Post by Kiwi Frontline on Dec 25, 2019 15:59:35 GMT 12
IDENTIFYING AS MAORI – By Shaun Waugh
Blood and soil racism, historical narrative fraud, espousing romantic identity political neo-tribalism and culturalism: Discussing some aspects of the notion of Māori identity • My ancestors sold MY treasured land, that I FEEL entitled to by blood and a narrative fraud about Britain’s civilisation of New Zealand, so even though they sold it fair and square 200 years ago, now I demand it back, and if you don’t give it back whitey YOU are RACIST![3] #OppressedByStatues #PsychologicalProjection #SargonsLaw
“I’m half Maori and half Scottish. One half of me wants to get pissed and the other half doesn’t want to pay for it.
He he he he he.”~Billy T James[1].
A few years ago in 1975 the story of legal Māori identity was changed[2] from where it had been set by statute in 1953 regarding who could be on the four Maori seats electoral roll, by full-blooded Maori, from being a half of your DNA by lineage to any identifiable amount or quantum and whether you perceive yourself to be Māori or not. That opened up a kind of fraud, under the auspices of the previous definition, where largely non Māori people pretend to be Māori. Why would they want to do this?
And you cannot have it both ways on the argument, the real and philosophical conundrum about blood quantum. Either full-to half Māori people by genetic lineage pre 1974 were right to set the bar for Māori identity at half or more in 1953 or they were not, and if you say they were not right, then you are retrospectively framing them as racist for being adults who freely chose to rule out less than half Māori from being entitled to vote for the four Māori seats in Parliament pre-1974.
In brief, there are benefits for identifying as Māori. The benefits typically relate to schemes and incentives to address the disadvantage experienced by many Māori people. In theory, specific strategies to address this disadvantage are a good thing, but there are problems.
Specifically, should all people who identify as being Māori be entitled to access such benefits?
I think a better approach to addressing the disadvantage and despair that characterise some Māori communities and individuals, is to focus on need, rather than race.
If this was the approach used, then a lot of the controversy about Māori identity and allocated benefits would cease; but not completely. Observation of media and politics shows, there are non-financial benefits which are just as attractive, and sometimes even more attractive that can be motivators for identifying as an Indigenous New Zealander.
Before exploring these benefits and the problems they pose, I will first discuss some aspects of the notion of Māori identity.
Firstly, I have friends who identify as part Māori people. I have been told that use of the term “part Māori” is offensive and that I should not use it. Nonsense. I can describe people reasonably in any way I wish. Offence is not given, it is taken.
People, in their concern/criticism sometimes say “Well which part of them is Māori?” Or some Māori identifying people may say “Well I am a whole person, I am not ‘part anything’”.
What part Māori people who do not identify as Māori have in common with these people is that they too are a whole person also. They are so whole in fact, that they recognise other aspects of their being, and don’t let their lives revolve around one aspect of their being, namely their Māori identity, which is only one part of who they are.
Where they differ to some of the people who most strongly identify as Māori, is that they are happy (and proud) to acknowledge all of their ethnic heritage and not just a part of it. I am often curious why some Maori identifying people only focus on their Māori heritage, and why it is that some of them, neglect the other fifteen sixteenths, or more, of their heritage.
The current definition of Māori-ness is exactly that, a definition that was broadened open-endedly in 1975.
Without exception, all such definitions are based on the perceptions and motives of people with vested interests. It follows that the less objective reasoning there is for the definition, the more the definition becomes emotionally influenced.
Definitions do not have any inherent truth of their own they are arrived at by consensus.
As an analogy, consider a comparison between gold and silver. It is a self evident fact (that cannot be changed by consensus), that gold has greater mass than silver. However, to suggest that gold is more precious than silver is merely an agreement arrived at by people using many criteria.
With regard to the definition of a Māori person, the notion that a Māori person is anyone with some proven or documented tribal ancestry, even if very minimal, is simply consensus based.
This rule is endorsed and used by the Government, and proven a truthful description of it by the fact the Government changed the legal consensus of what Māori is in 1975.
I find it interesting that many people are quick to adopt this government endorsed definition of Māoriness (which they would never ever dare question as being anything else other than truth) simply because it is government endorsed, but they are prepared at the drop of a hat to question many other government endorsements and rulings.
It is also interesting that this requirement (of some ancestry) to establish Māori identity is one that is not agreed on by all people who identify as Māori.
I have heard the following analogy to establish a person’s Māori identity: If you have a cup of coffee, even if you add a lot of milk and make cappuccino, it is still a cup of coffee.
This analogy means that a person who identifies as an Indigenous Māori, is one even if he or she has a small amount of Māori ancestry in comparison to their non Māori ancestry. Of course all analogies have their limitations in terms of explanatory power, but there are a couple of significant problems with this one that cannot be overlooked.
Firstly, if the guy using the coffee analogy was to order a cup of coffee in a café and was presented with a cup of milk with a small sprinkling of coffee powder, would he be satisfied that he received a cup of coffee? Secondly, the assumption that the analogy of the cup of coffee represents Māori ancestry/identity and the milk represents non Māori ancestry/identity is completely arbitrary.
The coffee could also just as easily represent non-Māori ancestry and the milk represent Māori ancestry and the analogy used to establish a non-Māori person's ethnic status.
I don’t have a problem with people identifying as Māori. That is of course an individual’s business and their right.
What I question is public policy that uses public money that focuses on Māori identity as a way of addressing social and cultural problems. I think focusing on race hinders us in addressing the needs of those in our country who are most disadvantaged, whether they be Māori or non-Māori.
So what are the non-financial benefits for identifying as a Māori person? I am all for people with Māori ancestry being involved in Māori affairs with the goal of helping to close the gap. But having Māori ancestry alone does not necessarily provide a person with any special knowledge that enables them to address the problems facing some Māori people.
Further, once identifying as Māori, some have a ready-made excuse for passive aggressive and openly aggressive rudeness and anger expressed socially, and other bad behaviour (such as slinging anti white racist slurs and flag burning), etc.
– “As a Māori New Zealander I am angered over how the white colonial settlers raped and murdered my ancestors and stole their land >150 years ago” or
“Pākeha New Zealanders should be paying us reparations and rent for occupying our land!”
What happens in the case (which I suspect is the majority of cases) where a person is of both Māori and nonMāori descent? Do they pay themselves rent?
So why am I saying all this? Because I think that by focusing on who is Māori and who is not, we distract ourselves from addressing the problems of poverty, unemployment, lack of education, fatherlessness, family violence, urban gangs, crime, drug abuse, homelessness, mental illness and sickness that need urgent attention. Yes, we can all as New Zealanders be proud of our ancestries, but let’s not see ourselves as people’s different, divided and separate to one another.
Let’s adopt what I believe is a traditional Māori belief and see ourselves as one people imbued with one spirit that asserts the uniting value that the most important thing of all;
he Tangata,
he Tangata,
he Tangata,
it is people,
it is people,
it is people.
Once this happens, we can then more effectively engage in providing help to those fellow Kiwis who most need the help.
The reversion to intense tribalism magnifies your grievances against the out-group and minimises the sins of your in-group.
Radical Māori make harmonious coexistence impossible because they dwell on the thermonuclear core of resentment based on events 150 years in the past which will forever remain unforgiven. Their identity politics twists the social discourse to selfish or group identity tribal ends.
***
[1]“By the way, William James Taitoko was not joking when he said he was half Scottish. Apparently, the Maori side of the family originally came from the King Country, but on his mother's side he was descended from the Campbell clan in Scotland. Back in 1981, when he got a TV show of his own, he told the Listener with a laugh, "I've been to some of the reunions in the King Country. It's a pretty unusual sight seeing Maori guys wearing kilts."
~ Bill Ralston www.noted.co.nz/archive/archive-listener-nz-2009/funny-fulla
[2] www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj23/23problem-of-defining-an-ethnic-group-for-public-policy-who-is-maori-and-why-does-it-matter-p86-108.html
[3] www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/114833146/ihumtao-solidarity-event-organised-for-nelson
Blood and soil racism, historical narrative fraud, espousing romantic identity political neo-tribalism and culturalism: Discussing some aspects of the notion of Māori identity • My ancestors sold MY treasured land, that I FEEL entitled to by blood and a narrative fraud about Britain’s civilisation of New Zealand, so even though they sold it fair and square 200 years ago, now I demand it back, and if you don’t give it back whitey YOU are RACIST![3] #OppressedByStatues #PsychologicalProjection #SargonsLaw
“I’m half Maori and half Scottish. One half of me wants to get pissed and the other half doesn’t want to pay for it.
He he he he he.”~Billy T James[1].
A few years ago in 1975 the story of legal Māori identity was changed[2] from where it had been set by statute in 1953 regarding who could be on the four Maori seats electoral roll, by full-blooded Maori, from being a half of your DNA by lineage to any identifiable amount or quantum and whether you perceive yourself to be Māori or not. That opened up a kind of fraud, under the auspices of the previous definition, where largely non Māori people pretend to be Māori. Why would they want to do this?
And you cannot have it both ways on the argument, the real and philosophical conundrum about blood quantum. Either full-to half Māori people by genetic lineage pre 1974 were right to set the bar for Māori identity at half or more in 1953 or they were not, and if you say they were not right, then you are retrospectively framing them as racist for being adults who freely chose to rule out less than half Māori from being entitled to vote for the four Māori seats in Parliament pre-1974.
In brief, there are benefits for identifying as Māori. The benefits typically relate to schemes and incentives to address the disadvantage experienced by many Māori people. In theory, specific strategies to address this disadvantage are a good thing, but there are problems.
Specifically, should all people who identify as being Māori be entitled to access such benefits?
I think a better approach to addressing the disadvantage and despair that characterise some Māori communities and individuals, is to focus on need, rather than race.
If this was the approach used, then a lot of the controversy about Māori identity and allocated benefits would cease; but not completely. Observation of media and politics shows, there are non-financial benefits which are just as attractive, and sometimes even more attractive that can be motivators for identifying as an Indigenous New Zealander.
Before exploring these benefits and the problems they pose, I will first discuss some aspects of the notion of Māori identity.
Firstly, I have friends who identify as part Māori people. I have been told that use of the term “part Māori” is offensive and that I should not use it. Nonsense. I can describe people reasonably in any way I wish. Offence is not given, it is taken.
People, in their concern/criticism sometimes say “Well which part of them is Māori?” Or some Māori identifying people may say “Well I am a whole person, I am not ‘part anything’”.
What part Māori people who do not identify as Māori have in common with these people is that they too are a whole person also. They are so whole in fact, that they recognise other aspects of their being, and don’t let their lives revolve around one aspect of their being, namely their Māori identity, which is only one part of who they are.
Where they differ to some of the people who most strongly identify as Māori, is that they are happy (and proud) to acknowledge all of their ethnic heritage and not just a part of it. I am often curious why some Maori identifying people only focus on their Māori heritage, and why it is that some of them, neglect the other fifteen sixteenths, or more, of their heritage.
The current definition of Māori-ness is exactly that, a definition that was broadened open-endedly in 1975.
Without exception, all such definitions are based on the perceptions and motives of people with vested interests. It follows that the less objective reasoning there is for the definition, the more the definition becomes emotionally influenced.
Definitions do not have any inherent truth of their own they are arrived at by consensus.
As an analogy, consider a comparison between gold and silver. It is a self evident fact (that cannot be changed by consensus), that gold has greater mass than silver. However, to suggest that gold is more precious than silver is merely an agreement arrived at by people using many criteria.
With regard to the definition of a Māori person, the notion that a Māori person is anyone with some proven or documented tribal ancestry, even if very minimal, is simply consensus based.
This rule is endorsed and used by the Government, and proven a truthful description of it by the fact the Government changed the legal consensus of what Māori is in 1975.
I find it interesting that many people are quick to adopt this government endorsed definition of Māoriness (which they would never ever dare question as being anything else other than truth) simply because it is government endorsed, but they are prepared at the drop of a hat to question many other government endorsements and rulings.
It is also interesting that this requirement (of some ancestry) to establish Māori identity is one that is not agreed on by all people who identify as Māori.
I have heard the following analogy to establish a person’s Māori identity: If you have a cup of coffee, even if you add a lot of milk and make cappuccino, it is still a cup of coffee.
This analogy means that a person who identifies as an Indigenous Māori, is one even if he or she has a small amount of Māori ancestry in comparison to their non Māori ancestry. Of course all analogies have their limitations in terms of explanatory power, but there are a couple of significant problems with this one that cannot be overlooked.
Firstly, if the guy using the coffee analogy was to order a cup of coffee in a café and was presented with a cup of milk with a small sprinkling of coffee powder, would he be satisfied that he received a cup of coffee? Secondly, the assumption that the analogy of the cup of coffee represents Māori ancestry/identity and the milk represents non Māori ancestry/identity is completely arbitrary.
The coffee could also just as easily represent non-Māori ancestry and the milk represent Māori ancestry and the analogy used to establish a non-Māori person's ethnic status.
I don’t have a problem with people identifying as Māori. That is of course an individual’s business and their right.
What I question is public policy that uses public money that focuses on Māori identity as a way of addressing social and cultural problems. I think focusing on race hinders us in addressing the needs of those in our country who are most disadvantaged, whether they be Māori or non-Māori.
So what are the non-financial benefits for identifying as a Māori person? I am all for people with Māori ancestry being involved in Māori affairs with the goal of helping to close the gap. But having Māori ancestry alone does not necessarily provide a person with any special knowledge that enables them to address the problems facing some Māori people.
Further, once identifying as Māori, some have a ready-made excuse for passive aggressive and openly aggressive rudeness and anger expressed socially, and other bad behaviour (such as slinging anti white racist slurs and flag burning), etc.
– “As a Māori New Zealander I am angered over how the white colonial settlers raped and murdered my ancestors and stole their land >150 years ago” or
“Pākeha New Zealanders should be paying us reparations and rent for occupying our land!”
What happens in the case (which I suspect is the majority of cases) where a person is of both Māori and nonMāori descent? Do they pay themselves rent?
So why am I saying all this? Because I think that by focusing on who is Māori and who is not, we distract ourselves from addressing the problems of poverty, unemployment, lack of education, fatherlessness, family violence, urban gangs, crime, drug abuse, homelessness, mental illness and sickness that need urgent attention. Yes, we can all as New Zealanders be proud of our ancestries, but let’s not see ourselves as people’s different, divided and separate to one another.
Let’s adopt what I believe is a traditional Māori belief and see ourselves as one people imbued with one spirit that asserts the uniting value that the most important thing of all;
he Tangata,
he Tangata,
he Tangata,
it is people,
it is people,
it is people.
Once this happens, we can then more effectively engage in providing help to those fellow Kiwis who most need the help.
The reversion to intense tribalism magnifies your grievances against the out-group and minimises the sins of your in-group.
Radical Māori make harmonious coexistence impossible because they dwell on the thermonuclear core of resentment based on events 150 years in the past which will forever remain unforgiven. Their identity politics twists the social discourse to selfish or group identity tribal ends.
***
[1]“By the way, William James Taitoko was not joking when he said he was half Scottish. Apparently, the Maori side of the family originally came from the King Country, but on his mother's side he was descended from the Campbell clan in Scotland. Back in 1981, when he got a TV show of his own, he told the Listener with a laugh, "I've been to some of the reunions in the King Country. It's a pretty unusual sight seeing Maori guys wearing kilts."
~ Bill Ralston www.noted.co.nz/archive/archive-listener-nz-2009/funny-fulla
[2] www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj23/23problem-of-defining-an-ethnic-group-for-public-policy-who-is-maori-and-why-does-it-matter-p86-108.html
[3] www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/114833146/ihumtao-solidarity-event-organised-for-nelson