Te Puea biography '... a blunder’

Mana (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 10, 10 November 1977, Page 2

Te Puea biography '... a blunder’

Since the pompous Sir George Grey set himself up as the saviour of the Maori people and Maori scholar supreme, through to Elsdon Best, who was undoubtedly one of the worst racists to have written about us, there have been numerous Pakehas who have claimed to be resident experts on all things Maori. The great majority of these people have had nothing but an academic interest in us; they have done nothing positive to assist us; they have, in fact, been concerned only to build up their own reputations, and to climb to fame on the backs of the Maori people who have given them whatever knowledge they have. The fault lies not just with them. Many of our Kaumatua have indulged in

by Syd Jackson hypocritical double standards by refusing to pass on knowledge to younger Maoris eagerly searching for it, and yet have fallen over themselves to tell Pakehas at least part of what they want to know. The results have been entirely predictable. The works produced have been largely inadequate, based as they are on only part of the story, and they have been full of incorrect assumptions and anomalies. Even worse, however, has been the fact that these so-called ethnographers, historians and anthropologists become accepted as the so-called experts on us. One of the most annoying things that I experience are Pakehas, who even when they are in

the same room as many Maoris, will tell Maoris what they are, and purport to speak on our behalf. Michael King quite properly falls within this category. It was, in the first instance, a crazy, unforgiveable blunder by the Waikato people which allowed him to be the person to write this biography of Te Puea. King has shown in the past that he is lacking in understanding as the ‘Tangata Whenua’ series and the Parihaka part of that programme in particular, showed. The fact that he acted as commentator for much of that series and consistently mispronounced Maori

words was further evidence of his lack of sensitivity. The decision taken by Waikato, therefore, to permit him to write this biography, is difficult to understand.

It is true that it is time this outstanding woman was given her rightful place in New Zealand’s history.

It would have been understandable for a Pakeha to have been given the right if there was no competent, qualified, Waikato person to write it. It would have been understandable if there had been no Maori who could have done it. But such was not the case. There are many Waikato,

and even more Maoris from other areas who could have been, and should have been, entrusted with the privilege of writing this book.

‘Te Puea’ is bound to be controversial. It will be controversial because of who has written it. It will be controversial because of the ‘Pakeha’ way in which the book was launched. It will be controversial too, because of the contents, and because of the personalities and their difficulties which are bared in this book for all to see. Waikato alone must make the decision on how well Michael King has fulfilled his brief.