Colonisation

Recently there has been a bit of controversy over the benefits or otherwise of colonization to New Zealand. The National party’s education spokesman Paul Goldsmith suggested that colonisation “on balance” had been a good thing for Māori. Cue the howls of outrages from ignorant and divisive politicians.

Goldsmith’s statement is an obvious truth. The fact that there is any disagreement over it is beyond belief. Maori before European colonisation had very low life expectancy. They did not have iron. They were not blessed with having access to many scientific discoveries due to their geographical isolation. They had no stable government and might was right. Warfare was brutal and regular. The very fact that there are land claims and compensation is paid for past injustice is a testament to the benefit of colonisation. Maori have been blessed by the coming of British law to these islands. Prior to European settlement, there was no recourse for the weak when they were abused by the strong. For all its faults, colonisation, and particularly the impact of Christianity has been a benefit to Maori culture.

Those who doubt this are either ignorant of history, or deliberately divisive. Let me leave you with Michael Bassett’s comments on this issue. I particularly love his description of Peen Henare and Wille Jackson as two of the weaker minds in our ministry! You can find the rest of his article here.

So, in the opinions of Peeni Henare and Willie Jackson, two of the weaker minds in our ministry, Paul Goldsmith MP is “ignorant” and talking “nonsense” when he says that on balance, Maori benefited from the colonization of New Zealand. According to Henare, Goldsmith who, incidentally, is a First-Class Honours graduate in history with an impressive number of well researched books to his credit, “set back the country” by stating what, on balance, should be obvious to all of us. As that sage Maori leader Sir Apirana Ngata always said, colonization of New Zealand could not have been prevented; Maori were just lucky that it was the British, and not some of the less enlightened imperialists who undertook the settlement of New Zealand. When will our ministers learn some history?

Daily Racism towards Maori?

New research conducted by the independent Māori institute for environment and health, Te Atawhai o te Ao has found that 93 per cent of Māori in New Zealand experience racism every day. This came as something of a shock to me, because I did not realise racism was such a huge problem in New Zealand. There is the odd time in my life I have been the object of a racist remark, and I have occasionally witnessed a racist remark towards another person, but I would never have put the figure as a daily one. Where are these people mixing?

Reading further on, we find what counts as racism. According to the article reporting on this, “Racism was experienced by Māori as both act and omission, including micro and macro aggressions, media representation, ignorance and disrespect. This included the invalidation of Māori knowledge, mispronunciation of Māori names, and the celebration of colonisation with colonial statues and monuments.” Now personally, I am unsure as to why these things are categorised as racism.

Take mispronunciation of Māori names. Is this really racism? Are people being discriminated against because of their ethnicity, or is it simply a case of not being used to a certain way of pronouncing vowels. I can’t accurately pronounce French words, but I certainly bear no ill will against the French. Having taught children in a South Auckland context, I have found many of them pronouncing English words incorrectly, but I never assumed this was a result of malice against the English; more just a semi dialect.

Is the celebration of colonisation with colonial statues and monuments racism? Of course not! It’s part of our history, and while there were great evils conducted by some colonists, by and large, the history of colonisation has been a good thing for everybody in New Zealand. The Treaty of Waitangi was signed by so many Maori rangatira precisely because they saw the benefits of a colonial government that protected their rights and interests from other potentially aggressive tribes.

Later on in the article it is claimed, “when shopping or seeking services, 89 per cent of Māori said they were less likely to receive assistance because they were Māori, and most had been followed, watched or asked to open their bags in a shop.” But how do people know that they received less assistance because they were Maori? How do they know they are having their bags searched because they are Maori. And for that matter, how do they know they are less likely to receive assistance? Where is the hard data that demonstrates this is actually the case? These seem to be assumptions.

Living life with a chip on your shoulder can certainly colour your perception of what happens around you. I’ve had my bags searched when exiting a shop, and to be honest I did feel a little annoyed. But moving beyond this step to assuming evil motivations from the store is not helpful. I just don’t know why they chose me and the group I was with, but I am not going to develop a victim complex. And I guess that is my concern with this ‘research’. What counts for research these days seem woefully inadequate. Perhaps even in this criticism, I will be charged with racism for the invalidation of Māori knowledge. But with no objective standards of racism and the assumption that entirely innocent behaviour is racism, we make sin what is not sin, and we turn healthy and strong people into victims. Assuming racism at every turn is not going to help. It will create bitterness and resentment, and that can eat a person up on the inside.