Nish Kumar - NZ Comedy Fest

A friend of mine invited me to a comedy gig last night, super last minute. I knew nothing about him and said I would be keen to go, but asked if he based his humour on racism? She said she had no idea, but it was a risk you always had to take at the Comedy Fest. I agreed to go, and hoped for the best. I WAS PLEASANTLY SURPRISED.

It was quite the opposite of what I was dreading.

He talked about everything that was wrong with Colonialism and The British Empire and how they ruined everything for most of the world. He’s Indian, and was born in England and lived there his whole life, and said he is lucky enough to identify as middle class. This made for an interesting point when he was talking about gentrification and he said, essentially my aunties and uncles have been kicked out of areas so that I can live there and not feel bad about it. He also talked about film and television with the specific example of Homeland, and how most of the “Middle-Eastern” characters in that series, aren’t actually even played by Middle Eastern actors, unsurprising but still so frustrating. Most importantly he talked about how rich white men ruined (and continue to) ruin everything for everyone else.

It was hilarious and somewhat uncomfortable for a table in the middle that I have a feeling met that demographic and didn’t find those jokes very amusing. It was educational, my friend said she learnt more than she was expecting to at a comedy gig and had no idea about most of the stuff he was talking about prior to going, which is so cool and most importantly it was so relevant to everything we are studying right now, that I didn’t feel bad that I went out a night before we had an essay due.

There was a whole lot of super relevant stuff and a whole lot of funny stuff that I don’t want to share in the hopes that you will attend. This is more of a plug than it is a blog post but he seems like a really nice dude and he deserves to have The Classic sold out, I THINK YOU SHOULD ALL GO AND SEE HIM. His name is Nish Kumar and he’s great.

Racial Representation in Hollywood

How is it that big Hollywood studios don’t know how to market a film about African-American fighter pilots in the 2^nd World War, but they do know how to market a film about the ‘Angry Birds’ app? I mean really?

The film ‘Red Tails’ was released in 2012, directed by Anthony Hemingway, written by John Ridley and Aaron McGruder (all African-American) and Produced by George Lucas. The film has an almost entirely African-American cast looks at some of the actions of the Tuskegee Airmen, a group of African-American fighter pilots in WW2. (If you haven’t seen the film I would recommend it)

It took George Lucas 23-years to get this film made and when he go round to asking the big Hollywood studios to join in, they said they didn’t know how to market this type of film. What the hell is that all about? Even when the film was finally made and was being marketed, by Lucasfilms, one of the apparent main selling points of the film was that George Lucas was attached to the project.

This article from CNN talks a little about the film and the racial issues it has faced

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/14/opinion/martin-red-tails-hollywood/

However the fact the George Lucas and others fought so hard to get this film made, and got it made and in cinemas around the world gives hope to the idea that other will. Over the past few years there have been other historical dramas depicting the stories of Blacks throughout the world, with casts of predominantly black actors. Such as Selma, 12 Years a Slave, Mandela and The Butler display a small step forward in racial representation within Hollywood.

There have been many bad reviews of ‘Red Tails’ mostly regarding the corniness and clichés but although it’s not perfect, it’s a good start; racial issues within Hollywood aren’t going to magically get better over night. Maybe the steps forward feel more like baby steps to some, but that’s how change happens, you win some fights and loose others, one-step forward three-steps back. I’m not saying people should be happy that at least they’re being represented, critiquing these films and ideas is always important and will help improve the representation for those who lack representation, but if we push to much, they might stop making films like this at all because they’re to ‘controversial’. The increase in viewer numbers and demand for films that have a more accurate representation, not only of historical events, but of more diverse casts and people, will enable more films like this get made, and improve on their quality, in many ways.

White Guilt and a Poem I Shouldn’t Write:

I hate my skin

not for the same reason as you

you are told to 

while I’m not 

I look down at my palms

translucent, 

a pinkish tinge, my veins bright, my scars clear 

and I’m not like you, but I’m not like them

This "gift" given from conception;

everything I earn, I didn’t quite work for.

Everything you get, 

you’re owed that little bit more.

And I know I should shut my mouth 

and its your topic to speak on

but I have so much to say 

the issue is I feel entitled to say it.

Dysmorphia of another kind;

I don’t want this hair of mine,

I don’t want this skin of mine, 

I don’t want this life of mine. 

I want us to get what we work for, 

I want us to love what we love, 

I want a world where none of this ever happened,

but we can’t have that.

And I’ll forever be connected 

to their fucked up mistakes

just like you are too 

but both in different ways.

You deserve to not be shot when your hands are in the air, 

and you deserve to be hired "despite" your natural hair, 

and you deserve to be loved by a society that cares,

and you deserve to be treated by your worth thats clearly there. 

But I don't need to tell you that 

you know this for yourselves.

You're smarter than they let you be 

and I hope you know I can tell.

And I also hope you know 

when I look at my pink glands 

its not my own blood that I see

on these ghostly hands.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

DISCLAIMER: 

The idea for this blog post came from the above poem which I did write myself and while it expresses my thoughts and feelings about being white I acknowledge exactly how it sounds; like a privileged white girl whining about her privilege. Because I'm not a poet I couldn't make it any less problematic than it is in this form but because I'm an essay writer, I can explain fully what I am trying to say. This essay is more emotional than intellectual and I ask you to keep that in mind when reading the following.

The other day an Asian-Indian boy and I were having a conversation surrounding race and he made a small joke somewhere along the lines of "its because I'm black" but followed this my turning to me and saying "but I suppose you are too..". The conversation quickly moved in a different direction but for that split second I wasn't white and honestly, I didn't bother to correct him. Because I'm southern European, my ethnicity is potentially a little more allusive than I assumed it might be and so I take a small enjoyment in the knowledge that sometimes, some people (particularly people of colour) might not think of me as white. 

There is nothing truly hard about being white and until I became politically and socially aware, I barely ever thought about race something which I know cannot be said by anyone who doesn't fall into the category of "White". This blissful privilege is only one of many that I have simply from birth but what this poem was trying to articulate is the feeling that I get from knowing that just because of the way I look, I have an advantage over other people; a feeling I'm sure is comparable too (but not equal to) the one that comes from knowing that just because of the way you look, you have a disadvantage. Its incredibly frustrating that in receiving scholarships, jobs, or promotions, that my name and picture might have been the deciding factor between myself and someone who is ultimately more qualified than I am. The only thing more frustrating than receiving something you don't deserve because of a factor you can't control is NOT receiving what you worked for because of a factor you can't control. 

I've spoken to Suzanne about my feelings of "white guilt" a few times in tutorials and her initial reaction was that "it starts out as a feeling of guilt and then gradually transitions into a drive to help". While I can see this to be true, I think until racial inequality really is no longer an issue (most likely not in my lifetime) I will continue to feel this guilt not instead of, but rather alongside my motivation to make a change. 

Thinking about this entire concept (and in fact every speech, essay or poem that I write about race), I am reminded of the video we were shown in one of the older lectures where the topic of race was being discussed by all the white people in the room, and no matter how helpful they tried to be the black person in the room still was not actually allowed to speak. This is the issue of racial inequality that pops up among even the most liberal white people; we are trying so hard to talk about racial inequality that maybe sometimes we are failing to listen. I am almost certain I've been guilty of this at some point. 

Ultimately, one part of me says to myself I should not write this essay at all and tell Suzanne she's asking the wrong girl, but the other part of me says the following; when you get the opportunity to hear about the experience and feeling of people of colour first hand, shut up and listen but when the room is pumping full of racist assholes and your designated POC is not around, speak up with the knowledge you have and don't let your guilt or fear stop you from doing what you know is right; using your privileged voice to yell the words of those who are only allowed to whisper. 

From: The Civil Savage

From the words of John Smith in the Disney film Pocahontas, “savage is just a term for people who are uncivilized.” Therefore savage and civilized is another form of normal and other. To be civilized is to be polite and good mannered this is the normal behavior of those who conquered land and seas. These advancements of that time included roads with carriages and buildings as tall as trees. These continued improving the everyday lives of all. With the Industrial Revolution it helped with the growth and enhancements of our societies. Which includes the creation of technological advancements such as Iphones and MacBooks which we all would be lost without.

“We’re going to build them here well show people how to use this land properly how to make the most of it. We’ll build roads and decent houses and…” –John Smith

“Our houses are fine” –Pocahontas

“You’d think that because you don’t know any better… There’s so much we can teach you… we’ve improved the lives of savages all over the world.” –John Smith

Savage compares humans to animals. Primitive behavior that can only be descriptive of rabid dogs or demons. Noun 1 is almost an exact depiction of the first quote from John Smith, that a Savage is a member of people regarded as primitive and uncivilized. These savages are evil and dangerous but can also be educated if taught in the right manner. By intermarriage you will prove your innocence and therefore lead these primitive people into an era of enlightenment.

Once again we are faced with the normality of civil behavior and the savages of Pocahontas’ Village. In society today we have not yet learnt to paint with all the colors of the wind but we have learnt to consume with all the products of the land and isn’t human happiness all that matters.

Representation in the African Film Festival

A few weeks ago I had the privilege of attending the African Film Festival opening. It was really interesting to hear the reactions of some of the viewers after watching the opening film Run. Some remarked that “this is not Africa” and “this is not what we want people to see” in reference to some of the scenes of violence, war and terrorism (in the form of rebel groups) that the film presented.

Their reactions were in contrast to myself and my friend, who saw the film as a fictional story about a young boy, that made reference to some real life events, stories and issues that are present in Cote d’Ivoire where the film is set, and in general the African continent. As a film, Run is a unique story that deals with intense themes, as I’ve found with many African or “International” films, which I think, at least in my opinion, allows for audiences to see individuals/groups of people of colour and different parts of the world represented through this medium, as well as showcasing their talents.

The film also reminded me of the importance of representation, which Suzanne talked about in depth in our Hollywood and others lecture. More and more representation is influencing how I look at films and television shows, which of course is why it was so great for me to see an African director making a film about an African, and more importantly casting Africans to play the characters. Ivorian culture was presented through the languages spoken, the clothing worn and a number of the actors who were Ivorian.

This of course contrasts many of the Hollywood films, we’ve come across in this course, which do not always represent characters, settings and stories accurately, even when attempts have been made. It’s a shame that many of these films and also television shows do not make it to mainstream audiences unless they have a white protagonist or resemble generic Hollywood/Western storytelling that are familiar to Western/mainstream audiences.

I think that context is very important when it comes to analysing films in this way. I don’t believe that Run was meant to showcase a positive representation of Ivorian’s, or Africans as a whole, as Chris Barker argues “so-called “positive images’ fit into assimilationist expectations of white society”, which is what I believe some of the African viewers were wanting to see for themselves or have non-Africans see. I really hope that people did not leave the Film Festival with an idea in their head thinking that the films were an accurate depiction of Africa. Although, with all the perpetuating discourse about African and Africans in mainstream Western media that exist, I wouldn’t be surprised.

The African Film Festival was really a reminder to me the importance of people of colour being able to represent themselves and tell their own stories, whether they are fiction or non-fiction.

Attacking ethnic minority groups.

Attacking ethnic minority groups.

In this blog I would like to discuss how white privilege and eurocentrism are incorporated in the news, and how the burden of representation occurs as a result of the way news companies report on certain events.

Part of me feels like eurocentrism is now commonplace in many newsrooms, and can be seen in a lot of news stories today. The problem with eurocentrism-that it treats cultures and ethnicities outside of Europe as unimportant or irrelevant, and enforces a western view point upon cultures outside of Europe, often portraying them incorrectly as a result- can be seen in the way that favourable news coverage is given to European- based events. Events, such as the 2016 Brussels Bombings and the 2015 Paris Attacks created such a massive global stir, and lead to media movements like ‘Je suis Paris’ and ‘Je suis Brussels’ which thousands got behind all across the world. Whereas on the other hand, Middle Eastern terrorist attacks and events that occur outside of Europe, such as the Zilten truck bombing in Libya (which left over 50 dead and more than 100 wounded) for example, are not made as much of a fuss of and are not given favourable coverage. What's more, they do not seem to receive the same level of global support that events in the Western World receive either. This form of eurocentrism, I think, is responsible for the sense of lack of importance that surrounds Middle Eastern events, and is responsible for creating the attitude that one attack is more significant than another due to its location in the world and the people involved. To me this gives off a message that says that one human life is more important than another, which is ridiculous, and contributes significantly to the inequality that exists in society. 

Secondly, I have come to notice that the way news companies report on certain events usually has negative implications for the minority group involved. This is where I believe the burden of representation comes in. The way the Brussels Bombings, for example, was covered focused largely on the victims of the attacks and ISIS, and other issues such as foreign policy and security problems (which are all extremely significant aspects of the event without a doubt), however, how does this impact the Muslim community and affect Muslim stereotypes? The entire Muslim community is paying the price because of the actions of a handful of individuals. People who identify as Muslim are all being labelled as terrorists and ‘bad people’ and are being treated differently to people of other ethnicities (especially ‘white’ people) in a negative way, purely because of the behaviour of a few people. There is no question that the attacks and events caused by these individuals are horrific, but I feel that the way the news reports on events such as these, only enforces negative stereotypes by failing to cover these events from the perspective of the ethnic minority, in this case Muslim people.

What other messages are being conveyed because of this as well? The fact that favourable coverage is given to predominantly Western perspectives on events, suggests to me that white privilege also exists in the newsroom, as the stories we hear about are generally ones that affect 'white' people, or come from the perspective of  a‘white’ person. This raises another question; why is it being made to seem like a ‘white’ life matters more than any other life?  Is this the message that news companies want to give off?

What does everyone think about this?

Beyonce's Formation - a call for battle against white people, or a proud African-American woman expressing her pride?

IMHO, first and foremost, Beyonce is a QUEEN. She is extraordinarily talented, blessed with amazing singing and dancing prowess, she seems unbelievably cool and she is downright beautiful to boot. Since her time in Destiny's Child, Beyonce has been calling for independence as a woman. While my understanding is that she did not label herself as such in her early solo years, it became undoubtedly clear in her On the Run tour in 2014 that Beyonce is a feminist - which is awesome, despite frequent criticism of her kind of feminism (no one's perfect and at least she's trying!).

Beyonce is also an African-American, news that was apparently shocking to a lot of white Americans after watching the 2016 Superbowl half-time show. Her recently released song, 'Formation', which she performed at the show and for which she had released a video the day before, is about black empowerment and Beyonce's pride in not only her family history and where she came from, but in where and who she is now: a hugely powerful role model, a style icon and one, very equal half of the mainstream music industry's (the world's?) biggest power couple - and additionally, she is quite, quite wealthy. 'Formation' does the job of basically shutting down haters as well. Over the years, Beyonce has been criticised for a number of things, including being "yellow-boned" referring to her lighter, honey-toned skin; for her daughter's hair, which inspired some rude woman in America to create a Change.org petition asking Beyonce and Jay-Z to "comb their daughter's hair" - WTF? - and also for allegedly getting a nose job - she didn't, by the way, and in 'Formation', she sings, "I like my negro nose with Jackson Five nostrils".

This song, which aside from being immensely important is actually really amazing, is not about white people, contrary to what a lot of people believe. As Margaret Cho put it in an interview with Bill Maher, "Black pride doesn't have to take anything away from white culture... it can exist on its own." Just because Beyonce is calling her ladies to "get in formation", does not necessarily mean she is telling them to go and "kill whites", whatever Bill Maher (an apparent expert on blackness and Beyonce) says. I have taken a quote used on the Genius page, which provides a meaning to each line of 'Formation', from Zandria F. Robinson:

"Formation is a different kind of resistance practice, one rooted in the epistemology of (and sometimes only visible/detectable to) folks on the margins of blackness. [...] Formation, then, is a metaphor, a black feminist, black queer, and black queer feminist theory of community organising and resistance. [...] For the black Southern majorettes, across gender formulations, formation is the alignment, the stillness, the readying, the quiet, before the twerk, the turn-up, the (social) movement. To be successful, there must be coordination, the kind that choreographers and movement leaders do, the kind that black women organisers do in neighbourhoods and organisations. To slay the violence of white supremacist heteropatriarchy, we must start, Beyonce argues, with the proper formation."

Just a little dose of truth for ya

It's astounding (or is it really?) that in 2016, white people cannot reconcile with the idea of black culture rising up and taking pride in their blackness without seeing it as a threat. It reminds me of the ridiculous arguments against the term 'feminism', because why isn't it egalitarianism? (The answer is, in brief, because women are the oppressed gender who are impacted with issues of gender equality and it is the deeply entrenched perceptions of women as inferior to men that we desperately need to change) And also the 'black lives matter' vs 'all lives matter' debate - obviously, all lives matter but it is not all lives that are systemically oppressed and given far fewer opportunities, nor were all lives being killed by police five times more often than white people in 2015.

Real Time with Bill Maher: Beyoncé's Formation (HBO)

On Real Time with Bill Maher (in the same interview referred to above with Margaret Cho), Michael "Killer Mike" Render, a hip-hop artist, says that 'Formation' is Beyonce saying to other black people, "I like being black, this is the type of black that I am, I like the fact my daughter's black, I like my Michael Jackson nose, I like my child with an afro - I like me! White people, that conversation wasn't even for you." And he's right. Yes, Beyonce is suggesting a need for an organisational end to "the violence of white supremacist heteropatriarchy" (read: not white individuals), but she's also talking about the backlash against her own appearance, her and her husband's success and her daughter. The message of 'Formation' was not to scare or threaten white people - institutionally, that's impossible given white hegemony, even if she is Queen Bey - it was to empower black people who have been continually, systemically pushed down by dominant white culture for literally centuries. Any reference to the Black Panther or Black Power organisations isn't necessarily bad, either - as Killer Mike says, these movements weren't just pro-black, they were a "socialist group for any down-trodden people" including Asians, and they wanted to educate all people. They resorted to violence against white people sometimes, and I wonder where they learned that that was an acceptable method? White culture will seemingly do anything to forget the horrendous, hugely significant mistakes they made and the violence they themselves began. Furthermore, reading about the Black Panther movement I learned that they were originally called the 'Black Panther Party for Self-Defense', designed to monitor police brutality in California in the 1960s. Go figure.

People were also outraged at the images of a young African-American boy standing with his hands raised in front of a line of policemen in her music video for 'Formation'. I've read that the police and their myriad supporters were particularly offended at this portrayal of the police force. But, let's be real - is it all that unfounded? There are some amazing policemen out there, but there are seemingly just as many awful ones, and then there are those who don't know they are racist; they've just learned it in an inherently racist institution. Unwitting or not, it is still racism. The depiction isn't intended to criticise individual officers, it is speaking out against the institutional racism that killed Tamir Rice, a 12 year old boy merely playing with his toy, Michael Brown, killed (while most likely running away, not advancing) for cigarettes that he may or may not have stolen (they're just cigarettes?!), and Eric Garner, who was suffocated to death while begging to be released, and many, many more young black men and women who have died in police custody. 'Formation' similarly opposes that same institutional racism that lets these policemen go free without so much as an apology to the victims' families, that allows white people to have more lenient convictions than people of colour, and that continues to keep people of colour in lesser social, economic, political and cultural positions than white people.

Nevertheless, 'Formation' is a message of positivity, pride and empowerment to black people; it's a celebration of blackness. Any reference to white culture is because it has shaped black culture so much. As Margaret Cho said about the song, "[...] It's what black America needed, it's what all of us needed - it's really important." So, to all the undoubtedly racist and unjustifiably aggrieved white people: in your dreams, Beyonce is so not singing about you.

And to quote the Queen, "You know you that b**** when you cause all this conversation/Always stay gracious, best revenge is your paper".

Just watch

I don't necessarily have anything to say about these, they speak for themselves really, I just thought I would share them. Please watch them.
Unified Soul Theory

HashTag it out

No, but where are you REALLY from?

Meeting new people is great, but there are a few questions that you generally ask someone when you first meet them: what’s your name? What do you do? Where are you from? Etc.

(Wait, now that I think about it, do white people even get asked where they’re from? I genuinely don’t know.)

Personally, I hate being asked where I’m from because I don’t feel attached or connected with one place or one culture or one ethnicity. As a child I had always wished I was white so nobody would second guess where I was from. My ethnicity or if you really wanted to say “race” is Arab. I lived in New Zealand for the first 10 years of my life (however, I was not born here), and then I moved to the Middle East and lived there until I finished school and then came back to Auckland for university.

While I was living overseas I was raised very ‘westernised’, most of the people who I was surrounded by were international students (by that I mean white) and had a similar upbringing to mine and this meant that even though I didn’t grow up in the “western world” I still grew up in a western way. Therefore, my ideals, values and way of seeing the world are very Eurocentric, as it would be for anyone here in New Zealand and of course this is influenced by mass media and what I’m exposed to online as well as my daily life.

The only issue for me is that I don’t look the part, I have brown skin and dark hair and different features. So really, I’m not allowed to identify with a more westernised cultural or ethic group. In our lecture on whiteness, it was mentioned that only white people get the privilege of being white, and others get the names such as “Oreo” or “banana” which is usually a negative construct of that person. For me, since most of my friends throughout my entire life have been white, I’ve always been a mould of almost white but never quite reaching it. I’ve grown accustomed to phrases like “you’re basically white anyway”, “you’re not like THOSE types of Arabs” “yeah, but you’re different, you’re more like us”. These discourses and use of language, even while trying to include me as part of them, still creates a separation, those who are white and those who are others – Us vs Them. This makes extremely difficult for people such as myself to fit themselves into a category as we no longer belong to our “ethnic race” (i.e. the one we look like) because our cultural and moral beliefs have differed) however, we will not be accepted into another ethnicity due to how we look. ‘Moreover, I still have elements of my parents cultural and religious practices ingrained into my lifestyle which further differs me for my peers, which again, does not allow me to fit neatly into either box.

So, back to the question at hand: where am I from? I don’t relate to where my genes come from, I have no attachments to it and I don’t identify with it, so I don’t like to claim that’s where I’m from. Yet, when people ask where I’m from that’s where they want me to say. Because I didn’t grow up through my prime years in New Zealand I don’t necessarily say I’m from here. However, I’m a New Zealand Citizen, I’ve spent many years of my life here, worked here, studied here, voted here and been apart of the culture here so if I wanted to, I should be able to claim a link to this country if I chose to. Yet, when asked, and give the answer “I’m from Auckland” I always get back the “No, but where are you REALLY from?”.

What does being from somewhere mean? In a world that has become so globalised and so multicultural it really shouldn’t be at a point where someone who looks Asian says they’re from Auckland but then has to go back and tell them that their family is actually Korean.

'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