'Pakeha': An outdated term for multicultural NZ?

First of all, I’m aware that this blog post is long and I apologize in advance. I’m glad we have no word count.

I’ve learned from this course how difficult it is to negotiate New Zealand’s minefield of racial and ethnic identities. Trying to categorize exactly what constitutes the ‘New Zealand’ identity, or if this even exists, is like trying to score a goal while the posts are constantly shifting.

During a lecture for my other media paper, my lecturer expressed the belief that ‘Pakeha’ constituted an ethnic group in its own right. My immediate question was “who exactly are 'Pakeha' here?’” After some thought on this, I realised that I simply couldn’t agree with that statement. From what understanding I had of the term ‘Pakeha’, it just didn’t fit with the concept of ethnicity.

I’ve always regarded ‘Pakeha’ with some puzzlement as to what it truly represented. As an immigrant it was a term I hadn’t heard before moving here; living in NZ it occasionally cropped up on the news when it concerned Maori affairs, but I’d never given it much thought beyond being vaguely aware that it was a term for white people. I’ve learned that most of my Kiwi friends didn’t think much beyond this either.

I decided to do some digging and looked for as many definitions for Pakeha as I could find. I thought that this would help to define whether the term really could constitute an ethnic group. Sadly, the results weren’t very enlightening. This is what a single Google search pulled up:

·         ‘A white New Zealander as opposed to a Maori’

·         ‘Foreigner, Alien’

·         ‘A Māori language term for New Zealanders who are "of European descent’  

·         ‘White pigs’

·         ‘Derived from ‘Pakepakeha’ (a mythical, human-like creature with fair skin and hair who possessed canoes made of reeds which changed magically into sailing vessels)’

Contradictions galore, huh?

If we are to take Pakeha as the labeling of an ethnic group, I noticed a rather fundamental flaw which all these definitions have in common; despite the contrasting negative/positive connotations, all made reference to being ‘white’ or ‘fair-skinned’. There was a time in the early colonial period when racial identity could accurately be broken down only to Maori and those of European descent; in this context, ‘Pakeha’ certainly had its place. But in the timeline of New Zealand’s short history, and as a nation with an extremely high proportion of immigrants, this hasn’t been the case for a long time. We all know that the ethnic make-up of New Zealand is more than just black and white (excuse the pun). We have a plethora of different ethnic/racial groups; Indian, Chinese, Korean, Pacific Islander….. I could continue on. This is part of what makes NZ such an interesting place to live. But if we are to apply this to the general consensus of Pakeha as referring to White people, how can we possibly assimilate all of these rich cultural differences into a single melting pot?

This brings me back to the original question; can Pakeha be classified as an ethnic group? The answer is fairly simple; the very definition of ethnicity is “a population group whose members identify with each other on the basis of common nationality or shared cultural traditions”. I think it is safe to conclude that the meaning of Pakeha, along with NZ’s cultural and ethnic makeup, has evolved. Pakeha is now used as an all-compassing term within the media and everyday life to contrast any individual or group who does not identify as Maori, not just those who are White. All well and good, but if there is still no cultural differentiation the problem is hardly solved. How is it fair that cultures be minimised by being lumped in with Europeans just because this is the existing binary, and because they aren’t Maori? Can we honestly say that all these ‘non-Maori’ ethnicities that I have listed share cultural traditions or common nationality? The answer is obviously no.

We already know that as the dominant voice, the supremacy of media ‘whiteness’ is a problem like any other Western country; the media is overwhelmingly Eurocentric and indigenous coverage and representation in NZ is hardly adequate. But an argument I rarely see is where the representation of NZ’s other cultural groups are who are neither European or Maori; they seem to be non-existent. Moreover, another point which this course has made is that identity is an incredibly fluid concept. People, especially in NZ, can identify equally with more than one race. Yet ‘Pakeha’ seems to produce a regressive pressure to only conform to one identity. The result of this is a Saidian binary which tells us very little about New Zealand’s rich ethnic makeup.

The point of this post is not to state that Pakeha constitutes a form of reverse racism, or that we should embrace the more general term of ‘New Zealander’ and dispense with these ethnically motivated classifications (both of these questions would constitute an entire blog post on their own). I also hope I’m not appearing racist towards Maori because this is truly not my intention. It is undeniable however that there is a troublesome binary at work here which seems to go completely unquestioned. What is clear is that currently many cultures in NZ are being pluralized as ‘all the same’ and not being given the opportunity for the representation which Europeans and Maori get to various degrees. The question is; who is perpetuating this? Is it the media, ourselves, or both?

So, I draw two key conclusions here. If the term Pakeha refers exclusively to Europeans as most definitions seem to draw, then the term is being used wrongly to refer to all non-Maori collectively and unfairly. If, as people argue, the term has evolved to include all New Zealanders who are non-Maori, then this creates an unfair and homogeneous binary against cultures in this country who are neither European or Maori and who receive virtually no representation in the media, self or not.  

So this begs the question: can we any longer truly call New Zealand a ‘bi-cultural’ nation?

I’ll leave you to think on that one.

Works cited:

The definitions of Ethnicity and Race - http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethnicity_vs_Race

Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand - http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/maori-pakeha-pakeha-maori/page-2

Pakeha, it's origin and meaning - http://maorinews.com/writings/papers/other/pakeha.htm

"The word 'Pakeha' (The University of Auckland)- https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/education/.../ACE_Paper_8_Issue_6.doc