Maori and Media: The Basics

Out of 1757 Stories on ONE News, 3 News and Prime, only 1.8% referred to Maori, which are 15% of our population. Of this small percentage, 56% were about one single topic: child abuse.

This means that someone forming their opinion or image of Maori people only based on the surrounding Media, as many people do, would have a negative image that link Maori people to crime, drugs, domestic and child abuse and poverty. This is a vicious cycle as it perpetuates a stereotype and encourages a 'self fulfilling prophecy'.

Mainstream Media and Maori.

Mainstream media have a history of excluding, marginalising and stereotyping Maori, Maori issues, and te ao Maori. It also has a history of not reporting treaty issues fairly or properly.

This is improving, some media practitioners and organizations are doing better job than others, but much still needs to be done to create a fair and balances representation of Maori combat the negative images perpetuated by the media.

Commonalities between Indigenous Races around the World

Indigenous people are too often at the bottom of social indicators in their country. They also share the experience of being colonized. These two factors are not unrelated. The resurgence of indigenous groups reclaiming their resources has created conflict with the state. Too often, mainstream media has represented such claims, not as justifiable requests for land and resources illegally taken but as “taking something away from “us”. 

Us being the dominant ‘majority’ that doesn't include the indigenous minority. The mainstream media has power in determining the majority perception about indigenous people: not definitely and absolutely, but it certainly offers influence and reinforces the status quo. It can encourage or undermine fair and progressive rights and often chooses the latter.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of Indigenous People by Rodolfo Stavenhagen said: These findings are of special concern to the special rapporteur and highlight a systematic negative description of maori in media coverage, an issue that should be addressed through the anti-racism provisions of New Zealand’s Human Rights Acts.

Black Chives Matter

A little progressive comedy to lighten up the dialogue. Initially I was a little weary of a pun being made of something sensitive and important, but what the creator is aiming to do is raise this issue in a grammar of her own in order to make a point. A great way to make a positive impact through her forum and to connect to and inform people while being accessible.

Humour has the power to raise difficult subjects. If you read through the comments you'll find plenty of people that disagree and condemn the video for being tasteless and others taking the social amnesia root of "so sick of hearing about this aren't we all equal" (Polysemic Bimodality anyone?)

BUT you'll also find people engaging with the content in a way that continues the conversation in a progressive direction. Though I don't know why this young man thinks that black lives matter is about social inclusion. Will it help black people to hang out with him? He'd have to be a pretty top notch guy? Could Mitchell Stacy be the answer to authentic equality?  I think not. (White hero anyone?)

Thanks for reading,
Vik

Social Justice Warrior

This is a different kind of ‘us and them.’ I wanted to touch on the new divide between progressive and regressive actions and individuals. This is obviously not a new divide- in fact it must be one of the oldest – but I am interested in the new ways it is materialized. It was Edmund Burke who said “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”. Old Ed has no particular relevance himself (as the thoroughly white founder of modern conservatism) but he makes a good point.

There is a trend towards dismissing those concerned with social circumstance as ‘too sensitive’, ‘shit stirrers’, ‘social justice warriors’ and occasionally ‘terrorists’. Once upon a time there was a certain dignity is saying fuck you to the man. Now I’m not denying there would have been backlash and ‘you’re upsetting the status quo’ moaning, but at least the cause was recognized as actually existing.  If another white man tells me that racism and sexism doesn’t exist I am going to blow a gasket.

This brings me back to Edmund Burke. Contemporary resistance to social justice (which contrary to popular belief is actually a GOOD thing) is mostly delivered with a sort of ignorant ambivalence. There’s no firm counter argument to equity that has any foot to stand on, at least none I’ve ever been offered in a debate. When someone offers a criticism of dominant systems or structures to point a finger back and yell traitor (or ‘too sensitive’, ‘shit stirrer’ etc) does NOTHING for either side.  When someone talks of their own disadvantage, it’s not about YOU.

I.e. When someone criticizes western feminism for dismissing the concerns of people of color, it does not devalue your right to vote or wear pants or reap any other benefits of the movement. It opens a possibility for progress into an even better future. When someone questions why we don’t mourn the dead after acts of terrorism in Syria the same way we do France: they challenge Eurocentrism, not the French or your freshly filtered profile picture.

This is what I mean by an ‘us and them’, we are so quick to get up in arms and reject anything we’re given that we destroy any hope for meaningful progress. I think part of this is because of the new media and the increasing ‘sound byte’ nature of information and conversation. There is so little said in 140 characters but there is SO much to misinterpret. We should spend more time thinking about progress (especially for those who are less fortunate than ourselves) and should re-inject some dignity into saying fuck you to the man. No ones ever made change without getting a little loud!

Thanks for reading,

Vik

Playing into the stereotypes.

PLAYING INTO THE STEREOTYPES

The lecture on Comedy and racial profiling explained a lot for me in regards to the Pacific Media and how it is shaped. For a year i attended Pacific Institute of Performing Art, a tertiary that aims to foster the growth of talented Pacific Performers. The lecture for week 6 used the example of "The Skits" and how stereotypes were used by people with insider knowledge not to reinforce and affirm the stereotypes but to explore them through satirical humor according to Sarina Pearson. The show reflects certain truths about Samoans situations within domestic and religious life. I find the show hilarious and was introduced to the program from a young age. The show is one of the first pieces of media that put Samoan people on screens in New Zealand. My point is that this show is very influential in the way that roles are determined for Samoan or just generally Pacific Islanders. Is that a Good thing or a bad thing? If you think about it since "The Skits" have Pacific Islanders on screen grown out of these stereotypical roles or are they still creating media that explore the same Stereotypical roles through satirical humor. "Fresh" a T.V series that is similar to "The Skits" in the way that it is they both use Television as a media platform, but also because they both explore stereotypes associated with the Pacific Community in Aotearoa through satirical humor. If there is about 10 years in between "The Skits" and "Fresh" how has Pacific Media changed? For me it hasn't and that is due to the audience that such media is made for. Such media texts explain Audience tastes which in a way reflects the people. Pacific Islanders love their Comedy and have always loved satire since before Colonization. It was present then in traditional performing arts and still is present today in their form of traditional performing arts, and thus it is still present in other forms of performing arts through media in "The Skits" and in "Fresh." I guess what i'm trying to say is how is Pacific Media and Pacific roles going to evolve if Pacific people just keep reproducing the same content over and over again. Yes they do appeal to our Pacific audiences that are familiar with these regulated images of our situation, but don't we want to move forward and out of these situations instead of continuing to laugh at our misfortunes? To be honest  i loved to watch pacific Media as a kid my favorite was "The Laughing Samoans" when i used to watch it i used to feel empowered because I was seeing my people represented through media which was rare. But now when i watch, yeah I get the jokes and I get whats ironic about it, but I don't feel empowered and I guess that's what I wanna see the empowerment of Pacific Peoples through Media and casting.

Would the James Bond still be James Bond if he were black?

There has been a lot of speculation on who will be the next James Bond and whether or not it could or should be a black male. I believe that the perfect actor to play the next James Bond would be Idris Elba. I believe that the idea of a James Bond actor being black is of no relevance to the character (I mean are they setting the moves in 1950’s or 2016). The idea that this could be a problem amuses me because if I was to point out an idea that was troubling to the James Bond series, I would most likely talk about the character of James Bond’s relationships with women (he often hits them, like all the time, like every movie). If you were to watch an older James Bond movie you would be surprised and probably amused by the issues that are being dealt with (German villains, who does that anymore?) and this is the true problem changing people’s childhood and there first conceptions. James Bond is a relic of the past and only reflects the idea of a ‘gentleman’ not what his ethnic background is. Ian Fleming’s James Bond is a reflection of the past (before Facebook) but cannot be treated as such. Time passes and the ideas which hold a character should change or risk being part of the history books.