Lumping New Zealanders into “Māori” or "non-Māori” categories is both lazy and misleading. This approach implies that those who cannot or choose not to identify as Māori are a less important, homogenous group that can be collectively relegated. Politically, this has already resulted in the “nons” having fewer rights in governance, legislation, public funding, and employment. So much for New Zealand being a democracy.
Meanwhile, those identifying as Māori are certainly not clones of each other with one world view or way of doing things (despite what the activists claim); neither are they of one ancestral bloodline or living distinctly different lives from all other New Zealanders.
So, the binary division is artificial and absurd. It totally ignores our country's history of migration and social mingling, and completely overlooks the healthy interconnectedness and interdependence of all communities within New Zealand.
The use of "non-Māori" is also dangerous. It positions Māori culture as the norm against which all people are measured. Rather than fostering unity and collaboration, this usage suggests a hierarchical relationship, creating barriers and fostering animosity in our society. Such tactics have been employed by many historical figures seeking to exert control over populations by delineating clear boundaries of exclusion and inclusion. By labelling people as "non-something”, such as “non-white”, “non-Han Chinese”, “non-Aryans”, or "non-believers", authorities and bullies throughout time have marginalised and devalued those who do not fit the preferred identity, justifying discriminatory practices, social hierarchies, and violence.
For New Zealand’s sake, it is essential that our leaders and policymakers adopt language that promotes inclusivity, respect, and recognition of diversity in our country. They can reject the belittling qualifier of "non-" and instead promote New Zealanders’ common humanity, shared experiences and love for this country, thereby fostering a sense of unity and belonging for us all.
Fiona Mackenzie is a businesswoman who has combined self-employment with voluntary work and is a firm believer in the safeguards that true democracy provides. This article was first published HERE
Meanwhile, those identifying as Māori are certainly not clones of each other with one world view or way of doing things (despite what the activists claim); neither are they of one ancestral bloodline or living distinctly different lives from all other New Zealanders.
So, the binary division is artificial and absurd. It totally ignores our country's history of migration and social mingling, and completely overlooks the healthy interconnectedness and interdependence of all communities within New Zealand.
The use of "non-Māori" is also dangerous. It positions Māori culture as the norm against which all people are measured. Rather than fostering unity and collaboration, this usage suggests a hierarchical relationship, creating barriers and fostering animosity in our society. Such tactics have been employed by many historical figures seeking to exert control over populations by delineating clear boundaries of exclusion and inclusion. By labelling people as "non-something”, such as “non-white”, “non-Han Chinese”, “non-Aryans”, or "non-believers", authorities and bullies throughout time have marginalised and devalued those who do not fit the preferred identity, justifying discriminatory practices, social hierarchies, and violence.
For New Zealand’s sake, it is essential that our leaders and policymakers adopt language that promotes inclusivity, respect, and recognition of diversity in our country. They can reject the belittling qualifier of "non-" and instead promote New Zealanders’ common humanity, shared experiences and love for this country, thereby fostering a sense of unity and belonging for us all.
Fiona Mackenzie is a businesswoman who has combined self-employment with voluntary work and is a firm believer in the safeguards that true democracy provides. This article was first published HERE
4 comments:
Perhaps YOU can answer these two questions?
Good luck -- you will need it -- because no brown supremacist part-Maori or post-colonial guilt-tripping white liberal enabler has proved up to the task to date.
[1] on what basis should someone who is less than half-Maori be regarded by anyone OUTSIDE their kin group as "Maori" just because they say they are.
"Some snowflake will be butt-hurt to discover others don’t share their self-delusion" is NOT an answer.
[2] on what basis should someone who possesses more of the blood of the coloniser than of the colonised be regarded as a "victim" of "white privilege" rather than its beneficiary?
Please don't tell me Maori genes are so inferior that even a smidge is enough to make someone a congenital loser and an inadequate.
I’d be well-f#cked if that was the case 😂
Oh, the soft liberal bigotry of low expectations.
What was that word beginning with "R" again ...
Nobody cares which group of ancestors you want to regard as representing your primary socio-cultural affiliation. AS LONG AS THAT'S A PRIVATE MATTER FOR THE KIN GROUP CONCERNED.
Clearly, if they accept your membership qualifications, you're a member. None of anyone else's business.
But once you start thrusting that socio-cultural affiliation into the public square, demanding financial and political patronage from outside your kin group far in excess of your actual market value as productive individuals -- that is the point at which everyone else acquires an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to tell you who THEY'RE prepared to accept as "Maori."
Most of us would say "Less than half-Maori, you're yanking it!"
We operate on the principle that 51% of the shares are required for a controlling interest in a company.
This is the equation people who operate according to reason and logic consider:
More than half-Maori by blood quantum = on balance a Maori.
Half-Maori by blood quantum = you get to choose what side of the fence you jump down on (if you’re a fence-builder).
Less than half-Maori by blood quantum = a Pakeha with a touch of the tar brush aka an indigenous pretender.
A steak pie with a few carrots in it is not a carrot pie.
While the carrots may add a little extra flavour, it is still a steak pie.
Herendith the lesson.
We already have suitable identifying terms. You can be kiwi or iwi, take your pick.
Anonymous @ 2:52pm
You’re on to something! Sorry Fiona, let’s keep the “non-“
Carrots = all New Zealanders who identify as equal
Non-carrots = Waititi, Jackson, Tamihere, and their ilk.
When confronted with a form to identify your ethnicity (whatever that means), take the advice of one Richard Dawkins: tick the Other box and enter 'Human'. I do.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.