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.

Pakeha have no culture

(Before I begin, the following percentages represent the different races in one of my tutorials for another course (FTVMS110: Advertising and Society) I took this semester. The class consists of about 9% Pacific Islander, 27% White New Zealanders and 63% Asian.)
One day in one of my other courses, we were discussing the impact the 2011 Rugby World Cup (RWC) opening ceremony had on each of us. When asked whether the opening ceremony was an accurate representation of New Zealand, the first to respond was the 27% followed the rest of the class. Most of the class, including myself – oh well, pretty much the entire class - responded that they felt the opening ceremony was or had “too much Maori” in it. After watching bits of the opening ceremony we analysed what different things were used to represent NZ? What were the key signifiers of NZ? Some of our responses to these questions included: volcanoes, Maori Heritage, Koru patterns, Hammerhead sharks, the choir, the drums, fireworks resembling a pohutukawa, the wakas, the sails, the little boy (a representation of white Europeans) and rugby legend Jonah Lomu. Then, I googled RWC 2011 Opening Ceremony to find out what were the details of the opening ceremony, and it came up with this: “For RWC 2011 the Opening Ceremony will showcase original New Zealand creative content and represent Maori and Pacific culture. As it is an international event, the ceremony must also be inclusive of all twenty Rugby World Cup nations, be relevant to the sport of Rugby and reflect the Rugby World Cup brand. The scale of such an event is huge and it is important that the concept range from the human to the monumental, captivating both the live and television audiences.” To relate it back to FTVMS210, perhaps the question I should be asking is what different things were used to represent Pakeha culture?
From the lecture, I agree with the concept that Pakeha have no culture. Avril Bell wrote, “The development of ethnic consciousness is often linked to the experience of being a cultural minority, and also as a focus for political mobilisation against oppression suffered as a minority. These are not the experiences of dominant groups who therefore do not so easily develop ethnic consciousness” (148). In other words, Pakeha have no culture because they lack the experience of a minority group and their sense of culture is so taken for granted. Furthermore, David Pearson argued that “Pakeha could be said to refer to an ethnic category (i.e. a group of people sharing identifiable characteristics), although not yet an ethnic community” (148).
The opening ceremony was an opportunity to showcase NZ at its best. One thing I remember from the lecture was that culture could be seen as a point of difference. In relation to the opening ceremony, it was Maori culture (and to some extent Pacific culture) that was on display through the aesthetics, costuming, song, etc. Ironically, according to Avril Bell, “Pakeha culture may be the national culture in terms of providing the pervasive, commonsense underpinnings for the ordering of social life, but Maori culture is the national culture when distinctiveness and ethnic exoticism is called for” (149). Despite Maori culture being the minority culture, it is often used to differentiate NZ from other countries.

'Othered' by the 'Other'

In Robert Ferguson’s chapter, “Otherness, Eurocentrism and the representation of ‘race’ in Representing ‘Race’: Ideology, Identity and the Media, I draw my discussion from a particular quote I agree with. In the reading, Ferguson reviews Mikhail Bakhtin’s work concerning the relationship between the making of meaning and the category of the ‘Other’. From what I have learnt in media, there are three specific types of readings or interpretations of a media message: one, the preferred meaning which is usually embedded in the text by the producers, second, the negotiated meaning and thirdly the oppositional reading in which the preferred meaning is discarded. However, according to Ferguson, “In many debates about representations of ‘race’, the concept of the ‘Other’ is used as a means of imposing rather than negotiating meaning through dialogue. As we shall see, this has meant that the concept of the ‘Other’ has become an ideological signifier of considerable discursive power” (68). In other words, the concept of the ‘Other’ is imposed rather than negotiated. Such concepts are imposed by the dominant culture – white culture. Thus, conceptions of ‘Otherness’ arise due to certain characteristics which differ from the norm. In other words, certain traits of the minority groups – such as blacks or Pacific Islanders and Maori – that are not necessarily resembled in white people result in Othering. It’s not only who is being represented and how they are being represented, but also who are they represented in relation to?
For example, the ‘Z is for New Zealand’ television commercial - campaigning the rebranding of Shell stations all over the country – interestingly addresses issues with ‘Othering’ in the New Zealand (NZ) context. The change in the name or this new brand, in my opinion, is one way used to provide a clearer definition of New Zealand’s sense of national identity. To some extent, NZ can be considered a multicultural nation which I consider to be a very unique attribute of NZ culture and national identity. In the ad, both the minority (Pacific Islanders and Maori) and majority (White NZers) are represented in a positive way. For example, the minority groups are characterised as productive and a significant contributor to the campaigning of the new ‘Zed’ stations. However, there seems to be a negative stereotype of other ethnic groups by the ad. For example, Indians were not represented at all and Asians were represented by a negative stereotype. Arguably, NZ could be considered a very multi-cultural nation which is something I consider to be very unique about NZ. However, in the commercial Asians are portrayed as the enemies to the NZ economy and perhaps pose a threat to the NZ national identity. As a result, the Asians are ‘Othered’ from NZ society in this ad. Thus, replacing one negative stereotype with a more positive stereotype perhaps doesn’t often fix the issue with race, but may lead to another negative stereotype or ‘Othering’ of another minority group – therefore in a sense Asians were Othered by the ‘Other’ in this ad.