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. 

More on Holmes and the Herald

We all know this Paul Holmes rubbish annoys me, but to be honest, I don’t care so much about what he said, it’s the fact that the Herald published it and that 99% of Pakeha don’t care when Maori are on the receiving end of abuse.

In publishing Holmes racist rant, the Herald failed to uphold acceptable standards of media ethics. Media organisations are under an obligation to run a range of views, but those views must meet requirements of good taste, decency and acceptability. Holmes piece did not meet these, in my opinion, low requirements. The Herald also owes it to society not to print racist rants. If they do, they legitimise that racism and provide a platform for the other racists to perpetuate their views. This, more often than not, hurts the race, usually a minority race, on the receiving end.

Holmes piece, and the Herald’s complicity, serves to entrench poorly informed opinions and, more significantly, drags public discourse down to the sewers. The sick comments under Holmes piece and on some right blogs is a testament to this. I’m not going to quote any of it, if I do I’ll probably throw up on my keyboard. Holmes has really brought the scum out of the woodwork.

Another aspect of this that disappoints me is the lax, don’t care response of most Pakeha. Sadly, Bryce Edwards (who is very sensible 99% of the time) holds that Holmes has raised legitimate views. This is a common sentiment. However, he hasn’t. Holmes is resetting the Treaty debate and taking race relations back to the 80’s. In terms worthy of the 19th century, Holmes is relitigating things that are settled. The Treaty is an accepted and important part of our constitution and society. Maori are an important part of our political system. Maori grievances are legitimate and work is progressing to heal the wounds. Historical grievances and contemporary struggles still fuel Maori anger. There is no debate over these things.

Imagine if the situation was reversed and a prominent Maori broadcaster slammed greedy Pakeha land thieves, slammed paedophilia as a Pakeha problem, slammed the propensity of loser Pakeha men to take Asian brides, slammed fraud as a scourge on all Pakeha. There would be outrage and rightly so. It’s untrue, it’s unfair and would constitute racism. Holmes rant is on a similar level. Slamming Maori as hateful, loony, irrational, fat and so on. Imagine for one second that Holmes was vilifying you. And imagine it from the position Maori are in. Powerless. No one listens (hell, no one cares), you don’t know how to respond (i.e. don’t know about complaint mechanisms, public pressure etc), the list goes on.

Sad stuff

There is a chain email floating around at the moment and the content is, on the one hand, repugnant, and on the other hand, deeply sad.

I have been wondering about why only Whites are racists, but no other race is......

Nope, think Margaret Mutu. She’s been labelled a racist, a Maori supremacist and god knows what else. Think of all the other Maori who have been labelled racist – Hone Harawira, Ranginui Walker, Tame Iti. 

so I got to thinking Maori call me a ‘Pakeha’, [Pa = village, keha = flea, vermin ]

That is an outright lie. There is now linguistic or etymological support to this claim. It is sometimes said that Pakeha means white pig. Again, this is a lie. In Te Reo you cannot derive pa from Poaka (pig). My understanding is that puruhi means flea – not keha.

'Whitey’, ‘Honky’ and ‘Redneck’ and that's OK, but if I call you Hori, you call me a racist.

The terms whitey, honkey, redneck and so on do not carry the same repugnant connotations as Hori Maori, rangi Maori, nigger, black and so on. These terms carry with them notions of historical oppression. They come with a great deal of historical and contemporary baggage. In our Eurocentric society it is a compliment to be a “whitey”, but a put down of the most narcissistic and patronising kind to call someone “black”.

(I was told "Pakeha" as an entire word means "stranger"!Not white man).

You’ve just told us that Pakeha means village flea, now you tell me it means stranger? Tauiwi, which is not a derogatory term, is usually used to mean stranger or other.  

You have a race based Maori Political party

We have a kaupapa Maori party – anyone can join. You don’t need a Pakeha party because you already have many. They’re called National, Labour, the Greens, ACT, the Progressives, United Future – parties for and by Pakeha. You have Pakeha TV – it’s called TVNZ, TV3, C4, FOUR – the list goes on. These are institutions which reflect the dominant culture i.e. western culture. They reflect your values and project your culture onto the rest of us. We cannot escape Pakeha culture. The Maori Party and the Mana Party are one of the few bastions of our culture in a monocultural society.  

special Maori only  parliamentary seats and Maori can stand as a candidate in any parliamentary electorate in New Zealand but white people cannot stand for a Maori seat or be on the Maori roll or a member of the Maori Party.

Pakeha can stand in Maori seats. Kelvyn Alp, a Pakeha, stood in the recent Te Tai Tokerau byelection in fact. Membership of the Maori Party is open to all as well. The Maori seats were created to limit Maori power in Parliament. It is one of the great ironies that the seats are now a source of power.  

You have ‘3 bites at the same electoral cherry’. White people have only one and yet you still say you are dis-advantaged.

I love arguments in isolation. They satisfy simple minds. Every registered voter has two votes. Maori have one party vote and one electorate vote. If you are enrolled on the Maori roll you forego your right to vote in general seats. Therefore, Maori votes mean as much as Pakeha votes.

If I complain you call me a red neck racist.

I call you a redneck racist when you spread this sort of racist rubbish.

You have a race based Maori caucus in parliament which includes the Maori members from all parties. It concerns itself with protecting and advancing Maori values, not party political values.

Another outright lie. Such a caucus does not exist and never has.  

If whites or any other ethnic group had a multi party parliamentary caucus that dealt with the advancement of its own race or for whites only, and not politics we would be called racist.

You do – it’s called the National Party/Act Party alliance.

You also want to appoint your own representation on Local bodies and demand the granting of special seats or privilege.

Maori are a special interest group. For example, the ward system is used to acknowledge special interests groups or areas of interest (e.g. localities). Maori have a special interest in the use of resources etc… therefore, we need systems to ensure our interests are heard. Often times Maori interests are relegated at local government level.

If there were seats on any local body that were just for whites only there would be great cries of racism.

Again, they’re called general seats and 99% of the time Pakeha hold these seats.

You have a flag of your own, which you insist be recognised and flown alongside the flag of our country.

Of “our” country. Are you implying this country isn’t my country too? New Zealand was built on the back of the oppression of Maori. New Zealand would not be in the same position if it wasn’t for previous governments stealing Maori land, exploiting Maori labour, sending us off to fight dubious wars and so on and so on. What is wrong with having a Maori flag anyway? Where is the harm and/or the offence? Either perceived or real?

This illustrates your separateness and division from the rest of New Zealanders.

No, it illustrates our pride and our rejuvenation and your fear. If that threatens you, then that is due to your own insecurities. I hate the argument that we are all one people. We are not. Maori will always be Maori. We don’t want to adopt your culture and assimilate. We are Maori first and New Zealanders second. If you can’t live with that, tough.  

If a white person flew and demanded recognition of a competitive flag for New Zealand, it would be tantamount to Treason.

Incorrect. Many New Zealanders believe the current New Zealand flag is outdated and due to be replaced. We seem to have a robust debate about changing the flag every year and the debate is never labelled treasonous. Just think of the All Blacks flag and the Black Silver Fern flag. Both are more popular at sport matches than the current flag.  

There are a number of openly proclaimed Maori schools and Colleges in New Zealand. Maori colleges and high schools specifically for Maori students.

Kura Kaupapa Maori are open to all New Zealanders. The difference is that the curriculum is taught in Maori. How can these schools be specifically for Maori when they are open to everyone and the same western curriculum is delivered (only the medium is different).

Yet if there were 'Whites Only colleges', they would be racist colleges.

This is an unfair analogy because there are no such thing as Maori only schools. But anywho, think of St Cuthberts, Kings College, Christs College and Carmel College – these are just a few of hundreds of schools that are, for all intents and purposes, by Pakeha for Pakeha.

If whites had scholarships, college funds and Trusts that only gave white students  Scholarships, you know they’d be racists.

Pakeha do have scholarships, college funds and trusts they can dip into. They may not be exclusive, but the opportunity is still there. Now I have never heard of a Maori college fund (I doubt they even exist), but I do know of Maori Trusts that give out money to beneficiaries. Again, they are not exclusively Maori. If a Pakeha beneficiary is registered on the Trusts beneficiaries list then they too can apply for grants. Maori Turst grants exist thanks to the foresight and generosity of our tipuna. Where Pakeha Trusts usually exist for the benefit of an individual or a small grouping, Maori Trusts exist for the collective benefit of the hapu and the Iwi. These Trusts are not creatures of the State – they are by Maori for Maori, but not exclusively Maori, Pakeha can receive benefits too (provided they are registered to the Trust). Maori scholarships, the state funded ones, are a form of positive discrimination. They exist to correct the disadvantage Maori face. Pakeha don’t need them because they are not affected by historical and contemporary disadvantage (I will accept that working class Pakeha face a disadvantage though).   

You expect whites and other New Zealanders to ignore your special tax payer funded educational institutions and when we complain or say you should teach your language and culture in the home as other races do you call us racists.

Teaching in the home isn’t an option because your ancestors suppressed and stolen our culture.

Who pays for the running of Maori colleges?

Maori pay tax too, dipshit.

You have Government funded race based Kohango Reo’s [pre-schools] to teach your race your own language and even have transport to pick the children up.

Te Kohanga Reo are open to all. Pakeha have government funded preschools to teach Pakeha children te reo Pakeha and they are so numerous that there are several within walking distance of most Pakeha homes.

You have Maori Health Services. Special organisations within the taxpayer funded public health system which are run by Maori for only Maori. If whites asked for such special and separatist privileges from the health services they would be racists.

Yes, this has more to do with practicalities than anything else. Maori are more comfortable been treated in a culturally appropriate setting (as are Pakeha e.g. surveys find that people are more comfortable with health professionals of their own race). If the health system wants to tackle Maori health problems then the best way is to do so is to create systems where Maori feel comfortable utilising services. It is a preventative measure. Better to get Maori into primary health care than wait until they need treatment in the emergency room.

You have a Maori TV channel funded by the New Zealander taxpayer. If there was a Whites only TV or if whites said Maori should fund their own TV, they would be called racists.

Take the example of TV3. The faces are Pakeha, the language is Pakeha, the culture is Pakeha, everything about TV3 (and every other mainstream channel) is Pakeha. TV exists for Pakeha and by Pakeha.

If we consider that an over representation of a language that the rest of us don’t want to learn, we are called racists.

If we had any organisations, schools, trusts, and governmental groups TV stations, etc for whites only to advance OUR lives, we'd be racists. A white woman cannot be Maori sportswoman of the year, but any race can be New Zealand sportswoman of the year. A white person cannot be in the Maori All blacks or any Maori sporting team, but any colour can be in the All Blacks or any New Zealand sports team. This separatism is decidedly racist but if a white person comments on it they are labelled racist...

This entire argument relies on us buying into the argument that mainstream institutions do not further the dominant culture. The reality is that all these institutions reflect and perpetuate the dominant culture which is western culture. Pakeha culture.  

You rob us, convert our cars, rape our women and bash our elderly. But, if a white police officer shoots a  Maori or a Maori gang member, or assaults a Maori criminal running from the law and posing a threat to society, you scream racism.

This person holds a lot of hate.

You are proud to be Maori and you're not afraid to announce it, even though you may not be full Maori, but part Maori, or even only ‘trace element’ Maori, but when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.

Measuring Maori identity in blood quantity is flawed and inconsistent with notions of Maori identity. Your whakapapa makes you Maori. Even if the tipuna is distant, if you can point towards your whakapapa then you can claim Maori identity – no matter what. It doesn’t matter if the tipuna appears far away in your family tree – if the tipuna is there you can claim your identity as a Maori. You can announce your “white” pride whenever you want too. No one is ever chastised for announcing there pride in, for example, their Scottish heritage. In fact, it is encouraged. Everyone should have pride in where they come from – Maori know this and practise this and, therefore, do not hold it against anyone.    

Why is it that only whites can be racists? There is nothing improper about this e-mail. It’s all true.

Another lie. This email is filled with inaccuracies, misrepresentations, lies and poison.

The great gravy train, a.k.a the Waitangi grievance Industry, has hopefully nearly finished it's work of judging events of 160 years ago through today’s eyes and making compensation awards in today’s money so now is the time to stop and ask:   Do we want a privileged group enjoying special favour for no rational reason, or do we want racial equality in New Zealand with fairness and equal privilege for all.

Treaty Settlements are about making right the wrong, much like the criminal justice system. It is about ensuring equality – levelling the playing field if you will.

There is nothing improper about this e-mail.........

And you’re not a racist, yeah right.

so let's see which of you care enough to send it on. Think about this ... If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone – THEN YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM! It's not a crime to be white YET.. but it's getting very close!

It is a privilege to be “White” in our biased and monocultural society.

It’s sad that attitudes like this exist. However, in a free thinking society there is no way of stopping this sort of rubbish. The most depressing thing about this chain email is that the sentiments expressed are, in my opinion, held by a huge segment of the population. New Zealand is a deeply ignorant society. Having said that, New Zealanders are rarely racist on a personal level, most New Zealanders won’t prejudge you because you’re Maori, but they will judge your people as a whole. New Zealanders are fair, but stupid. 

This email plays on people's base fears and is, therefore, wildly effective. The messages are carefully aimed and given without context. It is all face value stuff that does not require thought, only acknowledgement. It one thing scares Pakeha it is the thought that Maori progress threatens their place in society. In reality Maori progress will benefit Pakeha, but some Pakeha want to keep their privilege closed. Sad.  

h/t Mars 2 Earth

Williams CJ?

Apparently one or two appointments will be made to the Supreme Court within the next year. I have no idea who will be appointed but I would like to see Justice Joe Williams considered. Williams is Maori, but that is not the sole reason why he should be appointed. Appointments should be based on merit and merit alone. However, were a situation to arise where one has two equally qualified candidates, one of whom happens to be Maori, then a compelling case exists to appoint the Maori. As far as I am aware Williams is a well respected legal mind. As former Chief Judge of the Maori Land, former head of the Waitangi Tribunal, the first Maori law lecturer at Victoria and current High Court Justice, Williams is most certainly qualified.

From my quick research into William’s background I think it is fair to say he is undeniably Maori in outlook, yet conscious and accepting of the fact that Maori must operate under a Pakeha framework. He is realistic. I would classify Williams as something of a tino rangatiratanga advocate, however not in an ideological sense. He does not believe in Maori self government and all those other unrealistic expectations and desires. Rather he believes in the pragmatic notion of tino rangatiratanga – enhanced wellbeing as opposed to self rule.

Ultimately, the decision on who to appoint sits with the Attorney-General. I am fairly confident Justice Williams will not be overlooked by either Chris Finlayson or, if Labour is in power, David Parker. It is something of an anomaly that in New Zealand, in 2011 might I add, that Maori are absent in both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.