Democracy: an imagined amalgamation?

Democracy has a heavy burden of an exclusive representation of the West. Indeed, we all know that the first democratic system was in Europe in Athens, and since then globalised to many other countries. It is however a misconception, I believe that is held largely by the West, that the globalisation of democracy is also has an amalgamating effect.

What many people don’t seem to realise is that there are actually different modes of democracy. For example, to me it seems ludicrous that countries like Colombia and Venezuela can call themselves democracies. Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s President, has made it possible by law that one call hold presidency for an infinite number of terms, he also owns the largest share of local media. Colombia’s President Juan Manuel Santos’s family has long been the owners of Colombia’s largest and most popular newspaper company, El Tiempo. These factors are problematic for me to be its potential affect in manipulating public opinion. It’s no secret that corruption is extremely high in these countries – one does not need to ponder whether there is a relationship between the two.

My point brings me to a country closer to home: Fiji.Since the coup led by Voreqe (Frank) Bainimarama in 2006, New Zealand has held a firm stance on condemning Fiji and beckoning them to ‘return’ to democracy. New Zealand’s aggression here is partly fuelled by our egalitarian values and partly because if we hear military coup, we know that is wrong and someone needs to speak up against it. My problem is the huge international pressure for Fiji to return to its previous political modal, almost to assume Fiji had pre-existing values of egalitarianism in the same way as New Zealand did – always. The reality is that Fiji has always been built on a constitution which based on race. This issue is the very core of the reason for all four coups in Fiji to date. Some may argue that it is necessary to protect the interest of Indigenous Fijians. Bainimarama is trying to undo these ideological discourses in Fiji – so that it may encompass more egalitiarian values. There is something called the Pacific Way which emphasises community deliberation as opposed to official bureaucracy.

New Zealand democracy simply would not work in Fiji. The same would go for Fiji’s ‘democracy’ (prior-coup) would not work in New Zealand. The New Zealand’s media’s attack on Fiji insinuates a strong relationship with its democratic past – forgetting that lack of intervention then, has subdued a racial discourse disadvantaging particularly Indians and Asians, as the norm.

PROUD TO BE THE 'OTHER'

The other night I was drawn into a conversation/debate with my family about why I choose to pursue Maori Studies. I was asked – ‘So, why are you at uni doing Maori and learning Te Reo? You should be taking French or Italian, there would be more job opportunities.’ It didn’t surprise me that they asked this because I had been faced with the same questions many times. It is not till quite recently with the enlightenment of education that I have been able to articulate a reply and attempt to explain the fierce passion I have for my culture, and the vicious desire I have to reclaim that knowledge which is so rightfully mine.
Let me start from the very beginning. My Papa was brought up on his father’s farm in the Far North, also known as Te Tai Tokerau, or that pointy bit at the top of the North Island. He spent a lot of time on the marae with his elders, absorbing the rich traditions and customs of our culture. My Papa and the people he conversed with spoke only Te Reo Maori (Maori language). He was sent to an Anglican Missionary school where they taught him to speak English and other Western values. Perhaps ‘taught’ is an inaccurate word to use, more like beaten into submission until he learnt to speak English. This story is all too familiar throughout Aotearoa. It is with this experience that my Papa abandoned his language. I was never privileged to hear him speak in his native tongue before he passed away. This is an example of linguistic neo-colonialism where the dominant colonisers actively suppress the language of the colonised. Shohat and Stam state that ‘the colonised are denied speech in a double sense, first in the idiomatic sense of not being allowed to speak, and second in the more radical sense of not being recognised as capable of speech’. In this way English is assumed to be the superior and dominant language over any other; it literally silences the indigenous voice and is a denial of political self determination.
Many people consider colonialism something of the past but I would argue that I have been directly affected by colonialism and still am. My Papa’s experience in school dictated his future actions. His culture and language were put aside in the way of conforming to social norms and western values of the dominant society. Stripped of my culture and robbed of my language I understand that colonisation and white imperialist ideologies are responsible. But what grieves me the most is that such racist discourses have pulled the wool over the eyes of some of our own people, including certain members of my own family. So blinded in fact that there is an invested belief in our culture being inferior to the dominant society and that we must abort it like an unwanted child. We are encouraged to discard our own culture and conform to a hegemonic society. If we appear to be proud of who we are or expressive in our culture then we are deemed to be deviant and radical.
I understand that our people are overrepresented in many low socio economic situations and I believe strongly that this is because of cultural dislocation. There has been a revitalisation of Maori culture in the past few decades, and I have jumped on that bandwagon. It is interesting that in a Pakeha institution where I am probably considered the ‘Other’ that I have found my own identity. So in reply to the burning questions of my family as to why I pursue Maori studies and learn Te Reo I say;
“I love learning about our history, I love our arts, I love our language and I can’t get enough of it”.
And then I ask; “I’m proud to be Maori, why aren’t you?”

Racism in True Blood

I admit it. I am a HUGE True Blood fan. I love it. I’m addicted. I download them each Monday night, only hours after it has aired in the states, and as soon as the torrent has finished I watch it. I’m talking not even a minute gap. I need my fix.

But True Blood is racist.

Aside from security guards that are glimpsed at throughout the show, Lafayette and Tara (who are cousins) are the sole black characters in the series. This may be due to trying to keep the whole ‘southern vibe’ of the town in check – but even at Merlot’s (the town’s hang out) or Fangtasia (the vampire hang out), no black characters ever enter. Not even visitor’s. It is a very white town.

Just in case you haven’t seen True Blood, basically the whole thing is very pro-vampire. The vampires are pretty cool. The vampires are also all white (aside from the vamps who act as security guards at events and things). I have never seen an Asian vampire on the show.

Those who dislike vampires become the enemies. The viewer loves the vampires, whether it be forever virginal Jessica, ruthless Pam, sexy Eric or King Bill. They make take the form of witches, or of ignorant hill-billy’s, but we dislike anyone who will try to kill or get rid of the vampire community. After all – then Eric and Sooki won’t be together forever like we all want.

Now – guess who are the two characters who are most vocal in their dislike of vamps? Who are the most scared of them and who just want the vampires to be gone?

Its Lafyette and Tara, the two black characters. So they are “Other”ed for not only their skin colour, but their controversial views on vampires.

Other negatives for Lafayette and Tara: They both are annoying. Super annoying. They are whiney characters who will hide instead of fight. Their voices are annoying.

And (recently for Tara) they are both homosexual. The only gay characters in the series are black (plus Lafyettes boyfriend, who is Mexican – but he’s pretty cool). Wow. Way to “Other” sexuality as well.

Lafayette has also been addicted to V, a drug dealer and a web-cam prostitute.

Tara used to spend entire episodes dealing with her alcoholic mother. Who was a religious fanatic. Who blamed her alcohol abuse on demons.

Anyway. True Blood is racist. This is a prime-time show which gets excellent ratings, and it is racist. Other True Blood viewers – have you realised how very racist True Blood is? Non-viewers, why do you not watch it? Is it the vamp thing, or is it due to how racist, sexist, homophobic and stupid the show is? Please share!

Race and Social Policy

After reading the chapter on Racial Formation by Omi and Howard it made me begin to consider our racial policy here in New Zealand. The case that the reading talks about is of a woman in the States who wanted to change her racial classification from black to white. Phipps lost the case in the end on the basis that anyone with 1/32^nd of “negro blood” was black. This relates to racial policy that I have recognised in the Government and at our University. There are certain scholarships set up for Pacific Island and Maori students, but you have to be able to qualify or prove your heritage. For some scholarships there is the same requirement that you must be at least 32^nd pacific island to qualify. In the same way there are certain privileges or opportunities for people who can prove they are either Maori or pacific island decent for limited course entry. I am all for giving people opportunities but sometimes this policy makes me wonder why the university would set a lower benchmark for people of a certain race.

For example in the law school, there are 30 allocated places for Maori students and 13 places for Pacific Island students that enable them to get into part 2 laws with a lower grade point average then every other student. I think setting this up is more reverse racism as I imagine a lot of people who don’t benefit from this special course entry would feel hard done by. I think it’s racist for us to create a lower benchmark on the basis of race, because the only way we will ever eradicate this is if everyone is on equal ground.

My question is whether this is appropriate and whether it recognises racism and attempts to amend it or whether it more enhances segregation.

I think that a way of understanding the policy would be to understand why is created in the first place. I assume it would have been on the basis that these people were disadvantaged because of immigration or something similar, however I’m not sure that applies today. Luckily for me I am at least a 32^nd Fijian so can take advantage of these policies. Is it fair? No. Is it what they were intended for? Probably not.

My views on the future of race would be to create an equal ground for everyone, and in a way these social policies are severely hindering that progress. I think that these policies are good, and definitely help people who have been disadvantaged linguistically or have not been offered similar opportunities and I do think they should exist. However I think there should be some tweaking to it so that the system is not abused. For example there could be more requirements, such as only have been living in the country for x amount of years, or having only just learnt English as your second language. With this in place I think the system could be used to enhance chances for actually disadvantage people as opposed to set a lower benchmark for people who have it in their capacity to achieve more.

The Rapper and the Golliwog

Last night, American hip hop artist Big Boi of Outkast performed at the Powerstation in Auckland.

For the couple of nights he spent in Auckland, it was interesting to follow his journeys around the city on Twitter. News website Stuff even went to the effort of mapping his night out for a news story:

View Big Boi's Auckland adventure in a larger map

It was all the usual kind of stuff you'd expect a world famous hip hop star to enjoy on a night off. A visit to a strip club

"Strip club , no brown girls eh... (@ Calendar Girls Auckland)"

A bar...

"1st Stop , they playing Jimi H. Leeeeeegggggooo (@ Barrio w/ 2 others)"

And of course, McDonald's...

"Fish filet time , back to the presidential #weoutchea (@ McDonald's)"

But today, as he was at Auckland International Airport preparing to fly to Australia, he found something pretty shocking:

"Ok, all blacks is a rugby team, but what the fuck are these, also in the airport"

Yip, right there in our busiest airport, a few weeks out from the Rugby World Cup, he found golliwogs for sale.

I've never actually seen golliwogs for sale in New Zealand, let along in the airport.

I'm intrigued as to how these relatively new looking golliwogs came to be for sale in a store. Are we at a point of post-racism now where it's ok to sell them? Or is this more a case of ignorance? Either way, it's a terrible look for New Zealand, and especially for the shop that's selling them.

Assimilation in a White World

During last week’s lecture about “Whiteness” I was not so surprised when Sue pointed out how corporate African American men altered their behaviour in an attempt to appear less threatening. This example instantly made me think of a recent Boston Legal episode that resonated with me called “Guise and Dolls”, which drew attention to issues of white assimilation and racism that we have been discussing.

In this episode the protaganist, Denny Crane interviews a African American man, Kevin Givens for a job at a law firm that he is partner of. The following transcript is a conversation discussing the interview with the other partners. (Unfortunately I couldn’t find a clip on Youtube)

Paul Lewiston: Denny. Mr. Givens is under the impression that his interview with you didn’t go well.

Denny Crane: Oh, don’t be silly. Man’s a keeper. Smart. Good-looking. Articulate. I like him.

Paul Lewiston: To Kevin. There you go.

Kevin Givens: To Denny. May I ask...? When you say “articulate”... I would imagine almost everyone who comes out of law school is articulate.

Denny Crane: Yeah, but... uh...you know what I mean.

Kevin Givens: I don’t, actually.

Denny Crane: Well, I mean it like, ah... Joe Biden meant it. The way they mean it when they say Condi Rice is soooo articulate. That way.

Kevin Givens: But I still don’t know what you mean.

Denny Crane: You don’t sound black! Dead silence.

Initially, the comments of Denny Crane are seemingly appalling however his character highlights the ugly underlying truths. Firstly, the assimilation minorities feel they need to interact within a white corporate world (American or other). Secondly, the prevalence of institutional racism within that corporate structure, that forces a need for white assimilation.

Although the fictional law firm of “Boston Legal” draws attention to these facts, they are not immune to hypocrisy. They still inhabit the structure they criticize.

Trains: The Social Experiment on Wheels

Being a rather pudgy looking bastard, I often have a giggle at fellow public-transport-users who are selective of who they sit with. I type this as I ride the Western Line with the hope that something deeply profound happens. I'm not too hopeful, but we'll see.

I get off the train at Glen Eden, so it's a pretty long commute. People come and go, which often makes the journey pretty interesting.

Leaving Britomart just after 3pm, and the train is about half full (or half empty). Nothing's about to happen. The burly-sounding voice-over man tells us we're about to arrive in Newmarket (I hate the burly-sounding voice-over man). As the doors open with a beep, a group of about eight dawdle into my half of the carriage, scanning the empty seats for the most comfortable option. A couple of attractive blonde women sit opposite me, but I shant be aroused. I've got a job to do.

Next stops are Grafton and Mt Eden, which are tumble-weed central at this time of day (3 minutes later of course the former is over-run with stupid little kids).

With the Kingsland train station comes contestant number one. The stout little student, draped in a sickly maroon school uniform sits next to me after slight hesitation. The innocence of children is amusing, as the poor guy probably chose to sit with me because he found the blonde chicks too intimidating. Cooties, ew.

One stop later, he's gone, and I'm back into 'experimentation mode'. Baldwin Avenue throws me a curve-ball in the shape of a mother with a stroller. They sit opposite me. With me on this laptop, and the stroller in front of me, a barricade of sorts has been formed. My 'experiment' is a shambles. I shed a quiet tear for my failed experiment, in turn confusing the mother opposite.

She disembarks at Avondale though, and I breathe a sigh of relief. Now for New Lynn; a station known for constantly being chockablock full of people, and sometimes the lingering smell of narcotics.

Onto the train comes a good dozen. The males all glance in the direction of the blonde, though they're beaten to the punch by an old Chinese lady and her adorable grand-daughter. I glance at the seat next to me as if to say "Christ. It wont bite", but nope. Sitting next to me isn't going to help them fly up the social ladder. It's death by association. Naturally, the only alternative is to awkwardly stand in the aisle - attempting to counter the unexplainable, confusing act by way of a 'cool' demeanour, consisting of leaning on the poles and pretending to be texting one of your many friends. I'm not complaining or offended really though. I'm more amused by it than anything.

We like to think that people are better than prejudice these days. But not only is that not true, the fact is that prejudice will always be here to stay - be it something petty on a train, or something far deeper and far more important in the grand scheme of life as we know it. Objectivity is a concept from the dreamer, and people are now more than ever are becoming more pessimistic.

Musings from the socially awkward

It was with reluctance (and disapointment at how easy a push-over I was) that I accompanied my mum to a friend's daughter's party recently. As a guy containing Filipino blood, I can say I've been to my fair share of Filipino parties. They're always the same, and all this one did was further confirm what I already knew.

The Philippines is a curious country. Venture to the main centres - such as Manilla (the capital) and you'll find a bustling, throbbing city. Venture outside that however and you'll find something very different.

The affluent areas of the Philippines (relatively speaking) have become very Westernised. The malls are gargantuan, the roads are plentiful, and the smog is nauseating. The people are very different because of it. Any historical nuances the country has are thrown out the window, as everyone chases their seemingly universal goal of being the best New York knock-off on the planet. Sky scrapers, billboards and an urge to read about the hottest celebrity couple seem to be the perceived recipe. If you can't tell already, this isn't an area of the Philippines I'm too fond of. And I haven't even mentioned the slums and the homeless yet.

Out of these centres though lays something far more wholesome - often in the form of beautiful scenery and beautiful people. This is the real Philippines. Where the roads are mere paths, cruddely carved out of the landscape, and the people are as forward as they are friendly.

So when a Filipino party is held here, typically, it's interesting to watch the mingling of the different backgrounds. Being extremely socially awkward, I had plenty of time to follow proceedings at said party - though I did have a bit of a chat with a lovely old man named Peter, whom had also been dragged along by a member of the 'fairer' sex.

Despite all being friends with one another, when they're all poured into a stuffy old Bowling Club, you can see them all gravitate towards those from their area of Filipino 'homeland'. Those from the 'cultural West' are all trying to keep up with the teenagers and the 20-somethings by dressing up as if they're going to go hooking afterwards. Those from the 'Orientalist East' however are quite reserved - hopping from table to table occasionally but generally quietly keeping to themselves.

The most interesting moment of the night was when a Filipino dance group came forward to perform a traditional dance act for the birthday girl (I wont pretend to be an expert on such things, so I wont describe it in detail but rest assured it was impressive. There was fire and bamboo. It was good). What interested me was the way in which the 'host' of the party - a girl who was treating the role as if it was part of a job interview for E! - navigate through introducing the act, as well as seeing them off afterwards. It was painfully obvious that she didn't have a clue about who they were, what they were doing, and the cultural side of the country in general. After stabbing the metaphorical darkness for a few seconds, she resigned to the fact that she was inept. A well-placed bit of laughter later, and the E! reporter was back in business having resumed talks about frocks, food and fashion - with a level of unjustified self-importance that John Campbell would be proud of.

We're in a state of Western colonisation of across the globe. Not physically, but mentally. Western films, Western television and the Western attitude that tells us to hallow the rich and riddicule the poor is cutting a chasm down the middle of a number of countries - the Philippines being an example of the consequences.

Die Antwoord

In tutorials this week Suzanne showed us a video clip of South African hip-hop duo Die Antwoord's song Enter The Ninja. As a Die Antwoord fan I had never thought about their music along racial and cultural lines before. Although hip-hop is widely considered as a musical form of expression of oppressed cultural groups (originating in New York City and being disseminated and appropriated by various groups and cultures all around the globe) it seems that with the trajectory of the music industry and its interest in making money, hip-hop as a music, style and way of life has transcended ethnic and racial lines and has now become widely recognised window of self-expression for almost anyone. It is no longer unusual or inauthentic to be a white rapper or a hip-hop artist from a non-African-American background as long as the stories told through your music are that of some kind of struggle in the face of adversity.

Seeing Die Antwoord's video Enter the Ninja again reminded me that all cultural forms of expression are valid in that they tell a story and mediate the reality of cultural difference we encounter everyday around us. this is evident at the beginning of the song when Ninja the lead singer says "100% South African Culture, in this place (South Africa) there's a lotta different thing, blacks, whites, coloureds, English, Afrikaans, Xhosa, Zulu, all these different things, all these different people...put into one person. I think what Ninja is reinforcing here is that particular cultures identify themselves in relation to other cultures that surround them is, in fact, a normal thing for people to do- identifying youself not by what you are but what you are not. What Ninja highlights when he says "all these different people...put into one person" is the fact that you can't choose who you are or where you come from but difference is inherent and we internalise our racial identity and express it in so many different ways. Die Antwoord identify themselves through their music personas as 'zefs', a South African equivalent to a redneck. However, I think Ninja plays upon this stereotype because he understands that they are just stereotypes that provide a platform for their quite often absurd, shocking, and comical performances- they are there to be noticed- and to break the mould of what hip-hoppers are commonly thought to be and represent. Aswell as being widely recognised as quirky and strange they are also have political message within their music which alludes to South Africa's rich and diverse cultural landscape and the social and political problems that pervade everyday life. Racism still exists, but it is how we choose to talk about it and analyse its intricacies that is of importance, and Die Antwoord do this through their music in a memorable and thought provoking way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cegdROGiJl4

http://pitchfork.com/7766-die-antwoord/

Can White People Say Nigger?

Today’s lecture about the racial politics of comedy got me thinking about Chris Rock’s 2008 HBO special “Kill the Messenger” and in particular this segment;

For those of you who don’t know Chris Rock is a very successful Black American Comedian. In this portion of his show he asks of the audience; “Can white people say the word Nigger” to which he answers; “Not Really.” The joke revolves around the rules that apply to interracial groups of friends when a rap song featuring the word ‘nigger’ comes on. He concludes that it is alright for white people to say the word nigger when singing along to the song. I must preface my analysis by saying that I am a big fan of Chris Rock and this is one of my favourite gags as I can relate to this situation having seen it happen. I believe that this joke is progressive rather than regressive because it undermines harmful stereotypes. Instead it represents the usually dominant white male as being uncomfortable and unsure of social protocol and positions the black man as the distributor of power. The white man needs the black man’s permission in order to fully enjoy the song. Secondly I believe it eases tensions between different groups by comically commenting on a common social situation. Finally it affirms a sense of identity in the traditionally non-dominant group. It is a black comedian talking about black men giving his friends permission to sing along to a black rapper rapping about black people. The black man has control of the situation as oppose to the white man. Finally it is not an exclusive joke. White people can laugh at it as well as being reassured that they can sing along without facing social repercussions and black people can laugh at the awkwardness of the situation and be reassured that they are in control and that it is ok for white people to say the word ‘nigger’ as long as it is in the song. This last addendum is important to note as it implies that it is still a controversial topic as it is not ok in other social situations.

Racism and the London Riots

I have been following the riots in London that’s spread throughout the rest of the UK now and I found a number of interesting materials on the web on how Black Culture has been spoken about by journalists on television and in newspapers. This troubled me because I don’t even think that the riots really originated from a racial issue between white and non-whites but it was based on the issue of class in the UK. I found this interesting as to how this came about and why media outlets choose to portray minority groups in that way during a significant event. Why not instead focus on the root of the problem that actually caused this disorder….

References
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/15/david-starkey-newsinght-race-remarks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAGTE_RGN4c

White News

Before, taking the Media Studies 100 course I was naive, in the sense that I felt that everything I read and saw in the news was true and objective. I thought news media was a credible and reliable communication device for the “truth”. I guess I used to be have a liberal pluralist perspective on news, I felt that news provided a window to the world but after that course I saw just how blurred that window was as news is infact hegemonic. In tutorial, a point was made on pronouns used in news paper headlines, this got me thinking. What is the effect of using words like “we”, “they” and “you” in headlines? For an event to have news value it needs to be have relevance and proximity to the reader, we like news that affects us, so by using pronouns it makes the reader feel included. But the question is who is the “we”, “they” and the “you”?
Metro magazine on its 'Really Rich List' cover had a title on its left hand corner “Hone Harawira and the Maori Party: what have we got to fear” in this the “we” is obviously being addressed to its audience which is predominately white. The reality is that media is in the hands of white people, thus they will speak for the whites. Headlines like the one above, take on the white subject position, when we read news we must do so from the ‘white eye’.
Richard Dyer says "White people create the dominant images of the world and don't quite see that they thus construct the world in their image". One of the key mechanisms in the construction of whiteness as drawn by Richard Dyer and John Fiske is universalism, this means that western values, traditions and practices are assumed to be held by everyone. This is the idea that white is the norm, as Dyer says whites are not of a certain race, there just the human race. Because white is considered the “norm” must we see the “truth” from their perspective?

stereotypes framed on television..

As much as everyone hates to be stereotyped, it is pretty obvious that television shows use all types of stereotypes, especially in comedies that are there to make us laugh. In a show that’s extremely popular such as the Big Bang Theory, the only non white characters in the show are Raj and his sister. These characters are continuously reinforced as the stereotypical ‘other’ throughout the majority of all shows, for example even though Raj takes full advantage of his new found liberty living in the United States from India, he still has to continuously maintain his identity, meaning the identity of where he comes from which viewers can identify throughout his regular conversations via Skype/Webcam with his parents in India. His parents are also represented to the audience as the most dominant stereotype of indian culture in the western world, that being a family having strict religious values. For example, they continuously pester Raj to marry a well educated indian women rather than just an american girl, amongst other things….

I thought that Raj’s stereotype is a progressive stereotype of Indian Culture, based on that fact that he is well educated with a PHD and has worked his way up the corporate ladder. I also thought that The Big Bang Theory could be an example of plurism (separate but equal). For example, the entire cast is white except Raj and his sister, and the only difference between Raj and the rest of the cast is that he is black and the others are white. Therefore, their friendship with white people is based only on social status.

It is apparent that the use of stereotypes in these ways has a huge impact on viewers who translate these representations of ethnic groups from what they have seen on television into their own lives, not to say that everybody adopts these views into their own ideologies but it has the impact in doing so. A couple of you guys have already mentioned this following aspect of stereotypes... that most stereotypes are such generalizations, are rarely true and I will add… ALWAYS angers the person that is being stereotyped and that will always fuel racist behaviour in society. However it is important to recognize that most stereotype have to function on some level of truth. I think that it is the medium in which they are represented to us that can either make them look good or bad, just depending how you read it as a person. I also thought that this addresses issues that we covered in lectures last week/tutorials on how multiculturalism is represented on television, how is it framed and by whom…

Because you're not quite privileged enough....

As Richard Dyer said, "White people create the dominant images of the world and don't quite see that they thus construct the world in their image". What happens when people are fully aware of their ‘whiteness’ and use it to help boost their career? Elvis is one of the people who instantly springs to mind when discussing this blurring of racial stereotypes, but he is far from the only one. Indeed there are some actors and music artists who have forged entire careers around their ‘whiteness’, both Vanilla Ice and Eminem used the fact that they were white to their advantage to reach a broader audience with their music, and in doing so both received a lot of negative feedback through the press and potential fan base. And while Eminem used this negativity to create more ‘hype’ and help push his career forward, Vanilla Ice or Robert Van Winkle (his actual name.... very hip hop....) as he is also known had his career taken away from him because of the negative feedback. In fact Vanilla Ice only has the recognition from his former glory days to help push his career through a series of reality show appearances, thanks to his whiteness he has become no more than a caricature of his former self.

And while these two examples are easily recognised, the example set by Jim Carrey is perhaps for New Zealand audiences, one that is less well known. Despite having steady but unimpressive television and film work during the beginning of his career, it wasn’t until he became the ‘token white guy’ of the cast of ‘In Living Colour’ in 1990 that his career really began to skyrocket with films such as ‘Ace Ventura: Pet Detective’, ‘Dumb & Dumber’ and ‘The Mask’. As Giroux explains “Whites have to learn with their Whiteness by rearticulating it ...[in ways] that allow them to cross racial lines not in order to become Black, but to begin to forge multiracial coalitions based on critical engagement rather than a denial of Whiteness”. And for people like Elvis, Eminem & Jim Carrey who were already at an advantage simply because they had the whole ‘White Privilege’ shtick going for them, the decision to take things a step further and use their whiteness as a tool to enhance their careers is a fascinating and controversial one at that.

Foreshore, for sure?

I know we are yet to look in particular at Maori and Pakeha relations but when I saw this image, I couldn't help but think.

The image looks at the areas of possible oil and coal extraction throughout New Zealand. With the last major Treaty Settlement process beginning early this month with the country's largest iwi Nga Puhi, I wonder how much of a bearing this will have on them. Will the governments vested interests in the fossil fuel exploration have any bearing on the outcome of the settlement with the Crown? I sincerely hope not but I guess we will just have to wait and see.

With constant mention of Maori and crime and unemployment in the media, I would hate to think that one of the most landmark decisions in our country's history which has the potential to aid this, be hindered by what the government might perceive to be 'beneficial to all New Zealanders' through fossil fuel exploration.

Will we see redemption for the people of the far north and much of Tamaki Makaurau, or may we see more profiteering for 'all New Zealanders' at the expense of the Nga Puhi people? I patiently wait... and hope.