Richard Prosser and white privilege

I didn’t think I had much to add on Richard Prosser and Wogistan. Aside from noting the encouraging response from the political establishment and fair-minded New Zealanders, it didn’t bear thinking about. However, listening to and reading arguments in Prossers' defence made me lose it. I couldn’t sit around without reiterating that free speech is qualified by the right not to be vilified as an individual or a member of a group. And that’s what it is, vilification of Muslims and anyone who looks Muslim (translation: anyone a darker shade of olive). Prosser is admitting that the “language used wasn’t appropriate”, but he refuses to apologise for the sentiment expressed. He still doesn’t get it. The words sting, but the hurt stems from the ideas that underpin Prossers’ column.

Tim Watkin does a good job of demolishing the reasoning (or lack of) behind Prossers’ diarrhea. For Prosser, this isn’t about making a point or stimulating reasoned debate; its toilet-grade shock-jockism. It’s worth remembering that this isn’t the first time Prossers had a go at something that isn’t a white middle-aged male. Behold:

Because our society, New Zealand society, Western society in general, has been hijacked by a conspiracy of Silly Little Girls. They’re everywhere; in the schools, in the media, in the public service, in the judiciary, even in Cabinet.

Everywhere we turn, the foundations of masculinity, the pillars of male-ness which have underpinned the construction and development of our very civilisation, are being undermined, by Silly Little Girls. And we are putting up with it.

If you visit Stormfront, a prominent neo-nazi website, this sort of sentiment is standard fare. But from a member of New Zealand’s Parliament… it’s not on. There’s no need to attack the logic behind Prossers’ views (because there is none), the more interesting point is to note that Prosser is a perfect example of white-male-establishment privilege.*

Feminist writer Peggy McIntosh argues that white privilege is largely unconscious and she lists 50 instances of it (and that’s not a comprehensive list). At 9. McIntosh writes that:

If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.

The freedom to speak freely (in other words). McIntosh lists other instances: “I can expect figurative language and imagery in all of the arts to testify to experiences of my race” (which speaks to the privilege of assuming the universality and supremacy of ones’ own experiences and beliefs). This applies to Prosser, yes, but the most important privilege he is using is the freedom to speak freely

If Titewhai Harawira, a woman of colour, were to express the same sentiment against white people, well, she’d be destroyed. Say she suggested that white men be banned from primary schools because they’re more likely to sexually abuse underage girls or that white men should be barred from owning a business because they’re more likely to commit fraud. It would not be defended as “one woman’s opinion”. But more significantly she would never get the opportunity to speak so freely (there are a negligible number of non-white writers and broadcasters in the media – and fewer to none with the institutional security to express opinions like Prosser). Unlike Prosser whose defenders affirm the worth of his ideas (a spinoff of WMEP - think of Michael Laws and his listeners), a writer of colour would not have the freedom to speak so freely let alone expect defenders.

It happens regularly, white men of the establishment are given the right to say whatever they want and vilify whoever they want. Paul Holmes enjoyed the right to take a dump all over Maori. The consequences he faced were pro-forma and he enjoyed an affirmation of his own worth and the normality of his ideas from blogs, letter writers and talkback (also remember the mountain of shit he started that was directed against Maori). Michael Laws is given the right to slur Maori every week and even suggest that certain people be sterilised. This also speaks to how New Zealanders are desensitised to racism against Maori (and also discrimination beneficiaries, unionists and other marginalised groups).

If it were up to me, I’d have sacked Prosser the moment he contemplated publishing his piece. In an ideal society, no one should hold the views that he does – least of all a Member of Parliament. Take a moment to think about that - a Member of Parliament. I’ll be voting for a party of the left in 2014, but it won’t be going to a party that is part of a coalition that includes Richard Prosser.

Post Script: Bryce Edwards has written an interesting post titled Richard Prosser’s role in making mainstream politicians look progressive, but the best, most articulate piece (and deeply personal) is from a Bengali Muslim describing how it "hurts" and the process of Prossers' "othering". She captures beautifully the human consequences of discrimination. The posts holds true for people of colour in "western" (read white) societies.  

*White privilege is a controversial theory. I think the theory is better described as white-male-establishment privilege – privilege is our society is not isolated. There is an intersection between being white, male and part of the establishment. Some people argue that the theory is better described as economic privilege. The idea isn’t without merit, but again privilege isn’t isolated. Even if we described privilege through class lenses it is still common to see racial stratification in labour (more so American labor – I don’t think it holds true to the same extent in the New Zealand union movement). After all, a poor white person is still a member of the dominant culture and will enjoy some of the privileges that come with that.

Whanau Ora comes under fire

The Maori Party has come to the defence of Whanau Ora. From Stuff:

The Maori Party has defended a Whanau Ora grant which paid for a 'family reunion', despite New Zealand First leader Winston Peters questioning the entire premise of the scheme.

Whanau Ora is the Maori Party's flagship programme and aims to help families by redirecting funds rather than having multiple agencies working at loggerheads to each other.

In the past questions have been raised about other successful programmes being cut in order to fund Whanau Ora.

Yesterday Peters said about $6 million of tax-payer cash had been "squandered" on a Whanau Ora programme that funded "family reunions".

An official Whanau Ora report showed more than 200 applications for the scheme - known as "Whanau Integration, Innovation and Engagement funding" - had been accepted, he said.

You have to question the benefit of funding family reunions as opposed to funding, say, uhhm, real social problems. This is bad news for the Maori Party because it undermines the case for Whanau Ora – a case the Maori Party never really made. Although I agree with and support Whanau Ora in principle, I don’t think the Maori Party sold the idea to New Zealand. The party highlighted a structural problem in social service funding and delivery, but Tariana Turia (and to a lesser degree Pita Sharples) never really convinced the public why Whanau Ora was the right response. As a result, support for the program is soft.

Expect Whanau Ora to be a common theme with Winston Peters. Peters has been waging an ideological campaign against the program for some time now. He attacked the program during the election campaign and, more recently, managed to steer a RNZ interview on s9 and the Maori Party into a tirade against Whanau Ora. This isn’t entirely unexpected, Whanau Ora doesn’t play well with Peter’s base, nor blue collar rednecks (Peter’s wider base), but most significantly the Maori Party is an easy target. Poor performers in the House and politically incompetent, the Maori Party is easy meat for Peters. Expect more of this from Winston Peters.

On a side note, none of the Maori Party's MPs were in the House yesterday. I don't know why Turia wasn't, but Pita Sharples and Te Ururoa Flavell were attending the opening of a new Kura Kaupapa in Kawerau (Sharples is the Associate Minister of Education and Flavell is the local MP) - I don't think they were hiding from Winston like some have suggested. 

Ratana fawning begins

The year in Maori politics begins this week with politicians red, blue and Green descending on Ratana Pa. From Stuff:

The annual battle for political support from a Maori religious group will get under way tomorrow with opponents looking to deepen the divide between Labour and their traditional Ratana ally.

Labour leader David Shearer will make the pilgrimage for the first time since taking over the party reins.

Just before Mr Shearer and his Labour team are welcomed on to the marae tomorrow afternoon, Prime Minister John Key and Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples will lead the government delegation on.

Also in the mix will be NZ First leader Winston Peters, Mana leader Hone Harawira and the Green Party's Maori caucus.

National, NZ First and the Greens will gain nothing, zilch, from the Ratana movement. Ratana will never officially desert Labour, so long as Labour remains loosely pro-Maori. Not even the Maori Party could convince the Church to ditch Labour. Maori, or more specifically Ratana followers, have too much respect for history and too much fear for the consequences of dishonouring their ancestor’s traditions to desert Labour.

To be honest, the Church is no longer a significant electoral force. Ratana claims some 60,000 members. This is, in my opinion, an inflated claim. 60,000 may have an association to the Church, but I doubt that there are 60,000 active members. For arguments sake, let’s say the Church is comprised of 60,000 active members. Even then, for the Church to exercise any real influence the leadership must ensure their followers vote in concert. However, Maori – and by extension Ratana followers - no longer vote in a bloc. Cultural change has led to growing independence – meaning Maori no longer take the word of their leaders as law. Growing political choice has also ensured that Maori can exercise their independence and take their vote elsewhere – for example the Maori Party. As Maori society becomes more secular Ratana’s influence will continue to diminish. 1996, the year NZ First swept the Maori seats, marked the end of the Ratana Church holding the casting vote in the Maori electorates.

Anyway, the point I want to make is that the Ratana celebrations are nothing more than a photo opportunity for Labour, National, NZ First and the Greens. As I said, the Ratana celebrations mark the beginning of the Maori political year. The celebrations are also the first political event of the year and a good precursor, or warm up event, for Waitangi weekend. Bar some extraordinary event, the traditional welcome for politicians onto the pa usually leads the 6 o’clock news and all of the major papers carry a Ratana piece. In previous years John Key has played the week very well. A quick google of ‘ratana john key’ brings up headlines like “Warm Welcome for John Key and National MPs at Ratana” and “Confident Key points to gains in Speech at Ratana”. If you google ‘ratana phil goff’ the first result reads “PM takes swipe at Hone Harawira” which, as you’d expect, is a story about the Prime Minister at Ratana which only gives brief mention of Phil Goff.

If a politician can do something even remotely newsworthy, they can milk the media for the entire week. John Key has done it each year. One year he planted speculation that Ratana was considering cutting ties with Labour. Another year he used his speech to outline National’s work for Maori. Last year he used the week to launch attacks on Hone Harawira. I wonder if David Shearer, unlike his predecessor, can cook up the same sort of media smarts as John Key and his team.

Sort it out, Labour

David Farrar makes an interesting point;

What is interesting is that Labour may have relatively few Maori MPs after the next election, unless they do some recruitment into high list placings. It is rumoured that Horomia may retire also, and Mahuta is staying on but concentrating mainly on family for the next few years.

On top of Mahuta, you’ve got Shane Jones, Kelvin Davis and Moana Mackey. Only four Maori MPs would be historically quite low for Labour. Labour may give high list rankings to some of their Maori seat candidates – but then of course that may help the Maori Party keep those seats.

I do not like this. In my opinion Labour has always taken the Maori vote for granted. The party establishment treats Maori support as a given, almost a right. If Labour continues to treat Maori support with casual disregard then the electoral consequences will be severe.

Traditionally, Maori voted Labour because Labour was the best of a bad bunch. However, in 2010, Maori have genuine political alternatives. National has shown that, under the right circumstances, they can accept some aspects of tino rangatiratanga and advance Maori aspirations. The Greens worldview is in most respects comparable with Te Ao Maori and NZ First offers a creed of nationalism that appeals to many Maori. And of course there is The Maori Party. Unlike in the past Maori can easily shift their vote to other Parliamentary parties.  

In such a crowded political market place Labour needs to do more. Labour appears to be operating under a mindset stuck in 1984 where the Maori vote only determined the outcome in four safe Maori seats. As such Labour could easily disregard the Maori vote without suffering electoral consequences. However, this is 2010, the political landscape is wildly different. Maori are a growing demographic and consequently a growing electoral power. One would think, in the interests of longevity, that Labour would be making a concerted effort to solidify the Maori vote. In 2008 women and to a lesser extent the working class ditched Labour. If Labour continues to disrespect Maori support then Maori may follow suit.    

Labour needs to rebuild trust among Maori. Following the foreshore and seabed controversy and more recently Phil Goff’s Nationhood speech Maori trust in Labour has dwindled. Having only four Maori MP’s feeds the perception that Labour just does not care about the Maori vote. National has really stolen the initiative in terms of the Maori vote. By entering into an agreement with the Maori Party the Nats have created the perception that they are willing to enter into a good faith relationship with, at first glance, ideological foes for the good of the country. Over the past two years the Nats have continuously offered the Maori Party small concessions thus reinforcing the perception that the party is no longer hostile towards Maori aspirations.

Labour needs to get it together. The party is incompetent in every respect. Without the Maori vote Labour cannot hope to ever occupy the Treasury benches. Women love John Key, urban liberals are few and far between and the working class by and large no longer identify with Labour. If Labour does not change tact add they can surely add Maori to the list of disaffected supporters.