Today, I made a mistake

So, on the train home from work, I made a mistake. I made the mistake of clicking an article written by Stuff.co.nz and then proceeding to read the comments. Instant regret. Like tequila, you know it's not good for you during or after, but you keep doing it.

Now over the year I have been slowly coaching myself not to read comments on social media or news articles. But today I couldn't help but keeping scrolling and reading the comments. Maybe I'm just a daredevil boiling my blood for no reason. But anyway, the article was a discussion about a survey released by TVNZ measuring the Kiwi identity.

http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/77889923/Maori-MPs-claim-TVNZ-KiwiMeter-survey-incites-racial-intolerance

In the article MPs Kelvin Davis and Andrew Little slam the survey for it's racist questions. Not so surprisingly the article made a tiny and misleading mention about the Human Rights Commission (HRC) thoughts about the survey. HRC stated that the survey questions are "leading and biased" and New Zealander's should be aware when launching the survey. Stuff.co.nz says the HRC were "looking in to it and the question about Maori receiving special treatment assumed it was the case". What? What do they mean by they "assumed it was the case"? Assumed they must be receiving special treatment? or the question assumed it was being looked into? [Journalism]

https://www.hrc.co.nz/news/surveys-questions-about-maori-new-zealanders-biased/

All through the comments section people were voicing their opinions as they always will. Some were agreeing with Davis and Little, some were on the other side. Significantly those who were supporting Davis and Little had a large number of negative votes for their comments. Comments against Little and Davis stated things like "We all know Maori get special treatment because the government is too afraid to stop! When will we all be just New Zealanders?" and "Stop being so precious" were supported substantially.

I think I'm lucky my phone wouldn't allow me to comment because it allowed me time to think about this blog/rant. What I find annoying is comments like "stop being so precious". Comments like this are instilling things like inferential racism. We continuously have these themes through the media that to discuss indecent behaviour towards people is seen as "too PC". So to even begin picking the article a part, the argument will be that we are becoming 'sensitive' or "precious". When will be the time that we can talk about the language that is used? The actual article title directs the attention to Mr Davis and Marama Fox. Fox had little to say in the article in comparison to Little, but yet we focus on the fact that Maori MPs are against it. They're obviously against it because we probably will uncover something dubious and dark they (Maori) are hiding from the public (they receive way "more" than anyone else *shifty eyes*). The fact the article chose to focus on Maori as a separate entity depicts them as being the "other". Straight away segregating those apart of New Zealand as separate from Maori people. Which could indicate for Maori they are not a part of this society. It does not need to be explicitly said, but as long as there is this constant theme of them and us, it will have social and therefore material effects. I understand it is hard to have a discussion about Maori without calling them Maori is hard, but if there was some indication of inclusion in the discussion. So rather than gossip about Maori, have a conversation with Maori about Maori.

A text written by Stephen Cornell 2006 discusses Indigenous experiences across the globe. Cornell highlights how government will acknowledge we want equality but won't discuss the differences. "When will we all be just New Zealander's?". This comment implies that everyone in New Zealand should be treated as equals. But as we know from our readings, society will always fit a certain type of person better than it does everyone else. If we are all to be New Zealanders does mean we will all learn Te Reo as a way to recomply for the Native Schools Act? Or by becoming all under the same classification should we just assimilate to the majority of today?

In my frantic attempt to blurt my anger at these commentators, I started to think that maybe this might spark this discussion about the "special treatment"? Could we finally discuss how special treatment of Maori, is not all that special? Disparities in medical statistics as a special treatment? I have no idea how this happened to me, but I am constantly asked/told that I get my university paid for because I am Maori. Uhh I wish, or I wouldn't be paying back this loan );. If we could finally have an open discussion about these issues, I would witness the change I've always wanted.

Sadly what I have now is an unwanted profile with Stuff.co.nz and still have no idea how to make a comment.


References:

Cornell, S. E. (2006). Indigenous peoples, poverty and self-determination in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States. Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy.

Dines G. and Humez J. M. (2011) Gender, race, and class in media: a critical reader. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications.

Maaka R. and Andersen C. (2006) The indigenous experience: global perspectives. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Pres
get special treatment because the government is too afraid to stop it!When will we all be just New Zealanders?get special treatment because the government is too afraid to stop it!When will we all be just New Zealanders?