 |
| Speaking Rights: The spectacle of the nation’s prime minister being denied the right to speak to her fellow citizens, personally, on New Zealand’s national day would generate massive antagonism among Pakeha of both sexes. A refusal to be guided by the customs of Ngāpuhi, on the other hand, would be regarded as a slap in the face by the whole of Maoridom. It would be interpreted as proof of the fundamental insincerity that still bedevils the Pakeha world when it comes to accepting and respecting the values of New Zealand’s indigenous culture. |
WAITANGI DAY is still more than half a year away: still plenty of time for Ngāpuhi to put things “right”. The promise made at Waitangi earlier this year: that from 2022 women politicians would be “allowed” to speak for themselves; will in all likelihood be honoured. The possibility exists, however, that Ngāpuhi will refuse to be dictated to by Pakeha feminists. A stiff-necked people, they may decide that their time-honoured tribal customs are not to be overturned at the behest of “White Privilege”. Requiring the Prime Minister to nominate a male colleague to speak on her behalf would, after all, be an interesting test of Labour’s commitment to honour the ways of te ao Māori – a very interesting test.
Certainly, such a requirement would place Jacinda Ardern in a very uncomfortable position. The spectacle of the nation’s prime minister being denied the right to speak to her fellow citizens, personally, on New Zealand’s national day would generate massive antagonism among Pakeha of both sexes. A refusal to be guided by the customs of Ngāpuhi, on the other hand, would be regarded as a slap in the face by the whole of Maoridom. It would be interpreted as proof of the fundamental insincerity that still bedevils the Pakeha world when it comes to accepting and respecting the values of New Zealand’s indigenous culture.
Given that there are a great many more Pakeha than Maori, simple political arithmetic suggests that the Prime Minister’s best course of action would be to politely decline the invitation to attend the Waitangi Day celebrations on 6 February 2022, and find a less contentious venue from which to deliver her speech. That course of action would not, however, be politically cost-free. It is easy to anticipate the Maori Party’s response to Jacinda’s “slighting” of Ngāpuhi. It would be presented as confirmation that for all their fine words about “partnership”, with Pakeha it is always “My way – or the highway.”
In left-wing circles the debate would be even more intense. Critical Race Theory would enjoin Whites to step away from their cultural and political privileges and accept the judgement of Ngāpuhi’s decision-makers. To do anything else, it would be argued (at least by some) requires the elevation of Pakeha notions of equality and liberty over Ngāpuhi’s understanding of women’s and men’s roles in the ceremonies of welcome and the processes of deliberation. Any assumption that the Western liberal tradition must take precedence over indigenous custom, these leftists would contend, is prima facie evidence of white supremacism. The Prime Minister would, in effect, be saying to Ngāpuhi: “My people’s values are superior to your people’s values.”
What’s more, that would remain the message, even if she chose to spend Waitangi Day somewhere else. Indeed, these leftists would argue that, in those circumstances, the message would be made much worse. By choosing to deliver her speech on the grounds of Government House – or somewhere like it – the Prime Minister would be guilty of “othering” Ngāpuhi. No matter what the text of her address might say, the sub-text would be crystal clear:
Isn’t it a pity that the sexism of Ngāpuhi is so deeply entrenched that civilised interaction between New Zealand’s two principal ethnicities has, for the moment, become impossible? We must earnestly hope that in time – and we hope that time is soon – they will decide to join us all in the modern world.
That was, after all, the essence of the message sent out by the last National Government when it decided to steer well clear of Waitangi until Ngāpuhi were prepared to meet the expectations of the New Zealand Government vis-à-vis the dignified celebration of Waitangi Day. To declare – albeit sub-texturally – that on the 6 February 1840, Ngāpuhi did, indeed, surrender their sovereignty to the British Crown.
Within Labour’s parliamentary caucus there are plenty of MPs – and not just those holding the Maori seats – who would be extraordinarily uncomfortable with such a message being sent out by a Labour Government. For them, the steady progress being made towards the bi-cultural nation envisaged in the He Puapua Report represents the biggest and most important project in which they are ever likely to participate. They believe in te Tiriti o Waitangi, they believe in the partnership model, and they believe that kawanatanga and rangatiratanga are two distinct political concepts. Co-governance will not, however, be possible without consistent and mutual respect for the customs, practices and values of the Pakeha world and te ao Māori.
Which is why, if Ngāpuhi insist that Jacinda accept the tradition that women do not speak on the paepae, then the Prime Minister will nominate a male colleague to speak on her behalf. Equally, however, Ngāpuhi is most unlikely to demand that of her. Stiff-necked Ngāpuhi may be – but no one has ever called them stupid.
This essay was originally posted on The Daily Blog of Tuesday, 15 June 2021.
Surely the problem is any political party wanting to force change on tribal custom. Jacinda should make it clear she has no intention of speaking. For turn up, even if given permission, is just another example of colonial masters bullying Maori to change their customs.
ReplyDeleteIf you think the national party quote was bad, thinking Jacinda should turn up is equally bad.
I just understand any woman would submit to this atitude of some maori. The claim that it recognises maori culture is just idiocy. Would those same people submit to the culture of much pf Africa for female genital mutilation.
ReplyDeleteWe are supposed to live in an era of equality. Its about time Maori progressed to recognise equality of the genders.
It would be interesting to see what this lot will do with a trans female or trans male.
Maori women have insisted on their right to speak on the paepae when particular women's standing would be appropriate. It would be appropriate and gracious to extend that to any leader of the country, woman or man. To carry on an argument about it would not be gracious, and would look like dissing the elders. To make it something that is decided annually by a whim on the Maori or Pakeha side would diminish the formality and paramount position of the tribe and the marae, and the mutual relationship that has been established, and can be built on. It of course should be carried out formally, with respect on both sides.
ReplyDeleteThe Maori Party can make their gestures in Parliament to make a point of having the right to overturn conventions that are outdated. But Maori are demanding more concessions and more respect for their mana, and rightly so. And to illustrate that, they would be setting an example of mature, confident behaviour themselves.
Grey, nice observation, Maori Party objecting to ties in Parliament, I'm in agreement, the world has changed. Now women speaking on the marae, the world has changed. Can't have it both ways.
DeleteStiff-necked Ngāpuhi may be – but no one has ever called them stupid.
ReplyDeleteHeh, heh, heh. Politics is the Queen of the Sciences.
And a good thing too. Why should we melt into some gigantic scrap over two cultures grinding away on each other over time. Pakeha have, even sometimes when they don't realise it, accepted certain aspects of Maori culture. We are not Americans with regard to work and life. And Maori have yielded up traditions that they realised - as did the ancient forebears of Pakeha - simply didn't work and were not acceptable in a modern liberal age.
At some point some brassy Ngapuhi Wahine (more likely a bunch of them) is going to challenge this minor, but stupid shit, and win, just as woman have won a great many rights off men in Western society over the last two centuries. Perhaps that will mean Ngapuhi are more Westernised than they like, but that's life for you. My Scottish, Irish and Celtic ancestors had to deal with that too.
I notice that rarely do commentators take a stand for males to to the karanga or men to lead the waiata after the speaker. The privileging of 'the speech' is evidence of a western value system. Traditional Polynesian ontology was that of balance. Male / Female reflected Noa / Tapu. A perpetual cosmic balance between concepts that also reflect gender.
ReplyDeleteIt is without doubt that traditionally women within Polynesia had greater autonomy and power than their European counter-parts at the time of contact. Certainly more than most Christian denominations afford women today.
The question in regard to speech on the paepae is whether Nga Puhi and other Iwi / Hapu that maintain traditional balance, is whether in the post-colonial world the value of whaikōrero has upset the tradition equilibrium both internally and with the status of Waitangi as a national marae.
I understand that debate is being held. It would be my guess that Nga Puhi will adjust to a new symmetry long before we see a woman as Pope, Arch Bishop of Canterbury, Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church of leadership in the Mormon church.
Id wager that the Anglicans will have a woman as Archbishop of Canterbury soonest. Check out all these female bishops. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_Anglican_bishops
DeleteI suspect the issue will degenerate into a bit of a circus. Nga Puhi are riven with division and animosity going back many generations with no clear hierarchy of authority. The ongoing twenty years of internal wrangling over control of treaty settlement money indication of their dysfunction in that regard. It's a general problem within the culture, a hollow shell of tribal authority but with no means of asserting control or even of enlisting cooperation. I know how Hongi would have sorted it out.
ReplyDeleteOf course Jacinda will do whatever she's told but the multiple factions within Nga Puhi will ensure that she will be unsure just who to kow-tow to - the torment will be entertaining for some I suppose. I wonder if they've any idea of the way Maori view such spineless acquiescence.
Her cringe-in-a-suit Mallard showed pretty conclusively who's running the show when he caved in to Waititi's tantrum in Parliament, to say nothing of Jacinda's "are you sure that's enough" response to any demand from Maori. They've even made cringe compulsory for our school kids.
Seriously, who gives a toss? "To speak or not to speak" is a "tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
ReplyDeleteI just understand any woman would submit to this atitude of some maori. The claim that it recognises maori culture is just idiocy. Would those same people submit to the culture of much pf Africa for female genital mutilation.
ReplyDeleteWe are supposed to live in an era of equality. Its about time Maori progressed to recognise equality of the genders.
It would be interesting to see what this lot will do with a trans female or trans male.
I agree entirely. The CRT-types are essentially saying "poor little brown people. They don't understand gender equality, so we shouldn't criticise them for sexism or other discrimination. Only white people can be sexist/racist/homophobic." It's incredibly patronising.
The best option is for the Prime Minister is to go to the East Coast and deliver her address on a Ngati Porou marae where they allow women to speak. That would set the precedent and please those iwi who are sick of the infighting in the norther tribes. Then Nga Puhi would have to change to get her back.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I know this is the last thing she will do as it will offend the Harawiras.
I was watching her stellar performance at the Anti-Terrorism Hui at which:
ReplyDelete[This seminar also explores who is typically included in discussions of superdiversity and] those that might be excluded such as hegemonic majority ethnic groups, or corporate and private sector organisations. Settler society superdiversity is used as one example to explore the complex possibilities of emancipatory politics. Spoonley the Operator
and later I watched a video of Cross the Rubicon. He is now Tapu and has lost his job and Westpac wont let him bank there (their poo-poos don't smell). Now I fully understand all that after all he insulted Te Patti Maori and got his just desserts.
I was wondering just what sort of protections we had before Liberation and it occured to me some journalist might investigate, but then I remembered the Guyon Espiner interview of Operation Iceblock when Maori sailed down to Antarctica and back and I thought "we'll maybe that's not somewhere one should look!"
https://action-zealandia.com/articles/an-enemy-of-the-people-the-sophist#comment-4339
ReplyDeleteSunlight is the best disinfectant