INTELLIGENCE VERSUS IGNORANCE

Whaowhia te kete matauranga – fill the basket of knowledge; that was the motto of Rotokākahī Māori School where I began my formal education in 1960.  I think of it whenever I see or hear someone preaching a particularly dumb message.  I also think of Benjamin Franklin who said, “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” 

One of the most persistent pieces of ignorance that regularly comes out in any discourse about race relations in this country are long-debunked theories devised by long dead European observors as to how Māori populated these islands.

The two main means of transmission of history within the European world are by documentation (written history) and by word of mouth (oral history). Both means are well-established, true-tested, interwoven and time-honoured. 

For anyone capable of reading and writing there are screeds of written history compiled by those who "were there" during the first years of European colonisation.  These include the recording of a significant number of oral histories showing that tūpuna Māori came searching for these lands because their science and theory told them they existed exactly where they were discovered. 

But later European commentators, especially 20^th century ones, struggled to accept that evidence. They just could not believe Māori had traversed the largest ocean in the world in anything other than a haphazard fashion. So they developed the drift theory, made up scenarios in which Māori had gone fishing and gotten lost then accidentally washed ashore here, and painted portrayals showing waka filled with emaciated and desperate occupants running aground.

The simple truth is that second millennium Māori, and in fact all Polynesians, had a far more sophisticated marine and astrological knowledge (science) and practice (theoretical application) than their European counterparts.  In short, they were very intelligent.

As further evidence of their intelligence, Dr Evelyn Stokes’ 1996 research paper, Muriwhenua: Review of the Evidence, draws on missionary diaries to show that literacy amongst Māori in Muriwhenua, as elsewhere, spread rapidly during the early years of European colonisation. 

To this day, literacy is treasured by Māori as a means to enhance the teaching, learning and recording of their history.  Most European cultures also hold literacy in high regard.  Which is why it is amazing to see this level of ignorance about Māori still around in the 21^st century.

The knowledge exists.  What seems to be lacking amongst the ignorant is the intelligence to fill their basket with it.

JUST MY IMAGINATION

Is it just my imagination, or is politics becoming ever more about perception and less and less about reality? For example National’s John Key went off to China yesterday saying, "We are going to use the hiccup of a false [botulism] reading in 2013 and turn that into an attempt to demonstrate it actually shows how clear, transparent and responsive our [food safety] system is."

That’s like Union Carbide attempting to demonstrate to India how clear, transparent and responsive  their gas production safety system is - in the United States. 

If I were a Chinese mother I’d be less interested in the perception of what happened in New Zealand in 2013 and more influenced by the reality of what happened in China in 2008. 

Meanwhile back here inside the New Zealand bubble the line between political perception and reality continues to stretch and blur into a credibility gap which gives rise to odd questions like, is Labour’s David Cunliffe really a master of the Vulcan mind meld?  And if he is, why on earth would he want to be of one mind with his main rival Shane Jones? as he claimed to be last Friday regards refusing to be lectured by an Australian. 

That’s like Mowgli gazing dazedly into the eyes of Kaa.  However, if I were a gambler, I would hedge any bets on who was playing the role of the innocent boy and which the cunning snake.  Perception and reality might actually match in either case. 

As for the offending Australian in question, Russel Norman of the Greens, he is being threatened with legal action by the Conservatives' Colin Craig for giving the perception at the Big Gay Out that Mr Craig wanted to keep women in the kitchen and homosexuals in the closet.  Apparently the reality is that Mr Craig doesn’t just deny the perception, he also wants to raise the level of debate involved. 

To achieve that, all Colin Craig need do is make sure any perception matches the reality of his actions.  It would cost him a lot less than suing and would also deny the Australian a podium from which to lecture further.

The 2011 general election saw a record low voter turnout, and here we are now less than six month’s out from election 2014.  What is the aggregate affect of all these mismatched political perceptions and realities likely to be on the voting public? 

One potential affect is that even less of us will take part in election 2014 than took part in election 2011.  If that happens, then it won’t matter whether it’s Key or Cunliffe who forms the next government because, other than the poor getting poorer and the rich richer, nothing will change anyway. 

And that is reality, not just my imagination.

DESCRIBED AS MĀORI

If you’ve been in this country long enough you know that when a media item contains the words described as Māori, then it’s not going to be a good news story.  

Admittedly the phrase described as European / Pākehā doesn’t presage a good news story either, but neither is it seen nor heard anywhere near as often as its Māori counterpart. 

To illustrate, if you enter described as Māori in the New Zealand Herald’s online search engine there are eight bad news stories this year alone; three of which are reported on twice with sensational headlines like Armed men in home invasion hammer attack, House stormed in bid to find man on run and Brazen scammer offered victims non-existent job.

Conversely, so far this year there has only been one item about a person  described as European under the non-threatening headline Online casanova sought by police, and there have been no stories about people described as Pākehā since 2011. 

One look at me and my siblings confirms that descriptions of our gender, height, age, colour of eyes, skin and hair, and our outstanding features might help you find us.  But described as Māori?  What does that look like? and why is it even relevant to anyone but a racist?

In a 2012 study, The Pacific Media Centre identified a number of media patterns that contribute to racist views of Māori.  The first and most powerful is that in which Pākeha, although rarely named as a group, are routinely constructed as natural and normal, while Māori are largely invisible except when measured against that norm.

This pattern produces stories and comments that reinforce Pākehā culture as the natural, normal foundation of the New Zealand nation.  Even when an inspirational story involves Māori, this pattern invariably sees them credited as New Zealanders or Kiwis while any Māori connection is portrayed as a deficit they have, or are still trying to, overcome.  

Ultimately, this pattern has produced stories and comments that normalize the ongoing theft of land and resources from Māori as a natural process.    

For recent examples of this, read Chris Finlayson’s Waitangi Day article, Treaty settlements working for the betterment of us, and the online responses to Matt McCarten’s opinion piece last month, Iwi leaders risk losing touch. 

It’s highly probable that this pattern has contributed significantly to the list of derogatory terms in Google’s predictive search function which says Kiwis are dumb, racist, stupid and rude.  

There was an even worse and longer list for the inquiry Māori are until last Saturday when Google disabled the function and removed the racist insults.  If only changing the underlying and causative attitudes were as easy.

And that is the real challenge to media producers and audiences in this country – if you don’t want to reap the whirlwind of race hatred, then either uniformly report bad news stories to also identify those described as European / Pākehā, or find ways to tell and read such stories without the irrelevant, racist identifier, described as Māori.

FEEDING FRENZY

 

In an election year any hint of Māori gaining an advantage is blood in the water to a number of political sharks who can be relied upon to go into a feeding frenzy over it. 

Generally it’s Winston Peters who takes the first and choicest chunk.  But on the issue of Cultural Impact Assessments by Māori on resource consent applications, Winatana’s been beaten to the bite this year by Labour’s Shane Jones who is quoted as saying, “As someone who was involved in the core group which wrote the Resource Management Act in 1988-1989 never in our wildest dreams did we imagine it would lead to 19 new consent authorities over the Tamaki Makaurau area.” 

No.  I don’t suppose he did.  Nor do I suppose his tūpuna dreamed that their signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi would lead to one unitary authority over the same area, let alone one whare nui over the entire country.  Such are the ironies of the law of unintended consequences.

But back to the actual issue currently exciting media attention – what the New Zealand Herald calls the Māori veto on water.  Here are the facts.

Under laws passed by Parliament, not Māori, resource consent applicants must have approval from one or more local authorities.  Since 1991, in order to get through the red tape involved, applicants have had to provide two kinds of assessments; an assessment of environmental effects (AEE), and a cultural impact assessment (CIA). 

For more than three decades consultant planners, surveyors, architects, lawyers, arbourists, landscapers, etc, have been successfully selling their skills to applicants as consultant.  You name the AEE mahi needed and there will be a consultant willing and able to do it for you - for a price.  

Makes sense.  If you don’t know how to do what’s legally required, then you pay someone who does know, and they do it for you. 

For the same length of time that all these AEE consultants have been doing their thing, whānau hapū and iwi consultants have been carrying out CIAs for applicants.  

Makes sense.  They are the rangatira with mana whenua who kaitiaki in their rohe.  If you don’t know what’s where, and why and how it all inter-relates, then you pay those who know to do it for you.    

On the face of it there should be little difference between the consultants working on AEEs and those working on CIAs.  However there is a difference and it’s not a little one.  It centres on payment for services.  

Since 1991, Ngāti Kahu hapū have done literally thousands of CIAs for various applicants.  Until recently they would provide applicants with their schedule of very modest fees, and then send them an account after the CIA had been produced.  Yet in three decades, while AEE consultants have been minting it with nary a murmur from applicants, media or politicians, Ngāti Kahu hapū and iwi have collectively received less than $1000 in payment between them for all their CIA mahi.  

How about getting into a frenzy over that rort Shane?