Reflection Time! : haka and maori women's rights

In Maori Society last week, we talked about performing arts and in doing so spoke to one of the questions I posed in my original reflections – what is the Maori opinion regarding the All Blacks use of the haka at sporting matches. I can now say with some confidence: not favourable. The “Ka Mate” haka has been used by the national rugby team since 1903 and is typically interpreted by sports announcers and the general public to be an appropriated war dance used to intimidate the opposing players. But while certain types of haka were used for war, the category extends to many other types of dance as well. “Ka Mate” is technically not a war dance in either form, content (expresses relief and thanks of a chief who narrowly escaped death), or the way it is performed (without weapons).

The iwi (tribe) of Te Rauparaha (the man who wrote the piece) have recently filed a lawsuit for intellectual property rights, something which would be extremely interesting to know more about. Their goal was not to gain royalties for its use but rather to try to regain control over the cultural practice to prevent its further exploitation and misinterpretation. A spokesperson for the All Blacks apparently said that “the haka is bigger than Maori” - that it should not be restricted to a specific tribe but rather has acquired a new and national meaning. While this sounds all well and good, it leads to interesting issues surrounding the appropriateness and way in which Maori symbols are used. As our lecturer pointed out, these symbols at the very least become divorced from their original purpose and history (something important in Maori worldview) and often end up actively involved in the perpetuation of misinformation about the specific practices and culture as a whole (such as in haka being known as a war dance). Plus, it arguably allows for a superficial (read advertisable) embrace of Maori things while practices and perspectives that are more difficult to deal with are ignored.

Among reasons for thinking that nationalizing Maori symbols is a bad thing, the haka is frequently exploited in advertising. For example, this advertisement for the 2007 World Cup match between NZ and France (I’m not going to even try a full on critique of that as there is way too much wrong about it. For a start: primitive/timelessness of Maori culture, objectifying, eroticizing women, isolated and paradisiacal tropics) The haka has further been used and spoofed across the globe. For example, this Scottish employment commercial.

I think I’m going to peg this as just above using demeaning caricatures of native peoples as mascots for American sports teams (like the Florida State Seminoles).

I am also pretty conflicted about Maori views on gender role division. Lecturers and texts take great care to emphasize the importance that women play in childbearing roles and on the marae (meeting house complex). They seek to explain (justify) the logic behind their exclusion from certain ritual leadership roles and place seated behind the men in the marae. I am interested to see how/whether views have changed with regards to the women’s rights movement and how cultural and gender identities intersect/conflict. (Mainly discussions from my Community Based Learning class last year regarding tensions between Native American and women’s rights movements are playing through my head – the perception that women acting out hurt the strength of the indigenous cause because it criticizes cultural values.) To what extent should traditions be maintained in continuation of old cultural practices and when can they be challenged? Does Maori minority in numbers (and consequent risk of being swamped by dominant Pakeha ideas) present an obstacle to cultural evolution? In other words, the desire to maintain something distinct and resist the other major way of being prevent change.

I am impressed overall though with the unique amount of consideration of Maori concerns in NZ law. Studying the resource management act, you find that consultation with iwi is firmly built into the consent process and the document openly recognizes the importance of wahi tapu (reserved/sacred sites) and the “principles” of the Treaty of Waitangi (vague to be sure, and possibly would be better to have part of the treaty text reproduced, but still way beyond the typical treatment of treaties in the US). Also, marae have been built on several university campuses, police are trained to say a karakia (prayer) and sprinkle water at the site of any fatal incident, and there are Maori language TV shows and radio stations.

Current topics I'm curious about:

- Maori opinion on contemporary hot topic debates such as abortion, capital punishment (or just punishment by the state in general), and homosexuality.

- Bastion Point, NZ 1977 vs. Alcatraz Island, CA 1969 (both involved occupation of an area for an extended period of time in order to bring attention to indigenous issues) Based on what little I know about either, it would be interesting to compare government responses to these protests.