Talking about the Haka

Barry Barclay comments on two approaches of ‘talking in’ and ‘talking out’ in his discussion of representing identity and culture. He suggests that of the two approaches, the ‘talking in’ is “much more rewarding”, seeing as it presents an opportunity to discuss identity with members belong to the same group. Barclay’s ‘reward’ is the opportunity to control how collective identity is represented, and to not be subjected to the representations provided by the dominant group. In this sense, I think the Rugby World Cup was interesting, not just because of Sonny Bill William taking his jersey off, or the whole deal with Quade Cooper, but also because the event presented a unique opportunity to talk both in and out about the identity of New Zealand. This is on a global dimension of course, where the contest of the representation of different ethnic groups is momentarily forgotten. On the one hand, an event that involves competition between nations produces a spirit of national pride that effectively constructs a unified identity around the support of the representative team. But simultaneously, this identity is also communicated outwards to the rest of the world, or at least to the participating nations. This communication is, naturally, achieved through the media. If only for the duration of the Rugby World Cup, the All Blacks was New Zealand and New Zealand was the All Blacks, and the ethnicity of the players that make up the team is irrelevant because for that time being, “We’re just New Zealander’s”.

However, in saying this, it is important to think about what is being communicated: that is, how has the All Blacks been presented through the media to be representative of New Zealand? I want to discuss this in terms of the haka. It is difficult not to include a discussion of the haka when talking about the All Blacks. When the nation watches the haka being performed, the feeling of pride and anticipation cannot be denied. Theoretically speaking however, the use of the haka could be perceived as appropriation, the kind where the use of the cultural ritual of the haka becomes a show piece, but I would argue that it is different to the appropriation of the ‘Native Indian sports mascot’ example discussed in class. This is because I assume it will be difficult to perform the haka with such passion if those who performed it felt no profound connection to the underlying significance to New Zealand culture and heritage. This notion of a ‘profound connection’ evokes Avril Bell’s discussion about ‘Pakeha’. Specifically, the discussion about Pakeha that labels those members of the dominant group that recognises the culture of Maori and European settlers, but simultaneously differentiate themselves as being the New Zealanders. The ‘Pakeha’ players of the All Blacks reinforce this definition through the respect to which the haka is performed, suggesting that these players, representatives of New Zealand on and off the field, recognises the importance of Maori culture as defining New Zealand.

As supplement to Bell’s notion of ‘Pakehaness’, the haka as a component of New Zealand rugby tradition also reminds me of Renan’s argument of nations being created through violence. More importantly to Renan’s concept is the need for the nation to forget this violence in order to be formed successfully. By differentiating between Maori, Pakeha, and European, it is essentially a means of recognising the violence that shaped contemporary New Zealand to become a bi-cultural nation. It is suggested that as a result of the position of Pakeha as ‘not Maori’ but also ‘not European’, the national culture of New Zealand is created through the traditions of the Maori, even though in reality, the Pakeha form the hegemonic group. The haka is an example of this, and the ‘authenticity’ of Maori culture is enhanced by Piri Weepu leading the haka rather than the captain Richie McCaw.

Works cited

Barclay, Barry (1990). Talking In. From Our Own Image. (pp. 74-80). Auckland: Longman Paul

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. (pp. 144-158). Palmerston North: The Dunmore Press.

Blog 3

Blog 3

Indigenous People

One of the video clips presented in the lectures during this course that really stood out to me was, “I’m not the Indian you had in mind” and it’s a video clip that poses to make a statement and an attempt to break hegemony and racial stereotypes. It is about self-empowerment. The actors, in business suits, jeans, and typical urban attire are juxtaposed against the tradition clothing of a native. Through the use of stock footage, language, and common artifacts like a cigar store Indian, the viewer is encouraged to examine the profound role that these one dimensional media representations have played in shaping peoples perspectives of an entire group of people.

HOWEVER: I just personally feel like indigenous people can never be happy either way. Indigenous people want other races or particular ‘White” people to be aware of their ways, their culture. They want them to understand it so it is not taken out of context etc. So it is interesting to see how this video clip suggests there like ‘everyone else’ as in like White people? Adopting their culture, their ways, therefore does this mean the indigenous people are not in touch with the culture anymore? Therefore does this not mean there is hegemony, where the ruling class, ‘the white’ people are the dominate race in society and unconsciously emphasis there ways are right or normal?

I also find this video clip so ironic, it talks about how they are not what the media presents them to be which is fair enough but everything in the video clip is associated with ‘White’ cultural practices and the indigenous people unconsciously bypass their own culture. Like they are supposedly challenging the racial stereotypes but unconsciously reinforcing ‘White dominancy’. I suppose this is what colonisation does to you.

Also I feel as though even though White people do try to understand indigenous peoples culture it just backfires. For example Sue was discussing Māori TV and how 70% of the viewers are non-Māori people. Sue had mentioned this to another academic who suggested non-Māori people have the option to tune in and out of the culture as they please. I just think it is such a cynical way of looking at things. I feel as though nothing will be enough even if White people do try to understand any aspect of indigenous people it simply backfires. It is such a controversial topic that there will never be a yes or no answer for.

Word Count: 419