Editorial #5: Racism

From time to time we post up editorials or political posts based on observation and loosely connected to what we are doing, how we are perceived or how we perceive events around us. I wrote this in February this year and was about to release it early March when I balked because I didn't think the timing was right. Now, long after 15th March, I thought it safe to post as we are all openly discussing the topic of race and hatred openly now, however the events of that date have escalated racial debate and conflict. We will not reference the events Christchurch in this article; we don't need to, but engagement is important and while it's not our central task, we too have an opinion, like it or lump it. And more importantly, not everyone will agree with what is written below. Guess what? They don't have to and we don't care who does and who doesn't! It's just an opinion piece and we don't agree with everything others say either. We don't have to agree on everything and still get along.

*****

THE COLOUR OF YOUR BLOOD

A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society.

The term was first used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, yet by the 17th century the term race began to refer to physical traits and in particular, colour and culture. Modern scholarship regards race as a social construct - a symbolic identity created to establish some cultural meaning.

While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race is not an inherent physical or biological quality.

Since the second half of the 20th century, the association of race with the ideologies and theories of scientific racism has led to the use of the word 'race' itself becoming problematic. While it is still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by less ambiguous and loaded terms: populations, people(s), ethnic groups, colour or communities - depending on the context.

So what exactly is racism? Webster’s Dictionary says racism is the following:

Racism: A belief that race is the 'primary' determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent 'superiority' of a particular race.

Racism is also a perception thing. Lets begin with history and how a people were first treated or viewed. Aborigines in Australia for example were, and still are, treated very poorly. Aboriginees had no such relationship with the Crown that Maori did and still have. They had no treaty upon which to bargain with. They have no tribunal to look after injustices. They were not accepted into society, and at one time whites would hunt them and shoot them. and the word 'extermination' was used in Sydney Gazette. That's simply appalling. But no such thing even remotely close to that ever happened in New Zealand... So in NZ, the 'superiority' in the dictionary description above could be that some individuals of European descent might see themselves as more sophisticated than Maori and would openly voice that view. Some part-Maori (even those whose majority of blood is European) might say that Maori are superior in understanding nature or spirituality than Europeans and would openly voice that opinion. Both of those things could be racism in it's truest sense. The fact is, the above statements do happen, yet only one race ever gets upset, and only one race acknowledges their statement is a mild form of racism.

The key point of correctly labeling racism is 'where a certain race is seen as inferior'? Maori were seen that way, because the British saw themselves as more 'sophisticated'. (Now to be fair they saw themselves in the worldview they had at the time, with the culture they grew up in as it was at the time. Just the same way, Maori had their worldview and culture at the time; after all no one would think cannibalism is appropriate now, but it was in their eyes and understanding back then). Maori saw the British a certain way which was also based on their culture and understanding of the world. That isn't intentional racism necessarily, it was just a long ingrained belief that needed changing over time. At first, Maori trusted the new arrivals and thrived in trading with them. Once the British government took control, they were ultimately let down due to greed and expansion. That was wrong, but was it racism or greed or both? Whatever it was, it was allowed by the government.

For over 170 years we have had a new law and governance in this country. Maori culture would still have tribe fighting tribe as that was their culture right up until 1860. Whether you like that comment or not, it is both wholly true and wholly historical. Offence between and within tribes often resulted in death, and that was just the culture at the time. Slaves were kept (as with the British up until 1834), and rightly or wrongly that was a cultural thing that both 'races' were occupied in. The point here being is that a cultural practice from hundreds of years ago does not mean it is culturally appropriate now! I think few would disagree with that. I would hope none would.

If you use the word 'nigger' when describing the terminology of a white toward a slave during the period of American slavery, you are historically correct, but if you use it now, with intent, in regard to someone who is black, the term lacks historical relevance and as such it is racism in action. That word created, and still creates, an imbalance of power. Imbalance of power is the inherent problem. What power? We will explain later.

Labeling people as lazy, dirty or untrustworthy has a big impact on things like housing or employment opportunities. Crime statistics (not the sentencing; which is imbalanced against Maori - just the crime...), are those crime statistics higher in Maori than Pakeha (all non-Maori). If so, that is not a racism issue, its a 'cultural' one that needs addressing at the 'cultural' level. But we are not in 1790, we are in 2019. Culture changes over time and we could provide very long list of 'cultural' practices that are no longer continued by Maori.

Some would say racism is responsible for the high numbers of Maori in prison. This could be true if courts imprison more Maori for the same crime as other races, unless the risk of re-offending due to past history or background is already exceedingly high. Re-offending history is well recorded but we have already agreed there is an imbalance of imprisonment.

Many suffering the violence Maori are often involved in would say it is the crime that is the key to that which imprisons them, not their race, and that their 'culture' of offence is what creates it. Regardless of what you believe, you still need to look at the imbalance of power. What power? We will explain that later.

In ancient maori culture the 'laws' within a tribe were enforced. If an offence was committed, their was a punishment for it. Maori had their own laws within their own way of life. However, they no longer have that way of life. Regardless of whether it's liked or not, most live in a new world, with new laws and new ways. Even Europeans now live with different laws than those of 1860. Things change.

In regard to Maori imprisonment there are two issues of an imbalance of power. First of all, crime is crime regardless of colour, it's what happens afterward, in the courts, that seems to be the issue.

1. Whites are imprisoned less for the same crimes, revealing there is no balance of fairness in sentencing = institutionalized racism.

2. Re-offending among Maori is much higher so they appear to have have little personal responsibility and respect for others.

The first (1) is an imbalance of legal power as they are not in control of the sentencing. The second (2) is an imbalance of personal power.

No one, whether brown, white, yellow, or pink, ever makes you commit a crime. Not ever. Never! No one! It is simply your attitude toward others, their space or their property. Parehaka? Yes, that was a crime by the Crown. But that was then, and Maori killed innocent settlers too. Over ninety (The Boyd) for the flogging of one Maori; and that too was a gross imbalance. I'm only talking of now, 2019, the present; for we can only deal with racism now, while we live and have the opportunity to change it. None of us can change the past - but we can change the future. Leave the past in the past and let's deal with today and tommorrow.

So, what about a part-Maori woman being treated like a shoplifter when she is 100% innocent? That is a very good point. It is an injustice. But why is she treated that way? Is it because from the shopkeepers experience, the last seven instances of shoplifting caught on camera were of young Maori women committing the crime? If that is the case, please do not blame the shopkeeper for feeling worried or suspicious - experience has coloured them (excuse the pun). Yes, profiling is wrong but experience often breeds profiling. But is it racism? No, that example would be experiential reaction. Experience has affected their thinking and attitudes.

If you think the above example is racism, you are both incorrect and about to be labelled a racist yourself because that same experiential profiling 'colours' Maori against Pakeha. If Maori are targets of blatant racism (real or perceived), then they will view most Pakeha the same way. Is that racism? No, it certainly is not - it's experiential reaction or profiling. And in the same way the shop keeper has experiential reaction. So both Pakeha and Maori are both guilty of it.

If anyone of any colour says that their personal experiential reaction is not racism, yet the 'other' races reaction is racism - then that is racism right there! Right there is an imbalance of power meaning "I'm Maori, Polynesian, or Asian so my colour and your colour have different rights in the same circumstance of mistrust". That is blatantly wrong and since 15th March we should not be seeing that... but we still are!

'White privilege' is a term being bandied around lately by ignorant people. That term also has a racist connotation if it's comes from someone who is not 'white'. And it may be that the term was used based on personal experience (and if so they cannot be judged for their experience), or it may have been used because "you have what I don't have" in which case that's not white privilege - that's jealousy.

I'm not a millionaire but I do not begrudge a millionaire or even a billionaire, because my life is my responsibility and they are entitled to what they have. I feel that way because jealousy doesn't control me - I control me. I got myself where I am for good or bad. None of it was handed to me. That same statement goes for you too and has nothing to do with your skin colour and everything to do with your thoughts and beliefs. If you are jealous of others having more than you, then money controls you! It is you who are the greedy one, not the one with more money than you. The most important thing here is that race is totally irrelevant in that emotion.

European New Zealanders do not have to feel they need apologize for their skin colour and cultural upbringing. Neither should Maori, Pacifica, Asian, Indian, German, English or Australian...well, maybe the Australians... (jokes). Anyway, the point is we all see things differently due to our surroundings, and in fact we do not have to agree on everything. In Jerusalem we have Jews, Muslims and Christians living together in relative harmony. They do not agree on everything, nor should they. But they exist in relative peace within those walls.

In New Zealand the trouble lies squarely is the past. No amount of money or legislation will ever heal the past. You could pay $60,000,000,000 into Maori grievances and the same attitude as now would still prevail in the future. Money is not the answer. A change in attitude is. Only forgiveness can heal the past. Those that fail to forgive (anything) are wanting to hang on to the offence because it gives them something to be comfortable in. That's just the way human beings are - all human beings. If you watch a news item where someone has been hurt by another and they say they will never forgive this or that - look closely at the person. They are totally at the control of their negative emotions. Yet you can see others saying "we can't change it and we have forgiven them" and their countenance is different. Those people are not free of the memory, the loss, the hurt or the grief, but they are free of the negative emotions that chain them to the experience. They haven't forgotten, they are just not slaves to their anger. They are not slaves to anyone. They are free of anger because they choose to be free. Some people choose to remain slaves to past hurts and some of those hurts and chains are not even their own personal grievances!

Whoa, hang on, I can feel the anger rising already (and that right there is the problem) - so calm down. We are not saying it's easy. It is never easy. We are simply pointing out what we have all seen with our own eyes. Yes, grievances still need to be dealt with. But on a personal level; responsibility lies with the individual. It spreads to the family, the community and eventually - the nation. Personal responsibility can change this nation, but it starts with you and me - at home.

There are times things have conspired against white people, and if I they were of another race they might claim 'racism' as an excuse for their lack of success ata school, or the reaqosn they bragn to get invlved in crime. NO, ths htngs ould use my cvolor

In this regard, the term 'racism' can be allowed to be a chain around ones ankle. You cannot change a blatant racist unless that person wants to change. You cannot change Brenton Tarrant, and we cannot change the public effects of racism unless you choose to move ahead regardless. Racism does not hold you back - YOU hold you back. If you are part-Maori and disagree with that, please read this short list:

Sir Āpirana Ngata

Dame Whina Cooper

Howard Morrison

Dame Kiri Te Kanawa

Billy T James

Ralph Hotere

Witi Ihimaera

Nehi Milner-skudder

Mike King

Keisha Castle-hughes

John Rowles

Matiu Walters

Kanoa Lloyd

Jamie Ataria

Jason Turuwhenua

Dan Hikuroa

Miriamo Kamo

Taika Waititi

Lisa Hemopo

Some of the above you will recognize, others you will not. But they are all successful, non-violent, crime free and drug free, and they do not see themselves as victims of society, the government, or more importantly - the tag of 'colonialism'. That last word holds many back. The people in the above list have ignored, or risen above, what is around them to be a success within their passion. Success wasn't handed to them, they worked bloody hard for it. They haven't used nor are subject to racism within their chosen fields. They might have experienced it along the way, but they rose above it by doing what they are good at.

We are all human, we have only once point of difference biologically - that which is on the outside. Our skin. But it's what in the inside that counts.

Blood has only one colour!

Addendum:

On 30th October we had Charlene from Flaxmere in Hastings accuse us of racism. In her email she said... "Rather than collecting and presenting the information purely to become informed your intention appears to be to discredit and disprove the maori people. It is this kind of behavior that nutures and festers racism. I hope for your own biggoted self your site is shut down however i see it a shame to waste the valuable information you provide on this site. But racism is very real here in New Zealand and will continue to be while people like yourself are able to air their racislist veiws..."

While we are out not to 'disprove' Maori (a strange statement) but to 'prove' another race existed here before Polynesians got here, we do welcome good debate and as such she has been asked to provide some evidence for her accusation that we are racist. This must be based on the correct term for racism - not her assumed understanding of it (which is strangely ironic considering she assumes we are white and are trying to bag a coloured race - which is racism - in favour of another coloured race? Can anyone see any logic in that because we can't?). It will be extrememly hard for her to provide an example to support her accusation even on her incorrect interpretaton and our initial reply contained information that will likely surprise her. We use the term 'incorrect' interpretation of what racism is based on a gradual media indoctrination of a new interpretation of the true meaning. This is propaganda that eventually had people believing something as correct, which has been fabricated by the media - most likely intentionally. We will publish her reply with her examples should she happen to find any.

11th November:

Well, Charlene did reply and admitted there is nothing racist in any post we have made. She says some could perceive it as such (but then people see what they want to see don't they).

She also thought our 'defensiveness' was proof our our guilt. Mmmm, There was no defense on our part as we have nothing to defend but we did challenge her to find an example for us. She couldn't and admitted that. Maybe the guilt was on her part? The point was we could exchange thougths without offence.

But what she did say (and she is right), is that our site, by it's very nature, could attract intolerant people to it. This is true, it could and has done that. We told her that we have deleted many and refuse to have anything to do with others that some would percieve as 'racist' even if that interpretation is wrong. There are others we have openly debunked or challenged their interpretation. Of course we cannot control what people think while we post our thoughts on archaeological or political things while we dig. It's all good for future debate, but it's just a distraction to our goal. Our real goal is bringing proof to the public of 8' skeletons belonging to a race here long before the Polynesian arrived. It would be very odd to be accused of being racist while bringing to light a non-white race here before another non-white race - but there are some very odd people out there! Still, Charlene has been very polite in her discussion and we commend her for that and we always welcome comments as it keeps us thinking about how we present somethings, or even why. We are human, we are not perfect and our motivation does need to be tempered with the task.