It sounds harmless enough. But behind that friendly appeal lies a much bigger assumption: that because te reo Māori is being promoted more extensively, New Zealanders should welcome its increasing presence throughout public life.
That assumption deserves to be challenged.
Nobody is suggesting that Māori people should stop speaking te reo Māori, nor should anyone prevent those who genuinely want to learn it from doing so.
But the freedom to speak a language does not create an obligation for everyone else to adopt it.
The Herald points to 214,000 people who reported being able to speak te reo Māori in the 2023 Census — an increase of 65,000 since 2013 — and presents this as evidence of a language revival.
But 214,000 remains a small minority in a country of more than five million people. The Census figure also tells us little about fluency or frequency of use. Being able to speak some te reo is not the same as using it as an everyday language.
Nor does the figure support the Herald's remarkable suggestion that New Zealand may now have more te reo speakers than before European settlement.
Pre-European Māori population estimates are uncertain, while today's Census measures self-reported language ability. Comparing the two is hardly a sound basis for such a conclusion.
More importantly, the Herald confuses the survival of a language with its entitlement to increasing institutional prominence.
Those are two very different things.
English is New Zealand's common language. It is understood across ethnicities, regions and generations and is the language through which New Zealanders overwhelmingly communicate with one another.
That is not an attack on Māori culture. It is simply a fact.
Yet we are increasingly told that Māori terminology should appear throughout government, councils, public agencies, education, signage and business — not necessarily because it makes communication clearer, but because its use is regarded as culturally desirable.
The Herald even declares: “We can't escape it. And nor should we want to.”
But why should making a language impossible to escape be the objective?
A person's decision to learn or use te reo Māori should be respected. So should the decision not to.
New Zealanders who choose not to learn te reo should not be labelled backward, racist or culturally insensitive. Nor should familiar English names and expressions be progressively displaced simply because Māori alternatives are considered preferable.
What about our children?
The issue becomes more serious when language policy enters the classroom.
Te reo Māori immersion is frequently presented as though it is automatically beneficial and beyond legitimate criticism. It isn't.
Language immersion can be an effective educational technique. But education should serve the interests of children, not become a vehicle for advancing somebody else's political or cultural agenda.
Parents are entitled to ask what their children are being taught, why it is being taught, how much curriculum time it receives and whether it genuinely expands their future opportunities.
Children should not become instruments in a campaign to revive or expand a language.
If te reo Māori has genuine value and relevance to future generations, New Zealanders will choose to learn and use it.
That is how languages have always survived.
Languages have also declined when people stopped using them. Latin is an obvious example. It was once the everyday language of a vast part of Europe; it gradually ceased to be a community language without requiring political suppression. It survives today because people continue to value it for particular purposes.
That is the important principle.
Te reo Māori should be allowed to stand on its own merits.
Let people choose it. Let families choose it. Let communities choose it. Let businesses choose it.
But don't artificially manufacture demand through ever-increasing taxpayer funding, institutional pressure and relentless media promotion.
If a language requires an expanding state-backed apparatus to ensure that people encounter it, that is not evidence of spontaneous linguistic revival. It is evidence of deliberate promotion.
And there is nothing wrong with acknowledging that distinction.
The Herald's argument ultimately rests on an appeal to inevitability:
Te reo is here to stay — so let's embrace it.
But “here to stay” does not mean “must be increasingly promoted, normalised or imposed.”
Māori culture is part of New Zealand's history. Māori language is part of that history too. But New Zealand is not a Māori-speaking country. It is a modern, multicultural democracy whose citizens share a common language: English.
That common language should remain the foundation of public communication.
Te reo Māori should be available to those who want to learn and use it. Its speakers should be free to preserve it and pass it on.
But its long-term future should ultimately be determined by the voluntary choices of New Zealanders — not by politicians, bureaucrats or taxpayer-funded campaigns.
If future generations choose to speak it, it will flourish.
If fewer choose to speak it, that is a natural consequence of a free society.
Respect the language. Respect those who speak it. But respect the right of everyone else to choose.
Language should be a matter of freedom — not conformity.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
But the freedom to speak a language does not create an obligation for everyone else to adopt it.
The Herald points to 214,000 people who reported being able to speak te reo Māori in the 2023 Census — an increase of 65,000 since 2013 — and presents this as evidence of a language revival.
But 214,000 remains a small minority in a country of more than five million people. The Census figure also tells us little about fluency or frequency of use. Being able to speak some te reo is not the same as using it as an everyday language.
Nor does the figure support the Herald's remarkable suggestion that New Zealand may now have more te reo speakers than before European settlement.
Pre-European Māori population estimates are uncertain, while today's Census measures self-reported language ability. Comparing the two is hardly a sound basis for such a conclusion.
More importantly, the Herald confuses the survival of a language with its entitlement to increasing institutional prominence.
Those are two very different things.
English is New Zealand's common language. It is understood across ethnicities, regions and generations and is the language through which New Zealanders overwhelmingly communicate with one another.
That is not an attack on Māori culture. It is simply a fact.
Yet we are increasingly told that Māori terminology should appear throughout government, councils, public agencies, education, signage and business — not necessarily because it makes communication clearer, but because its use is regarded as culturally desirable.
The Herald even declares: “We can't escape it. And nor should we want to.”
But why should making a language impossible to escape be the objective?
A person's decision to learn or use te reo Māori should be respected. So should the decision not to.
New Zealanders who choose not to learn te reo should not be labelled backward, racist or culturally insensitive. Nor should familiar English names and expressions be progressively displaced simply because Māori alternatives are considered preferable.
What about our children?
The issue becomes more serious when language policy enters the classroom.
Te reo Māori immersion is frequently presented as though it is automatically beneficial and beyond legitimate criticism. It isn't.
Language immersion can be an effective educational technique. But education should serve the interests of children, not become a vehicle for advancing somebody else's political or cultural agenda.
Parents are entitled to ask what their children are being taught, why it is being taught, how much curriculum time it receives and whether it genuinely expands their future opportunities.
Children should not become instruments in a campaign to revive or expand a language.
If te reo Māori has genuine value and relevance to future generations, New Zealanders will choose to learn and use it.
That is how languages have always survived.
Languages have also declined when people stopped using them. Latin is an obvious example. It was once the everyday language of a vast part of Europe; it gradually ceased to be a community language without requiring political suppression. It survives today because people continue to value it for particular purposes.
That is the important principle.
Te reo Māori should be allowed to stand on its own merits.
Let people choose it. Let families choose it. Let communities choose it. Let businesses choose it.
But don't artificially manufacture demand through ever-increasing taxpayer funding, institutional pressure and relentless media promotion.
If a language requires an expanding state-backed apparatus to ensure that people encounter it, that is not evidence of spontaneous linguistic revival. It is evidence of deliberate promotion.
And there is nothing wrong with acknowledging that distinction.
The Herald's argument ultimately rests on an appeal to inevitability:
Te reo is here to stay — so let's embrace it.
But “here to stay” does not mean “must be increasingly promoted, normalised or imposed.”
Māori culture is part of New Zealand's history. Māori language is part of that history too. But New Zealand is not a Māori-speaking country. It is a modern, multicultural democracy whose citizens share a common language: English.
That common language should remain the foundation of public communication.
Te reo Māori should be available to those who want to learn and use it. Its speakers should be free to preserve it and pass it on.
But its long-term future should ultimately be determined by the voluntary choices of New Zealanders — not by politicians, bureaucrats or taxpayer-funded campaigns.
If future generations choose to speak it, it will flourish.
If fewer choose to speak it, that is a natural consequence of a free society.
Respect the language. Respect those who speak it. But respect the right of everyone else to choose.
Language should be a matter of freedom — not conformity.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
12 comments:
Coercion by stealth. Exclusion in specific incidences (often professional) due to lack of competence is inevitable. That is the cultural marixism tactic.
Te Reo is clearly inescapable.... the same for tribal rule by 2040?
But you have to pretend you are into it. Most workplaces have maori language week with everyday updates. We get every culture slammed down our throat except European culture. There is never a day or a week for that even though the dutch, the scots, the irish and others havr a very rich culture. For sone reason that is never allowed .
We can no longer afford these luxury beliefs and government spending. Te reo should get exactly as much funding as our other offical language English
The country is broke & needs to pay off its frankly frightening debts
Excellent article, thanks.
With the intention of this and subsequent governments, to make up new fashionable words to replace English as the working language within government departments, productivity will fail.
Then there will be the frustration and anger when everyone else has to deal with them.
When are our substantial Asian citizens going to protest loudly ?
I stopped wanting to learn any more of the language once the bullies took over.
We all know them. The ones who constantly demand perfection in some arbitrary pronunciation even though there was never a standard between "iwi" and / or "hapu".
It started with how to apparently say "Taupo" correctly and now it extends to just about every location.
It's a falsehood that's being peddled by zealots.
The fact is there was a lot of variation and it's likely you already learned the correct pronunciation as a kid.
But the bullies have taken over "again".
We have regressed back to the 1840s and caught in the familiar situation where those who yell the loudest and intimidate also get to dictate.
The issue is bigger than the language itself and I resent how "tribalism" is being encouraged and reinforced.
The above and Tues 15 Breaking Views summary very depressing. For an isolated declining country with disproportionate increase of limited ability citizens, no oil, and so a grim future, to devote vast energy into promulgating a stone age hobby language is plain absurd. Through school, extensive post education, employment and personal financial management I found my time and ability stretched to the maximum. To divert time and mental resource to an additional mental burden would have been madness leading to a huge reduction in achievement.
I was a fan for NZF. But like most citizens I did not follow the dealings of Jones in detail. Weirdly, for all his vast financial panderings to maori I doubt if many vote for him. I am beginning to realise he is probably an even greater threat to future NZ harmony than Potaka.
"The Herald points to 214,000 people who reported being able to speak te reo Māori in the 2023 Census — an increase of 65,000 since 2013 — and presents this as evidence of a language revival."
This illustrates how much whoever wrote that knows about language revival: evidently nothing. For survival, let alone revival, all languages need native speakers: people whose first and only language it is, for the first four or five years of their lives. Evidence of revival would be a cohort of 5 year olds arriving at school unable to speak English.
As near as anyone can tell, the only native speakers nowadays are some people my age and older (70+). That's because it's very difficult, if not impossible, to create the sort of whole language environment which would admit of native speakers. There are probably bilingual speakers (I have at least one family member who is bilingual), but that would be the extent of it.
Non-Maori speaking the language won't save it, because for us, it's a second language. Self-reported ability with a language isn't evidence of competence, that is, being able to run one's daily life in it. For the most part, people can at most speak a few words. This likely applies to most Maori, and certainly to non-Maori.
"Nobody is suggesting that Māori people should stop speaking te reo Māori..."
Well now...it'd be good if they actually started speaking it, instead of expecting the rest of us to prop it up for them.
"But the freedom to speak a language does not create an obligation for everyone else to adopt it."
Ha! Tell that to the Ukrainians. We have extended family and church connections to the Ukraine, so we know about this. There are parallels between what's happening here and there. It isn't well reported by the msm, but the Kiev government has passed laws banning the Russian language from everyday use, and mandating the use of Ukrainian. It's being driven by the same influence as here in NZ: ethno-nationalism, an aspect of fascism.This despite the fact that the majority of Ukrainians speak Russian, especially in the eastern areas such as the Donbass republics. Next step in NZ will eventually be the discouraging of English, if not an outright ban. You can bet on it. Unless we act now.
We now have a generation of kids that can not speak English without using te reo words that their teachers have indoctrinated them with as substitutes for the words that the rest of the world understands.
A pox on the teachers who can not see the damage they are doing to vulnerable minds.
Third Reich indoctrination.
Will any teacher stand up and refuse to ruin the careers of their pupils ?
"What did you do on the weekend Johnny ?"
"My whanau did some mahi on the whare "
Take that version of English offshore, and see how Johnny is put down.
“te reo is here to stay”
I doubt that. Language revival is very difficult, even when a country's situation would suggest that it's an easy task.
Irish is a case in point. That country has had more than a century to revive its native language. It's had the Gaeltacht areas to provide the environment in which language use is normalised.
When we were in Ireland 20-odd years ago, Irish was alive and well in the Ring of Kerry, which is a Gaeltacht area. But I read recently that its use has fallen away in those Gaeltacht areas, and it has become the second language of urban liberals in cities such as Dublin. Which is very bad news for its survival.
Maori, being the language of a small population only, is in a much more fragile position. Despite long years of effort, its use has fallen off a cliff, especially in recent years. I doubt there are any native speakers at all. That being so, the language will continue its gradual decline into disuse. No amount of forcing public servants and school pupils to learn songs, words and phrases, will save it.
Excellent work: both article and comments.
Hang on (licks pencil tip) 214,000 is about 4% of 5 million, but Māori are said to be 17% of 5 million. Hmmm.
So (scratches ear) if that means about 650,000 Māori DON’T speak Te Reo, then *Why Should I?*
Wales, Ireland, Scotland, have all preserved their original languages by keeping them separate and not attempting to mangle English with words that are alien to the major tongue. The original language is in use by people who want to use it and the majority build up no antagonism because it is not jammed down their throats by stealth nor any other anti-democratic means. The macaronic method may have worked in introducing Latin to subject people of the Romans because it was a genuine language of value but when will people here realise that there is no future in pressing a non-language on a reluctant populace?
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.