Pakeha and the Haka

I've always loved this clip of the 1973 All Black team (almost all of whom are white) performing a rather pathetic and whimpering haka. To me it is quite telling of what race relations and Maori's place in society must have been like in the 1970s (around the time of renewed Maori rights movements and land marches). There's a reluctance and a hint of embarrassment to the performance of this haka. It definitely wouldn't have struck fear into the opposition. It seems so foreign to the players.

Compare that with the haka of today, led by Piri Weepu, with a mix of Maori, Pacific Island and Pakeha players, all of whom are dedicated to the performance without any hint of cultural cringe (apart from some awkwardness from the burly forwards hidden at the back)

To me it seems that far from the awkwardness of the 70s, there's a pride in today's haka that speaks to the place of Maori culture in modern NZ. The fact that the haka sits as a centrepiece of our 'national game', which is dominated by white masculinity, is interesting.

However, Avril Bell would argue that the haka is a prime example of the dominant Pakeha culture using Maori culture 'when distinctiveness and ethnic exoticism is called for'. Indeed, it could be argued that the haka is simply cultural tokenism, and is more part of the All Blacks' brand than honouring any sort of cultural heritage or custom. Further, the cultural practices and customs surrounding the rest of rugby are strongly european - exemplified by the formal presentation of the world cup (handshakes with the Prime Minister etc).

But, as Bell and others argue, Pakeha culture is so 'universal' and 'commonsense' it is invisible, which leads to some (including on this blog) arguing that Maori culture was 'overrepresented' at the world cup. There is, therefore, and interesting tension and similarity between these two arguments. Both seem to argue that the haka is cultural tokenism and 'ethnic exoticism', but both come from a completely different perspective of Pakeha culture. One sees it as dominant, yet also sees its invisibility (and the danger of that). The other is both a perpetuator and a victim of its invisibility.

It is hard to see how a country resolves these arguments and tensions. Cultures always change and merge and blend. In that process, some cultures will be dominant.