She maketh me lie down on the couch: she leadeth me besides the still waters of self-indulgence and irresponsibility
She removeth my soul.
She stealeth my children and leadeth them in the paths of social justice for her name’s sake.
Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy public healthcare system and cradle to grave welfare system they comfort me.
Thou prepareth a table of confiscated goodies before me in the presence of mine enemies who would have kept what belonged to them; my greed and avarice runneth over.
Surely pampering and apathy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of slavery until I die.
So some poor woman is in trouble for posting about giving her husband a didgeridoo for Father’s Day. Apparently she is guilty of the sin of ‘cultural appropriation’. And indeed, it is not the first time this ‘influencer’ has been found wanting in this area of modern morality, for earlier in the year she was forced to apologise for the awful sin of wearing her hair in two braids. Let’s put aside our opinions on her taste in gifts for a moment and focus on the charge of cultural appropriation.
A stick with a hole in it
How can this be cultural appropriation? It’s a glorified stick with a hole through it. What kid has not played with something similar in their childhood? How can any culture own that? And who’s to say that the Australian aborigines did not in the deep dark recesses of time appropriate it from another culture? Furthermore, how can aboriginal culture claim special rights and privileges over this particular stick with a hole in it, when other cultures have more sophisticated sticks with multiple holes in them as part of their cultural heritage. These have the advantage of being more pleasant on the ears and versatile – being tuned and all. The didgeridoo is hardly the pinnacle of woodwind instruments. It’s an extremely limited albeit interesting instrument. There’s a reason you don’t listen to Mozart’s Concerto for the Didgeridoo in D minor, and let’s just say that it’s not only because Mozart didn’t know about them.
A stick with multiple holes in it
As a connoisseur of human folly, I find there is something delightfully ironic about the way these things play out. Often we have a – shall we say ‘person of colour’ bemoaning the fact that some trinket from their culture has been inappropriately used. How do they bemoan this great sin? Usually while they appropriate the world wide web, an invention of a Westerner, using electricity appropriated from Western civilization, living in countries that because of Western culture have spawned freedom of speech and democratic rights for citizens. But of course, that is totally different. Delicious irony!
It’s pure folly. Were all non-Mesopotamian cultures wrong to appropriate the use of the wheel from them? What about non-Chinese cultures and their use of gunpowder and fireworks? Was it wrong for non-Germans to use the printing press and play or manufacture clarinets? Should all non-Americans hang their heads in shame when they use a lightbulb?
The fact is that cultures and civilizations grow stronger by learning from the strengths of each other. That is why cultures that were geographically more remote, were historically more backward. They lacked the opportunity to learn from other cultures. The New Zealand Maori, despite their cleverness in many areas, including warfare and navigation, because of their geographical remoteness were quite primitive when they encountered the British. They had no wheel, nor did they have iron. Naturally they were very keen to appropriate much of the cultural treasure of the British – particularly guns. Had Australian aboriginal culture been in closer geographical proximity to other music making cultures, I think we can safely assume their didgeridoo would have evolved to become a more sophisticated instrument.
If cultural appropriation had never occurred, we would all be living in squalor and absolute poverty. Our lives would be short, our houses and clothes basic, and our time would be spent finding food to survive. So thank goodness for cultural appropriation!
Cultures who shrilly charge others with cultural appropriation are just acting like a bratty three year old kid at a party who refuses to share his toys. Hardly likely to engender respect or love.
The Herald article screamed at me: Covid 19 coronavirus: Racism within New Zealand health system – “It’s killing our people”. That’s a pretty serious claim. Racism is killing our people. Let those words sink in for a minute. If that’s true, New Zealanders ought to feel a sense of righteous outrage. Here in New Zealand, it’s claimed that racism in our health system is killing Maori. We’ve seen racism kill people elsewhere. We’ve seen ethnic cleansing in Rwanda and other places. Surely that can’t be happening here? Are people with evil in their hearts deliberately showing favouritism toward some ethnicities in the health system and mistreating others? What’s going on?
Statistics Showing Disparities
1. COVID is racist?
The article commences with a few shocking statistics. For instance, a study in the New Zealand Medical Journal shows that Maori are 50 percent more likely to die from Covid-19 than non-Maori. So are we to conclude that Covid-19 is itself a racist virus? Are we to remonstrate against the virus and ask it to pick up its game and become a more equal opportunities virus? So far, the neutral reader could hardly be convinced of racism. More information please.
Then we are presented with another recent study that showed that Maori and Pacific people have a greater risk of heart disease due to a higher prevalence of smoking, obesity and heart failure. Again, this is hardly evidence of racism. I have not seen cigarettes sneak out of a packet, glance left toward a Pakeha and then right toward a Maori, and then perniciously make a racist choice to fly toward the Maori face to then forcibly insert itself between unwilling lips. Smoking is a choice, and like other choices, is a result of what individuals value.
3. Obesity is racist?
With regards to obesity, I’m sure we could accept that some ethnicities are more prone to this than others – perhaps genetically, but we can hardly blame this on racism. Racism is treating someone with partiality or mistreating them based on something that is beyond their control, something that is genetic. If we are not responsible for our own skin colour and shouldn’t be mistreated as a result of that, we certainly shouldn’t be accused of racism for the genes someone else receives!
4. Western Approaches to Medicine are racist?
Another study calls for more culturally appropriate care to be made available to Maori men. This seems odd to me. What does it even mean? Are Maori men so different because of their culture that they need an entirely different way of health care being provided? Because I would have assumed that Western medicine has been a boon for most indigenous cultures, Maori included. Surely this is not a request to go back to the kind of cultural health care that was on offer pre-colonisation when life was nasty, brutish and short?
Samuel Marsden
Currently, Maori die seven years earlier than non-Maori. This is disturbing. It’s sad, and we should investigate this. Of course, we want people to live long and healthy lives. But we do not immediately assume sexism is the reason males all around the world have lower life expectancies than women. Why should we assume that racism is the cause of the lower life expectancy of Maori? Furthermore, current Maori life expectancies under the supposedly racist health system which is killing them, compare very favourably with the life-expectancies of Maori pre Europeans when there was no health system and warring tribes were literally killing each other.
Furthermore, let’s not be tempted to hold idealistic and naïve views of the cultural superiority of pre-European Maori health care. Samuel Marsden’s Memoir of Duaterra, a primary record, highlights the unhelpful cultural practice of leaving the sick out in the open air to prevent the defilement of wharepuni. In the particular case mentioned, a sick woman and her child who was about three days old had been left outside with only a few reeds placed in the direction from which the storm of wind and rain blew. She had been left exposed like this all night. As a result of contact with Pakeha, Maori saw the value of Western ways and appropriated them.
Summary
That these disparities exist warrants further study, but to suggest they are indicative of racism is just plain silly. Maori life expectancies pre colonisation were undoubtedly lower than they are now, and the disparities between Maori and Pakeha life expectancy existed then too. In fact, the introduction of our supposedly racist health care system has without a shadow of a doubt actually improved Maori health.
Institutional Racism is the Cause?
So thus far, these statistics prove nothing except differences in outcomes for Maori. But apparently, these disparities are a result of institutional racism. So says the interim CEO of Hapai Te Hauora, Jason Alexander. Apparently institutional racism is deeply embedded in the health system. Alexander points out he is not talking about individual racism. Rather it is institutional racism that is killing Maori. So where is this institutional racism at work?
1. Access Issues
The first major example given is access to healthcare. We are informed that Maori in rural areas don’t have easy access to health systems like people do in cities. But this is not racist. This is just a simple fact of geography. Anyone who lives in a rural area is going to come up against this same difficulty.
But wait, there’s more. Poverty in the city was also cited as an access issue highlighting institutional racism. Again, saying that access issues caused by poverty is racist is arrant nonsense. Any poor person will suffer these same access issues.
So there is our first major example of institutional racism, and it’s absolute bosh.
2. Barriers within healthcare services
The second major example given is that there are barriers within healthcare services. Apparently access to healthcare can make things worse for Maori according to Professor Alan Merry who is the Health Quality & Safety Commission chairman. Sounds like a hopeless case doesn’t it? Access to healthcare is difficult, and getting access makes things worse.
But how can access to health care make things worse? I’m not quite sure what that is supposed to mean unless we are to take from that statement that healthcare professionals are so bad at their jobs that they make matters worse for the Maori who do access their services, much like blood-letting 19th-century doctors.
So what is meant? Once again we are presented with some statistics that apparently prove institutional racism. Here they are.
Specialist appointments happen less often for Maori.
Inappropriate prescribing happens more often for Maori
Maori children with asthma have more prescriptions for reliever medications without any preventer prescribed.
The percentage of Maori getting an operation for a hip fracture on the day of or after admission has steadily decreased since 2013, whereas the percentage for non-Maori has steadily improved.
Maori consistently rate the communication with hospital staff and doctors lower than other groups.
In old age, disabled Maori are less likely to secure specialist equipment.
Some of these statistics are disturbing, but are they evidence of institutional racism? Of course no! They are no more evidence of racism than the underrepresentation of Asian men in the All Blacks is a result of institutional racism. Once again we have racism assumed before proven and any disparity in data leads to the immediate assumption that racism is the cause. Another case of the invincible fallacy. Our world is not as simple as that.
I don’t for a minute believe that doctors in New Zealand look at the children that come into their surgery, and then prescribe differently based on the ethnicity of the child. Can you imagine it? “This is a Pakeha child here, so I’ll give him the reliever and preventer asthma medication, but this next one is Maori, so I’ll only give him the reliever.” I can’t imagine that happening. And do you know why? Because I actually believe that our health workers really care about people. It is an absolute insult to our health professionals to charge our health system with the crime of institutional racism. These individuals who make up our health institutions are by and large doing their utmost despite difficult circumstances to help their fellow citizens. Go into any doctor’s surgery in South Auckland and you’ll find posters targeting Maori and encouraging them not to smoke. There is without a doubt, a real desire in our health system to improve Maori health.
Get the Diagnosis Right!
Please hear me, I am not saying we shouldn’t care about these disparities. The real reasons should be investigated. My problem is that assuming racism is the cause when it most likely is not is like assuming the red spots on my arm are mosquito bites and giving me a soothing lotion when they are actually a result of the measles. Incorrectly diagnosing the problem will invariably lead to incorrect treatment. And incorrect courses of treatment do not solve problems. Often they just create bigger problems.
So don’t just point to a disparity and claim racism. Show me actual racism.
The Problem – Faulty Definitions
This leads us to the heart of the issue: a faulty definition. How exactly is this concept of Institutional Racism defined by academics and these so-called experts? The definition mentioned is ‘the procedures or practices of particular organisations that result in some groups being advantaged.’ Read that definition again. If this is our definition, anything that causes disparities between groups is considered institutional racism.
This is just plain stupid, and the fact that otherwise intelligent people believe it is extremely disturbing. In all of human life, where do we see all groups achieving equal results? We don’t. A diverse world leads to diverse outcomes. Some groups will always produce better results in some areas than other groups. But why must we assume that this is because of racism? Didn’t we once learn somewhere back in school that correlation does not equal causation? Are we no longer wise enough to realise there are often multiple reasons for disparities in data?
A More Accurate and Truthful Definition
Before you tune me out as some kind of crazy who denies racism, let me assure you that I believe there is such a thing as institutional racism. I’m a Christian, and Jesus Christ is my Lord and king. His law condemns those who show partiality, so I am fully opposed to racism in any form, and that includes institutional racism, which I do believe exists. We can all imagine a system where there is institutional racism fairly easily. Apartheid South Africa would be a classic case. So how should Institutional racism be defined?
Here is my rough attempt at a definition. Institutional racism is the existence of preference or favouritism in an institution toward a particular race or races, by a deliberate decision based on ethnicity alone. I think that is a definition that fits much better with our actual definition of racism.
So is racism in our health system killing Maori? No. This is another example of poor research and the assumption that disparities automatically mean racism. In truth, they automatically mean no such thing. Disparities between groups is the norm, not the exception. It’s hard to believe that these kinds of articles are not disingenuous and part of a slow but steady move toward a co-governance approach that will be the end of true democracy in New Zealand. You can bet that reports in this vein will be used to lead the charge into a separate health system for Maori.
