Race remarks make the blood boil
Questioning of National leaders’ ‘Maoriness’ shows how far we have to go as a nation
I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been asked “how Maori” I am. As a “white Maori”, I am constantly required to defend my whakapapa, to account for it as if I were some kind of walking pie graph rather than a human being. I try to be gentle when I am asked to reduce my Maoritanga to a fraction, knowing that it is often ignorance rather than malice that motivates such rudeness. But it is rude, and racist. Have you ever heard anyone asked how Pakeha they are?
I’ve never been asked how Czech I am, though my grandfather was born in Prague. Nor how British, though my other grandfather was born in Plymouth. It’s only the Maori blood running through my veins that must be measured. Why? To ascertain whether I’m a “real” Maori. To make it easier for people to paint me — consciously or subconsciously — into one stereotype or another, passing judgment on the deepest, most personal part of me: my identity.
My identity is not an equation but a tapestry; interwoven and colourful. So too are Simon Bridges’ and Paula Bennett’s. Yes, having a Maori leader and Maori deputy leader of the National Party is a remarkable first, but the decision of some commentators to comment on how Maori or otherwise they are shows how far we as a society have to go.
When I read a column discussing the “solidness” of Bridges’ “claims to his Maori heritage” written by a Pakeha man, a series of small explosions occurred inside my head. Whether Bridges is “three-sixteenths Maori”, as the commentator described him, or so-called fullblooded is not only irrelevant, it’s farcical. How do you measure a culture, a life force, a history, a responsibility, a spirit, a way of being?
It’s time we moved beyond surface discussions of “Maoriness”. Being Maori cannot be reduced to a mere number, nor a kind of one-size-fits-all caricature. Indigenous experiences are diverse, depending on a number of factors. Some Maori, like myself and maybe Bridges and Bennett too (although I don’t know enough about their backgrounds to say for certain), have spent more time in Te Ao Pakeha than Te Ao Maori. Some of us are finding our way back to our whakapapa. That doesn’t make us any more or less Maori. It is one of the many experiences of being indigenous.
“Being Maori” is not one specific thing, and indeed, before colonisation, we didn’t refer to ourselves as Maori, but instead by our iwi affiliations. Bridges himself, however, fell into the trap of lumping all Maori together, telling a press conference at Parliament, “I hope that Maori are proud of me”.
It stuck in my mind, that statement. It immediately made me wonder what Bridges had done to make Maori proud of him. To my mind, while being elected leader is undoubtedly an achievement, it is an individual one. While Bridges being in that role will mean that young Maori will know that it is possible for them to grow up and become the leader of the National Party, visibility alone is not enough. Pride and respect are earned, and Bridges will soon find out whether or not he has done enough to deserve the support of his people.
If Bridges wants Maori to be proud of him, he should focus on the mahi — the work — that he needs to do. His mana will be judged not by the position he holds, but by the changes that he makes for his people. His
Pride and respect are earned, and Bridges will soon find out whether or not he has done enough to deserve the support of his people.
willingness — or otherwise — to spend time kanohi ki te kanohi (face to face) with his people; to listen, understand, and represent them steadfastly will determine how Maori view him. His ascension to become the rangatira of te Ropu Nahinara (the National Party) is only the beginning.
Luckily, there are a number of things Bridges could do in order to get Maori to “give [National] a second look”. He could call for an end to the racist legislation around Maori representation that allows for a small minority of the population to override the decisions of democratically elected councils by demanding a referendum be held that could lead to the abolishment of Maori wards, while the same legislation makes no such allowance for the abolishment of other wards. A discriminative loophole that is ironically being utilised by former National Party leader Don Brash.
Bridges could advocate for Maori water rights, recognising that Maori have a special relationship with the water and the waterways of Aotearoa. He could push for Maori to have our role as kaitiaki (guardians) of the environment respected, working to undo some of the damage National inflicted upon its relationship with Maori through a lack of consultation over the Kermadec Sanctuary.
He could make a commitment to actually contesting Maori seats, giving Maori the option of selecting a National Party candidate at the polls. In the leadup to the last election I watched numerous Maori electorate debates and couldn’t locate a single National Party hopeful anywhere. What message did that send to Maori? That one of the major parties of Aotearoa wouldn’t bother to stand a candidate in their electorates?
He could craft policy focusing on lifting Maori out of poverty. His acknowledgment this week of the housing crisis that his party continually denied for nearly a decade is a heartening first step, but there is much more work to be done. As Bill English said on Waitangi Day in 2017, “what is good for Maori is good for New Zealand”. Bridges has yet to embody that kaupapa.
Time will tell whether Bridges will make Maori proud. As a Maori wahine, I congratulate him on his appointment and am proud that we’ve reached a point where a Maori tane can lead the National Party.
I will be watching his mahi with interest.