Homai te Pakipaki: talking in or talking out, or doing both?

This blog will examine indigenous filmmaker, Barry Barclay’s concepts of ‘talking in’ and ‘talking out’. ‘Talking in’ refers to films, education, public broadcasting and publishing that portrays insider cultural stories, traditions and issues (Barclay, 1990). For example, a Maori television programme that is described as ‘talking in’, would be a programme that has been made by Maori and for Maori, and is specifically about Maori culture (Barclay, 1990). ‘Talking out’ on the other hand, is about creating a work(s) that generates the interest of a wider audience. In programmes that ‘talk out’ the content is less culturally specific and is more easily understood by ‘cultural outsiders’.

I decided to test my understanding of Barclay’s ‘talking in’ and ‘talking out’ approaches, by applying them to an entertainment series produced by Maori television, called Homai te Pakipaki. Initially, I thought that the show would only ‘talk in’ to Maori audiences, because the title of the show, Homai te Pakipaki, is in Te Reo Maori. However, after watching this year’s grand final episode, I realised that the programme very successfully engages in a balancing act, and manages to ‘talk in’ and ‘talk out’ simultaneously.

Firstly, I will discuss how the show ‘talks in’ to Maori audiences. The two presenters; Matai Smith and Te Hamua Nikora begin the show and their skits speaking in Maori (Maori television, 2011). As a Pakeha who does not understand Maori, I wouldn’t say I felt excluded when the presenters spoke in Maori, however I did feel curious and slightly frustrated that I was unable to comprehend what they were saying. I can appreciate however, that during the Maori speaking segments the presenters were ‘talking in’ to their own culture.

The show also illustrates Barclay’s concept of ‘talking in’ through the contestant introductions. Homai te Pakipaki introduces each of the contestants following a similar format to other competition related shows. Each contestant is introduced by name, age and a snapshot bio about themselves. However, the only difference is that the contestants on Homai te Pakipaki are also distinguished by Iwi. I have to admit I felt a sense of vagueness creep over me whilst watching Homai te Pakipaki, because I was unsure of what ‘Ngapuhi’ and ‘Te Atihaunui a Paparangi’ meant, until I did some research and found out they are Maori tribal names (Maori television, 2011).

Even though Homai te Pakipaki exhibits moments of ‘talking in’, it manages to balance this out by including instances of ‘talking out’ aswell. One way in which I really felt the show ‘talked out’ to a wide range of cultural audiences was through the contestant’s song choices. Prior to watching the show, I thought that the songs would all be Maori songs that I would be unable to relate to. However, the finalist songs included; Someone like you written Adele an English singer and songwriter, aswell as You make me feel like dancing by the British singer Leo Sayer (Maori television, 2011). I have to admit that the inclusion of well known pop songs, led me to really enjoy the show as I found myself singing along with the contestants.

I think the main example of the show ‘talking out’ is the actual format of the show. The show is an obvious spin off of other music reality shows like, American idol, but with a Kiwiana twist. Like American Idol, Homai te Pakipaki features special guests, identical blue stage lights, aswell as the same text voting system (Maori television, 2011). I believe shows like Homai te Pakipaki, which speak out to many audiences, are the reason for Maori television having such a large Pakeha viewership.

Overall, I believe that Barclay is correct in stating that we need to be talking to our own people first, meaning we must ‘talk in’ (Barclay, 1990). I certainly experienced moments of irritation whilst watching Homai te Pakipaki, especially being unable to understand the Maori commentary. However, I do recognize that Homai te Pakipaki does feature on Maori television, and I feel it would be wrong not to include Maori language in the show. I think it is extremely accommodating of Maori television to include so many programmes in their schedule that ‘talk out’. However, I believe that Maori television should primarily be used as a platform to help Maori culture gain increased independence and acknowledgement in New Zealand society.

Reference Barclay, B. (1990). Talking in. From Our Own Image. (pp. 74 – 80). Auckland: Longman Paul.

Maori Television. (2011). Grand final winner. Retrieved from http://www.maoritelevision.com/Default.aspx?tabid=605

Ironic Graffiti and Stereotypes

I saw this (above) bit of scribbled graffiti (which reads ‘Asian Penis (to scale)’ underneath a crudely drawn penis) in one of our tutorial rooms. The irony was not lost on me and I had a giggle to myself, not because I think Asian men have small penises (and that this is a laughing matter) but because of the stark contrast between what this course is about and what this person had decided to proclaim to the world. I also thought that this related nicely to our first lecture on stereotypes.

Bernadette Casey, et al, define stereotypes as “inaccurate, simplistic generalisations about a group of individuals that may lead to particular perceptions of the group by others” (2002, 229). Stereotypes are seen to be perpetuated through media outlets such as television, print, and advertising. However this is not necessarily the only way that stereotypes are created or continued; a circular interrelationship between the media, audience, and texts influence and react to each other to create these discourses (Casey, et al: 2002, 231).

So why do stereotypes exist? O’Shaugnessy and Stadler believe that these discourses arose from power imbalances and struggles dating back as early as pre-colonial times, when Europeans ‘discovered and explored’ countries that were already populated to exploit resources, human or otherwise (2002, 262). Eurocentrism arose out of these power struggles; European culture, values, beliefs, and judgements were seen as superior to any other, and categorised anything else as ‘foreign’ or ‘other’ (O’Shaugnessy and Stadler: 2002, 267). This eurocentrism translated in the media as pushing ‘other’ cultures and ethnicities to the periphery creating a marginalisation by the dominant group and limiting the knowledge of other ethnicities to a few characteristics which became ‘naturalised’ stereotypes (O’Shaugnessy et al: 2002, 267; Codell: 2007, 214). Stereotypes are limiting of the audience’s understanding of a culture because they imply that particular characteristics are shared by the majority of people in that culture and that that characteristic is biological rather than a social construct (O’Shaugnessy and Stadler: 2002, 270).

This ‘naturalisation’ occurs when a stereotype of a certain ethnicity is repeated so often and is so interwoven in the media that we the audience assume that they are true without questioning the accuracy or source (Codell: 2007, 214). The media are an important tool to give the audience constructs of different ethnicities, which can lead to greater understanding and tolerance of ethnicities different to our own, however when these representations are inaccurate then they have negative affects (O’Shaugnessy and Stadler: 2002, 260). Casey, et al, have found that the effects of these repeated stereotypes on the ethnic minorities being represented may lead to prejudicial treatment of the ethnic group by others and may over time give a distorted and inaccurate view of that group (2002, 229, 231).

Thankfully, new media forms such as the Internet and social networking sites are allowing a new globalisation and the dissolution of cultural boundaries traditionally marked by geography (Miller: 2002, 125). The ‘shifting ethnoscapes’ have allowed many cultures to be absorbed into the global hybridisation; this also makes it easier for previous stereotyping to be reformed by informing people correctly of cultures different to their own (Miller: 2002, 125).

References: Casey, Bernadette, Casey, Neil, Calvert, Ben, French, Liam and Lewis, Justin. ‘Stereotypes’. In Television Studies: Key Concepts. 2002, London and New York: Routledge. Pp 229-231.

Codell, Julie F. (ed). ‘Stereotypes and Multiple Realisms’. In Genre, Gender, Race and World Cinema. 2007, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Pp 214-218.

Ma, Erik. ‘Television and Orientalism’. Miller, Toby. (ed). In Television Studies. 2002, London: BFI. Pp 125-126.

O’Shaugnessy, Michael, and Stadler, Jane. ‘Ethnicity, Ideology, and the Media’. In Media and Society: An Introduction. 2002, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp 260-278.

The problems with “Pākehā-ness"

I thought I’d elaborate on the idea raised in the lecture that “whiteness” and “Pākehāness” overlap yet do not always mean the same thing, in relation to Augie and Spoonley’s article “The Cultural Politics of Post-colonialism”

Also mentioned in the lecture; Pākehā can be a term ‘belonging to this country and no other’, meaning ‘a non-Māori New Zealander’. The first positive idea is that the term establishes a Māori perspective of white New Zealanders. It recognises Māori language and as mentioned by Avril Bell; it “recognises and names white New Zealanders as one group among many who co-exist in the New Zealand nation-state”: it is a step toward undermining white hegemony.

Augie and Spoonley argue that because many Pakeha still have trouble defining their own culture, they inadvertently reinforce the dominant groups hegemony by remaining ignorant. Bell’s definition also poses problems to recent European white immigrants such as Scots, English, and Welsh. They “exist in New Zealand as ethnic groups, but they practise a different way of living to white residents of NZ” (Augie and Spoonley, 83). What is interesting is the 1996 survey, which indicated that only 17 percent of white participants identified themselves as Pākehā (Augie and Spoonley, 85). It is thought that the term is commonly contested as white New Zealanders “do not feel comfortable in an indigenous linguistic landscape” (84) and that it ultimately commits themselves to the “bicultural and/or bi-national politics of contemporary Aotearoa” (81).

Augie and Spoonley define Pākehā-ness as “New Zealanders of a European background, whose cultural values and behavior have been primarily formed from the experience of being a member of the dominant group of New Zealand”. As mentioned in the lecture, this definition also ‘excludes those who continue to practice a minority group ethnicity, and also those European individuals and groups who retain a strong affiliation to a homeland elsewhere and who reproduce this ethnicity in New Zealand.’ This also fails to recognize the colonizing past: the primary reason why the dominant culture IS the dominant culture today. This reiterates the idea mentioned in the lecture that the nation itself (the dominant culture of a nation) relies on forgetting its own past (Renan, 1882).

For some New Zealanders, the term is used as a way of stepping out of white privilege. To consider one’s self Pākehā, it is more of a political and cultural statement, rather than an identity. For example in the article Ritchie identifies himself as a Pākehā as a means of recognising his ancestral involvement with colonisation and the current position he holds in society as a member of the dominant group. For Richie it is a term, which expresses his understanding and most of all, sympathy for Māori. My interpretation of this, however, is that it is an another aspect of white privilege, the power of the dominant culture allows it’s members to take a step down and in a somewhat paternal manner, taking pity on the less privileged ethnic groups.

Another problem with Pākehā-ness is that as it was being reshaped in the 1980’s as the “baby-boomer generation that was seeking a post-colonial identity…it provided an opportunity for the affirmation of cultural identities that had previously been subjugated by the colonizing powers (Augie and Spoonley, 87). As mentioned by Anne McClintock the term ‘post-colonial’ is “prematurely celebratory” (225). It suggests that colonization is over, which of course it isn’t. It is now in the form of ‘neo-colonialism’ as white culture in New Zealand, as well as other ‘post-colonial’ continents, such as the Americas, still remains dominant. The pervasiveness of white culture also means that Pākehā commonly see themselves as outside ethnicity, in parallel to the way in which white people see themselves as outside ‘race’.

Moreover, as White culture remains dominant, anesthetizing its members, Pākehā-ness is not seen a worthy representative of New Zealand culture for tourism. Māori culture has taken its place. This is because not only is Pākehā-ness not considered a ‘culture’ by many whites, but it is perceived as a universal way of living, which cannot be commodified. Māori culture instead, can be boxed up and packaged in the form of the ‘exotic’. What’s more problematic about this is that it connotates the idea that the dominant culture has commodified and ‘made safe’ a minority culture, once seen as ‘savage’, essentially selling it in a ‘zoo-like’ form: now tame and safe to view.

Sources:

Bell, Avril (1996). ‘We’re Just New Zealanders’: Pakeha Identity Politics. In Spoonley, Paul, MacPherson, Cluny and Pearson, David (eds.), Nga Patai: Racism and Ethnic Relations in Aotearoa/New Zealand. 144-158.

Fleras, Augie and Spoonley, Paul (1999). The Cultural Politics of Postcolonialism: Being Pākehā. In Recalling Aotearoa: Indigenous Politics and Ethnic Relations in New Zealand. 80-93.

'Who am I?' and 'where do I fit?'

The labels ‘Pakeha’, and ‘New Zealander’ or ‘New Zealand European’, mean the same thing right? I think that at a basic level the answer to this question is ‘yes’, all these terms are used to refer to New Zealanders of European descent. However, after doing some research around the different terms, I have learnt that certain labels actually evoke very different attitudes and feelings for various individuals and ethnic groups.

The label ‘New Zealander’ is a term that has been created by New Zealanders of European descent. Research has suggested that individuals, who refer to themselves as New Zealander’s, are generally people that do not recognise or acknowledge their relationship with Maori culture (Sibley et al., 2011). I feel that this is a fair explanation. I believe that individuals who strongly identify with the label ‘New Zealander’ do not consider Maori culture to be a crucial part of their own private identity. However, I think that it is important to note, that just because an individual does not associate themselves with Maori culture, this does not automatically mean that they view Maori individuals or society in a negative light. Unfortunately, there are some people who will only refer to themselves as a ‘New Zealander’, because, they exhibit racist attitudes towards Maori, and don’t think their identity should be labelled by another ethnic group.

The ethnic label ‘Pakeha’ on the other hand, I believe is even more complex than the term ‘New Zealander’. Currently, only a small quantity of New Zealanders that are of European descent feel comfortable using and being referred to as ‘Pakeha’ (Sibley et al., 2011). Apparently, this is because many European individuals believe the term actually originated as a Maori insult (Bell, 1996). However, studies have found that the term ‘Pakeha’ occurred naturally for Maori, because it is a label that utilises their own language (Sibley et al., 2011). In fact, it has been found that for Maori, the term ‘Pakeha’ has no negative or positive meanings associated with it, it is simply a Maori word used to describe “non – Maori, European” (Bell, 1996, p. 156). This research leads me to believe that European New Zealanders are reluctant to embrace the label ‘Pakeha’ partially due to a cultural misunderstanding, with many individuals still thinking the term ‘Pakeha’ has negative Maori connotations associated with it.

There are some New Zealanders of European descent however, that are only to happy to identify themselves as ‘Pakeha’. I believe individuals that self – label themselves ‘Pakeha’ must have an optimistic psychological relationship with Maori culture. I feel such individuals are accepting and encouraging of the affiliation between Maori and European New Zealander’s. It seems that people who consider themselves ‘Pakeha’ are essentially opting-in, in terms of facilitating a bond with Maori people and society.

After examining the national label, ‘New Zealander’, aswell as the ethnic label, ‘Pakeha’, I am left to ponder questions such as; ‘Who am I?’ and ‘where do I fit?’ After some self reflection and a few ‘ahhhh huh’ moments, I believe I have transitioned from categorizing myself as a ‘New Zealander’ to that of ‘Pakeha’. Prior to taking the paper; Race, Indigeneity and the Media, I would have considered myself a ‘New Zealander’, not because I have any negative feelings toward Maori culture, but because I was simply unsure of how Maori culture fitted in with my own personal identity. However, since, taking the course, aswell as other race related courses at University, I have become a lot more aware and appreciative of New Zealand’s diverse cultural surroundings. I think writing this blog today, I am more knowledgeable of Maori culture and as a result I feel more proud of its influence on New Zealand society as a whole, hence I now feel comfortable referring to myself as ‘Pakeha’.

References Sibley, C., Houkamou, C., & Hoverd, W. (2011). Ethnic group labels and intergroup attitudes in New Zealand: Naming preferences predict distinct ingroup and outgroup biases. Analyses of social issues and public policy, 00 (0), 1 – 20.

Avril, B. (1996). We’re just New Zealanders: Pakeha identity politics. Palmerston North, New Zealand: The Dunmore Press.

Music: a powerful form of communication?

During last week’s lecture, we were made aware of the increasing number of young, Maori artists that are using music as a means of discussing and re-awakening individuals to Maori culture. However, once the lecture ended I found myself wondering; ‘why are Maori musicians increasingly diverting from mainstream music to record cultural songs in Te Reo Maori?’

In order, to try and understand what is motivating talented Maori artists to sing about their heritage, I decided to review a song written by Tiki Taane titled Tangaroa.

Taane’s moving song Tangaroa, draws on the strength of Tangaroa, God of the sea, and is recorded in Te Reo Maori. The song honours Maori ancestry, by using a number of traditional Maori elements within the song and its video clip, such as the Haka and vocals from Taane’s father; Uekaha Taanetinorau. I visited a number of blog sites, aswell as Taane’s own official website to try find out what inspired him to write such a touching song.

Based on Taane’s own comments of the song, I have come to realise that Tangaroa has two levels of meaning associated with it. Firstly, the song has great personal meaning and significance for Taane. During the video clip, viewers see snippets of drug paraphernalia and the city; such images are reminiscent of a time when Taane’s life was spiralling out of control. However, throughout the video clip we also witness Taane regain control of his life, when he returns to his Maori roots. We see the spirit of Taane’s mother at the beach, and realise she acts as a catalyst for helping Taane reconnect with what is important in life, his culture. In a powerful scene we observe Taane’s soul becoming strong again, as he engages in the traditional Haka, a war dance or challenge. Taane symbolically draws on the Haka in his music video as a method of fighting and challenging his own inner demons.

The song Tangaroa is also engrained with broader social and cultural meanings aswell. I believe the song is extremely progressive, in the sense that it is contributing toward the process of decolonisation. The colonisation of New Zealand meant that Maori culture was forced to assimilate to Western culture in many ways. Overtime, the traditions and customs of Maori culture have started to fade in areas of New Zealand. On one website Taane comments on the matter stating, that “when you break it down, the (culture) struggle seems to be the same in any colonised country” (Green Left, 2011). I firmly believe that Taane is using his popular status to draw attention back to the importance of culture and enhance Maori identity. Tangaroa really encourages individuals, in particular Maori youths, not to feel afraid of looking deeper into their heritage. Taane is evidently using his music as a communicative tool to reignite Maori cultural elements, such as language, and to encourage independence.

In the song, the past is intertwined with the new. We hear traditional Maori instruments and sounds being mixed in with Taane’s trademark ‘future – dub’ style. Even the title of Taane’s album title ‘Past, Present and Future’ is concerned with linking various time periods together. I believe Taane’s desire to incorporate the past into the present, is symbolic of his aspiration to revive Maori traditions and make them an integral part of New Zealand’s future.

Lastly, I would like to note that, even through I am unable to understand the lyrics in Tangaroa; I believe this has not hindered my interpretation of the song. The emotion in Taane’s voice and the song’s associated video clip is so powerful, that Taane’s overall message is still able to shine through.

Reference Green Left. (2011). Tiki Taane goes back to bassics. Retrieved from http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/47469

Putting Rashad to the test. The All Blacks

In the book Race, Sport and the Media (Heylton and Law 2009) an argument made by former NFL player commentator Ahmed Rashad is included. His argument is as follows: "If you close your eyes and listen, you can tell whether a commentator is talking about a White or a Black athlete when he says [sic] that somebody is a 'natural,' so fluid and graceful, you know he's talking about a black performer. When you hear that this other guy's a hard worker or that he comes to play everyday on the strength of guts and intellegnce, you know that the player in question is white. Just open your eyes."

I'm a big time sports watcher and consider my self a genuine aimchair expert with my sporting analysis at times. And this account did conjure feelings of familiarity. It did immediately feel as though this comment (as a huge generalisation) was reasonably accurate.
The engagement with this claim will be two-fold. I will firstly discuss the underlying reasons for this sterotyped discource in light of colonialism and secondly look at its application to the New Zealand All Blacks.

The stereotypes of the natural, raw black athlete versus the concept of the pragmatic, intellegent white athlete seem to echo stereotypes emrging from colonial discources. Such discources construct race in positioning the colonised native as a natural athlete with greatrer physical prowess to survive with a greater proximity to nature. White, European colonial culture however was constructed in different terms. In terms of technological advancement, intellect and determination. Think of New Zealand in this light. Maori remain discussed in light of thier spiritual links to thier land and of strong physical capabilities. Recall the "warrior gene" controversy whereby a scientist claimed the existence of such a gene in Maori as, in part, explaining thier physicality and suggested a greater tendency for violence. Maori's ability to survie in New Zealand prior to European settlement was based on this conceptualisation of thier natural strength. In contrast the Europen or Pakeha culture of New Zealand is still based on the "Pioneer" mythologies; of pragmatic settlers who were able to scrap a living out of the land through intellegence, guts technical skill; the "fix anything with number 8 wire" idea.

Given New Zealand is a proud sporting nation, with a colonial history and multi-cultural present New Zealand should provide a good study for the argument of Rashad and for whether the streotyped dialogues stem from colonial history. I will look specifiically at the All Blacks though. The All Blacks comprises of Pakeha, Maori and Pacific Island races and of players with a variety of skill sets and attributes. And, in my opinion, discussion of these players in commentary and media is rarely racially motivated; despite opportunities for; simply, there are too many contradictions for this to be the case. Ma'a Nonu (polynesian) is often talked in light of his "power running," "strength" and, at times, his "inconsistency". Contrastingly though Malili Muliani (polynesian) is talked about in terms of his "composure," "consistency," "intellegence" and lack of explosive pace. Furthermore, Victor Vito (polynesian) was recently described in commentary as "powerful," "intellegent" but "needed to get more angry". Conrad Smith and Jimmy Cowan are (both white) both frequently talked about in regards to their "guts," "pragmatism," "technicality" and "intellegence" as the non-gifted "grafters" who make the most out of thier limited natural abilities. However brothers Owen and Ben Franks are regarded for thier "immense stength" and "power" and Dan Carter is described often as a "natural," "graceful" and "talented athelete." Piri Weepu (Maori) is described as "intellegent" and "strong" whilst Hosea Gear (also Maori) is described paced on "pace" and "power." Quit simply the descriptions of players seem too bare little meaning from their race and more so from thier percieved attributes. The contradictions that emerge from looking for such trends suggest that racial or colonially driven discources are very limited if indeed present in this context.

Maybe I'm just bias.
Go the All Blacks!