blogging it real

Further to my last post, and randominanity's helpful transcript of Brash's interview, the NZH has picked up on the story:

Prime Minister Helen Clark said she had never come across a dignitary who had been horrified or offended by powhiri.

"He doesn't know what he's talking about. I greet many international visitors, heads of government, and everyone says how special New Zealand is because we include something from indigenous culture as well as the formality of the formal welcome with a military honour guard. It gets a very good reception."

Dr Sharples, who trained powhiri performers for the 1990 Commonwealth Games in Auckland, said it was up to organisers to decide whether a powhiri was a welcome addition to a ceremony and Maori did not force the custom on others.

Two important points here: 1) a powhiri is entirely voluntary and up to the organizers of the event to request, or not. It's not a case of Maori forcing anything on anyone else. 2) it is bloody unique, and I would have thought a welcome break from the usual international protocols.

Education Minister Trevor Mallard, who is also Race Relations Minister, sparked an outcry in September last year when he criticised the duration of some Maori welcomes and the way they sometimes consigned women to a minor role.

Clear left-wing media bias here. :) Suggesting that some welcomes are overly long is in a different category from suggesting the welcomes are out of place, a la Brash. On his second point, the marginalization of women in some protocols can be seen to conflict with basic notions like equality. The welcomes to which he refers may be undertaken by "private" groups, but they're in "public" fora, so such notions may be relevant.

Dr Brash said yesterday his reference to "pale-skinned Maori" was meant as a judgment on how much Maori heritage performers claimed.

"What I've said on a number of occasions is that you get into definitional problems as to what constitutes a Maori if you have different rules for Maori than for non-Maori. From my point of view it doesn't make any difference.

"But as you're well aware there are some people who claim the particular rights of Maori even though their Maori heritage is very slight."

Well, yes and no. On the yes side, where legislation makes special provision for Maori participation in public decision-making, etc., the issue of who is a Maori is clearly relevant. But, in practice I imagine it is relatively easily resolved in that the right of participaiton is conveyed by membership of a group - iwi, etc. And those groups have their own criteria for membership. On the no side, Brash seems to be wandering into the "there aren't any real Maoris left anyway, are there?" type of redneckism. Next will it be: "they're not really indigeneous, they just killed off the Morioris"? If someone has Maori heritage, and identifies as Maori, that's their business, not Don's. Sure, it might be helpful for individuals to recognize all aspects of their heritage, to the extent these are known, but it's not for the state to tell them so.

To use words Brash himself might identify with, "Frankly, I'm not entirely comfortable with a Prime Ministerial candidate commenting on people's skin colour, or making allusions as to how they should identify themselves."