Gareth Morgan and the Pākehā Pathology

The Treaty of Waitangi. 

Sometimes it seems like the qualities we cherish in our democracy we condemn in our politics. We revere a kind of abstract equality, but we hesitate when it means substantive equality for Māori. There are plenty of New Zealanders willing to admonish Māori underrepresentation in local government, yet few are willing to support any measures to achieve the equality they claim to support. There are plenty of intellectuals and politicians who applaud the rule of law, yet few who supported the rule of law so much that they opposed the Foreshore and Seabed Act. 

This is the incongruous intellectual tradition of which Gareth Morgan is a part. He supports “rangatiratanga”, yet he opposes “unique political rights for Māori”, which is rather contradictory because rangatiratanga is a unique political right for Māori: it is the right to our “unique” indigenous systems*. Surely, for the sake of credibility if not consistency, you cannot support something in one breath and then condemn it in the next. Yet Morgan seems intellectually unfazed. 

As one might be after solving the tax problem and the cat problem, the “Treaty problem” must seem small and simple in comparison. The New Zealand Herald - whose roster of writers on Māori issues appears to be two Pākehā men – has commissioned a four part series based on Morgan’s new book, Are We There Yet? The Future of the Treaty of Waitangi. But Morgan, certainly an impressive economist and publicist, is hardly a Treaty expert.

In his first column, a kind of extended inoculation, Morgan tells us the Treaty “renaissance [should] be celebrated”. Yet in the second and third columns it becomes clear that underneath this superficial optimism is a grim fatalism: the Waitangi Tribunal is using the Treaty to “divide society along descent lines”. I’m sure the members of the Tribunal would be flattered to know they are credited with such sinister power. 

Apparently this division is emerging because the Tribunal is “only talk[ing] to one of the partners”. That is, the Māori partner. The reality is rather different. Far from refusing to participate in Tribunal hearings the Crown regularly disputes claimants’ versions of events and vigorously contests their evidence at hearings. But I suspect this is not Morgan’s meaning – how could a Treaty author get such an elementary fact wrong? – I think the clue to his intended meaning is later in the paragraph where he writes:

“How can those in the Treaty industry guide enduring solutions if they don't take non-Maori with them”

Or, in other words, the Tribunal and the “Treaty industry” - which, ironically, Morgan is now a part of as a Treaty author – must soothe Pākehā sensitivities and avoid findings which do not meet their ideological expectations. Morgan wants to shift the full burden to Māori – we must compromise – the full measure of justice is not available to us because it is not acceptable to them (Pākehā). The statement should be reversed: how can Pākehā society offer “enduring solutions” if they do not take Māori with them?

That is not to say I expect Morgan to completely understand our perspective. The relentless focus on what is acceptable to Pākehā – rather than what is just for Māori – is natural. When you are born to one culture with few voices dissimilar to your own then it is very easy to mistake the happy accident of your own cultural sensibilities as a set of natural laws. 

This is more common than we might hope and it is not peculiar to one culture. Yet in almost every settler colony only one culture gets to draw the line between the acceptable and the unacceptable, the normative and abnormal. Which culture gets to draw the line is a matter of power and where the line is drawn is then a matter of ideology. In New Zealand the culture that draws the line is Pākehā culture and where they draw it will often exclude Māori.

And this is very much what the anti-Treaty industry does: they draw a line and declare that we go no further. But Morgan is more sophisticated than this. He wants us, rather paternalistically, to reclaim our “self-esteem” with power devolved from the state, but he will not permit measures like dedicated representation which give us some power over the state. 

Yet, in the final column suggesting better ways to implement the Treaty partnership, Morgan then goes on to endorse an upper house with a 50/50 split between Māori and non-Māori. Confused yet? You should be because in each column Morgan warns us of this inchoate division the Tribunal and the Treaty industry are creating, yet he then suggests a political division between Māori and non- Māori as a solution to that division. Again, Morgan seems intellectually unfazed.

Which is not to say we should opposes his suggestions - most of them are already in place, all of them are acceptable steps forward – but we should recognise that he fails to examine the Treaty in a substantive way. Marking problems at the edges will not do. The Treaty partnership has no meaning without reckoning with where power lies and how it is really meant to be distributed. 

Social and political reality does not change just because it is unjust, it does so when the material reality that gave rise to it expires. The problem is economic – colonisation was wildly profitable, decolonisation is costly – but also ideological. Pākehā supremacy is an organising principle in New Zealand society. Certainly not in the sense that Pākehā think themselves racially superior and are pursuing a conscious agenda on that basis, rather in the sense that their systems are placed above our systems. 

Thus the burden of compromise always falls to Māori – we can push only for what is compatible with their system – this makes Morgan’s idea that there is some sort of creeping political division emerging an utterly ridiculous one. Think about it from an iwi perspective. For each iwi a typical settlement represents around 1 to 5 percent of what was lost. In this situation who is making the compromise? The party which agrees to concede 95 to 99 percent of what it lost or the party which agrees to return 1 to 4 percent of what it gained?

*Rangatiratanga is more than a "right" as we would normally understand it. It describes a form of authority as well as the systems, practices and so on which derive from it. However, in the context of Morgan's pieces he is referring to the "right" to rangatiratanga guaranteed in the Māori text of the Treaty. 

The country that white supremacy made

"Two wongs don't make a white"

To believe that racism is the property of the morally corrupt, rather than the property of liberal democracy itself, is comforting to those who think racism is an individual failing. If racism is reduced to a private act – one where the racist carries the shame, not his or her enabler – then there is no need to consider, let alone admit, what makes calculated acts of racism acceptable. Thus Colin Craig, Jamie Whyte, Steven Gibson and Winston Peters are not seen as products of our impoverished political culture – one where racism is strategy – but merely lone bigots. 

But the racism of the individual can’t be separated from the society that supports it. When we offer a moral account of racism while ignoring a political analysis of racism we sanction the more insidious form. Racism is part of our ancestral memory and when something is so embedded in the political culture - as racism is - then the discourse is going to reflect it. Thus Colin Craig, Jamie Whyte, Steven Gibson and Winston Peters are more than just morally corrupt individuals; they’re the descendants of an old tradition – political racism. This is where politicians articulate private racism for public consumption. 

The practice persists because racism is foundational. Our country was built on the theft and exploitation of indigenous land. While New Zealand still wears the scars of settler colonialism, Māori aren’t the only victims of racism in our little settler colony. There is a long and loud history of anti-Asian racism and underhanded anti-Semitism. Racism designed to create the perception that the majority is under ideological and demographic siege. From Jewish bankers to Chinese investors, people of colour are “issues” to win. 

The history of Māori bashing is well known and the practice itself is not exhausted, but the history of anti-Asian racism and anti-Semitism is less known. Asian peoples generally and the Chinese in particular have always been at the hard edge of New Zealand racism. Winston Peters knows as much and is prepared to exploit that history every three years. Political racism is a sort of low-grade fever that flares up every election and puts us – the body politic – at risk. 

They say "investor" or "foreign buyer" but what they mean is "of colour" with a "funny accent"
— Duckie (@DuckieMcDuck) August 11, 2014

Not that this is particularly unusual. The political class seeds and exploits fear of the Asian invasion across the world. Our parochial politicians in the 19th century were familiar with the political benefits of anti-Asian racism and in 1881 Parliament passed the Chinese Immigrants Act. The act imposed a poll tax of 10 pounds on new immigrants from China. In 1896 the tax was increased tenfold and in 1899, in an effort to further restrict “undesirable” Chinese, Parliament imposed an education test on immigrants without British or Irish parentage. When the Old Age Pensions Act was passed in 1898, Asians were excluded (even if they were citizens). All of this happened while we maintained an almost open border policy for migrants from Western Europe and, by the standards of the time, were cultivating the roots of a universal welfare state. 

It’s this ugly history that Winston Peter’s is channeling. Settler colonies work through replacement. It would seem the unspoken fear is the pattern of replacement will reverse and the next cycle, bound to happen by 2050, will be one of the non-white kind. Winston knows it, the audience fears it. Thus “two Wongs don’t make a white” was not an off the cuff and off colour joke, it was a political tactic. Winston knew it would be reported without context and those for whom it was designed would think that it refers to immigration. Racism, then, not only lives in the hearts of particularly cynical individuals – like Winston - but it lives in the heart of our society – with the voters. 

Steven Gibson is part of the same grubby tradition. Whether he knew the stigma behind Shylock or not – he must have, why use a notorious Jewish lender to describe another Jewish banker unless one intended to make a racialised slur? – ignorance is no excuse. Although there might be comparatively little organised anti-Semitism in New Zealand –meaning little statutory discrimination – social attitudes are as toxic here as anywhere. Former Premier Julius Vogel, a practising Jew, had to endure regular cracks at his faith while the political cartoonists of the day were not afraid of deploying Jewish stereotypes. The fact that Vogel served as Treasurer was seen as particularly funny (Jewish Bankers!). The echoes with Key are uncanny. From defaced billboard depicting an orthodox Jew to political cartoons where the cartoonist draws, what seems to be, a hook nose. Like Winston, we should not view Gibson as a lone fool, but a product of our political culture. One where racism is an acceptable political strategy and tactic. The same must be said of Colin Craig and Jamie Whyte too. Each is indulging in a sort of ritualistic racism. Racism is a virus looking for host. Essentially formless, but always persistent. 

Ok Steven Gibson, stop talking now, you're making it worse. "I'm not quite sure what Merchant of Venice is about... a bad deal?"
— Graham Cameron (@mvlgrimace) August 11, 2014

But where to from here? How do we change the political culture? Some suggest that racism is not long for this earth. In other words, we should wait for the racists to just die out. The offensiveness of that suggestion aside, people said this in the 60s too. Yet the thing about racism – like settler colonialism – is that it works through replacement. It’s protean. The leopard really can change its spots. 

The assumption is that history is linear – from ignorance to enlightenment. It’s true that we’re closer to racial justice than we were, say, a century ago, but here’s the paradox: while we might be more diverse, more tolerant and more committed to racial justice than our ancestors, we’re committed to an ideology that makes racial justice impossible – colorblindness. 

That is, where the way to solve the “race problem” is to pretend the problems – like inequality or closed borders – aren’t racialised. Thus measures to reduce racial inequality are, according to the colourblind advocates, racist. As one wag put it, “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race”. 

This is the ideology that Brash, Craig, Whyte and (I’m willing to bet) at least half of the country are committed to. Racism is seen as a matter of legal distinctions, not unfair outcomes. Where many think that if we remove race from, say, legislation then the “race problem” is solved. It’s not. Racism can’t be reduced to mere distinctions in legislation, policy or social settings. If it could be then measures to correct racial inequality - like the Māori Representation Act - are as racist as the process that necessitated them – that is, settler colonialism. 

Unlike many people of colour – and some movements of the left – just as many young people reject a political analysis of racism. Ours is a moral account of racism. Racism is Bad, thus we must remove race. When one thinks like this it’s then possible to claim that we’ve built a post-racial society. We really haven’t, though. It takes a determined effort in self-deception to think that, say, if we just remove Māori placements in university then, by magic, racism disappears. If we stop talking about race, racism disappears. 

The reasoning is seductive, but a deception. Racism , as Gary Younge put it, is “discrimination planted by history, nourished by politics and nurtured by economics, in which some groups face endemic disadvantage”. Thus racism is not so morally bad that we should never talk about it, rather it is too important that we can’t afford not to. As another wag put it, “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race”. 

Thus the way to confront the racism of Colin Craig, Jamie Whyte, Steven Gibson and Winston Peters is not to pretend that they are lone wolves feeding off of a dying voter base, the way to confront racism is to take it out of the private domain and put it in public. Pretending race doesn’t exist solves nothing, the solution is where people of colour tackle the spoken and unspoken bigotries. It is where we take the opportunities politicians create and lead the discussion. Don’t let well-meaning liberals or anyone else wish it away - that only creates more seething resentment (on both sides) - we need to establish that, actually: race matters. Let's not stop talking about it.  

Anne Tolley: see no racism, hear no racism, speak no racism

Maori women challenging racism in the early feminist movement
H/T Te Ara

Don’t act surprised. From RNZ:

"The Government is rejecting suggestions Maori are being unfairly targetted in the police or corrections systems the Maori Party co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell has described as institutionally racist. 

A visiting United Nations delegation says the Government needs to investigate why a systemic bias against Maori is evident in the country's criminal justice system. 

The delegation, which reports to the UN Human Rights Council, says any bias against Maori leading to their incarceration more than other New Zealanders constitutes arbitrary detention and is illegal under international law. 

Police and Corrections Minister Anne Tolley says she has seen no evidence of institutional racism in either police or Corrections. 

"Quite the reverse in fact; there's a lot of work going on. The police are turning the tide and we're very impressed by that work and of course in Corrections the work that's going on to reduce reoffending."

It’s easy when you have the privilege of detachment – and, of course, the authority of objectivity – to deny that racism exists. But even then, Tolley’s remarks are neither a full denial nor a proper admission. Her response is bureaucratic: “the police are turning the tide and we’re very impressed by that work”.

What does that even mean? If the police “are turning the tide” is that an admission institutional racism did exist? Or is “quite the reverse” a denial that institutional racism ever existed? Does it matter? Unfortunately it does.

Tolley’s position doesn’t change the facts: Maori adults are 3.8 times more likely to be prosecuted than non-Maori and 3.9 times more likely to be convicted of an offence. Maori young people are more likely than Pakeha to be apprehended and prosecuted for committing the same offence. This is the reality of the racial hierarchy: the apprehension, prosecution and conviction gaps. But add the health, wealth, education, employment and housing gaps too.

But if Tolley denies that this is the product of institutional racism, she doesn’t have to do anything substantive about it. Her response can be bureaucratic: we are doing [insert glib policy] in hope of achieving [insert rosy outcome] for [insert folksy platitude].

Tolley’s position is profoundly ahistorical. Settler colonialism is based on the denial of indigenous systems and culture. You can’t complete the colonial project – namely to import the capitalist economy and recreate the architecture of liberal democracy - while allowing an indigenous system to co-exist.

The New Zealand experience is no different. In the 19th century Maori were invited to assimilate under the Treaty. In 20th century New Zealand Maori have been invited to integrate under the Treaty settlement process. But under neither regime were Maori offered full membership of the state. Institutional racism made assimilation and integration conditional - sovereignty had to be transferred, discrimination tolerated and wrongdoing (eventually) forgiven. 

Indulge me for a moment and imagine if we started setting some conditions like, say, extracting a genuine commitment to do something about institutional racism. But perhaps a commitment from government isn't necessary. Iwi, hapu, whanau, community groups, national organisations and individuals - of different ethnicities - are doing their best to turn the tide. In many areas, it’s working. Maori do have better access to housing and education than a century ago. But I’m suspicious of the government’s claim to be turning the tide. Here’s why: 

“You don't stick a knife in a man's back nine inches and then pull it out six inches and say you're making progress ... No matter how much respect, no matter how much recognition, whites show towards me, as far as I am concerned, as long as it is not shown to everyone of our people in this country, it doesn't exist for me”. – Malcolm X 

The meaning of Winston Peter's race talk

This is from Winston Peter's state of the nation speech. Don’t act surprised:

New Zealand has gone from a nation of united people to an urban collection of communities, many clinging to where they were, rather than where they are now. 

We have the Chinese community, the Pacific Islands community, the Sri Lankans, the Indians - the list is endless. All hyphenated New Zealanders… 

It’s as simple as this. Our last census had boxes for virtually every race on earth. Except one. There was no box for you to tick that you are a New Zealander… 

When people come to New Zealand, New Zealand First says they should fit in and contribute to our laws, our values, our culture, language and traditions. 

That doesn’t mean abandoning identity. The Irish, Scots, Welsh, Dalmatians never did, nor did the Dutch.

This is vintage Winston. Except the wine has turned to vinegar. Winston speaks to a New Zealand that thinks it's under ideological and demographic siege. Parse the tortuous language of “urban… communities”, “values” and “identity” and you’ll find New Zealanders who yearn for a New Zealand that never existed. Winston speaks to their imaginary past.

If Colin Craig’s “entire political movement and history is based on feelings of humiliation” then Winston Peter’s political movement is based on feelings of betrayal. It’s aimed at New Zealanders who went to sleep in one country and woke up in another: the strong state communitarianism of Kirk and the strong state conservatism of Muldoon had disappeared, the borders had become porous – for both capital and labour - and New Zealand had been “opened for business”.

If you scratch the itch you’ll find that Winston’s people are worried about economics and leadership. That’s the source of their angst, but race is its expression. Why? Because race represents their ideological losses today and their demographic irrelevance tomorrow. Immigration – and Maori bashing, of course – is the lightning rod of their unease and hostilities. But its real source is the economic transformation of the 80s and 90s.

Consider this:

But the so-called economic reformers of the past 30 years dismantled the industries and state enterprises that were the economic life blood of Maori. 

Freezing works closed, the Ministry of Works, Forest Service, Government Print and so many others. When the Forestry Service was privatised, thousands of jobs were lost and 80 per cent of those jobs had been held by Māori. 

Heartland New Zealand had the heart ripped out.

Tens of thousands of Maori were thrown on the industrial scrap heap. Along with unemployment came the twin curses of alcohol and drugs which are creating mayhem among Maori…

Along with the new age economics of selling everything and bringing in more immigrants, a new political arrangement was entered into. 

This is the politics of appeasement to radical Māori demands.

That's a straightforward description of the economic reforms of the 80s and 90s, but it's framed as a problem of Maori radicalism. Now I don't think Winston buys his own rhetoric and that makes it fundamentally dishonest. But it works. When the walls are closing in people fight to apportion blame. It’s easier to blame the other than blame your own political impotence. Communities of colour become a totem for the decline of Winston's provincialists. Don Brash fell short, but he demonstrated the electoral reward for politicians who can tap the reservoir of racism.

When you peel away the forced politeness, the urge to please everyone and suppressed anger in some parts of provincial New Zealand you’ll find a country that’s deeply scarred. If it looks to in the mirror, it's ashamed. If it looks to the future, it's afraid. If it looks to the (imaginary) past, it's at home.

Winston understands this and he uses race to channel their fears. But race isn't the source of their angst and non-racialism isn't the solution to it. Winston's failure to craft a strategic response to his voter's angst only serves to reinforce it. You can't craft a strategic response to neoliberalism off the back of a cabal of hardcore racists. They might like their imaginary past, but Winston can only give them an imaginary future.

Myths of nationhood: why I'm not "celebrating" Waitangi Day

Behold, Waitangi Day Bingo:

h/t @ColeyTangerina and @Megapope

Bingo is a witty critique of Waitangi Day clichés, but it’s also something more: this is the geography of Pakeha myth-making. Each box is a false political claim. Prepare to hear each claim repeatedly and under the worn robe of “debate”.

Waitangi Day angst isn’t new. Respected columnists will declare the day “broke”, less-respected columnists might announce it’s “a day of lies” while others will broadcast accusations of reverse racism. But most will plea for unity. Yet navigate the calls for unity with caution. Underneath the plea is a denial – Maori have no right to protest their lot. This is the movement to rebrand Waitangi Day.

In 1973 the third Labour government introduced the New Zealand Day Act. Although Waitangi Day had always been acknowledged, that acknowledgment wasn't codified in a public holiday. New Zealand Day – a misnomer – was intended to become the foundation of national identity. A splendid celebration of nationhood.

Except it wasn’t. There could never be unity without equality. The betrayal of the Treaty went too deep, and the collateral effects of Treaty breaches went too far, for Maori to accept a celebration of nationhood that didn’t exist. In 1973 Nga Tamatoa occupied Waitangi with black armbands. They declared the day one of mourning for the broken promises of the Treaty including the loss of millions of hectares of Maori land.

In later years protestors stormed the grounds. Tame Iti spat at a Prime Minister. Titewhai Harawira reduced another Prime Minister to a shaking wreck. An aspiring Prime Minister ate mud. The Popata brothers had a go at the current Prime Minister. It’s easy to argue that Waitangi Day represents “grievance”. But it’s more than that. Waitangi Day is the nexus between the national story and Maori realities.

Two world views collide: the spirit of activism and the fist of oppression.

For more than a century Pakeha society had a monopoly on the national story: the Treaty was a rat-eaten relic, Maori were destined to assimilate and New Zealand had the best race relations in the world. Waitangi Day was a celebration of New Zealand exceptionalism rather than an acknowledgement of broken promises.

But the Waitangi Day of Pakeha imaginations isn’t real. Waitangi Day is where Maori pushback against the myths that society clings to: the Treaty is a living document, Maori retain their identity and New Zealand has poor race relations. The health, wealth and education gaps exist and they exist off the back of the broken promises of the Treaty. Waitangi Day is where Maori can reveal New Zealand's separate realities.

But the movement to rebrand Waitangi Day won’t acknowledge that. It’s easier to switch the conversation than acknowledge that one group is dominant over the other. This is the new assimilation – the battle for history and contemporary meaning. There is a regular plea to make Waitangi Day “our” day. The layers of meaning are clear: Waitangi Day belongs to monocultural nationhood, not multicultural pluralism. Sit down or shut up. That disrespects Maori realities. But it also misunderstands the Treaty itself: the Treaty didn't create New Zealand - that came later - the Treaty created a bicultural relationship.

I'm not going to celebrate the birth of a nation or protest the failed promise of that nation. I'll quietly honour the legacy of resistance and those who are getting it done. I'll acknowledge that colonisation isn’t a distant tragedy, but an on-going process. Maori know it because they experience it. Pakeha might not, but that’s no excuse to deny Maori their agency on Waitangi Day. Myths have many authors, but reality can expose them. That’s what Waitangi Day is about most of all.

Anne Tolley: an agent of colourblind racism?

Green co-leader Metiria Turei: stereotyped and slandered.

From Stuff.co.nz:

Tolley said she was insulted by Green Party claims that she was out of touch. 

"I'm actually insulted to be lectured about how out of touch I am with average New Zealand by a list MP who has no constituents, lives in a castle and comes to the House in $2000 designer jackets and tells me I'm out of touch," Tolley said. 

It is not the first time National MPs have attacked Turei's choice of clothing. Justice Minister Judith Collins said last year on Twitter that a speech by Turei was "vile, wrong and ugly, just like her jacket today".

It’s easy to think that racism is an act that belonged to other people, in another time, in another place. Except it isn’t. And it never was.

Some New Zealanders are aware of the realities of the racial hierarchy: the wealth gap; the employment gap; the apprehension, prosecution and conviction gap. But less New Zealanders appreciate the language of racism. Not the language of niggers, kikes and kaffirs. But of "semantic moves" - of coded insults and racist premises.

We live in the age of racism without racists. Racism comes with its own stigma. People want to avoid that. But rather than change their behaviour, society has invented rhetorical parachutes. Suddenly racism can’t exist without racial words. Racism becomes the use of "Wogistan", but not the history and ideas that sustain it.

Tolley didn’t need to mention race. Her attack is loaded with social, political and racial assumptions. The unspoken context is that Metiria, a Maori woman who lives well and dresses better, is acting out of turn and out of step with her community. How can she be in touch with her community when she isn’t living like them? The premise is that a Maori woman cannot dress well and claim to represent her people. Because Maori live exclusively in poverty, amirite.

But Tolley can. She dresses like her community, lives with them and – it seems – perpetuates their prejudices. The premise is that her community is well off and that gives her the right to live well, dress well and hold power. Tolley is constructing a self-serving stereotype. A world of (literally) black and white where binary assumptions can be made about how racial communities live.

Metiria explains further:

"I think they seem to think it is all right for them to wear perfectly good suits for their professional job but that a Maori woman from a working-class background is not entitled to do the same. I think it is pure racism." 

Ask how the attack was racist, Turei said she shopped at the same place some of her opponents did. 

"They do not think that a professional Maori woman from a working-class background should be able to wear good suits to work," she said. 

"I buy my clothes from some of the same shops they do. I think they find that they can't cope with that and I think it's because I'm a Maori woman from a working-class background."

The common refrain is Tolley didn't invoke racial terms, ipso facto, she isn't racist. But it takes a determined effort in self-deception to strip Tolley’s remarks of their racial context. Metiria doesn't conform to Tolley's idea of what and who Maori should be, therefore Metiria is out of touch with her community. That's racial stereptyping. That's colourblind racism.

A hijacked version of colourblindness has become the dominant racial ideology in New Zealand (and across the west). Because of that most New Zealanders are hyper-attuned to racialism. But what they refuse to acknowledge is when racial stereotypes – stripped of their overtly racial words – are projected onto individuals, situations and communities. Like, say, when the assumption of Maori poverty is projected onto a Maori politician.

There are several comparisons: when people discuss the warrior gene it can be framed as “science” and not a narrative used to explain inherent Maori criminality and violence. Welfarism can be used as morse code - a way to talk about Maori dependency without explicitly racialising the prejudice. Positive discrimination can be used to attack the growth of the Maori worldview in universities. The subtext is clear. It's colourblind racism.

If there's no such thing as race - "I don't see in colour" - there can be no such thing as racial disadvantage. We're all a lump of humanity that cannot be distinguished. But this sort of colourblind racism is self-serving. It preserves the status quo and ignores why some people are better off than others. Where the colourblind ideologies of liberalism aimed to control for prejudice in society, the colourblind ideologies dominant today work to validate prejudice.

Master Republican strategist Lee Atwater (father of the Southern Strategy) explains how racial discourse had to change (and did):

“You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

Racial ideologies are highly contested. Rejecting colourblind racism is a political struggle. Colourblind racism seeks to silence multicultural pluralism and, instead, celebrate a kind of monocultural nationalism that can't include non-conformists. That serves the status quo. Racial progress is stalled. We can't allow the racists to create their imaginary future. And calling Tolley on her (conscious or unconscious) racism is part of that.

Living in the age of racism without racists: Andrew Shaw and TVNZ part II

Are the "Yes" voters absolved of their racism because
they didn't intend to be racist? On TVNZ's definition - yes
H/T The Jackalman

The shovels are out at TVNZ and they’re digging deeper and deeper. But the question is who or what do they throw in the hole? The defendant Andrew Shaw, the spokesperson Megan Richards or TVNZ’s conscience and credibility? Pacific Eye Witness reports:

A TVNZ Spokesperson says they are horrified that people have interpreted what Andrew Shaw said to be “taken to mean something that was never intended – that’s why Andrew has apologised to anyone who may have been offended either at the event or after.”

Regan Cunliffe is right: how can you be “horrified that a joke about race was interpreted as being racist”? The answer is easy, but hard to swallow. We live in an age of “racism without racists”.

There’s a sting in being labelled a racist. New Zealanders want to avoid that. But too many don’t want to change their behaviour. Instead a culture of excuse making has developed and TVNZ is perpetuating it.

It goes like this: there are no racists because intent is a safe word. But if that's accepted - and it shouldn't be - then suddenly the struggle for equal rights isn’t about effects, but the intent of the abuser and, you know, 'why can’t we sort this out over a beer because you might be a reverse racist for accusing me of being a racist'. 

But no. Just no. Intent is never the full story. Intent doesn't define what racial bigotry is. Intent doesn’t absolve racial bigotry itself. And when that racial bigotry goes unchecked it helps reinforce racial oppression. 

Intent doesn't matter when a person actively discriminates against Polynesians. And that's what Shaw was doing - actively perpetuating Polynesian stereotypes. There's a history of bigotry against Polynesians - especially Polynesian immigrants - that Shaw is now a part of. 

New Zealanders are desensitised to racism against Maori and against other Polynesians. It’s encoded in our colonial memory and it holds us back. And it’s going to keep holding us back until we get over intent as a barometer of racism. Because there can be no such thing as racism without racists.

Post script: is anyone else unhappy with the silence over this? I mean, Whaleoil is pushing this issue harder than many on the left or in the media. Politicians have weighed in – h/t Sua Sio, but other than that the silence continues. And is anyone else utterly, utterly fatigued with people getting away with bigotry and casual racism? I am. Lastly, here's something of a backgrounder on racism without racists.

Taking the piss at TVNZ: why Andrew Shaw makes combating racism harder

That's audio from Andrew Shaw - TVNZ's general manager of commissioning, production and acquisitions. In front of an audience of 1000 Shaw "joked" that Auckland is a shithole and Wellington and Christchurch don't get enough "Polynesians".

When Throng revealed the comments and Whaleoil and others publicised them, TVNZ responded:

"We've spoken to many people who attended last night and the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive, and for many, Andrew's presentation was a highlight of the evening. There was no indication anyone was offended and the subsequent questions [yesterday] came as a surprise."

Which misses the point. Completely. It continues:

"Andrew had no intention to cause offence and unreservedly apologises to anyone who may have been offended at the event or subsequently."

I can't put it better than Ta-Nehisi Coates did when discussing Richard Cohen: "context can not improve this. Context is not a safe word that makes all your other horse-shit statements disappear". It doesn't matter whether Shaw meant to cause offense. It's this sort of casual racism that makes confronting other forms of racism - like institutional racism - more difficult. Accidental racism is still racism and it makes parting the iron curtain between Polynesians and the rest of society more difficult. We're still talking past each other if we think intention absolves racism.

I'm not sure whether Shaw is sorry for saying the "joke" or sorry for getting caught. But what's grating is that TVNZ found the "subsequent questions... a surprise". TVNZ shouldn't have to rely on others to be their conscience. The fact that no one in TVNZ recognised the racism in Shaw's remarks is surprising. Is TVNZ a racist institution if it can't recognise the racism in joking about Polynesians being a problem and a reason Auckland is a shithole?  

And then there are the Polynesians in TVNZ itself. It must be hard knowing that workplace racism still exists. This isn't Rhodesia in the 1970s. And then there's the double standard: Paul Henry lost his job for racism, why not Shaw? I'm sure an argument will be made about degrees of racism. Henry's position was different and his racism was of a different kind (which is true). But is it really appropriate to differentiate between racism in degrees? To me, that makes the job of confronting other forms of racism harder still. 

It's time to talk about colour: why we have to reject labels like 'white Maori'

Manuera Benjamin Riwai Couch: a former All Black, Minister of Maori Affairs
and the first Maori after the abolition of the half-caste rule to win a "European"
(now called general) electorate. Couch is perhaps the father of the ideologies about
Maori development that run through National's Maori MPs. HT Te Ara.

We hardly talk about skin tone. That’s not because we live in a post-racial society, but because our identity as Maori is grounded in whakapapa. Aesthetics don’t define Maori-ness.

But that doesn’t mean colourism is a non-issue. The reverse is true. Colourism is encoded in our colonial memory and the heady hangover remains.

In New Zealand “half-castes” were privileged over “full-blooded” Maori. But the division between full-bloods and half-castes – or dark skins and lighter skins - wasn’t unique to New Zealand. We inherited it.

In the early days of colonialism Britain would divide its slave labour according to skin tones. In the fields of the American South slave owners would privilege light skinned slaves over dark skinned slaves. In South Africa the difference in skin tone (and other features) determined whether a person was black or coloured. Blacks had to carry dompas, coloureds didn’t. In Australia the Half-Caste Act gave states the power to remove “half-caste” children from Aboriginal care and assimilate them into white society.

Early commentary on half-caste Maori cast them in a positive light. Josiah Firth, an early New Zealand farmer, went as far as to celebrate half-castes. He wrote:

“The Half-Castes of New Zealand are in general a fine type of men and women… They are of fine physique, the women being often very handsome…” 

“I have employed Maori half-castes as stockmen, boatmen, and one, as Captain of a river steamer, and I never had better servants”.

But the full blooded or the dark skinned Maori was a paradox. Writing in the early 1900s a perplexed Professor John Brown tried to get his head around Polynesian beauty standards that didn’t value whiteness:

“The finest type of European faces might… find their match in these islands of the Pacific, [but] these were not the most admired by the dusky races, just as the fair skin that sometimes appears amongst them was not admired”.

In an effort to try and explain why Polynesians beauty standards favoured dark skin and “flat noses” Brown argued that it was a result of conquer and intermarriage by and with Melanians who were “negroid” in appearance.

From the early days of settlement and into the 20th century New Zealand society has tried to classify and understand Maori according to skin colour, blood quantum and – but to a lesser extent – cultural practice (i.e. assimilation). But the most telling factor in whether a Maori was half-caste or, well, just a Maori depended on whiteness.

I hope it’s obvious why this matters: skin tone was and is loaded with social and political assumptions. Today there’s a difference between being labelled a “white Maori” and just “Maori”. They’re categories based on appearance, but the first category carries an unearned privilege over the second. Whiteness means full integration and acceptance. Just being Maori implies browness. There are a set of assumptions attached to being brown. Think of the warrior gene.

In a Euro-centric society whiteness can be monetised. Overseas research has indicated that a relationship exists between skin tone (colourism) and upward mobility. A Brazilian study found that people with lighter skin and mixed ancestry have higher rates of social mobility. Anecdotally, the same could be said about New Zealand. Skin tone can have a tangible effect.

Rejecting this is hard. But it starts with self-identification: owning our own identity and using whakapapa as the true measure of identity. What’s external isn’t important when whakapapa is adopted as the only measure of identity. If we can cut ties with labels like half-caste, white Maori, plastic Maori and the others, then we’re half way there.

But rejecting the assumptions that come with being, say, outwardly white is more difficult. The social assumptions attached to being coloured remain. Every Maori who can pass as white has witnessed the racism that seeps through when people think they’re in safe company. Changing that requires a cultural shift. But that comes later. The first step is for us to reject classifications based on appearance and embrace whakapapa as the true and only measure of identity. Other measures minimise people's identity as Maori. Once we get over the hang over from colour in the 19th and 20th century, then we can take on the rest of society.

The real impediment to a Mana-Maori merger (and it's not National)

Mana Party President and tino rangatiratanga advocate Annette Sykes

Claire Trevett reports:

The Maori Party and the Mana Party have reached a truce of sorts after a meeting between the parties' hierarchy last night. 

Mana President Annette Sykes met the Maori Party's co-vice president Ken Mair last night and the two parties agreed to work framework setting out areas of policy on which they would work together. That is due to be launched in early 2014 and it likely to include areas such as Maori unemployment, poor housing, and child poverty.

Yesterday I ran through the archives of this blog. I was disappointed with the tone (and some of the substance). It was angry. But it was a reflection of Maori politics at the time.

The seeds of tension emerged in 2008. The Maori Party had traveled the country to secure the membership's consent to a supply and confidence arrangement with National. By most accounts, the party leadership won an overwhelming mandate and there was optimism in most circles. But time eroded the consensus. Difficult policy choices started to build. The party misstepped when it supported the ETS and pressure was applied on its MPs to pull their support for Budget 2010 and the GST rise.

Come 2011 the tensions had swelled and the understanding between the Maori Party's radicals and the conservatives – meaning the idea that a Maori political movement is strongest when its united - came crashing down. The rest is history. Hone Harawira broke away with half of the Maori Party and Mana was born. Political parties reap what they sow.

But a relationship accord between Mana and the Maori Party (hopefully) signals that the tide is going out on that conflict. There’s an increasing acceptance that Maori are better off because of the Maori Party’s relationship with National. It hasn't been progress, but the Maori Party has acted as a buffer against decline.

Yet one impediment remains - and it's not necessarily National. The conflict is between Mana and the Maori Party’s conception of politics. Mana is ideological, but the Maori Party acts as post-ideological.

Working "at the table" is the Maori Party's ideology. Party policy is dictated by what can be achieved at the table and what is necessary to remain at the table. There's a pragmatic logic in that, sure, but the consequence is that Maori politics is confined to what's palatable to the ninth floor. There's also an element of circular reasoning when being at the table is both the means and the end.

So if being at the table is the Maori Party's raison d'être then there's little room for Mana - a party that values external change and leftwing ideologies. After all, Hone Harawira threatened the Maori Party's place at the table and he was removed. 

Yet maybe the Maori Party is on the right side of history. The trajectory of Maori politics hasn’t been towards revolution or wholesale structural change. Leaders of the later stages of the Maori renaissance and now the Maori Party, Iwi Leaders and many others prefer integration into New Zealand power structures. The attraction among battle-weary activists and heroes of the movement is clear. But it’s not an approach that attracts Mana. And that’s the real impediment to a merger – not National.

Stephen Harper and the logic of colonialism: why Maori should care

Prime Minister Stephen Harper (looking far too pleased with himself)
By Remmy Steinegger

"We also have no history of colonialism. So we have all of the things that many people admire about the great powers but none of the things that threaten or bother them" – Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada. 

That's funny. In 2008 Harper apologised in Parliament for residential schools - one of the most insidious expressions of colonialism in Canada. In a moment of lucidity he explained that:

"Two primary objectives of the residential school system were to remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, and to assimilate them into the dominant culture. These objectives were based on the assumption Aboriginal cultures and spiritual beliefs were inferior and unequal... 

Today, we recognize that this policy of assimilation was wrong, has caused great harm, and has no place in our country".

There's a galaxy between the first quote and the second. But Harper's wrong in both quotes to frame colonisation as a historical event. Colonisation is a series of events. Harper should know, but the state and its agents never admit how they came to occupy their privileged positions. Canada's economy was was built off of the back of the theft of indigenous lands. But admitting that would be to deny Canadian exceptionalism. It’s better to practice the politics of amnesia.

In 1920 Duncan Campbell Scott, the then Minister of Indian Affairs, said this:

"Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question". 

Scott is describing colonialism as a strategy. Like Harper explains, assimilation ideologies are about removing and isolating indigenous people from their culture. But that leaves some aspects unexplained. In short, the logic of colonialism is this: occupy indigenous land, subjugate indigenous people and exploit their labour and resources.

Duncan Campbell Scott, evil Canadian
bureaucrat

In 1583 Sir Humphrey Gilbert declared Newfoundland the first English colony. Gilbert claimed to act under the royal prerogative. That act marked the first stanza in Europe’s colonisation of Canada. Successive waves of English, French and other European colonists pushed west. Occupation begun.

But the country wasn’t terra nullius. Where indigenous people were met, they were pacified. First Nations people were never conquered in the sense of, say, raupatu. The preferred method was treating. The government derived its authority from Treaties signed with First Nations people. The core promise was equality. But (as we know) the Crown only recognises its own sovereignty. Subjugation begun.

The government wasted no time in acquiring an economic base. In 1876 the Indian Act was passed and worked to dispossess indigenous people of their land and resources. The roots of economic exploitation took hold. The parallels with New Zealand colonists, the Treaty of Waitangi and the Native Lands Act 1862 are obvious and uncomfortable.

And the pattern continues. In 2012 the Idle No More movement erupted. The movement appeared in response to Bill C-45, an omnibus bill that didn’t recognise indigenous fishing rights and reduced environmental protection. The movement also opposed a suite of other omnibus bills including the First Nations Private Property Ownership Act and the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. The first act allowed private property ownership within Reserve boundaries. The second act imposed standards on First Nations governments that far exceed standards for municipal, provincial and federal officials. Underlying it all is the assimilation of First Nations people and the destruction of their culture.

The newest expression of the colonial state is the suppression of the Elsipogtog. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (including snipers) are engaged in repressing protests against seismic testing (a precursor to fracking operations). Harper knows that the "Indian problem" is only resolved through assimilation into the "body politic" or total exclusion. There's no middle ground. 

As Maori, we should play an active part in opposing colonial tactics. Why? Because it's own experience too. Colonialism isn't a historic event - it's an ongoing process. It's about being a good ally. If Harper succeeds in eliminating “the Indian question”, then maybe he can claim that Canada has no history of colonialism. History is written by the winners. 

Is it past time to abolish the Maori Council?

The Maori Community Development Act 1962 is up for review. Although Mana points out that the timing is suspicious, the Act remains more or less the same – 51 years later. The review is seeking feedback on the future of the Maori Council and options for improving the Maori Wardens and Community Officers.

Sir Graham Latimer (second from the left) after the
Maori Council's historic win in the Lands case. H/T Te Ara

I’m stuck on it. Maori society is becoming increasingly iwi-centric. Power is shifting from pan-Maori organisations to iwi. Movements and organisations like the Kingitanga, the Maori Women’s Welfare League and the Maori Council can’t compete culturally, economically or politically. Iwi are pushing the Maori Council out. 

But here’s the qualification: urban Maori. They’re the forgotten tribe. Iwi aren’t a catch-all. Pan-Maori organisations –think of service providers like the Waipereira Trust, the Church and the Welfare League – catch urban Maori. The Maori Council does too. If the Council is abolished urban Maori are deprived of one the few advocates that they have. 

That's a reason to keep the Maori Council. But it must be reformed. It’s a labyrinth: there are Maori Committees, Maori Executive Committees, District Maori Councils and the New Zealand Maori Council. The structure needs to be simplified. Abolishing the regional bodies and maintaining the national body could be an option. The regional bodies are cumbersome. The national body could draw its membership from regional groups - like iwi runanga and urban authorities like the Manukau Urban Maori Authority - rather than regional council's and committees. There's a perception (and maybe a reality) that the Council isn't accountable. Layers of bureaucracy contributes to that perception.

It's 2013 too. The Act's focus on social and economic wellbeing is underinclusive. The Council's focus should be expanded to include the environment and conservation. People, markets and the environment is preferable to people and markets only.

The Mahanui Maori Council in 1902. These regional groups were a precursor
to the 1962 Act. Eagle eyed readers will spot Apirana Ngata in the centre.
H/T Te Ara

In their own words:

The New Zealand Maori Council has achieved a number of gains for Maori including the adoption of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986, the reform of Maori land resulting in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, the 1989 Maori Fisheries Act and the 1992 Sealord’s Act. The review of the Maori Community Development Act 1962 should be seen as another opportunity for Maori.

Reasonable people can and will disagree with that. The Maori Council didn't work in isolation. But we might be a decade behind but for the Maori Council's work. Still, that's no reason to oppose reform. The Maori Council needs it and now. It's 2013. If they stay the same, they'll be left behind.  

The hitchhikers guide to the local elections

Here’s my approach to voting: if there are two equally competent candidates, what’ll swing my vote is if one of the candidates is Maori, Pasifika, Asian, female or under 30. Maori, other ethnic minorities, women and young people are underrepresented in local government.

Local elections run from the 20th of September to the 12th of October. Consensus politics rules in local government, but without diversity consensus becomes a synonym for the politics of the middle-aged-white-male. When Maori, other ethnic minorities, women and young people aren’t represented, their (and our) interests aren’t properly served. That’s why you should count ethnicity, gender and age as a persuasive factor.

Now - if you’re unsure who you’re going to vote for - let me help:

----------

Tracey Godfery for Bay of Plenty Regional Council

That’s my mum, obviously. She’s standing in the Kohi Maori seat. The Bay of Plenty Regional Council is one of the few local authorities with dedicated Maori representation. That means it’s important that we make it work.

The Kohi seat needs renewal. Local government's often burdened with time servers whose name recognition trumps their competence. I’ll make a personal guarantee: my mum is qualified, ready and competent. But maybe I'm biased.

Mum has a background in environmental education, research and management. At the moment she teaches environmental science at Awanuiarangi. The issues that are important to her are cleaning up contaminated land – including Maori land that's contaminated with PCP and dioxin – fresh water management, resource management and tangata whenua, economic development and accountability. For a better run down you can like here Facebook page.

To vote for her you have to be enrolled in the Kohi district and on the Maori roll. 

Warwick Godfery for Kawerau District Council

That’s my dad, obviously. He’s standing for the Kawerau District Council. The same guarantee: my dad is qualified, ready and competent.

There isn't much more I can add. If you’re reading this in Kawerau, you know who he is. But I'll make this point: it’s important to vote for people who live in the district. A councillor can’t properly serve the district (or the ward) when he or she lives in, say, Ohope or Rotorua.

You can like dad’s Facebook page here. He’s about bridging the gaps. There’s an age deficit and a cultural deficit between the Kawerau District Council and the Kawerau community. Dad will help repair that deficit.


Jack Tautokai McDonald for the Paekakariki Local Board

Again, competence is important. Jack has proved his competence. Diversity should be a touchstone to guide your vote too. Jack brings two important qualities to local government: his Maoritanga and his age. Government – whether it’s local or central – should reflect the community. When it doesn’t disengagement and apathy happens. I’ll let Jack take it from here:

A lifelong Paekakariki resident, I’m eager to be a voice for the community and contribute to the Board’s work and advocacy. 

If elected, I will focus on fighting for our local democracy and ensuring community concerns are listened to, providing opportunities for youth, restoration of our local environment and fostering a strong partnership with the mana whenua; Ngati Haumia ki Paekakariki, Ngati Toarangatira and Te Ati Awa ki Whakarongotai. 

My experience in governance and representation includes serving on Kapiti College’s Board of Trustees, the Green Party’s National Executive and as a Youth MP.

Other voting suggestions

This isn't an exhaustive list, but a guide for wavering voters. If you want me to add your name to the list flick me an email, tweet, or a Facebook PM.

Kawerau Dsitrict Council

Miriama Postlethwaite 
Chris Marjoribanks
Faylene Tunui
Peta Ruha
Grace Stone
Stephen Tuhoro

Whakatane District Council

Fioana Wiremu (who's also standing for mayor).

Rotorua District Council 

Steve Chadwick

Gisborne District Council

Manu Caddie
Meredith Akuhata-Brown

Waikato Regional Council 

Tipa Mahuta (standing in the Nga Hau E Wha Maori constituency)
Chris Webster (standing in the Nga Tai Ki Uta Maori constituency)

Henderson-Massey Local Board

Will Flavell

Tauranga City Council

Delwyn Walker

Wellington City Council - Southern Ward

Will Moore

History: the Shane Jones edition

Sir Michael Joseph Savage, father of the Labour-Maori alliance

In 1932 Eruera Tirikatene won the byelection for Southern Maori. Tirikatene became the Ratana movement’s first MP. In 1935 Haami Tokoru Ratana secured Western Maori – the movement’s second seat. When Tirikatene took office the movement instructed him – and later Haami Tokoru Ratana – to vote with Labour. Recognising the electoral potential, Prime Minister Michael Joseph Savage and Tahupotiki Wiremu Ratana (the movement's founder) met in 1936 and established the Ratana-Labour alliance.

In an effort to sanctify the relationship, TW Ratana presented Savage with five symbolic gifts:

1. Three huia feathers. The feathers represented Maori. The huia is extinct – killed by introduced species and habitat loss – and its death represented the struggle of the past century.
2. A pounamu hei tiki. The pounamu represented mana Maori. 
3. A kumara (or potato depending on the source). The kumara represented the land taken from Maori (i.e. the loss of the Maori sustenance base) and ongoing poverty. 
4. A broken gold watch. The watch represented the broken promises of the Crown including the broken promise of the Treaty. 
5. And a badge shaped as a whetu marama (crescent moon). The crescent moon represents te tohu o te Maramatanga – a sign of enlightenment. 

If Savage could restore the mana of the Maori people (the pounamu), eliminate Maori poverty (the kumara) and rectify the broken promises of the Crown (the broken watch) then he would earn the right to wear the three huia feathers. The gifts had an enormous impact on Savage. It’s said that before he died he left instructions to have the gifts buried with him. Cynics say that Labour's commitment to Maori was buried with Savage and the gifts.

I don't believe that. Well, not entirely. Maori have a 77 year relationship with Labour. But despite the depth and symbolism of that relationship, it's been one-sided. Maori voters awarded Labour with a 50 year monopoly in the Maori seats. In 2011 Labour won more than 40% of the party vote in the Maori seats and more than 50% in previous elections. But that loyalty has often been sacrificed to expediency.

How Shane Jones is treated when he (inevitably) loses the leadership race will determine the health of the Labour-Maori alliance (it's no longer a Labour-Ratana alliance). Maori are watching closely. 

It's argued that right wing governments have helped Maori to climb the greasy pole better than their Labour counterparts. Sir James Carroll was a deputy Prime Minister and Acting Prime Minister in the Liberal government in 1909 and 1911. The Liberal Party was a precursor to the National Party. In 1996 Winston Peters secured the deputy Prime Ministership in a National government. There's also Ngata and more recently Parata, Bennett, Bridges and so on. A similar tradition of Maori leaders is harder to find in the Labour Party. 

But Labour has done more for Maori as a people, apparently. I take that view as correct. It was Norman Kirk who appointed Matiu Rata Minister of Maori Affairs - the first Maori to hold the position since Ngata - and the third Labour government that created the Waitangi Tribunal and the fourth Labour government that empowered the tribunal to investigate historical claims. The establishment of the tribunal and the Treaty settlement process has done more to influence Maori development than, say, Winston Peters holding the deputy prime ministership ever did. 

But symbolism can't be ignored. There's historical context. If Labour continues to refuse to put Maori in positions of power and leadership, the perception will strengthen that Labour treats Maori as vote fodder. With the Maori Party to the right and Mana and the Greens to the left, Labour is in danger of destroying the Maori-Labour alliance. There's choice in the Maori seats now. Labour can't rely on being the best of a bad lot. 

So here's the call: there's no need to elect Shane Jones to reaffirm the Labour-Maori alliance. David Cunliffe seems to have some mandate from members of the Maori caucus and he has made noises around the importance of winning a mandate from tangata whenua. But if Shane Jones isn't given a leadership position after the race - top 5 or better top 3 - then Labour can expect another decrease in its vote in the Maori seats. And who could blame us. It's sometimes a one-sided relationship. 

Post-script: here's an earlier post I did on Shane's run. And again for transparency: I've already declared for DC, but I want to keep putting context to Shane's run. He might be sexist, but his run represents far more than an egomaniacal sexist running for the sake of his own perception of self importance. 

Power: the Shane Jones edition

Labour leadership candidate Shane Jones

If you’re interested in Maori history, one of the most accessible books is Struggle Without End. But if you’re interested in the tool shed account...

Reducing it to its bones, our post-Treaty political history can be divided into four stages: the mid to late 19th century and the imitation of British political institutions, the late 19th century to the early 20th century and the flock to religion and its leaders, the mid to late 20th century characterised by urbanisation and unionism and the Treaty settlement phase with the adoption of a Maori model of Anglo-American capitalism.

The Treaty settlement phase hasn’t ended. But Shane Jones and his bid for the Labour leadership signals that that phase might be closing. The Treaty settlement era is characterised by the adoption of the neotribal model. Accumulating economic power was and is seen as the most effective way to achieve tino rangatiratanga. That might well be right, but Shane’s run for the leadership signals a new approach.

“Power is a lot like real estate. It’s all about location, location, location. The closer you are to the source, the higher your property value”.

That sums up Shane’s approach to achieving tino rangatiratanga: you have to get to the source of power. In this case, the Prime Ministership or a position close to it. The Cabinet controls the executive and (in our Westminster system) the Parliament.

The Maori Party has adopted the approach as well (in watered down form). Two of their MPs might hold ministerial warrants, but they’re not members of Cabinet. They’re on the periphery of power and their value is low as a result. In the government, the heavy lifting and influence is held in the top, say, five members of Cabinet. In the current government power seems concentrated in the Key/English/Joyce tripartite. Shane is aiming to form or be a part of an equivalent power group.

Shane’s run can’t be understood without the help of history. A supporter of Shane’s bid made an outstanding point this morning - Shane is the successor to Sir Apirana Ngata’s legacy:

E tipu e rea, mo nga ra o te ao,
Grow up o tender child in the days of your world,  

Ko to ringa ki nga rākau a te Pākehā,
In your hands the tools of the Pākehā,  

Hei oranga mo to tinana.
As means to support and sustain you.  

Ko to ngakau ki nga taonga a o tipuna,
In your heart the treasures of your ancestors,  

Hei tikitiki mo to mahunga.
As a plume for your head.  

Ko to wairua ki te Atua,
Your spirit given to God,  

Nana nei nga mea katoa.
The source of all things. 

Shane lives that. For that reason alone – casting aside the strategic significance of the bid – Shane might be worth supporting.

Post script: although I tautoko Shane’s run, I’ve already declared for Cunliffe. I’ve set out my reasons at The Daily Blog and I don’t retract them. This post is an attempt to put Shane's run in its proper context. Shane is polarising. My politics aren’t closely aligned with his (except on Maori issues) and I'm unsure how he will change the left. "Geldings", too. Enough said.  

Public bodies and public criticism

Public bodies and public functionaries aren't immune from criticism. If an organisation or person is performing a public function - like the Kohanga Reo National Trust Board - criticism comes with the territory.

The Kohanga Reo National Trust Board is accountable to the public. They operate with public money for the benefit of a segment of the public. That makes their attempt to stifle criticism anti-democratic, petulant and oppressive. Last week the board instructed their lawyers to inform TangataWhenua.com that they had published allegdly defamatory material. The letter demanded that TW.com remove the allegedly defamatory material. As is their duty, TW.com kept the material up and published the threatening letter.

The board has no moral right to threaten defamation. The criticisms directed at the board are part of the democratic process. The board isn't some private citizen with immunity from criticism. They're accountable to the public. It's a dark day for democracy when a public body attempts to silence its critics.

The board doesn't understand how a democracy works. It's not hard. The Minister of Maori Affairs must step in to clean up the mess that's been created.

Dirty words: (re)distribution

Meka delivered her maiden speech on Tuesday. I’ve embedded it below:

It’s a proud day for her, her whanau, hapu, iwi and Ikaroa-Rawhiti. All power to her.

However – and this isn’t necessarily a criticism – a Maori Party MP could've delivered the speech without without fuss. On close examination there’s little that separates Labour’s Maori Caucus from the Maori Party. The divide is more circumstantial than ideological. The greater divide is between Mana and Labour. Mana offers a working class critique of Maori society and the Maori economy. Generally speaking, Labour favours the capitalist co-option approach that the Maori Party has adopted.

There’s a wealth of talk over the “Maori economic renaissance”, but precious little discussion on how we can ensure the fair distribution of the benefits of that renaissance. Iwi should have strategies to avoid replicating inequality. We don’t want the gap between Maori and non-Maori replicated on a micro-level or iwi level. The discourse has to shift and include development and fair distribution.