edge to edge

To be upfront - I don't rate John Tamihere and that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the good he has done for Māori - I just feel the negatives outweigh the positives - Tamihere doesn't speak for me. Which is what he says about Professor Mutu and that is why he entitled his post "Mutu doesn't speak for me". Tamihere calls Professor Mutu a reverse racist and I don't care about that because as I have mentioned, racism = prejudice + power and if you think a Māori woman within academia has power you would be incorrect. So the worst that anyone can say about Professor Mutu is that she is prejudiced and I have no issue with that. Tamihere makes this statement

Sunday News

no one can tell me that my mother, a Pakeha third-generation Kiwi, is a guest in this country. There is an acknowledged rule throughout the Pacific and in Maori. That rule asserts if you can retain occupation of land for three generations or more, you have rights to assert mana whenua. In effect, you become tangata whenua. To make out that we have special rights above all others into the future, solely on the basis of ethnic supremacy, is wrong from a Maori cultural perspective.

So what are you saying john - that everyone is tangata whenua now - if they have lived on their land for 3 generations, because if you are - you are wrong. We are all guests in this country at times - if you visit a new marae you are a guest, if you travel to another area you are a guest - guest isn't a swear word it is a term of honour because of the reciprocity of obligation and responsibility attached to it. This term 'ethnic supremacy' is also inflammatory and incorrect - it is not about supremacy it is about equality and any Māori who frames it incorrectly is treated with suspicion by me.

Tamihere disqualified himself from any credibility back in 2005, when he crudely described women as 'frontbums'

"I don't mind front-bums being promoted, but just because they're (women) shouldn't be the issue, they've won that war,"

he also said in that investigate interview that

that while he was revolted by the Holocaust, he was sick of hearing about Jews being gassed and killed in order to make him feel guilty.

That argument is used against Māori as in, "stop talking about the past colonisation to make us feel guilty".

He continues to diminish himself when in a recent post he said

It is true oil will run out and it is true it produces everything from plastic to tarseal and drives all economies. It is true we must seek alternative energy. But on the way to this happy little world, we had better start using our resources on the way.

So for tamihere drilling and descecrating Papatūānuku for oil and gas is okay because it is all going to run out anyway - what a disgusting, selfish, exploitative attitude - the same mentality that has got us into this hole we are in now.

So John Tamihere you definately don't speak for me - you are not a deep thinker,  your conclusions are wrong and incomplete - based on prejudice and your opinions are inconsequential but you are part of the Māori Nation just like Professor Mutu.

I'll listen to Professor Mutu not to you.

power and racism

Professor Mutu is continuing to agitate some people with statements like this,

Stuff

She said Maori could not be racist against New Zealand European as Maori were not in a position of power.

This is a very interesting point - the power aspect and on The Standard dave brown from redave made this comment which sums up my view beautifully.

A pretty dim post actually. Just because Mutu makes over-sweeping generalisations that actually have historic truth on her side, dimpost comes along with a more crude set of generalisations and lowers the level of debate which others accept with alacrity, except for uke.

You cannot be a racist unless you impose your views by means of power. Thinking that other people, tribes or family members are different and inferior is not racism unless you can define the ‘other’ in such as way as to gain by it long term. Historically racism as we know it was invented by European colonisers to classify non-Euros as subhuman to justify ripping off their riches and impose white supremacist rule. The Catholic church had a huge upheaval before it recognised Native Americans as humans capable of ‘salvation’. It took a couple of centuries for black Africans to achieve this select status.

When this colonial rule was overturned lots of white racists retreated to countries where they attitudes where not challenged. The British in India went ‘home’. NZ was already colonised by a majority of racists who while professing equal citizenship took away the land and self-rule. In the 20th century NZ copped a big flow of ‘kith and kin’ from Africa and Britain and here their attitudes were not usually challenged because they were accepted as normal. So there is some truth to what Mutu says. In many cases racists don’t recognise they are racists because racism has been ‘institutionalised’ and made respectable as ‘bicultural’ or ‘multicultural’ by the dominant ‘culture’. As RWC says lets haka as one people.

On the other hand, reverse racism, or reciprocal racism is not really racism since it can’t be imposed. If it could be then Maori would be running the country and whites would be complaining about being at the bottom of the heap. So-called reverse racism is no more than the expression of historic grievance of the colonial past being reproduced today as Maori marginalised off their land in the underclass. White racists hide their racism by trying to claim that this reverse resentment is equally pervasive and potent as Euro racism. Historic amnesia.

Some Maori gains have been made, especially by iwi middle class, but only by begging the state to redress past wrongs and playing by the rules of capitalism – that even Brash can agree with. Begging is hardly the action of racists. But if the begging begins to look like ‘special treatment’ then the racists come rushing out to cry ‘one law for all’.

In the final analysis NZ remains a racist country and the evidence for that is the majority support for the NACT regime that continues to plunder NZ’s land and resources and deny any possibility of Maori emerging from marginalisation into economic self-sufficiency.

And I cannot see any good arguments against that. I realise that dave's analysis is broad but we must understand the big picture to really see what is before us. There are many subtle aspects of racism, bigotry and discrimination and these absurd worldviews didn't arrive out of thin air - they were created and they can be uncreated - by us.

Meanwhile on Kiwipolitico Pablo has vented his spleen at his former workmate Professor Mutu.

encumberances begone

Professor Margaret Mutu is entitled to give her opinions about matters she deems important and that is part of her role. Sure the language is polarising but the issue is serious and has to be discussed.

Professor Mutu responded to a Department of Labour report which found Māori are more likely to express anti-immigration sentiment than Pākehā or any other ethnic group and from Stuff,

Mutu agreed with the findings and called on the Government to restrict the number of white migrants arriving from countries such as South Africa, England and the United States as they brought attitudes destructive to Maori.

"They do bring with them, as much as they deny it, an attitude of white supremacy, and that is fostered by the country," she said.

I don't like the way that is stated because it obscures the issue. Māori do feel overwhelmed but the migrant aspect is secondary to the inherent overwhelming of Māori by our society. If migrants arrived here to a country where Māori and the Crown were equals then their supremacy views would be quickly dispelled or else they would leave - or perhaps not decide to come here at all.

Professor Mutu also said

she was happy to welcome white immigrants who understood issues of racism against Maori. "They are in a minority just like Pakeha in this country. You have a minority of Pakeha who are very good, they recognise the racism, they object to it and speak out strongly against it."

To my way of thinking, part of being able to immigrate here should be a history lesson and an outline of Māori culture, beliefs and values. Of course I'd start with the people already here, so that the new immigrants, with their appreciation of the unique value of tangata whenua, would fit in.

The University has said

"The Education Act protects the right of academics, within the law, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions. That is an important right in a free society."

Paul Spoonley has said

his research showed while other ethnic groups' attitudes toward migrants had been approving, Maori perception had become increasingly negative. Anti-immigration sentiment was fed by Maori fears that multicultural policies were diminishing policies concerning Maori.

I say that framing the arguement around skin colour and country of origin obscures the very real issue that has to be addressed. The discussion centres around the controversial words and does not get to the real concerns or the solutions needed.

For those who feel offended because they identify as 'white' - think about it - if you are not racist Professor Mutu is not talking about you. We can't deny that our society is structured so that certain groups have advantage over others and those inequalities create privilege and are based on skin colour, ethnicity, gender, age, sexuality and ability. If you are male you have inherent privilege, if 'white' you have inherent privilege, if you are hetrosexual you have inherent privileges. Breaking this structure down is the goal and sometimes sharp weapons must be used. I am a male and paleish and hetrosexual and I enjoy inherent privileges because of that and every day, like you, I work and strive to create equality - so that I can be free of these encumberances and be seen as me, and so I can see you as you.

no YOU go to hell

What a poor example finlayson has set by telling a group of maori to "go to hell" - What right has this person has to curse this group - for any reason. He is losing it - his recent obnoxious interview with Kathryn Ryan and now this. From TVNZ

Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Chris Finlayson has told a Maori protest group in the Northland town of Taipa they can "go to hell".

Hone, from Stuff

Maori Party MP Hone Harawira said he was disappointed Mr Finlayson had spoken "so disparagingly" about the protesters.

"They are simply seeking the return of lands clearly identified by the Waitangi tribunal as having been improperly taken in the past," he said.

"They have been very respectful even when being abused themselves."

The group has re-occupied land in Taipa, a week after they were moved on from a previous occupation on a section next door. The taking over of ancestorial land and building whare is an effective resistance tool as we are seeing up in Taipa. I support this action and this example is a showing lessons that we can all take on board.

From Radio NZ

Protesters moved back on to Taipa Point on Tuesday and are setting up camp on private land, next to the council reserve they were evicted from last week.

And Margaret Mutu states,

Ngati Kahu negotiator Margaret Mutu said on the iwi's website in March that she told a hui "the current settlement cannot be full and final because it does not return all our lands".

Prof Mutu said a 1997 Waitangi Tribunal report agreed that Ngati Kahu's title to the Taipa Point land had never been extinguished.

It is pretty clear that this is their land - give it back as i state in this post.

From Stuff

Far North District Council spokeswoman Alison Lees said the land was given to the council in parts in 1928 and 1963.

Give this land back. And as for finlayson - grow up and start treating people with a bit of respect.