Race Relations in New Zealand

New Zealand Listener, Volume 32, Issue 820, 15 April 1955, Page 20

Race Relations in New Zealand

To the Editor

Sir,-Though sorry for Mr. Ritchie’s disappointment at my talk I’m afraid it can’t be helped. My object was not deliberately to say anything new, but to describe a pattern of race relations in New Zealand, trace its origins and give some reasons for its continuance. This was done for the specific purpose outlined by the broadcasting authorities and within a limited time. My main advice to Mr. Ritchie, whose work, if any, in the Maori field is not known to me, is to study Ngata’s writ-ings-the greatest sociologist and social engineer this country has produced. His theories and hypotheses as_ bases for policy concerning Maori-Pakeha interaction are far more sound than anything Mr. Ritchie can get from pakeha-exe-cuted and sponsored field studies, no matter how learned and scientific. Following that he should read the Sutherland material for a further elaboration of Ngata. Ngata’s work receives the approbation of authorities overseas. I do not know Mr. Ritchie’s knowledge of Maori communities. I myself was brought up for the first twenty years of my life as a member of a tribe, sub-tribe and extended family groups in a village, whose residences were concen- trated around a meeting-house and whare kai-a traditional marae. When

I went to school I had to learn English. -At present I am in touch with Maori communities both urban and rural in various parts of the North Island through membership of local organisations. With that background sharpened by some training in sociological thinking and techniques I make this gonfirmation that there are adequate clusters of cultural features in the form of social organisation, value systems, ideals and sentiment in many Maori communities to warrant an endeavour to assist in the reintegration of Maori society as an integral part of the wider New Zealand whole-not, as Mr. Ritchie makes me to imply, as separate from it. Whether Mr. Ritchie likes it or not the Maori wants to retain his identity within the New Zealand framework. Nothing I saw or learnt overseas has led me to believe that such a goal is impossible or other than desirable-ythough admittedly there are problems. The wonder today is that after 100 years of intensive pressure from the sources of change, so much of the Maori way of life exists. This fact is recognised by such devices as the tribal committee organisations, the Maori Women’s Welfare Leagues, the Maori Battalion unit during the war, etc., all of which were on indigenous foundations. The genealogies still trace out the senior

lines of Maori aristocracy on the West Coast, East Coast. Northland and Waikato. These families are recognised in the symbolic and ceremonial leadership of the respective tribes. Mr. Ritchie sounds a warning against advocating the strengthening of Maori social organisations-which at any rate incorporates many pakeha features. The only dangerous consequences I am afraid will occur are from the wiping out of Maori features which Mr. Ritchie implies should be done. The loss of the will to live, destruction of group selfrespect and the subsequent growth of inner uncertainties and confusions have in the past led to the near annihilation of minorities, while the strengthening of the people’s fibre will anable them better to meet the problems of adjustment, and give to them the satisfaction of having some stake in the New Zealand way of life. This kind of recognition of the Maori and his culture will create a closer feeling of fellowship between Maori and pakeha. The Maori leader whom Mr. Ritchie selects as the example to be followed is definite about the preservation of Maori cultural features such as the marae. Definite, too, about the invalidity of the conclusion in a certain field re- port that the Maori should become a pocket edition of the pakeha. Buck, like most educated Maoris- unlike Mr. Ritchie and other pakeha students-was a master of two cultures. The existence of this large corpus of Maori men and women who are able to make a success -of two worlds shows the fallacy of much academic thinking upon the future of the Maori. One more tip for Mr. Ritchie, quite new, is that he should spend his energy in pursuading the Teachers’ Training Colleges to incorporate a course in Maori studies, etc., as an alternative section for the teachers’ certificate examination in order that teachers in such subjects should be available for all New Zealand schools. Also, to get his own University College to follow the lead of Auckland in inaugurating a course in Maori language, etc., for students wanting to offer such for a degree. In this way he will help to make Maori language, arts, crafts, and other aspects of Maori culture an integral part of the culture of New Zealand to be absorbed by both Maori and Pakeha alike.

MAHA

WINIATA

Adult Education Centre, Auckland.

Sir,-A close reading of Dr. Winiata’s talk and the accompanying criticism of your correspondent Mr. Ritchie shows that the latter was dissatisfied rather because the Doctor apparently does not contribute to the same circle of ideas regarding the future of the Maori people in New Zealand. Much was therefore not so much true and direct criticism as a negative expression of a definite point Sf view. Despite Mr. Ritchie and his school of thought, the Maori following Dr. Winiata’s implied statement of what is happening will work out their own salvation, as they have always done, in a manner that will continue to confound the Pakeha critics. Two peoplesone nation. Mr. Ritchie, in a typical paternalistic pakeha fashion, pompously advises Dr. Winiata to direct his services to the production of more Dr. Bucks, I might say that several Maori University graduates and students have Dr. Winiata’s enthusiastic support and personal achievement to thank for their progress and advancement. The Maori people regard Dr. Winiata and others of his kind

as worthy successors to Peter Buck blazing the trail in the too-infrequently pursued academic paths. In reply, Dr, Winiata may well ask Mr. Ritchie if he and his department have ever helped in the training and encouragement of Maori students in psychology in order to fit them as research workers on relevant problems in Maori communities. Or do they prefer to earmark such investigations as the special preserves of the pseudo-scientific pakeha investigators out, to prove some newfangled theory-just because it is new? Let Mr. Ritchie train such Maori personnel, for thereby alone can he hope to win the confidence of e Maori

people.

H. H.

PIAHANA

Chairman, Ranginui Tribal Execu-

tive Committee, Tauranga.

Sir-The somewhat illogical comments of James E. Ritchie on Dr. Winiata’s Sunday night speech are surprising, coming as they do from a person of academic standing and presumably free of bias and the desire to split hairs. However, this shows how difficult it is for a pakeha to get away from the belief that his culture is so much superior to that of anyone else. First, James Ritchie denies the existence of Maori culture, then he proceeds to chastise Dr. Winiata for seeking to preserve that which is proven to be nonexistent! He pins his faith on field reports, presumably made by pakehas, as the only basis for worthwhile discussion. While not denying the value of reports if properly carried out, it must be pointed out that Dr. Winiata and other educated Maoris, reared in Maori communities, are superior to any — field reports as sourcés of material. Existing field reports compiled by pakeha students after less than 12 months’ residence on the verge of Maori communities must be taken ‘with a dash of salt and cannot substitute for half-lifetime experience as full members of those communities. James Ritchie states that there is no threat to Maori culture today. He is wrong here. It is the pressures from the pakeha on the inner citadels of Maori values clearly illustrated in the tone of his own Tetter that puts the Maori on the defensive. The alienation of the Orakei Marae with all its traditional associations, the pronouncement of invalidation of the King Country Pact on the basis of a field report, issued by a pakeha research worker that ignored the Maori-derived facts of a historical] situation, and the denial! of a vote for Maoris in the King Country at the recent election of Licensing Committees all indicate the need for the Maori to be vigilant. Let James Ritchie stick to his Freudian psychology and allow the Maori to give expression to his legitimate aspiration to become a self-respecting member of a society that recognises the Maori as well as the pakeha as brothers with different though converging back-

grounds.

KARENA

TAMAKI

Kaumatua, Negati-Maniapoto,

Pirongia.