New Zealander works just fine

      • Gezza

         /  March 1, 2018

        Yes but what’s your ethnicity? Is it Maori?

  5. Griff

     /  March 1, 2018

    Historian Judith Binney called herself a Pākehā and said, “I think it is the most simple and practical term. It is a name given to us by Māori. It has no pejorative associations like people think it does

    I find the term offensive.
    We are all New Zealanders.
    If you call me Pakeha it is no different than me calling Maori Hori.

    • PartisanZ

       /  March 1, 2018

      Suggested reading Griff –

      http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/iwi-am04.pdf

      • PartisanZ

         /  March 1, 2018

        “If Pakeha are to be indigenous they are cut off from their history as the descendants and inheritors of the privileges of the colonisers of Aotearoa.

        This history is discarded as Pakeha are ‘born’ post-colonisation out of the New Zealand soil.

        Such a move represents a desire to be ‘born again’ New Zealanders, disowning their parents and imagining themselves adopted . . . ”

        Bell, Avril “We’re Just New Zealanders: Pakeha Identity Politics” quoted in above …

        • Griff

           /  March 1, 2018

          Identity politics .
          I don’t give s toss if you can trace your ancestry back to the first canoe
          it doesn’t define who you are just as if i can trace my ancestry back to the dooms day book in 1085 does not define who I am.
          What does count is your actions.
          Yours seem to want to reinforce a very narrow view of who can claim to belong here
          I have no choice being a New Zealander is all I know.
          This is about the fact that the new leader of the national party has some Maori blood
          I don’t care it has no relevance to how I vote. As far as I am concerned Peters, Bridges and Bennett are all New Zealanders .

          By the way Aotearoa.is not a Maori term for New Zealand.
          They did not have one the concept of aotearoa is a colonial idea.
          These islands were made up of separate tribes not a cohesive group called “Maori”.

          • Gezza

             /  March 1, 2018

            I don’t give s toss if you can trace your ancestry back to the first canoe
            it doesn’t define who you are

            It does precisely that. And that, in Maori culture, that is the most important thing about who you are. You have zero understanding of whakapapa & its significance.

            • Griff

               /  March 1, 2018

              What does count is your actions……
              What counts on a marae is not what counts to the rest of us.

              FWIW
              The name I use on the internet has meaning and history behind it going back well before Polynesians arrived here around 1250 to 1300CE.
              It is taken in memorial of Gruffudd ap Llywelyn Born: ca. 1010 died 1063.
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Wales

            • Gezza

               /  March 1, 2018

              Well you don’t speak for all the rest of us, & whakapa doesn’t just count on a marae. My own paternal name clan history is more important to my tuakana than me. What counts for you is your own actions, your Western Pakeha culture & putting down people of Maori descent Maori who identfy with their lineage & theirs. It comes through all the time in your posts on things Maori. That you don’t acknowledge that doesn’t change it.

              But I don’t have a problem with these matters. I’m quite happy being a Pakeha living in a predominantly westernised society culture and acknowledging there’s also a co-existent indigenous Maori culture with a different way of looking at things.

    • Pickled Possum

       /  March 1, 2018

      Why would you call me George … Griff

      or do you mean the Hori that some people use in a derogatory way?
      from wiki
      As with the equivalent term “nigger” in the United States, the term has to some extent been “reclaimed” within the community which it was originally intended to insult, especially in street slang. It is often meant as a term of endearment amongst Māori or as a signifier of “keeping it real”.[1] An example is the musical group AHoriBuzz, the frontman of which describes the term as embracing Māori humour.

      Sup my Hori?

      • Griff

         /  March 1, 2018

        Little wonder, perhaps, that Päkehä seem to suffer
        from a deep-rooted sense of insecurity about their identity. From a M
        äori perspective, there is almost an element of desperation in this quest f
        or indigeneity, calling to mind John Mulgan’s description of Päkehä as being “
        a queer, lost, eccentric, pervading people looking for satisfaction”.6
        This insecurity has some curious manifestations, among them
        defensiveness, bordering on hostilit

        I have no insecurity about being a New Zealander.
        To think we do is racist
        Ascribing a trait based on race alone.
        racist
        1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
        2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

        My New Zealand culture is very different to that of my relatives from England or wales.
        I have an immense attachment to this land it is unseparable from who I am.
        I often find that Maori are totally ignorant about their own history.
        One Ngāpuhi guest of ours recently ask were the Marae for the local tribe was when I showed her our fenced off archaeological sites.
        No Maori from the original tribe around here they were totally wiped out in a raid by Ngāpuhi in 1826 as were most coastal tribes south of the BOI down to coromandel.

        • Trevors_elbow

           /  March 1, 2018

          Well said Griff… well said

        • Gerrit

           /  March 1, 2018

          Yep, well said from me as well. I take great pride in referring to myself as Tauiwi. I am extreme grateful for the opportunity to make New Zealand my home.

          My children, grand children and great grand children are Tangata Whenua , people of the land.

          Their ancestry is not lost to then however, they can trace their whakapapa back 12 generations on my mothers side and 7 on my fathers.

          They are not lost souls. They have a unique blend of whakapapa like all other tangata whenua.

          • Pickled Possum

             /  March 1, 2018

            Morena Gerrit,
            I call some of my non-Maori friends tauiwi because they are offended by the word Pakeha. Because so many Pakeha think it’s derogatory I try to say non-Maori which encompasses the rest of humanity to me.
            People who say we Maori are stone age creatures with stone age language admire those others in the world who can speak 3-5 languages from way back … almost to the stone age.

            So why is there so much division in our land with non-Maori
            I think my self they are scared they are going to be isolated in their land their home their turangawaewae … which is NOT the outcome most Maori want for them,
            in fact we would all like to be recognised as Maori natives of NZ and then get on with our own lives.

    • Gezza

       /  March 1, 2018

      Dunno why you find it offensive. If you’re not Maori & you look like, & identify with, non-Maori European ancestors, you’re Pakeha. Doesn’t mean you’re not a New Zealander. Maori are New Zealanders too. Unless they renounce their NZ citizenship. You’re just another Maori-basher, really.

      • Trevors_elbow

         /  March 1, 2018

        Oh dear. Not addressing the issue attacking the messenger….. Gruff gets to define himself. Not YNZs self appointed arbiter of all things

        Maori can call non Maori “Pakeha” if they want. Doesnt mean non Moari have to accept that designation or its negative connotations…. we define ourselves

        • Gezza

           /  March 1, 2018

          Well of course we degine ourselves but there are heaps of ways we get defined by others. Nobody gets their knickers in a twist over them. You just redefined Griff as Gruff, who is a billy-goat.

          If people think it has negative connotations that’s a matter of long-time debate. Personally, I think it’s just an invention by white people looking for an excuse to be offended.

          I’m hardly YNZ’s arbiter of all things Trev. Most people who bother to comment on anything here come across that way. Don’t be such a snowflake.

          • Trevors_elbow

             /  March 1, 2018

            Oh look messenger attack again… surprise suprise…..and lots of claims like nobody gets offended…. yip usual Gez on this topic…

            • Gezza

               /  March 1, 2018

              Oh dear. Who’s being a bit over-sensitive this morning? Snowflake is just the latest catch-all term of endearment for anyone who has a whinge.

          • Trevors_elbow

             /  March 1, 2018

            Please lend me your trout wriggling on a line gif Gezza…. its quite appropriate for you this am

            • Gezza

               /  March 1, 2018

              One has to introduce a bit of levity into these debates Trev. It gets uncomfortable picturing so many of these folk grimacing in their contorted undies.

      • Griff

         /  March 1, 2018

        If you’re not Maori & you look like, & identify with, non-Maori European ancestors

        I are as brown or browner than many Maori. My mother was often misidentified as Maori as she also shared my easily tanned skin. there are no pure Maori has not been for almost a century so saying Maori look like x is ignoring the fact that Maori can look more European than a European.
        I don’t identify with my English or Welsh relatives. My New Zealand culture is totally different .You are claiming we are not New Zealanders with our own unique culture and can never be.

        Pakeha is an insult.
        Why do you insist on using a term for us that is insulting to many ?

        • Gezza

           /  March 1, 2018

          Well I sometimes get mistaken for Maori too, from easily tanned skin I get from my dad Mick, who his old man called Rangi. It’s never bothered me. Being a pakeha doesn’t bother me. I don’t consider it an insulting term. This is my country. I’m as connected to it after four generations of ancestors as anyone can be. So I don’t feel any less that it’s mine than it is anyone’s who’s Maori either. Those Maori who say I’m a visitor or that our First Peoples have a stronger connection cut no ice with me.

          But those who go on to denigrate citizens of Maori descent, or their tikanga, or their language, or the wish of those of mixed descent to identify more strongly with their Maori ancestry, cut no ice with me either. They’re mostly those who are casual or overt racists, who believe their definition of Pakeha culture is superior & that Maori culture is inferior, but who don’t perceive themselves as being racist because they don’t see any other viewpoint.

          • Pickled Possum

             /  March 1, 2018

            Sup my bro!? korero pono
            from Horietta. 😉 😎

          • Zedd

             /  March 1, 2018

            @gezza

            you sound like you are; ‘Kiwi-Iwi’ 🙂

        • PartisanZ

           /  March 1, 2018

          @Griff – “Pakeha is an insult. Why do you insist on using a term for us that is insulting to many ?”

          I reckon you are interpreting the word “Pakeha” rather like many Pakeha choose to interpret the words in Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

          Many Maori find “ceded sovereignty” to be offensive. Since there is no Maori word for sovereignty the concept of cession of it cannot appear in Te Tiriti nor be understood to have appeared in it.

          I don’t believe anyone is claiming you are not a New Zealander. Nor am I or anyone else (IMHO) challenging your personal ‘sense of belonging’ …

          But you and I have permission to be New Zealanders because of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, simple as that.

          • Griff

             /  March 1, 2018

            Many Maori find “ceded sovereignty” to be offensive. Since there is no Maori word for sovereignty the concept of cession of it cannot appear in Te Tiriti nor be understood to have appeared in it.

            Oh dear.
            What you just claimed is the treaty is legally null and void under international law..

            Maori had been to England and had an idea about what a king was.
            Paramount chief of all the English and they were acknowledging that on signing the king was now the Paramount chief for all in NZ.
            You are trying to claim that this is not so.
            The principles of the treaty as found under our laws say the crown has the ultimate authority….That is the crown has sovereignty .
            Or are you against the principles of the treaty as recognized ?

            https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/WT-Principles-of-the-Treaty-of-Waitangi-as-expressed-by-the-Courts-and-the-Waitangi-Tribunal.pdf
            It was a basic object of the Treaty that two people would live in
            one country. That in our view is also a principle fundamental
            to our perception of the Treatys terms. The Treaty extinguished
            Mäori sovereignty and established that of the Crown. In so doing
            it substituted a charter, or a covenant in Mäori eyes, based upon
            their pledges to one another. It is this that lays the foundation
            for the concept of a partnership.

            • PartisanZ

               /  March 1, 2018

              Although it only relates to ” … the Bay of Islands and Hokianga. These are the districts where te Tiriti was signed in February 1840. (Specifically, the signings took place at Waitangi on 6 February, Waimate on 10 February, and Mangungu in the Hokianga on 12 February.), there is this –

              ‘Waitangi Tribunal finds Treaty of Waitangi signatories did not cede sovereignty in February 1840’ – Maori Law Review, November 2014

              http://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/

              https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/inquiries/district-inquiries/te-paparahi-o-te-raki-northland/

              forget your “Oh dear … ”

              “The word ‘sovereignty’ had no direct translation in Māori. Chiefs had authority over their own areas, but there was no central ruler over the country. The translators of the English text used the Māori word ‘kawanatanga’, a transliteration of the word ‘governance’, which was in current use. Māori knew this word from the Bible and from the ‘kawana’ or governor of New South Wales.

              Māori believe that they kept their authority to manage their own affairs and ceded a right of governance to the Queen in return for the promise of protection.”

              https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/differences-between-the-texts

            • Griff

               /  March 1, 2018

              Your post on a Maori website is not authoritative.
              it is also wrong.
              I just linked to the principles of the treaty @ waitangitribunal.govt.nz
              it is a problem when we have a small minority of Maori pushing unrealistic exceptions and misinformation on Maori that makes them think NZ and the treaty means something it does not.

              ceded a right of governance to the Queen

              sovereignty

              ˈsɒvrɪnti/
              noun
              noun: sovereignty

              supreme power or authority.
              “the sovereignty of Parliament”
              synonyms: jurisdiction, supremacy, dominion, power, ascendancy, suzerainty, tyranny, hegemony, domination, sway, predominance, authority, control, influence, rule; More
              raj;
              archaicregiment
              “the government renewed its claim to sovereignty over the islands”
              antonyms: subservience, subjection
              the authority of a state to govern itself or another state.
              “national sovereignty”
              synonyms: autonomy, independence, self-government, self-rule, home rule, self-legislation, self-determination, non-alignment, freedom
              “full West German sovereignty was achieved in 1955”
              antonyms: hegemony, colonialism
              a self-governing state.
              plural noun: sovereignties

              Maori ceeded sovereignty to the crown when they signed the treaty in 1940.
              The queen became the paramount chief over All NZ .
              The ultimate authority in NZ lies with the crown .The crown is sovereign in NZ.

            • PartisanZ

               /  March 1, 2018

              Griff, is your last paragraph a quote from somewhere or just your personal opinion?

              If personal opinion it holds no more weight than any other opinion and is in no way illuminated by an English dictionary definition of the word “sovereignty”, since Maori signed the Te Reo Maori version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in which the neither the word sovereignty nor a translation of the concept of sovereignty adequately comprehensible to them appeared.

              That could only have been achieved by using the word “mana” and it is widely accepted rangatira would never had signed away their mana.

              What appeared was the word “kawanatanga” meaning governance. An arrangement for the Crown to govern …

              Where’s your evidence of “a small minority of Maori pushing unrealistic exceptions and misinformation on Maori that makes them think NZ and the treaty means something it does not.”

              I happen to know that many Maori – for example the drafters of Matike Mai Aotearoa (Report on Constitutional Transformation) – no longer refer to a “Treaty partnership” but instead to a “Treaty relationship” which is ongoing and dynamic …

              He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti are at the core of their assertion of sovereignty …

            • Griff

               /  March 1, 2018

              What appeared was the word “kawanatanga” meaning governance. An arrangement for the Crown to govern …]

              Hello.
              That is sovereignty.
              A monarch king or queen is the sovereign head of state in a monarchy.
              We live in a monarchy our head of state is QE2 New Zealand
              She is our sovereign.
              Jesus H .You are arguing that Maori did not cede sovereignty because they only ceded governance… which is sovereignty The authority of a state to govern.

              sovereignty
              The authority of a state to govern itself or another state.
              governance
              the action or manner of governing a state, organization, etc

              The crown is sovereign that is were its right of governance comes from. That is what Maori ceded when they signed the treaty
              That is confirmed by the principles of the waitangi tribunal above .

              As I said your world view is wrong because your sources are talking nonsense .
              Moana Jackson
              Margaret Mutu
              Independent Iwi Constitutional Working Group.
              A couple of fringe loons pushing unrealistic ideas to a few gullible Maoris What does that fringe group have to do with NZ and our governance?
              May as well ask the New Zealand National Front.
              They have as much say or relevance.

            • Gezza

               /  March 1, 2018

              Te Ara I think explains where you’re going off track because of your anti-Maori bias, Griff.
              https://teara.govt.nz/en/treaty-of-waitangi

  6. unitedtribes2

     /  March 1, 2018

    I always thought of my Great Grand Dad coming from Denmark and then I found a document his naturalisation papers claiming he came from Schleswig Germany. Schleswig has changed back and forth over the year between Dane and German but Im sure it made no difference to what my GGD thought of himself. All I can say is thank god were surrounded by water. And let that water define us all.

  7. NOEL

     /  March 1, 2018

    My wife is Maori and I am Pakeha and have never found the label offensive.
    When we travel we are New Zealanders bu I am waiting the day when I can say I’m from Aotearoa. Oh well, maybe in my grandchildren’s life time.

  8. Zedd

     /  March 1, 2018

    @PG

    There is another word, most can perhaps use; ‘Tauiwi’ I understand it means ‘other tribes’ including those ‘more recently arrived’ from overseas ?

    My understanding is that ‘Pakeha’ is more appropriate to folks of British decent, whose family arrived in the ‘Early days’ (1800s) ?

    btw; best ‘little city in Aotearoa/NZ’ : Otepoti/Dn “Kia Kaha !!” 🙂

  9. Alan Wilkinson

     /  March 1, 2018

    I don’t give a stuff who my ancestors were. I am much more interested in who I am, who I relate to now and in the future. I call myself a New Zealander born and bred and leave it at that. I regard those who spend their time looking backwards as idiots.

    • Gezza

       /  March 1, 2018

      That’s because you’re a Pakeha though.

    • Gezza

       /  March 1, 2018

      For most Pakeha their ancestry & lineage is of no importance beyond maybe knowing who their grandparents were. But there always seems to be someone in the whanau, sometimes more than one, who gets interested in their genealogy & checks it out as thoroughly and as far back as they can. They’re finding out who they are. It’ll be no different in yours Al.

      Maori come from a relationship-based culture. When identifying who they are with other Maori they trace back as far as they can & for most that will trace right back to the original ancestor’s first arrival waka, which is their first family iwi

      That’s not being backward-looking in all things, any more than it is when a Pakeha traces their lineage. That’s just one facet of their identity. And it’s more important among Maori than Pakeha because it’s a relationship-based culture. Maori in social settings talk about who their rellies are & who they know from other hapu like we talk about the weather.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  March 1, 2018

        Looking backwards doesn’t tell you who you are. It only tells you who your ancestors were.

        • Gezza

           /  March 1, 2018

          It also tells you who your current rellies are. Look, let’s leave it that. It’s just not something you understand.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  March 1, 2018

            I certainly understand. I just disagree. Go back far enough and we are all rellies. Pointless.

            • Gezza

               /  March 1, 2018

              No you really don’t understand the significance of whakapapa. It’s not worth my trying to expound on it because you’ll never grasp it as it’s completely alien to your way of thinking so you can’t.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  March 1, 2018

              I understand it just as I understand religion but don’t buy it.

            • Gezza

               /  March 1, 2018

              Yes but you only think that because you don’t understand that you don’t understand it.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  March 1, 2018

              You only say that because you don’t like to think that you defend an irrational belief despite your disbelief in religion.

            • Gezza

               /  March 1, 2018

              Well ok then. What is your turangawaewae, and what is your hapu & what is your hapu’s rohe?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  March 1, 2018

              Meaningless with intermarriage, modern mobility and for kids growing up in cities.

            • Gezza

               /  March 1, 2018

              I rest my case.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  March 1, 2018

              Might as well. It’s empty except as a historic relic.

            • Gezza

               /  March 1, 2018

              But it’s not to someone who identifies themselves as Maori. You can’t understand that. Because you’re not someone who identifies most strongly as Maori. That’s my point. You’ve just been illustrating it. So I win again.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  March 1, 2018
            • Gezza

               /  March 1, 2018

              Actually you are. Citing one person’s view that aligns closely with yours. I’m talking about people who identify as Maori because of their connection via whakapapa. But anyway I’ll leave it at this because I’ve already won. I said it first. You know the rules.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  March 1, 2018

              No, I won because I’m right (again). But I won’t rub it in too much.

            • Gezza

               /  March 1, 2018

              She does make some interesting observations about urban Maori. It’s an unusual website. Have you read much else on it?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  March 1, 2018

              No, just read about her. Name seems familiar though.

            • Gezza

               /  March 1, 2018

              She’s just guest posting. Check out some of the rest of it, & the About page. Don’t click on the email subscription page to see what it’s about. I have to wait for the first email now to see if he’s got an unscubscribe link. 😡

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  March 1, 2018

              I think you’ve mis-ascribed the article. As far as I can see they are all written by Ross Himona. The lady whose name is at the top merely authored the quote above her name.

            • Gezza

               /  March 1, 2018

              Oh, yes. You’re right. Makes a change. Sorry about that.

            • Gezza

               /  March 1, 2018

              From your Herald article:

              “Ross Himona, who five years ago was one of the first Maori to establish an internet presence, is unapologetic that his maaori.com site contains comprehensive lists of whakapapa from his own Ngati Kahungungu iwi of the Hawkes Bay and Wairarapa.

              “I’ve known since I started this [that] whakapapa is the big thing,” says Mr Himona. “It’s what everyone wants. Most of my hapu is in the diaspora – they’re in Australia, the United States, Europe, Japan.”

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  March 1, 2018

              Quite. Reduced to geneology. Hapu has no rohe now. Turangawaewae is a foreign land.

            • Gezza

               /  March 1, 2018

              Depends on your perspective. If you trace your lineage back you end up learning your hapu and its rohe. We pakeha don’t have a rohe in New Zealand. It’s not a concept our ancestors brought with them because they didn’t arrive in interrelated tribal groups.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  March 1, 2018

              Rohe and hapu were fluid as Himona points out. Often no more than a point in time.

              When you have a written history you don’t have to elevate an oral one to mystical significance.

            • Gezza

               /  March 1, 2018

              There isn’t a mystical signifcance.

            • PartisanZ

               /  March 2, 2018

              And vice-versa Alan: When you have an oral history you don’t have to elevate a written one to mystical significance.

              Or maybe there’s not much difference? One is repeatedly said and the other repeatedly read aloud … like in Church in the days when Christianity held sway over humanity …

              Pakeha tend to think Western European society (Western Christendom) had come SO MUCH FURTHER than Maori by say 1800, early explorer, adventurer contact. We had the wheel, the cannon, the musket and steel … sailing ships … Wetiko Disease … excess population, many branded criminals, needing to be disposed of somehow …

              And how was Western Christendom doing at enacting the precepts of their prophet and spiritual leader?

              Maori (Polynesians) sailed the Pacific five centuries earlier than us and after settling here gave up sailboats because they were unnecessary … their population was stable … they didn’t need the wheel … or cannon, or muskets or steel …

              And even if they were ritual cannibals they didn’t have mass Wetiko (Cannibal) Psychosis …

              https://unsettlingamerica.wordpress.com/tag/wetiko/

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  March 2, 2018

              @G: There isn’t a mystical significance.
              Wrong again:
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whakapapa

  10. PartisanZ

     /  March 1, 2018

    “Such sentiments (as expressed by Brash, Mallard and King) reveal the sizable burden of guilt that many Päkehä carry about the means by which they have come to occupy their present position of power and privilege.

    Brash’s way of dealing with this guilt is simply to deny personal responsibility for the detrimental impact on Mäori of colonisation. Mallard’s response is essentially to demand that
    Mäori forgive and forget.

    [Michael] King’s approach is more sophisticated: he suggests that both sides have made mistakes by unfairly stereotyping each other, thereby implying an equivalence of fault on both sides. This has the effect of masking the fact that the wrongs were overwhelmingly committed by one side and inflicted upon the other:”

    – Ani Mikaere (as per above link)

    • Gezza

       /  March 1, 2018

      Such sentiments (as expressed by Brash, Mallard and King) reveal the sizable burden of guilt that many Päkehä carry about the means by which they have come to occupy their present position of power and privilege.

      Yeah I think Ana’s quite wrong about those Pakeha feeling a burden of guilt about how they got to where they are. I feel the actions of early British & Pakeha settler governments were shameful & I support redression of those but I don’t feel any burden of guilt for it because I wasn’t responsible for their actions.

      I wonder if that’s Ana incorrectly overlaying a Maori cultural perspective onto another culture that simply doesn’t apply because it’s not how they view history. There is no strong sense of blood shame by most Pakeha for wrongs done by other Pakeha people, even their ancestors, in their past that they would not take themselves today. We Pakeha NZers don’t have an iwi-based or a whakapapa-based culture.

      • PartisanZ

         /  March 1, 2018

        That’s a very pertinent and useful question Gezza, although it in no way negates Ani’s highly qualified opinion which was, after all, entitled ‘Are we all New Zealanders now? A Mäori response to the Päkehä quest for indigeneity’.

        Ani makes numerous points I find worthy of consideration –

        “As Brash’s Orewa speech makes plain, a change in National party leadership has not altered the party’s policy in this respect. Mallard revels in making fun of National’s position, accusing them of being “backward-looking. . . stalled in the 19th or perhaps the 18th century . . . the inheritors of the original assimilation project” and labeling them “the successors of the Victorian colonialists who wreaked havoc in so many countries”.

        Brave words from a freshly-appointed “Coordinating Minister, Race Relations”, eager no doubt to bring some intellectual vision to the debate. Yet, just as Brash continues to cultivate a coalition of the fearful, it is equally plain that Mallard is intent on forging a coalition of the forgetful: Mäori must forgive and forget, and Päkehä must be allowed to forget, so that we can all live together as one big, happy, amnesic family.” – pg 9