See Tui avoid shopping and schoolwork! To navelgaze!
Indulging in a little navel-gazing of the ethnic type, as Pakeha New Zealanders are so wont to do, especially in the weeks leading up to our census. Cut for length, but I think it's sort of interesting, and if you're a Pakeha New Zealander I'd love to know what you think. Or even if you've never heard the word Pakeha before.
For those of you who have not been following the debate (Tze Ming Mok and Russell Brown of Public Address have both posted on the topic over the last few days: what do Caucasian New Zealanders, who are born here, put as their ethnicity on their census form? The option given on the census form is “New Zealand European”, but historically a reasonably significant percentage have ticked “other” and put either Pakeha- the Maori word for white person, derived from an older word for pale-skinned fairies in Maori mythology- or “New Zealander.” The recent debate has been sparked by an email forward urging white New Zealanders to put down simply “New Zealander” as their ethnicity.
Much more learned people than I have discussed why “New Zealander” is not, in fact, appropriate as a description of ethnicity; it’s a description of nationality, and a nationality that is shared by many different ethnicities. I don’t feel I’m qualified to discuss that much further, having never studied ethnicity and culture (To my eternal shame, I haven’t even read Michael King’s Being Pakeha, which is pretty much the seminal text on ethnicity for liberal, educated white New Zealanders.) But reading Tze Ming’s latest I came across something that I did feel I could explore a bit further, although likely in a not particularly original fashion.
“The basically white 'Just a New Zealander' people who wrote in to claim their 'just New Zealandness' settled into a few groups.
a) The Pakeha who didn't like being called Pakeha, because it's a Maori word, but had an obviously Pakeha identity in the Michael King sense - in that they were of European extraction, and their primary personal and historical affiliation is to New Zealand. For my opinion on that, see introductory sarcasm above.
b) The Pakeha who didn't really mind describing themselves as Pakeha, but didn't seem to be very clear on the difference between an ethnic identity and a national identity or national 'culture', and so didn't see what was inaccurate or misleading about writing in 'New Zealander'.
c) The people who don't like to be called 'New Zealand European' because the British Isles are not in Europe. There weren't too many of these, but I mean, really. Come on. That's about as good as the 'Chinese is an English word' argument.”
-Tze Ming Mok, March 7, in “Yellow Peril”
Now, obviously groups A and C I don’t have much to say about. C is patently stupid; A has its origins in a particularly New Zealand form of racism, as part of the Pakeha majority lashing back at what they see as the “superior” treatment of Maori. It can be associated with men who have problems with Affirmative Action because it’s “reverse sexism.” I do have a few thoughts on that but they’re best discussed elsewhere.
Group B, on the other hand, I have sympathy with. It’s certainly the group I identify most with, and it’s the group that has, in my opinion, fueled most of the useful debate about ethnicity and culture from the Pakeha perspective. Now, I intend to write Pakeha on my census form. It is a uniquely New Zealand word describing a uniquely New Zealand group of people: white people who are born here, whose primary cultural identification is with New Zealand and their perceptions of the New Zealand identity. Pakeha people think about the Treaty of Waitangi (even if not in a very subtle way), Pakeha people eat fish and chips, go to school, probably know what the score is on the last rugby match even if they don’t care, blah blah blah. It is the way I identify myself to other New Zealanders and, where possible, to non-Kiwis as well.
But it is a problematic term as it relates to ethnicity, and the difference between ethnicity and national identity. The confusion Tze Ming describes in her readers is a confusion I can identify with. Because the Pakeha culture is the dominant culture in New Zealand, to many Pakeha the New Zealand national identity looks a lot like an ethnicity. It’s not- but if it’s not, where do Pakeha find their ethnicity? Fish and chips and a preoccupation with the Treaty probably aren’t terribly useful, and they certainly aren’t what we think of when we think of “ethnicity.” For most Pakeha, myself included, their awareness of their ethnicity is slim to none. I am aware of the Pakeha culture, but I don’t know if I’d describe it as an ethnicity. What the white New Zealander thinks of when someone says the word “ethnicity” is, yes, Maori, or Chinese. We start thinking of the Lantern Festival, Diwali celebrations at the Town Hall, those awesome Pasifika drummers. What we do not think of is anything that includes ourselves. Ethnicity is defined to us as being something that excludes us. Maybe that leaves all 60% (or whatever, I can’t keep up with the statistics) as one ethnicity- but it’s an ethnicity that we define by our exclusion from other, more exciting, more colourful, more whole, more coherent identities.
Certainly we don’t - in general - identify with Scottish culture, or Irish, English… or perhaps we do. Rephrase that: I don’t. I feel no sense of connection with whatever Scottish or Norwegian relatives I may have. Of course, some people do- and perhaps for them, New Zealand European really is a good identifier. But I believe that in general, and particularly in my generation, Pakeha New Zealanders are estranged from whatever European origins they may have had. Yes, as Tze Ming Mok points out, Pakeha were made out of Europeans. Made in New Zealand, with reference to the culture-Maori culture-- that really makes us different from any other colonial country in the world. (See sixth_light’s excellent post here for a brief but interesting discussion of what Pakeha means.)
In conclusion- well, I don’t have a conclusion. I will be ticking “other” and writing Pakeha for my ethnicity when I fill out my census form this evening. I think that “New Zealander” is a description of nationality, not ethnicity, and that those who wish to identify themselves ethnically as New Zealanders are a) confusing national identity with ethnicity and b) potentially hijacking “New Zealander” as an inclusive term, and turning it into an exclusive one- certainly the vast majority of those who will put “New Zealander” down will be Pakeha, one way or another. I also don’t think New Zealand European is appropriate for many Pakeha New Zealanders. However, I think Pakeha confusion will continue until such time as we can truly view ourselves as a separate ethnicity- one separate from European and American culture (I haven’t even touched on the way American culture affects New Zealand culture; do we identify its influences as part of our ethnicity? Or as an outside influence on our own identity, whether one we choose or not?). An ethnicity that is part of the New Zealand national identity; and one that is defined positively, rather than non-Chinese, non-Pasifika, non-Maori, non-European. I don’t know if this is possible in the New Zealand Aotearoa of today.
To finish: The definition of an ethnic group as found in Michael E. Brown's 'Ethnic Conflict and International Security', p 4-5. (With thanks to Tze Ming Mok, from whose journal I lifted this whole.)
First, the group must have a name for itself. This is not trivial; a lack of a name reflects an insufficiently developed collective identity. Second, the people in the group must believe in a common ancestry. Third, the members of the group must share historical memories... Fourth, the group must have a shared culture, generally based on a combination of language, religion, laws, customs, [etc]. Fifth, the group must feel attachment to a specific piece of territory, which it may or may not actually inhabit. Sixth and last, the people in the group have to think of themselves as a group in order to constitute an ethnic community; that is, they must have a sense of their common ethnicity. The group must be self-aware."
We maybe have a name, if we can get everyone to agree. A common ancestry? If we can stretch English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, French, Dalmatian, Norwegian, … to “common”. Shared historical memories? Sure, why not. Shared culture? That’s a difficult one: but yes, there is a mainstream Pakeha culture in New Zealand. Defining it is problematic, and I think we often lack any personal commitment to it as a culture to be maintained (unless we’re, well, the type of people who like to talk about how in a few years we’ll all be speaking Chinese and eating with chopsticks and OMG LIKE NO WAY EVIL AZNS TAKING OVER THE COUNTRY.) We don’t celebrate it- but is that because we’re the dominant culture who frankly doesn’t need celebrating? Is it also because we can’t think of anything to celebrate? The one thing we positively have is a specific piece of territory. But self-awareness… that’s the last and the hardest. If we had it, would we still be talking about it? I don’t really know. You tell me!
Damn. Why is it so much easier to navel-gaze about my own ethnicity than it is to, you know, actually write real essays? 1500 words in forty minutes, man, If I could do all my assignments like this… I could completely turn this into an essay, people.
For those of you who have not been following the debate (Tze Ming Mok and Russell Brown of Public Address have both posted on the topic over the last few days: what do Caucasian New Zealanders, who are born here, put as their ethnicity on their census form? The option given on the census form is “New Zealand European”, but historically a reasonably significant percentage have ticked “other” and put either Pakeha- the Maori word for white person, derived from an older word for pale-skinned fairies in Maori mythology- or “New Zealander.” The recent debate has been sparked by an email forward urging white New Zealanders to put down simply “New Zealander” as their ethnicity.
Much more learned people than I have discussed why “New Zealander” is not, in fact, appropriate as a description of ethnicity; it’s a description of nationality, and a nationality that is shared by many different ethnicities. I don’t feel I’m qualified to discuss that much further, having never studied ethnicity and culture (To my eternal shame, I haven’t even read Michael King’s Being Pakeha, which is pretty much the seminal text on ethnicity for liberal, educated white New Zealanders.) But reading Tze Ming’s latest I came across something that I did feel I could explore a bit further, although likely in a not particularly original fashion.
“The basically white 'Just a New Zealander' people who wrote in to claim their 'just New Zealandness' settled into a few groups.
a) The Pakeha who didn't like being called Pakeha, because it's a Maori word, but had an obviously Pakeha identity in the Michael King sense - in that they were of European extraction, and their primary personal and historical affiliation is to New Zealand. For my opinion on that, see introductory sarcasm above.
b) The Pakeha who didn't really mind describing themselves as Pakeha, but didn't seem to be very clear on the difference between an ethnic identity and a national identity or national 'culture', and so didn't see what was inaccurate or misleading about writing in 'New Zealander'.
c) The people who don't like to be called 'New Zealand European' because the British Isles are not in Europe. There weren't too many of these, but I mean, really. Come on. That's about as good as the 'Chinese is an English word' argument.”
-Tze Ming Mok, March 7, in “Yellow Peril”
Now, obviously groups A and C I don’t have much to say about. C is patently stupid; A has its origins in a particularly New Zealand form of racism, as part of the Pakeha majority lashing back at what they see as the “superior” treatment of Maori. It can be associated with men who have problems with Affirmative Action because it’s “reverse sexism.” I do have a few thoughts on that but they’re best discussed elsewhere.
Group B, on the other hand, I have sympathy with. It’s certainly the group I identify most with, and it’s the group that has, in my opinion, fueled most of the useful debate about ethnicity and culture from the Pakeha perspective. Now, I intend to write Pakeha on my census form. It is a uniquely New Zealand word describing a uniquely New Zealand group of people: white people who are born here, whose primary cultural identification is with New Zealand and their perceptions of the New Zealand identity. Pakeha people think about the Treaty of Waitangi (even if not in a very subtle way), Pakeha people eat fish and chips, go to school, probably know what the score is on the last rugby match even if they don’t care, blah blah blah. It is the way I identify myself to other New Zealanders and, where possible, to non-Kiwis as well.
But it is a problematic term as it relates to ethnicity, and the difference between ethnicity and national identity. The confusion Tze Ming describes in her readers is a confusion I can identify with. Because the Pakeha culture is the dominant culture in New Zealand, to many Pakeha the New Zealand national identity looks a lot like an ethnicity. It’s not- but if it’s not, where do Pakeha find their ethnicity? Fish and chips and a preoccupation with the Treaty probably aren’t terribly useful, and they certainly aren’t what we think of when we think of “ethnicity.” For most Pakeha, myself included, their awareness of their ethnicity is slim to none. I am aware of the Pakeha culture, but I don’t know if I’d describe it as an ethnicity. What the white New Zealander thinks of when someone says the word “ethnicity” is, yes, Maori, or Chinese. We start thinking of the Lantern Festival, Diwali celebrations at the Town Hall, those awesome Pasifika drummers. What we do not think of is anything that includes ourselves. Ethnicity is defined to us as being something that excludes us. Maybe that leaves all 60% (or whatever, I can’t keep up with the statistics) as one ethnicity- but it’s an ethnicity that we define by our exclusion from other, more exciting, more colourful, more whole, more coherent identities.
Certainly we don’t - in general - identify with Scottish culture, or Irish, English… or perhaps we do. Rephrase that: I don’t. I feel no sense of connection with whatever Scottish or Norwegian relatives I may have. Of course, some people do- and perhaps for them, New Zealand European really is a good identifier. But I believe that in general, and particularly in my generation, Pakeha New Zealanders are estranged from whatever European origins they may have had. Yes, as Tze Ming Mok points out, Pakeha were made out of Europeans. Made in New Zealand, with reference to the culture-Maori culture-- that really makes us different from any other colonial country in the world. (See sixth_light’s excellent post here for a brief but interesting discussion of what Pakeha means.)
In conclusion- well, I don’t have a conclusion. I will be ticking “other” and writing Pakeha for my ethnicity when I fill out my census form this evening. I think that “New Zealander” is a description of nationality, not ethnicity, and that those who wish to identify themselves ethnically as New Zealanders are a) confusing national identity with ethnicity and b) potentially hijacking “New Zealander” as an inclusive term, and turning it into an exclusive one- certainly the vast majority of those who will put “New Zealander” down will be Pakeha, one way or another. I also don’t think New Zealand European is appropriate for many Pakeha New Zealanders. However, I think Pakeha confusion will continue until such time as we can truly view ourselves as a separate ethnicity- one separate from European and American culture (I haven’t even touched on the way American culture affects New Zealand culture; do we identify its influences as part of our ethnicity? Or as an outside influence on our own identity, whether one we choose or not?). An ethnicity that is part of the New Zealand national identity; and one that is defined positively, rather than non-Chinese, non-Pasifika, non-Maori, non-European. I don’t know if this is possible in the New Zealand Aotearoa of today.
To finish: The definition of an ethnic group as found in Michael E. Brown's 'Ethnic Conflict and International Security', p 4-5. (With thanks to Tze Ming Mok, from whose journal I lifted this whole.)
First, the group must have a name for itself. This is not trivial; a lack of a name reflects an insufficiently developed collective identity. Second, the people in the group must believe in a common ancestry. Third, the members of the group must share historical memories... Fourth, the group must have a shared culture, generally based on a combination of language, religion, laws, customs, [etc]. Fifth, the group must feel attachment to a specific piece of territory, which it may or may not actually inhabit. Sixth and last, the people in the group have to think of themselves as a group in order to constitute an ethnic community; that is, they must have a sense of their common ethnicity. The group must be self-aware."
We maybe have a name, if we can get everyone to agree. A common ancestry? If we can stretch English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, French, Dalmatian, Norwegian, … to “common”. Shared historical memories? Sure, why not. Shared culture? That’s a difficult one: but yes, there is a mainstream Pakeha culture in New Zealand. Defining it is problematic, and I think we often lack any personal commitment to it as a culture to be maintained (unless we’re, well, the type of people who like to talk about how in a few years we’ll all be speaking Chinese and eating with chopsticks and OMG LIKE NO WAY EVIL AZNS TAKING OVER THE COUNTRY.) We don’t celebrate it- but is that because we’re the dominant culture who frankly doesn’t need celebrating? Is it also because we can’t think of anything to celebrate? The one thing we positively have is a specific piece of territory. But self-awareness… that’s the last and the hardest. If we had it, would we still be talking about it? I don’t really know. You tell me!
Damn. Why is it so much easier to navel-gaze about my own ethnicity than it is to, you know, actually write real essays? 1500 words in forty minutes, man, If I could do all my assignments like this… I could completely turn this into an essay, people.