Moon and Maori: our complicated relationship

It isn’t said enough: don’t be a douchebag. Presumably no one told Paul Moon. Writing in the Herald:

Since the 1880s Whakarewarewa… has been where tourists have gone to see an "authentic", "living" Maori village…

Whakarewarewa is not a "village" in the conventional sense. Its main reason for existence is not the social needs of the community but the gaze of outsiders.

Whakarewarewa is a home. It might have a dual purpose – as a home and as a tourist attraction – but that doesn’t negate its authenticity. Its residents won’t take kindly to being told that their lifestyle is not authentic. More broadly, Te Arawa identity is woven in the history of Whakarewarewa. If their ties to Whakarewarewa don’t lend authenticity, heaven knows what does.

The whole contrivance is a throwback to Victorian preferences for the role and placement of native peoples: smiling performers of their "primitive" cultures rolled out for the entertainment of the "civilised" visitor… The natives are locked in a state of perpetual but picturesque decrepitude. The result is an overwrought form of exotica - culture packaged to tantalise the imagination of spectators.

Perhaps paradoxically, I agree with Moon. 19th and 20th century expectations of Maori culture are weaved throughout several tourist attractions. Not so much Whakarewarewa, but others. Take the Tamaki Maori Village. The Village is a glossy representation of pre-European Maori society. The Village plays to the expectations or, more cynically, the prejudices of its customers. But that’s what happens when culture is commodified for consumption. It’s packaged for the dominant group. Another article quotes Moon arguing that:

The use of the haka on the sports field, he said, had turned it into an entertainment spectacle. 

"Is it appropriate for a sports match? This is a professional team, a business, performing a haka as part of the entertainment."

The Haka and sports is different. Ka Mate and the All Blacks is a prominent example of cultural reappropriation in New Zealand. In its former guise, Ka Mate was used to satisfy the “Victorian” expectations of New Zealand and New Zealanders. It was used disparagingly. Ka Mate’s reclaimation was a form of socio-cultural empowerment. The haka is now an empowering ritual across New Zealand sport.

Moon… said he cringed at a powhiri he attended at a government department.

"There was not one Maori involved in the whole process, and I was sitting there watching it and thinking, there are two groups of Europeans engaging in a process about which they know very little.

"I'd hesitate to use the word 'fake', but there's certainly an element of the culture being corrupted."

This is more difficult. The situation where a room full of non-Maori are performing a powhiri opens difficult questions around whether powhiri is a part of New Zealand culture or, cynically speaking, is it a form of PC appeasement/liberal guilt/cultural appropriation/etc. I prefer the former. Personally, I don’t find any issue with non-Maori conducting a powhiri in a New Zealand context. Odd, yeah, offensive, no. Do you agree?

Post-script: this isn’t an attack on Paul Moon. He does good work, if sometimes (well, a lot of the time) he takes an offensive tone and many Maori disagree with him. His book - Tohunga: Hohepa Kereopa - is very interesting. 

Powhiri: the sexism edition

Consider this from Voxy:

While Youth MPs were sworn into parliament today, Labour’s Annette King showed outrage over a gender segregated Powhiri.

One hundred and twenty one Youth MPs participated in a traditional Maori Powhiri whereby males spoke from various iwis and were placed in front of females who completed the welcoming call, otherwise known as Karanga.

Labour MP Annette King said she was not comfortable with the "segregated nature" of the welcoming.

And this:

Labour MPs Annette King and Maryan Street have spoken to Speaker after being made to sit behind men at a Parliamentary powhiri yesterday.
— Tina Wickliffe (@TinaWickliffe) July 17, 2013

I think it's wrong to impose a western conception of sexism on Maori protocol. Maori views don't have to conform to western norms. To argue that they should is to impose a particular worldview as the only truth. It stinks of the cultural imperialism of the 19th and 20th century. The rationale behind the arrangements is clear, but those rationales might not have existed for as long as many people assume. Reverand Chris Huriwai explains:

@MorganGodfery I remember being told by Matua Hone Kaa that there were no seating arrangements. You just stood wherever you were and spoke.
— Rev. Chris Huriwai (@RevChrisHuriwai) July 16, 2013

After sounding out others, it appears that powhiri were "organic" occasions. Can anyone else explain further?

Let a Woman speak

The Manawatu Standard reports:

Labour's Te Tai Hauauru candidate has blamed "iwi politics" for preventing her from addressing her party leader on her home marae at Ratana celebrations.

Soraya Peke-Mason was stopped from speaking during a powhiri to welcome members of the Labour, Green and Mana political parties on to Ratana Pa during yesterday's traditional political gathering.

Ms Peke-Mason, who finished second in the Maori electorate in November's election, said she was not disappointed at what happened as the message she had wanted to deliver was presented on her behalf by the chairman of the executive committee, Waka Palmer.

Ratana Church secretary William Meremere said Ms Peke-Mason had asked to speak on the marae but that was opposed by "family members".

Mr Meremere said the objection was not because of concerns about anything Ms Peke-Mason might have said, but because of tikanga.

There were protocols regarding who could speak on the marae and whether women could speak, he said.

Special dispensations had been made at times, Mr Meremere said. Former prime minister Helen Clark had been allowed to speak at Ratana in previous years, he said.

A Woman’s right to speak during powhiri is an interesting debate. There appear to be two schools of thought. One side says the rules, or kawa, of the powhiri are laid down by the Gods to protect mauri (life force) and, therefore, cannot be altered. The other view holds that the guidelines, or tikanga, of powhiri are flexible and change with time to meet differing conditions, changing norms and so on. I like to subscribe to the second school of thought, but the first school, I think, is the culturally correct view.

But cultures should be flexible and, in my opinion, there is no need to hold steadfast to the rule that women are not allowed to speak from the paepae. There is no longer any rationale for the rule, other than superstition. The role of women in Maori society is changing and the rules of powhiri should change to reflect this.

I should add that not all Marae prevent women from speaking from the paepae. I think some Marae of Ngati Porou allow women to speak, as do a number of others across the motu. One of my Marae, Kokohinau, is particularly rigid when it comes to a woman's right to speak. Even during the last night of tangi (the po whakamutunga) where a ceremony for the immediate family is held, women are forbidden from speaking. Yes, even the wife of the deceased would be barred from speaking at her own husbands’ ceremony. There appears to me no good reason for this, other than the patriarchy holding steadfast to long diminished cultural rationales.

My explanation for this is thus: given we, as Maori, lost many aspects of our culture we’re determined to keep a tight grip on what we retain. Often this means we’re reluctant to let go of or change what we have. Which is fair enough, but there some things cannot continue into the 21st century.

In 2005 Pita Sharples led the call to give women the right to speak during powhiri. It’s a shame his call didn’t gain much traction. It wouldn’t hurt us to reopen this debate.