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.

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.