Saturday night on TVNZ One appears to now be a wasteland for worthy stuff while those who still watch linear television can soak up the live sport like the NPC quarter finals or the Bathurst Top Ten shootout.
The worthy stuff last night (October 11) was a government funded show called I’m Not Racist But …. It was a combination of in the field interviews, or rather quick take vox pops, and studio discussions with a revolving panel - some of whom made a fleeting appearance (the conservative free speech advocate white guy) and some who dominated pretty much every segment (the Maori human rights advocate and the Maori Te Tiriti advocate).
The show was produced by Bailey Mackey’s Pango Productions and fronted by a couple of the country’s leading Maori broadcasters Stacey Morrison and Tamati Rimene-Sproat, all of it funded by Te Mangai Paho, the taxpayer funded Maori production agency.
I watched the show from start to finish (confession - not in the scheduled time slot at 8.05pm but on TVNZ+ after the rugby) and frankly wondered what the heck it was trying to prove or solve.
Sproat started things off by taking an “Implicit Association Test,” something developed at Harvard which he says tells you if you’re a racist or not, consciously or not. Apparently Mr Sproat is prone to think Maori are superior to whiteys and therefore he’s racist. I think that was supposed to be a joke.
Ms Morrison also told us early on that there would be quite a lot of te reo use in the show and if “that bothers you, well it’s little bit ironic.. I’m not racist, but .. that makes it the perfect show for you.”
I thought that was distinctly unfair and arrogant. Yes, there was liberal use of te reo in the show, most of it without any translation for the 96 percent of us who don’t speak or understand the language.
Not understanding nor wishing to understand te reo is not racist. I don’t understand French or Russian or Mandarin either. I do not harbour racist thoughts towards people from countries where those languages are spoken. Just why annoyance with the liberal sprinkling of te reo in mainstream broadcasts in this country is regarded as racist is something I can’t comprehend.
The show tried to define just what a racist is, using a United Nations definition. While slightly long winded it’s essentially what the Cambridge Dictionary says: “someone who believes that their race makes them better, more intelligent, more moral, etc. than people of other races and who does or says unfair or harmful things as a result.”
So ideally you’d like a show that sets out to talk about racism to come up with a few examples of modern day racism. That’s where it fell down. The nearest it came to the scenarios I wanted to see exposed was when Te Wehi Wright, described as a “Te Tiriti Advocate” but actually a lawyer for the Maori consultancy firm Te Amokura, suggested that an example of the systemic racism we have in this country is that most of our medical facilities don’t have someone on staff who speaks te reo Maori.
If that’s as bad as it gets then surely we don’t have that much of a problem. While having a te reo speaker on the staff of any organisation might be a useful addition, every entity in this country can survive perfectly well using English. Is it really racist to suggest that just because the uptake of te reo continues to be slower than advocates would wish for, we have a systemically racist society? Learning a second language beyond your school years is a voluntary activity. Most people just don’t want to. That is not racism. It’s making choices.
Tina Ngata, described as a “Human Rights Advocate,” raised the issue of whether or not sovereignty or government of the country was ceded under the Treaty of Waitangi. She maintains that the Treaty of Waitangi did not give the British Crown the right to establish a government over “all of Aotearoa.” Just what alternative system might be put in place and the practicalities of how it would work was not discussed.
The considerable upsides of colonisation - parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, European education and health concepts and technology development - were of course never mentioned.
The modern version of Treaty history is a vexed issue which is pointless arguing over. Positions are so entrenched that unless the government makes a definitive statement on the matter, one way or the other, arguments will continue to rage for time immemorial. The Treaty Principles Bill might have been a starting point in that discussion but activists didn’t want to consider the possibility that all New Zealanders, whatever their ethnicity or time living here, should have absolute equality of opportunity with no special privileges extended to any one group.
Is it racist to say that? Is it racist to say that we are all equal before the law? Is it racist to say that some groups should not have arrangements different to the rest of us? Like appointed members to local councils or poorer academic achievement before entry to medical school or special tax status for iwi entities whereby multi-million dollar profits are taxed at a minuscule level considerably below the nation’s 28 percent company tax rate.
This is the attitude that Hobson’s Pledge bring to discussions on racism. Would a representative of that organisation have been appropriate for a show such as this? I couldn’t think of any group more appropriate. But of course there was no sign of anyone like that.
The show was not lacking pakeha faces. They featured prominently in the often pointless vox pop sections and four of the seven panellists in studio discussion were European although some of their statements were eyebrow raising.
“Lawyer and campaigner” Max Harris said we are in a society “deeply marked by racism” and that there has been “neglect and active damage done to te reo Maori.” I’d have loved to hear expanded narrative about both those claims.
One section of the show featured a couple of late middle aged blokes, one obviously Maori with appropriate moko engraved on his face, the other presented as a pakeha with, shall we say, a slightly sunburnt neck. The Maori guy made a claim, without evidence, that Maori are denied access to medical treatment because of their last names. When challenged by his pakeha nemesis, the claim was repeated as “those are facts.” There were none presented. And, as an aside, would Stacey Morrison, daughter of a pakeha mother and a Maori father, ever be denied access to any medical treatment because of her last name?
Claims like that don’t help the credibility of a TV show trying to discuss a serious topic.
There was an unusual contribution from right wing lawyer and writer Liam Hehir who talked of the farm he grew up on being in his family for five generations since the 1870s. It’s been sold in recent years and Hehir says he feels a great sense of loss because of that and that helps him understand how Maori felt when they lost their land to Europeans. How much Maori land was confiscated and how much was sold remains a contentious topic to this day. But we’re trying. We’ve had a process in place for nearly fifty years called the Waitangi Tribunal to make up for activities of the past.
As the show wound up, Te Wehi Wright made the bold statement that “we are racist” but didn’t actually say why or give examples of racism in action. “Treaty Educator ” Kristy Fong talked of “Matike Mai” as “a vision forward.” This is the Maori initiative led by Auckland Professor Margaret Mutu which is advocating constitutional change for the country leading to a loss of fully representative democracy. Only a committed Marxist would call that a “vision forward”?
Tina Ngata insists that racism is “factual, not an opinion” and that aspects of it “are not up for debate.” I just wish she would have explained what those aspects are. But she believes that if we face up to the issue we can have “a just Aotearoa where everybody gets a fair shot.”
The show was essentially one sided and needed some much stronger pushback than what was on offer from the panelists. Some respectful comments on the matter from the likes of Eliot Ikilei of Hobson’s Pledge or Alfred Ngaro of Family First would have helped balance the ledger.
Worst of all this show consistently made big statements but failed to follow-up with evidence. It wasn’t especially entertaining or informative. It’s probably just as well that TVNZ hid it in a prime time wasteland.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
I watched the show from start to finish (confession - not in the scheduled time slot at 8.05pm but on TVNZ+ after the rugby) and frankly wondered what the heck it was trying to prove or solve.
Sproat started things off by taking an “Implicit Association Test,” something developed at Harvard which he says tells you if you’re a racist or not, consciously or not. Apparently Mr Sproat is prone to think Maori are superior to whiteys and therefore he’s racist. I think that was supposed to be a joke.
Ms Morrison also told us early on that there would be quite a lot of te reo use in the show and if “that bothers you, well it’s little bit ironic.. I’m not racist, but .. that makes it the perfect show for you.”
I thought that was distinctly unfair and arrogant. Yes, there was liberal use of te reo in the show, most of it without any translation for the 96 percent of us who don’t speak or understand the language.
Not understanding nor wishing to understand te reo is not racist. I don’t understand French or Russian or Mandarin either. I do not harbour racist thoughts towards people from countries where those languages are spoken. Just why annoyance with the liberal sprinkling of te reo in mainstream broadcasts in this country is regarded as racist is something I can’t comprehend.
The show tried to define just what a racist is, using a United Nations definition. While slightly long winded it’s essentially what the Cambridge Dictionary says: “someone who believes that their race makes them better, more intelligent, more moral, etc. than people of other races and who does or says unfair or harmful things as a result.”
So ideally you’d like a show that sets out to talk about racism to come up with a few examples of modern day racism. That’s where it fell down. The nearest it came to the scenarios I wanted to see exposed was when Te Wehi Wright, described as a “Te Tiriti Advocate” but actually a lawyer for the Maori consultancy firm Te Amokura, suggested that an example of the systemic racism we have in this country is that most of our medical facilities don’t have someone on staff who speaks te reo Maori.
If that’s as bad as it gets then surely we don’t have that much of a problem. While having a te reo speaker on the staff of any organisation might be a useful addition, every entity in this country can survive perfectly well using English. Is it really racist to suggest that just because the uptake of te reo continues to be slower than advocates would wish for, we have a systemically racist society? Learning a second language beyond your school years is a voluntary activity. Most people just don’t want to. That is not racism. It’s making choices.
Tina Ngata, described as a “Human Rights Advocate,” raised the issue of whether or not sovereignty or government of the country was ceded under the Treaty of Waitangi. She maintains that the Treaty of Waitangi did not give the British Crown the right to establish a government over “all of Aotearoa.” Just what alternative system might be put in place and the practicalities of how it would work was not discussed.
The considerable upsides of colonisation - parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, European education and health concepts and technology development - were of course never mentioned.
The modern version of Treaty history is a vexed issue which is pointless arguing over. Positions are so entrenched that unless the government makes a definitive statement on the matter, one way or the other, arguments will continue to rage for time immemorial. The Treaty Principles Bill might have been a starting point in that discussion but activists didn’t want to consider the possibility that all New Zealanders, whatever their ethnicity or time living here, should have absolute equality of opportunity with no special privileges extended to any one group.
Is it racist to say that? Is it racist to say that we are all equal before the law? Is it racist to say that some groups should not have arrangements different to the rest of us? Like appointed members to local councils or poorer academic achievement before entry to medical school or special tax status for iwi entities whereby multi-million dollar profits are taxed at a minuscule level considerably below the nation’s 28 percent company tax rate.
This is the attitude that Hobson’s Pledge bring to discussions on racism. Would a representative of that organisation have been appropriate for a show such as this? I couldn’t think of any group more appropriate. But of course there was no sign of anyone like that.
The show was not lacking pakeha faces. They featured prominently in the often pointless vox pop sections and four of the seven panellists in studio discussion were European although some of their statements were eyebrow raising.
“Lawyer and campaigner” Max Harris said we are in a society “deeply marked by racism” and that there has been “neglect and active damage done to te reo Maori.” I’d have loved to hear expanded narrative about both those claims.
One section of the show featured a couple of late middle aged blokes, one obviously Maori with appropriate moko engraved on his face, the other presented as a pakeha with, shall we say, a slightly sunburnt neck. The Maori guy made a claim, without evidence, that Maori are denied access to medical treatment because of their last names. When challenged by his pakeha nemesis, the claim was repeated as “those are facts.” There were none presented. And, as an aside, would Stacey Morrison, daughter of a pakeha mother and a Maori father, ever be denied access to any medical treatment because of her last name?
Claims like that don’t help the credibility of a TV show trying to discuss a serious topic.
There was an unusual contribution from right wing lawyer and writer Liam Hehir who talked of the farm he grew up on being in his family for five generations since the 1870s. It’s been sold in recent years and Hehir says he feels a great sense of loss because of that and that helps him understand how Maori felt when they lost their land to Europeans. How much Maori land was confiscated and how much was sold remains a contentious topic to this day. But we’re trying. We’ve had a process in place for nearly fifty years called the Waitangi Tribunal to make up for activities of the past.
As the show wound up, Te Wehi Wright made the bold statement that “we are racist” but didn’t actually say why or give examples of racism in action. “Treaty Educator ” Kristy Fong talked of “Matike Mai” as “a vision forward.” This is the Maori initiative led by Auckland Professor Margaret Mutu which is advocating constitutional change for the country leading to a loss of fully representative democracy. Only a committed Marxist would call that a “vision forward”?
Tina Ngata insists that racism is “factual, not an opinion” and that aspects of it “are not up for debate.” I just wish she would have explained what those aspects are. But she believes that if we face up to the issue we can have “a just Aotearoa where everybody gets a fair shot.”
The show was essentially one sided and needed some much stronger pushback than what was on offer from the panelists. Some respectful comments on the matter from the likes of Eliot Ikilei of Hobson’s Pledge or Alfred Ngaro of Family First would have helped balance the ledger.
Worst of all this show consistently made big statements but failed to follow-up with evidence. It wasn’t especially entertaining or informative. It’s probably just as well that TVNZ hid it in a prime time wasteland.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
7 comments:
It has come to the point where I didn’t even bother to watch the programme for the very reasons you espouse. The Māori perspective is so entrenched and unless a Government has the courage to pushback and indicate the benefits of a colonial system, we are doomed. No wonder so many good hardworking folk are packing their bags.
Dear Peter. Firstly, thank you ' for watching something, that others had no time for, nor the inclination to do so '.
And, may I ask, what "Libation" did you resort to, whilst watching "said sitcom/? relevant presentation" and at conclusion of "said.." what remedy did you imbibe in, to reduce the oncoming "headache".
If, what you state, was made for "late night viewing", had a bias in content, presentation, participants then "can one assume", that this truly presents TVNZ bias toward any & every thing, especially when they recently denied such complicit activity ?
This show was appauling. Basically it was implying throughout that if you don't agree with maori taking over nz then you must be a racist.
I also found it hard to believe Stacy's claim that she was called the " N" word at primary school growing up in chch in the 70s and 80s. I also grew up in chch in that era and remember clearly that nothing was race based and we were all treated as individuals. There was no division or victimhood in those days. No one was different from anyone else. Looking back, we did have little kids in the class who must have had chinese or maori parents but no one noticed things like that We were all just kiwis. That was just the way things were. That horrible N word is from american culture which wasn't really in nz in those innocent days, as this was before the internet.
You are very brave Peter. Took one look at the hosts and moved on I am so thankful for my digital access and literacy that I have a large number of streaming providers, mostly overseas based ,that I can choose from. I think the last NZ made program I watched was the brilliant Robyn Malcolm's After the Party.
Dear Anon of 14 Oct., @ 8.59AM - what the "dear lady" stated as to a "? race baited claim, based on 'perceived' actions - physical and/or verbal, at the 'time' - sadly is not uncommon, within females in this day and age, when they, to "seek attention" make a statement that implies, but has the potential of having no Legal standing, or reliable evidence - both in print and/or visual [be that seen by others and/or capture by a device [camera, cell phone] - but is verbally espoused, more so when said female is in a situation [talk back show, being interviewed for some activity - past and or present] and places 'said statement' to the interviewer [or as part of a panel presentation]- which is then picked up and expanded upon by MSM & social media.
NZ is not alone in this situation, said actions seem to be an International "fad', and as one gets away with it, others follow.
The sad consequence, is that "harm" is caused to a "party", that has no way of countering, said statements [perceptions from such actions "implies" guilt] - and that legal action is not considered wise or practical.
A good example of this, has been a scenario in Australia, that sadly has had a "rebound" back at the female concerned.
If that programme was prime time viewing with spurious and belligerent content and te reo mingled ( and mangled) with English, then He Puapua is a foregone conclusion - with deliberate non-consultation with the NZ people.
Why is the Coalition ( where National holds the media portfolio) doing nothing to counter this sort of seditious action?
(But, recalling that only 30% of the nation voted in local body elections perhaps no one really cares anyway. NZ will rapidly become a third world, 2 - tier society with poor prospects for the average citizens constituting the 83%. It would seem that people will only understand this disaster after it actually occurs - so, too late. )
While a specific total number is hard to quantify, recent census data shows that a significant portion of people with Māori identity also identify with another ethnicity, with the 2023 census indicating that 409,401 people identified as both European and Māori. In recent years, the number of Māori men with a Māori partner dropped from (53%) to (48%), and for Māori women, it dropped from (52%) to (47%).
What this tells us is that our cultural diversity sits very well with the families these unions produce, with the "neither/nor" children embracing the best of both worlds.
The agenda behind much of this talk of racism is about "divide and rule." Introducing "The Doctrine of Discovery" and "de-colonisation" into learning institutions is divisive, disingenuous, and somewhat dangerous. A retrograde step in the "race to the bottom."
A peaceful society is usually a productive one, whereas accentuating our cultural and racial differences at every turn is a strong indication of where the racism is actually coming from.
Post a Comment