Being claimed by 'Whiteness', a mutual agreement.

There are so many ways that the media frames Asians, but I have often wondered why it is that the ‘good Asians’ when given the chance to portray a ‘positive image’ of stereotype sudden becomes apart of the white ‘us’ and out of the ‘Others’ category. Having grown up in a foreign country that we now call home, it is often difficult to define the fine line between our identities. Possessing Asian traits and roots many of us were born in foreign countries, but don’t speak our mother tongue and have grown up to embrace a strong sense of multiculturalism. Many attempts have been made to come close to identifying this special group of individuals by giving them names such as ABC (American Born Chinese), Kowi, (Korean Kiwi’s) and so forth. However, when these individuals excel in any given fields especially in athletic fields, their ethnic roots suddenly become invisible and they suddenly become part of the white ‘us’. One thing we must also recognize is the fact that to some extent this ‘claiming’ is a mutual agreement. The dominant group is able to gain a skillful representatives and on the other hand these individuals are able to receive or experience the ‘white privilege’ that they otherwise would not have been able to.

Couple of years ago a Korean international student in New Zealand became the youngest student ever to win a golf championship. This created a lot of excitement as he broke Tiger Wood’s record of being the youngest golf player to win the championship. When the news was announced on New Zealand television for the first time his ethnicity was not announced. However, in an interview with TV3 the next day, he was stated as being a New Zealander. Word spread and it turned out that overnight New Zealand had promised to give him New Zealand citizenship the following month. Being named a New Zealander this boy was suddenly receiving a lot of attention and privileges that was being offered to him because he was now a kiwi. This wasn’t the first case this had happened. Out of interest when I had googled Korean Americans I was presented with a Wikipedia page. Here I was able to see what Wikipedia had listed as a list of ‘notable Korean Americans’. On this page was a big list of each people who exceled in many fields. From scholars to TV anchors, politicians and the list went on. I realized on thinking on this issue, that it wasn’t the media who depicted the Asians in a certain way. But it was also the Asians that wanted to be depicted in that way. Then this lead me on to thinking why we don’t have Korean Pilipino Korean Singaporean athletes that are presented in such the same way. As harsh as this may sound, it is all because we clearly know the advantages that being claimed by the white society will give us. I wonder if we were to say that the white advantage was transferrable to other race, to what extent this was possible. I also wonder if this is the reason that Asian liked to be ‘claimed’ by the White/dominant race.

Are we 'just' New Zealanders?

The lecture a couple weeks ago on Pakehaness was quite intriguing and I found the point on many white New Zealanders reluctance to call themselves Pakeha to be especially thought provoking. As Sue says, “It was one of those ahhhh ha moments”. I myself did not think there was a distinction between whiteness and Pakehaness in New Zealand. Previous to this lecture, I have always thought white is ‘white’ and that white New Zealanders or ‘Kiwis’ were ‘white’. Meaning that ‘white’ is the dominant group in most colonized countries.

So this leads me to ponder this question which I think has been bought up in class before: Is New Zealand as multi-cultural as we would like to make it seem?

I only have to take a walk around this university or around the city or even around my neighbourhood and I could easily say yes. Yes it is. But once you hit the “upper class” neighbourhoods like Remuera or even parts of the North Shore, I feel like a stranger and more noticeably the “other”. One night my family and I were watching Close Up on channel 1 and I realised that all the stories that were shown in that one episode were all about white people. There were 3 stories told, the first was about this white family and their daughter with a condition that doesn’t let her age or grow in size anymore, the second was about a group of die-hard white middle aged men who toured the country to support the All Blacks, their name; The Bastards. And I unfortunately cannot remember the last story because it was only a minor one and by that point I had my epiphany. And in this film paper in tutorials I couldn’t help but notice that majority of the class is white. My intention is not to slam and complain about my tutorial class because I love going to these tutorials for this particular paper, I am merely just pointing out things I have noticed through my “othered” point of view.

In the reading by Avril Bell (1996), she discusses Pearson’s point on Pakeha equating their culture as the national culture and goes on to discuss the concept of ethnic consciousness and its link to the experience of being a cultural minority. Therefore Pakeha incline, “to see themselves outside ethnicity, in parallel to the way in which white people generally see themselves as outside ‘race’,” (Bell, 1996). This is my point and feeling exactly, they are the dominant group and it becomes naturalized to see them and their culture as the norm and even see them as outside of ‘culture’.

Just in this week’s lecture, there was a slide of photos with indigenous people and Sue talked about how indigenous peoples are always shown in costume. I found it very interesting to note her use of the word ‘costume’ rather than traditional clothing. This shows how much one’s background or ‘culture’ influences ones outlook and perspective on things and exemplifies Bell’s point on Pakeha seeing themselves as outside of ethnicity. I myself did not see it as costumes on the other hand because our culture has traditional cultural clothing that we do save for specific occasions rather than worn on a daily basis. Again I am merely stating observations and do not intend to criticise at all but this course has definitely made me think more deeply about New Zealand’s troubled race relations in the past and even now in the present.

'The Help'

I went to the movies last week to see the latest block buster hit, The Help. This film is set in 1960's Mississippi, and follows the story of several African American house maids and one white journalist 'Skeeter's' attempt to expose the maid's story of inequality. This film allowed me a greater insight to the position of African American maids during this era. These nannies, looked after the white children, cooked and cleaned for their white families but were denied equal terms - even denied to use the same bathroom as the white families.

The film focuses on the white protagonist Skeeter (played by Emma Stone). Skeeter is the daughter of a rich white family - she also seems to be the only white character with any compassion and desire to be nice to the black maids. Skeeter is an inspiring journalist, and aims to write a book about the maids story despite what her friends and family would think. The film is centered around Skeeters story and it was because of this perspective that made me aware of the films underlying white narrative. I could see the film being depicted from what Stuart Hall would call the 'white eye'. The film elevates the white character, Skeeter. This hints that The Help could be considered a 'White Savior film', a film that leaves the white viewer feeling good about themselves. The film successfully depicts the black point of view - but it is shown that this is only possible through the help of the white person.

This film, also gave me more insight into the 'mammy' stereotype i had read a lot about in the course so far. A 'mammy' originated from the housemaid role that The Help focuses on. The mammy figure was a woman who looks after the white persons household. Stereotypically the mammy was presented as a dark skinned, often overweight, good natured and friendly African-American woman. This stereotype is one of the most commonly represented in American popular culture and media along with other stereotypes such as the Sambo, Uncle Tom, Tragic Mulatto, Pickaninny, and the Jezebel. These caricatures reappear in media, and are more often than not depicted negatively.

The Help confirms this mammy stereotype by elaborating on the relationships between the maids and the families they cared for. Despite the sweet relationships between the children and the maids, the majority of the relationships between the maids and the white families were negative. The maids were striving to be liberated from their positions. I found this film very effective in portraying this era. Despite its stereotypes and white dominating storyline, I still found it interesting - and very emotional!

Forgetting Violence

The other day in the lecture, we discussed forgetting the violence on which countries are formed, and how there is not much mention of New Zealand history in schools. I went to a school where they seemed to make a big deal about making sure we knew about New Zealand history. In fourth form we spent a term studying the Treaty of Waitangi. But nobody wanted to, you could tell. Not even the teacher was that interested in teaching it. She never wanted to start arguments, so she stuck to the lines of “both cultures had different interpretations of the treaty, which caused problems, and then there was conflict.” Yet in the whole term, she never really explained why.

I learned the meaning of Tino Rangatiratanga in my history class in the seventh form. I think I had heard it before, in relation to the treaty, but I find it strange that I had never really had it explained to me until then. In Seventh form, schools have the option of teaching NZ history or Tudor-Stuart England. You could study one for the whole year, and then do your assignment on the other, which you would focus on for probably five weeks of the year. Many schools consistently choose to teach Tudor Stuart England for the best part of the year, leaving New Zealand history for the assignment. At my school we would alternate yearly, so every second year would do NZ history for the whole year. I was in that year group. An embarrassing number of my friends chose not to take history in 7th form because we were doing New Zealand history. I was really surprised by that, but what I didn’t understand was that it was white New Zealanders acting in a way that they had been brought up to – to forget violence. Even if they didn’t know it, they were shirking responsibility, not taking part in remembering a sordid past.

We went on a trip around Northland for history that year. Most of it was fun, but some was pretty sobering. We visited Ruapekapeka pa, and walked around. It was interesting, and I really enjoyed the history, but I never realized until now what it meant. We were walking around all of these places where hundreds upon hundreds of Maori people had been killed, trying to defend their land, culture and way of life. Yet we didn’t recognize the extent of the violence, or the privilege that we still had over a hundred years on because of it.

I think that Avril Bell was right about all of this; that we choose to forget instead of remember our history of violence. We choose to forget what was done to Maori during the 19th century because it means that we are justified in living our lives the way we do, with white privilege being built into so many aspects of it. There doesn’t seem to me to be a problem with schools avoiding teaching New Zealand history all together, but there is obviously a problem in the way it is delivered. New Zealand history in school is delivered with a white centred approach, so as not to disturb this well established tradition of forgetting the violence involved in getting New Zealand society to this point.