Recently Dame Patsy Reddy
was appointed as New Zealand’s Governor General, taking over from Jerry
Mateparae. In light of this news, I was reminded of an incident in 2010 where
ex-talk show host Paul Henry embarrassed himself. I’m not talking about the
incident where he erupted in laughter at the name of Indian politican Sheila
Dikshit or when he described Susan Boyle as ‘retarded’, the incident I’m
referring to happened during an interview with John Key on Breakfast:
PH: “It’s almost time is it, for you to choose a new
Governor General?”
JK: “Yeah, it is. What happens is we have to choose
because the current Governor General Anand Satyanand finishes in the middle of
next year”
PH: “Is he even a New Zealander?”
JK: “Uh… Yes he’s a New Zealander”
PH: “Are you going to choose a New Zealander who
looks and sounds like a New Zealander this time?”
JK: “Infact, every Governor General since Porritt has
been a New Zealand born New Zealander”
PH: “So are you going to go for someone who’s more
like a New Zealander this time?...”
So the questions I pose
following this interview are, what is a New Zealander/Kiwi? What does it take
to be one? And why didn’t Anand Satyanand fit Paul Henry’s seemingly narrow
criteria?
From Paul Henry’s
perspective, being a New Zealander is largely determined by race and physical
appearance – for anyone who is not European or Maori (or look like a European
or Maori) you don’t fit the bill. To simply attribute identity to physical
appearance sets a standard to what someone must look like in order to qualify
to be New Zealander without considering the ways in which people identify
themselves. This unfairly excludes a huge proportion of the population many of
whom do in fact identify as New Zealanders. Paul Henry automatically draws a
line between ‘us’ (Europeans and Maoris) and ‘them’ (everyone who is not
European and Maori), creating a sense of osctracisation for ‘them’. This
ideology could stem from ‘unquestioned truths’ in society that have been
continually reinforced and preserved to associate peoples identities soley with
their skin colour, physical appearance and ethnicity.
In regards to what a New
Zealander/Kiwi is, for all of us it is a personal choice as to how you identify
yourself. Whether it is through ancestry – where your family and blood lies,
place of birth, where your passport is from, where you have been living, following
the ‘Kiwi Meter’ survey or a mix of what has been listed above, there is no
correct or one answer.
This nation is always
evolving, we see diversity at our door step, however we cannot brand people
just because pre conceived ideologies suggest taking a look at someones
ethnicity will tell you the full story.
Ugh typical Paul Henry - the man can't be helped. Judging by the questions asked by him, yes, I agree with the the fact that Henry's perception of a 'true' New Zealander is based upon one's skin colour and physical appearance. While the social construct of race already marginalises people enough, Paul Henry takes it even further by drawing a distinct line between someone's national identity and the way they speak and look like. These narrow kinds of perceptions Paul and many others carry have negative effects and consequences on the public. As you mentioned, people who consider themselves as a Kiwi but don't look or sound like they are of European or Maori descent get a sense of exclusion, and feel left out - almost as if they're in their own category of 'otherness'. There are indeed numerous ways to how you identify yourself as. You should never allow anybody else to determine whether you are part of a nation or not.
ReplyDeletePaul Henry's perceptions of what a New Zealander in are definitely far too narrow. If he is referring to nationality- the legal status of a person as a registered citizen of this country- then obviously their name or appearance has nothing to do with it.
ReplyDeleteHowever, even the more sociological definition of 'nationality' or what it means to be a Kiwi would not exclude Governor General Anand Satyanand- or anyone for that matter. Academic Benedict Anderson views nations as "imagined communities", and I think that is pretty bang on. A nation is a group of people we believe we share similarities with- be they geographical, moral or political. The key point is- a nation is a social construct. If a person believes they are a New Zealander, then they are, it's that simple.
Besides- NZ is a country of migrants anyway! Our history, like many other countries, is based on colonisation. We should be proud of our multicultural society- not ashamed of it.