I have spent the past month watching this site grow from a tiny blogspot one to the big, rockin', phat-dripping, massive roti it is today. And I have to say that one of the best things about it is the 'diversity' (sorry, I know, someone's gotta come up with a better word that doesn't conjure up images of token kids group-hugging for a Kodak moment) of views on cultural issues.
But as an immigrant living in a country where the main discourse on race is one of bi-culturalism between Pakeha (Europeans) and Maori (indigenous people), I've recently been wondering why, as post-colonial people living in countries that have all been colonised, there seems to be a gulf between the -and here comes another dreaded d-bomb of an overused word- diaspora and indigenous people in the countries we live in (Maori, Inuits in Canada, Native Americans in the USA).
Right now in New Zealand there's a mainly-Pakeha backlash against Maori rights, similar to the current sentiment to affirmative action in the USA for Native Americans and African Americans. Even in Canada (hi brownfrown!), that nation held as a shining example of multiculturalism with its recognition of Quebecois and Inuit peoples, it seems there's a certain resentful comment about indigenous rights being passed around at dinner parties, or down at the ba-sorry I can't, I have to say pub, or just 'among friends' - "Enough is enough."
In New Zealand the latest instalment in the "Enough is enough" backlash is a disagreement over whether powhiri (Maori welcome ceremony, pronounced po-firr-ee) should be allowed in its traditional form on state occasions, or whether it should be changed to incorporate women, Europeans and other cultures.
What is in its details a small issue has now acquired the strength of a discourse on national identity and multiculturalism. Pita Sharples, co-leader of the Maori Party which was formed in 2004 to protect indigenous rights, says that changing powhiri is tantamount to the 'bastardisation of Maori culture.' Many Pakeha say that Maori should learn to respect other people and update their ways to suit today's values.
Maori culture has a patriarchal hierarchy which means many of its rituals are seen as sexist, while its male ideal of the warrior means that to others its customs promote violence. Anyone who has seen the All Blacks perform the haka will know that I'm talking about - anyone who hasn't they're our national rugby team and the haka is a war chant which most other teams seem to find hilarious as the All Blacks sticks their tongues out (called pukana) and slap their chests etc.
Anyways, for those who haven't been distracted by the thought of hot Polynesian men with rippling abs and short shorts (*cough* Saurav *cough*)...
What I want to ask people reading this post is:
To what extent (if any) should indigenous rights be respected? Should differentiated treatment allow customs and beliefs that are out of touch with contemporary values to be recognised and protected?
Or does integration for first nation peoples mean that they need to update their culture to recognise other ethnicities and cultures such as environemntalist, feminist and LGBT groups?
And furthermore, does this have anything to do with 'us' at all?
Maori currently make up 15% of the population and from 1840 when New Zealand was officially colonised until the 1980's were treated with an assimilationist doctrine that denied their language, customs and way of life. For the past 25 years activists have campaigned for the indigenous rights that exist today from affirmative action at universities to different electoral rolls to vote in for Maori seats in Parliament to Maori TV and radio networks.
Now in a few years it seems that these policies could be dismantled with a change of government. The National Party which almost won the 2005 election doubled its support base when in 2004 its leader Don Brash delivered a speech called 'Nationhood' and called to abolish the Maori seats in Parliament, scrap affirmative action at universities, deny historical claims for land grievances and create 'one law for all.'
I could have thrown a whole lot of statistics on here but I know that everyone knows the drill with first nation peoples, - crime, obesity, alcoholism, high smoking rates, more drug addictions, gang violence, high cancer rates, lower education levels, higher unemployment...
At the same time as the backlash against Maori has been reignited another backlash against refugees and migrants has also gained strength. The two major suggested law reforms that have everyone (okay law geeks) buzzing are aimed at abolishing references to indigenous rights in legislation and changing the Immigration Act to make it more restrictive.
So this is just an open space for people to publish their thoughts:
Do you think there is or that there should be a link between indigenous rights and immigrant rights?
Does our relationship with indigenous peoples say anything about how issues are played out back home between wealthier,educated Indians and Indians who have been historically discriminated through the caste system?
Lots of questions, I know, and I'm not looking for answers, just a big fat roti of a discussion.
- tash's blog
- Login or register to post comments
-
Tash, you're throwing out too many questions for me to really wrap my mind around--but I think some of these issues are just fundamental to the (dare I use the *d* word) diasporic experience...of both immigrants and their progeny (but for how many successive generations is this even a question?)
As long as we continue to view immigrants as semi-displaced peoples, who are inserted into the narrative on a nation and not really a part of its history before a certain point---how can we understand their relationship to that history? and even more complex, How do they perpetuate injustices or social spaces that have historically disenfranchised indigenous groups (through adopting dominant attitudes or (re)placing attitudes from back home (caste system?)?
And in a place like the US, is indigenous rights even an issue--given that their almost non existent (for sure here in NYC)--even though their mark remains, even if it's just in name (Manhattan) ?
um.
yeah.
editing is something i should do more often.
just that since i've been waiting to post for a month happened to post about a million different issues at once!
sorry peoples for making your heads spin. just wanted to talk about them other injuns is all.
First, hooray tashie! Thanks for bringing up so much worth discussing.
vlc, I know you didn't mean ill by this, but there are a ton of american indians and their descendents still in the United States and elsewhere. The census says there are almost 2.45 million American Indians in the U.S.--not including undercounts. With mixed race people and multiple identifications, it's upwards of 4 million. That's more than the numbers of South Asians counted by the census.
Both for the purposes of having a clear-eyed view of U.S. history as well as for understanding the state of a disempowered group today, I think it's really important--even in New York--to make sure that indigenous people in the United States are recognized. For example, the Mohawk nation apparently sent people to do rebuilding for the world trade center reconstruction.
you're so on point saurav
but even in spite of this, visibility is so damn low, its disheartening, even if numbers show otherwise
v g point kiran.
its the very in/visibility issue that you're discussing about native americans and other indigenous people that sets new zealand apart.
compared to australia, which is racially, cultural and economically a very similar country, new zealand is seen as a pioneer country in recognising indigenous rights. the australian government still has not apologised to aboriginal people for the terrible state-sanctioned systematic oppression that they suffered from during colonisation.
in contrast new zealanders have given official recognition to the document which maori chiefs signed ceding sovereignty (or not, as it turns out in the maori version) to the british.
was just trying to (not v eloquently but i'm a more of a ranter) point out that often the hardening of attitudes to indigenous rights is often accompanied by a hardening of attitudes towards immigrants and their offspring.
yet the people who seem to least understand indigenous rights would seem to include many immigrants.
just from hearsay the number of migrant kids i know who have bitched about the (v small) number of people who get into med and law school on a quota system is a bit depressing. i do see their point but lost empathy for them when they clearly don't even want to know about what maori people have gone through.
[...] Recent Comments Saurav on Partying, Drugs, Nepotism, & the BJP: The Fate of Rahul Mahajan vivek on Partying, Drugs, Nepotism, & the BJP: The Fate of Rahul Mahajan tashie on the other indiansviva la calle on the other indianssaurav on LGBT Parade x Desi Neighborhood = Lots Of Funsaurav on the other indianstashie on the other indiansviva la calle on the other indiansviva la calle on LGBT Parade x Desi Neighborhood = Lots Of Funsaurav on RFK Jr. Alleges Bush Stole Election (updated) prope//er on The soft sellamanda on RFK Jr. Alleges Bush Stole Election (updated) leena on LGBT Parade x Desi Neighborhood = Lots Of Funsaurav on LGBT Parade x Desi Neighborhood = Lots Of Funtashie on LGBT Parade x Desi Neighborhood = Lots Of FunPramod on The Anti-Reservation Movement: "Rang De Basanti" Gone Way Wrongsaurav on The Anti-Reservation Movement: "Rang De Basanti" Gone Way Wrongsaurabh on The Anti-Reservation Movement: "Rang De Basanti" Gone Way WrongNitin GK on The Anti-Reservation Movement: "Rang De Basanti" Gone Way Wrongraj yashwant on The Anti-Reservation Movement: "Rang De Basanti" Gone Way Wrong [...]
Hi Tashie,
Great post. I lived in NZ for a little less than a year when I was six so yeah, I was a little clueless politically. Anyway, I do remember that the lady that owned the grocery store down the street was a Maori. Along with her family, she was an active, vibrant part of our community. I had tons of friends who were Maori.
Now compare this experience to the one I've had in the states where basically, the native american experience seems invisible. I lived in New Mexico for two years and I can't remember attending anything that didn't seem like it was put on for tourists. The reservations were their own separate world and even though I met many people who said they "had native american blood" they almost always self-identified as Hispanic. There's nothing bad meant by this, it just seemed like there was very little mixing between the world on the reservations and that of New Mexico. Perhaps people who had succeeded (economically and educationally) were concerned about identifying themselves with those who have not.
That may also be a problem with South Asian immigrants: Why involve yourself in a rights argument when you have been successful without upsetting the status quo?