![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
labellementeuseIndulging in a little navel-gazing of the ethnic type, as Pakeha New Zealanders are so wont to do, especially in the weeks leading up to our census. Cut for length, but I think it's sort of interesting, and if you're a Pakeha New Zealander I'd love to know what you think. Or even if you've never heard the word Pakeha before.
For those of you who have not been following the debate (Tze Ming Mok and Russell Brown of Public Address have both posted on the topic over the last few days: what do Caucasian New Zealanders, who are born here, put as their ethnicity on their census form? The option given on the census form is “New Zealand European”, but historically a reasonably significant percentage have ticked “other” and put either Pakeha- the Maori word for white person, derived from an older word for pale-skinned fairies in Maori mythology- or “New Zealander.” The recent debate has been sparked by an email forward urging white New Zealanders to put down simply “New Zealander” as their ethnicity.
Much more learned people than I have discussed why “New Zealander” is not, in fact, appropriate as a description of ethnicity; it’s a description of nationality, and a nationality that is shared by many different ethnicities. I don’t feel I’m qualified to discuss that much further, having never studied ethnicity and culture (To my eternal shame, I haven’t even read Michael King’s Being Pakeha, which is pretty much the seminal text on ethnicity for liberal, educated white New Zealanders.) But reading Tze Ming’s latest I came across something that I did feel I could explore a bit further, although likely in a not particularly original fashion.
“The basically white 'Just a New Zealander' people who wrote in to claim their 'just New Zealandness' settled into a few groups.
a) The Pakeha who didn't like being called Pakeha, because it's a Maori word, but had an obviously Pakeha identity in the Michael King sense - in that they were of European extraction, and their primary personal and historical affiliation is to New Zealand. For my opinion on that, see introductory sarcasm above.
b) The Pakeha who didn't really mind describing themselves as Pakeha, but didn't seem to be very clear on the difference between an ethnic identity and a national identity or national 'culture', and so didn't see what was inaccurate or misleading about writing in 'New Zealander'.
c) The people who don't like to be called 'New Zealand European' because the British Isles are not in Europe. There weren't too many of these, but I mean, really. Come on. That's about as good as the 'Chinese is an English word' argument.”
-Tze Ming Mok, March 7, in “Yellow Peril”
Now, obviously groups A and C I don’t have much to say about. C is patently stupid; A has its origins in a particularly New Zealand form of racism, as part of the Pakeha majority lashing back at what they see as the “superior” treatment of Maori. It can be associated with men who have problems with Affirmative Action because it’s “reverse sexism.” I do have a few thoughts on that but they’re best discussed elsewhere.
Group B, on the other hand, I have sympathy with. It’s certainly the group I identify most with, and it’s the group that has, in my opinion, fueled most of the useful debate about ethnicity and culture from the Pakeha perspective. Now, I intend to write Pakeha on my census form. It is a uniquely New Zealand word describing a uniquely New Zealand group of people: white people who are born here, whose primary cultural identification is with New Zealand and their perceptions of the New Zealand identity. Pakeha people think about the Treaty of Waitangi (even if not in a very subtle way), Pakeha people eat fish and chips, go to school, probably know what the score is on the last rugby match even if they don’t care, blah blah blah. It is the way I identify myself to other New Zealanders and, where possible, to non-Kiwis as well.
But it is a problematic term as it relates to ethnicity, and the difference between ethnicity and national identity. The confusion Tze Ming describes in her readers is a confusion I can identify with. Because the Pakeha culture is the dominant culture in New Zealand, to many Pakeha the New Zealand national identity looks a lot like an ethnicity. It’s not- but if it’s not, where do Pakeha find their ethnicity? Fish and chips and a preoccupation with the Treaty probably aren’t terribly useful, and they certainly aren’t what we think of when we think of “ethnicity.” For most Pakeha, myself included, their awareness of their ethnicity is slim to none. I am aware of the Pakeha culture, but I don’t know if I’d describe it as an ethnicity. What the white New Zealander thinks of when someone says the word “ethnicity” is, yes, Maori, or Chinese. We start thinking of the Lantern Festival, Diwali celebrations at the Town Hall, those awesome Pasifika drummers. What we do not think of is anything that includes ourselves. Ethnicity is defined to us as being something that excludes us. Maybe that leaves all 60% (or whatever, I can’t keep up with the statistics) as one ethnicity- but it’s an ethnicity that we define by our exclusion from other, more exciting, more colourful, more whole, more coherent identities.
Certainly we don’t – in general – identify with Scottish culture, or Irish, English… or perhaps we do. Rephrase that: I don’t. I feel no sense of connection with whatever Scottish or Norwegian relatives I may have. Of course, some people do- and perhaps for them, New Zealand European really is a good identifier. But I believe that in general, and particularly in my generation, Pakeha New Zealanders are estranged from whatever European origins they may have had. Yes, as Tze Ming Mok points out, Pakeha were made out of Europeans. Made in New Zealand, with reference to the culture—Maori culture-- that really makes us different from any other colonial country in the world. (See![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sixth_light’s excellent post here for a brief but interesting discussion of what Pakeha means.)
In conclusion- well, I don’t have a conclusion. I will be ticking “other” and writing Pakeha for my ethnicity when I fill out my census form this evening. I think that “New Zealander” is a description of nationality, not ethnicity, and that those who wish to identify themselves ethnically as New Zealanders are a) confusing national identity with ethnicity and b) potentially hijacking “New Zealander” as an inclusive term, and turning it into an exclusive one- certainly the vast majority of those who will put “New Zealander” down will be Pakeha, one way or another. I also don’t think New Zealand European is appropriate for many Pakeha New Zealanders. However, I think Pakeha confusion will continue until such time as we can truly view ourselves as a separate ethnicity- one separate from European and American culture (I haven’t even touched on the way American culture affects New Zealand culture; do we identify its influences as part of our ethnicity? Or as an outside influence on our own identity, whether one we choose or not?). An ethnicity that is part of the New Zealand national identity; and one that is defined positively, rather than non-Chinese, non-Pasifika, non-Maori, non-European. I don’t know if this is possible in the New Zealand Aotearoa of today.
To finish: The definition of an ethnic group as found in Michael E. Brown's 'Ethnic Conflict and International Security', p 4-5. (With thanks to Tze Ming Mok, from whose journal I lifted this whole.)
First, the group must have a name for itself. This is not trivial; a lack of a name reflects an insufficiently developed collective identity. Second, the people in the group must believe in a common ancestry. Third, the members of the group must share historical memories... Fourth, the group must have a shared culture, generally based on a combination of language, religion, laws, customs, [etc]. Fifth, the group must feel attachment to a specific piece of territory, which it may or may not actually inhabit. Sixth and last, the people in the group have to think of themselves as a group in order to constitute an ethnic community; that is, they must have a sense of their common ethnicity. The group must be self-aware."
We maybe have a name, if we can get everyone to agree. A common ancestry? If we can stretch English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, French, Dalmatian, Norwegian, … to “common”. Shared historical memories? Sure, why not. Shared culture? That’s a difficult one: but yes, there is a mainstream Pakeha culture in New Zealand. Defining it is problematic, and I think we often lack any personal commitment to it as a culture to be maintained (unless we’re, well, the type of people who like to talk about how in a few years we’ll all be speaking Chinese and eating with chopsticks and OMG LIKE NO WAY EVIL AZNS TAKING OVER THE COUNTRY.) We don’t celebrate it- but is that because we’re the dominant culture who frankly doesn’t need celebrating? Is it also because we can’t think of anything to celebrate? The one thing we positively have is a specific piece of territory. But self-awareness… that’s the last and the hardest. If we had it, would we still be talking about it? I don’t really know. You tell me!
Damn. Why is it so much easier to navel-gaze about my own ethnicity than it is to, you know, actually write real essays? 1500 words in forty minutes, man, If I could do all my assignments like this… I could completely turn this into an essay, people.
For those of you who have not been following the debate (Tze Ming Mok and Russell Brown of Public Address have both posted on the topic over the last few days: what do Caucasian New Zealanders, who are born here, put as their ethnicity on their census form? The option given on the census form is “New Zealand European”, but historically a reasonably significant percentage have ticked “other” and put either Pakeha- the Maori word for white person, derived from an older word for pale-skinned fairies in Maori mythology- or “New Zealander.” The recent debate has been sparked by an email forward urging white New Zealanders to put down simply “New Zealander” as their ethnicity.
Much more learned people than I have discussed why “New Zealander” is not, in fact, appropriate as a description of ethnicity; it’s a description of nationality, and a nationality that is shared by many different ethnicities. I don’t feel I’m qualified to discuss that much further, having never studied ethnicity and culture (To my eternal shame, I haven’t even read Michael King’s Being Pakeha, which is pretty much the seminal text on ethnicity for liberal, educated white New Zealanders.) But reading Tze Ming’s latest I came across something that I did feel I could explore a bit further, although likely in a not particularly original fashion.
“The basically white 'Just a New Zealander' people who wrote in to claim their 'just New Zealandness' settled into a few groups.
a) The Pakeha who didn't like being called Pakeha, because it's a Maori word, but had an obviously Pakeha identity in the Michael King sense - in that they were of European extraction, and their primary personal and historical affiliation is to New Zealand. For my opinion on that, see introductory sarcasm above.
b) The Pakeha who didn't really mind describing themselves as Pakeha, but didn't seem to be very clear on the difference between an ethnic identity and a national identity or national 'culture', and so didn't see what was inaccurate or misleading about writing in 'New Zealander'.
c) The people who don't like to be called 'New Zealand European' because the British Isles are not in Europe. There weren't too many of these, but I mean, really. Come on. That's about as good as the 'Chinese is an English word' argument.”
-Tze Ming Mok, March 7, in “Yellow Peril”
Now, obviously groups A and C I don’t have much to say about. C is patently stupid; A has its origins in a particularly New Zealand form of racism, as part of the Pakeha majority lashing back at what they see as the “superior” treatment of Maori. It can be associated with men who have problems with Affirmative Action because it’s “reverse sexism.” I do have a few thoughts on that but they’re best discussed elsewhere.
Group B, on the other hand, I have sympathy with. It’s certainly the group I identify most with, and it’s the group that has, in my opinion, fueled most of the useful debate about ethnicity and culture from the Pakeha perspective. Now, I intend to write Pakeha on my census form. It is a uniquely New Zealand word describing a uniquely New Zealand group of people: white people who are born here, whose primary cultural identification is with New Zealand and their perceptions of the New Zealand identity. Pakeha people think about the Treaty of Waitangi (even if not in a very subtle way), Pakeha people eat fish and chips, go to school, probably know what the score is on the last rugby match even if they don’t care, blah blah blah. It is the way I identify myself to other New Zealanders and, where possible, to non-Kiwis as well.
But it is a problematic term as it relates to ethnicity, and the difference between ethnicity and national identity. The confusion Tze Ming describes in her readers is a confusion I can identify with. Because the Pakeha culture is the dominant culture in New Zealand, to many Pakeha the New Zealand national identity looks a lot like an ethnicity. It’s not- but if it’s not, where do Pakeha find their ethnicity? Fish and chips and a preoccupation with the Treaty probably aren’t terribly useful, and they certainly aren’t what we think of when we think of “ethnicity.” For most Pakeha, myself included, their awareness of their ethnicity is slim to none. I am aware of the Pakeha culture, but I don’t know if I’d describe it as an ethnicity. What the white New Zealander thinks of when someone says the word “ethnicity” is, yes, Maori, or Chinese. We start thinking of the Lantern Festival, Diwali celebrations at the Town Hall, those awesome Pasifika drummers. What we do not think of is anything that includes ourselves. Ethnicity is defined to us as being something that excludes us. Maybe that leaves all 60% (or whatever, I can’t keep up with the statistics) as one ethnicity- but it’s an ethnicity that we define by our exclusion from other, more exciting, more colourful, more whole, more coherent identities.
Certainly we don’t – in general – identify with Scottish culture, or Irish, English… or perhaps we do. Rephrase that: I don’t. I feel no sense of connection with whatever Scottish or Norwegian relatives I may have. Of course, some people do- and perhaps for them, New Zealand European really is a good identifier. But I believe that in general, and particularly in my generation, Pakeha New Zealanders are estranged from whatever European origins they may have had. Yes, as Tze Ming Mok points out, Pakeha were made out of Europeans. Made in New Zealand, with reference to the culture—Maori culture-- that really makes us different from any other colonial country in the world. (See
sixth_light’s excellent post here for a brief but interesting discussion of what Pakeha means.) In conclusion- well, I don’t have a conclusion. I will be ticking “other” and writing Pakeha for my ethnicity when I fill out my census form this evening. I think that “New Zealander” is a description of nationality, not ethnicity, and that those who wish to identify themselves ethnically as New Zealanders are a) confusing national identity with ethnicity and b) potentially hijacking “New Zealander” as an inclusive term, and turning it into an exclusive one- certainly the vast majority of those who will put “New Zealander” down will be Pakeha, one way or another. I also don’t think New Zealand European is appropriate for many Pakeha New Zealanders. However, I think Pakeha confusion will continue until such time as we can truly view ourselves as a separate ethnicity- one separate from European and American culture (I haven’t even touched on the way American culture affects New Zealand culture; do we identify its influences as part of our ethnicity? Or as an outside influence on our own identity, whether one we choose or not?). An ethnicity that is part of the New Zealand national identity; and one that is defined positively, rather than non-Chinese, non-Pasifika, non-Maori, non-European. I don’t know if this is possible in the New Zealand Aotearoa of today.
To finish: The definition of an ethnic group as found in Michael E. Brown's 'Ethnic Conflict and International Security', p 4-5. (With thanks to Tze Ming Mok, from whose journal I lifted this whole.)
First, the group must have a name for itself. This is not trivial; a lack of a name reflects an insufficiently developed collective identity. Second, the people in the group must believe in a common ancestry. Third, the members of the group must share historical memories... Fourth, the group must have a shared culture, generally based on a combination of language, religion, laws, customs, [etc]. Fifth, the group must feel attachment to a specific piece of territory, which it may or may not actually inhabit. Sixth and last, the people in the group have to think of themselves as a group in order to constitute an ethnic community; that is, they must have a sense of their common ethnicity. The group must be self-aware."
We maybe have a name, if we can get everyone to agree. A common ancestry? If we can stretch English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, French, Dalmatian, Norwegian, … to “common”. Shared historical memories? Sure, why not. Shared culture? That’s a difficult one: but yes, there is a mainstream Pakeha culture in New Zealand. Defining it is problematic, and I think we often lack any personal commitment to it as a culture to be maintained (unless we’re, well, the type of people who like to talk about how in a few years we’ll all be speaking Chinese and eating with chopsticks and OMG LIKE NO WAY EVIL AZNS TAKING OVER THE COUNTRY.) We don’t celebrate it- but is that because we’re the dominant culture who frankly doesn’t need celebrating? Is it also because we can’t think of anything to celebrate? The one thing we positively have is a specific piece of territory. But self-awareness… that’s the last and the hardest. If we had it, would we still be talking about it? I don’t really know. You tell me!
Damn. Why is it so much easier to navel-gaze about my own ethnicity than it is to, you know, actually write real essays? 1500 words in forty minutes, man, If I could do all my assignments like this… I could completely turn this into an essay, people.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 03:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 03:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 07:31 am (UTC)Quite a bit less than 50% I'd say.
For what it's worth, I'm ticking Maori and New Zealand European.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 03:13 am (UTC)So if we're ALL immigrants, why can't we just put what race we are? not european or white or pakeha, but going to back to scientific racial terms like plain old caucasian.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 03:41 am (UTC)Which is a bit of an oxymoron.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 04:14 am (UTC)1. Scientifically, there is very little distinction- I mean genetically the difference between a pakeha and a maori is absolutely miniscule, smaller than the difference between any two pakeha. Any distinction made between races is therefore scientifically arbitrary- which means it's more important what we think and feel than what science says.
2. There's a difference between ethnicity and race- I wouldn't say my ethnicity was the same as the ethnicity of a Norwegian, but I'm about 50% norwegian by blood, although I'm a third-gen new zealander.
3. The census isn't really about immigrant statistics- as I understand it the reason census asks this question is ti find out what we identify with ethnically. While I might describe myself as Caucasian, I don't really identify mysefl with Caucasians as a group.
Just my two cents. :)
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 05:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 03:15 am (UTC)a) Had no idea this was going on.
b) Think that the whole thing is incredibly fascinating, because it's quite unlike anything I'm likely to experience on such a large scale (there is, of course, the usual mangled heritage stuff that is particular to Maine itself--as in, I'm very pale, but also have quite a lot of Native American and Italian in me, so am I white? Probably, but definitely not in a really clear-cut sense).
Plus, Pakeha is just a cool word, and I think it's pretty damn spiffing that you're honoring the native culture of NZ by using a Maori word.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 04:45 am (UTC)I find it really fascinating that the USA and New Zealand, although both colonial nations, have such very different racial problems- or if not problems, issues, or points of discussion, or whatnot. One of the two really big racial conflicts in New Zealand would be Pakeha/Maori, where the Pakeha culture is the mainstream, dominant culture adversely affecting the Maori culture- which is also the culture which was "here first" (although they too are immigrants, it was a lot longer ago than Pakeha and when the Pakeha got here we, you know, wandered around taking over and stuffs. The really interesting thing about Maori/pakeha conflict though is that even way back then, the Maori were very vpcal and, well, tough. We had the Land Wars, which were massive, and are generall characterised as being very Maori vs Pakeha. But Maori fought on both sides, and not the way I belive native americans did- some Maori iwi basically used the Pakeha land wars as an excuse to beat up iwi they didn't like. I mean, that's a gross oversimplication, but there is that element to it. The Maori culture has absolutely been victimized by the dominant Pakeha culture, but where they're different from the Aboriginals in Australia, for example, or the Native Americans (from what I know. I actually know nothing about the Native Americans so feel free to correct me/bitchslap me) is that, although there was some downtime through the late 18th and early 19th century, Maori have a very strong and active voice and they're really tough, they don't take crap from anyone- it's not that we're honouring the native culture of NZ by using a Maori word, it's just that that is the word that we use. Some people object to that but amazingly few- the extent to which Maori culture has affected New Zealand culture overall is just huge, even though the mainstream pakeha majority might not realise it.
Where was I? Oh, yeah. So where, for example, the Aboriginal tribes have been absolutely marginalised by White Australia- and "white" really is the right word; we use Pakeha because it describes white New Zealanders, but white australians are just White Australians-- and live mostly on reservations, are very poor, in New Zealand while yes the poverty rates are higher among Maori, we also have four Maori seats and several Maori MPs, maori culture is hugely important, we do the haka, we talk about iwi and whanau and the haka and turangawaewae and tino rangatiratanga (tribe, family, a war dance- hahah it's so funny translating haka-- the people of the land, and sovreignty/self governance, respectively) we work hard to meet our obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, which is supposed to preserve Maori land rights and things. So there's a conflict there, yes, but what we have a lot of is Pakeha guilt- associated with middle class guilt! and also a real sense of confusion in the Pakeha majority because we are the dominant culture but we don't really seem to have our own culture. We are uncertain about our ethnic identity, which is where all this census wankery comes in.
Some people object to NZ Euro because we're not European, some object to Pakeha because they don't like using the Maori word- I really feel these people are a minority though- some don't like either for daft reasons... *shakes head*
(continued next comment- oh god why can't I shut up?)
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 04:45 am (UTC)oh my god, I am so incoherent, I was supposed to be comparing this to America. Oh right, well, what we have is a colonial vs colonised conflict here, where the colonised are, while still at a disadvantage, at least somewhat vocal. While the Native American/White conflict is similar, from what I hear the Native American voice is a lot more marginalised than the Maori culture. Whereas in the USA I believe most racial conflict is white/black? OR that's the impression we get here anyway- where it's less a problem of culture and ethnicity than of race, and it's colonial/colonial plus a whole bunch of angst about slavery. While black people/African Americans/gosh darn it I don't know the good term right now DO shave a very strong voice, the conflict seems to be running on totally different grounds to the New Zealand one- and it's different again to the other racial problem in New Zealand right now, which is Everyone/Non-White immigrants. And that's a WHOLE 'nother story.
I think the difference ultimately is that New Zealand Pakeha are still struggling with their colonial/postcolonial identity, whereas White Americans are mostly over that- possibly since they've had more time to get used to it. ;) But because of our colonial identity there is a lot of, you know, ethnic angst for us, or something.
Man, I'm so damned confused. I hope some of that made sense!
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 03:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 04:52 am (UTC)I totally agree that English and Pakeha are two different things, BTW.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 04:32 am (UTC)Personally I'll be putting Pakeha.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 05:06 am (UTC)Yeah, me too.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 04:37 am (UTC)So, the point of this little rant is (assuming there is a point), that dividing up people on the basis of their skin colour is offensive to me. Sure, there are some people who like to put themselves down as "Maori" and "New Zealand European" and "Pakeha", but I believe there ought to be an option for those who dislike labels of that sort to choose "New Zealander", considering that we are, after all, of that ethnicity. Ethnicity. Or do you think we are all that dissimilar?
But, other than that, I think this is a very well-thought out essay, and you ought to get full marks. :) You are free to write "pakeha" on your census, and I'm free to write "new zealander" on mine, and therefore it is, in the end, up to the individual.
End of multiple parentheses.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 05:06 am (UTC)The thing about ethnicity- and why I don't feel New Zealander is an ethnicity, or not for me, anyway- is that because New Zealander is a definition of citizenship, it encompasses all New Zealanders. And all New Zealanders simply are not of the same ethnicity. Yes, as the Pakeha mainstream, our ethnicity may not be so distinct from mainstream New Zealand culture (although I think in some ways it is.) But Chinese and Maori and Indian etc etc etc New Zealanders do see themselves as having an ethnic identity separate from their national identity/citizenship. Simply saying that "we're all the same underneath" may be true but, to anyone who identifies themselves as Chinese or Maori or Indian or... is actually kind of offensive. And saying that New Zealander is an ethnicity really is saying that, I think. *scratches head* I don't know how coherent I'm being- I really recommend that you read Yellow Peril and Hard News and maybe they'll explain it better than I do. :P
Basically, I guess I really do think we are all different, and the more we try to deny our differences, the more marginalised ethnic minorities become. Humanity can and does idenfity with both nationality and ethnicity and the two are not always the same. Because we do have different customs from our respective heritages, as you say; and that's what the census is really trying to find out, how many people follow which customs from which heritages.
:D thanks for your thoughts!
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 05:47 am (UTC)Besides, it's not really any more appropriate. It's like calling yourself one of the Fey. And I'm up for that.
Calling myself a New Zealander's good, but also a bit... deceptive, in a way. It's no better than NZ European, really.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 09:03 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 06:14 am (UTC)The problem I have with the question is:
The guide says:: ethnicity is:
"People who have some or all of the following:
- a shared culture, such as traditions or way of doing thing, customs, beliefs or language
- a common ancestry or history
- a similar geographic, tribal or clan origin.
Now seriously, as born and raised Kiwi, don't you think I have a 'shared culture, traditions or way of doing things" as other NZr's - Maori, chinese or other?
But on the other hand, I pretty much agree with what you have written - there IS a separate question for where you were born. Interestingly, there isn't a question for your citizenship.
Why don't they just give up, have a question for citizenship, and then just change the ethnicity to read caucasian or something?
I wonder how many people who are objecting to the CENSUS recording them as NZ european quite happily tick NZ European on other forms. When I used to work in data entry at university enrolments (victoria) I don't remember ANYONE ticking other and writing New Zealander.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 09:01 am (UTC)Actually, there are citizenship questions- or rather, they ask where you were born, which is your citizenship, or close enough. IIRC. :P It is if you're born in New Zealand, anyway.
Reduced to cynicism
Date: 2006-03-07 06:16 am (UTC)(Similar made-up ethnicities could probably be made for Computer Programmers, Elvis Fans, Goths and Role-players, among others.)
I'll admit to having pulled a fast one with "intellectual ancestry", but by the rest of the criteria, "Analytic Philosopher", seems like a more respectable ethnic identity than, "Pakeha", despite our intuitions to the contrary. And the name change to "New Zealander" doesn't seem to do us any favours in making the identity more robust.
The conclusion here is what you knew already: ethnicity is a made-up notion. If you don't happen to identify as any particular ethnicity, just ask yourself if a self-identifying "member" of any ethnic groups would say that you were one of them. Tick the boxes that apply.
I'll probably tick "New Zealand European" and "Other" (Pakeha). They seem about as different as English and Scottish, and both would claim me.
Re: Reduced to cynicism
Date: 2006-03-07 08:27 am (UTC)Thanks for the fb!
no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 06:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 07:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 10:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-08 06:54 am (UTC)On another note, I wouldn't use the term Pakeha. It seems a little odd to have to borrow a phrase from the other obvious group inhabiting the same space. There's no emotion in that decision, or racism for that matter, just a view that to borrow a term for something so seemingly inherent seems a little fraudulent. My nationality? New Zealander. My Ethnicity? Pick-'n-mix-whiteboy-child-of-the-world
My two cents.
Date: 2006-03-08 10:22 pm (UTC)I was born in NZ, raised in NZ, my community is NZ. I identify with others who have been in NZ all their lives and therefore have put "New Zealander" on my form. It's what I personally relate to.
Re: My two cents.
Date: 2006-03-09 06:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-09 01:41 am (UTC)People also need to remember that this information is being gathered for a reason, one of which is future planning for healthcare, because some ethinicities are more prone to diseases/illnesses than others.
In Jest
Date: 2006-03-09 06:22 am (UTC)All Mixed Up
Date: 2006-03-09 07:42 am (UTC)I'm not aware that I was part of the dominant culture, I am so dominant I work 3 jobs to make ends meet - frankly I don't have time to celebrate, I can, however, think of things to celebrate.
I would say the dominant culture in this country is the Merovivingian Mix of Political and Business interest, the well played out conspiracy against the working people - let us celebrate the 40 hour week, the Working for Families package where the taxes are used to subsidise low wages. The taxpayer investment in Air New Zealand, the airline we had to save, which then turns around and shafts it staff.
No "one" positively has the territory - what does that mean - when the mountains crumble and fall into the sea "we" dive in after "it"- we are basically stewards of the land/planet - share the world, like wow. NZ does not have the ability to defend itself, form it self. On election night the nation was powerless to deal with the threat from the “geezer” who, in a small plane, buzzed the Sky Tower. What could the nations air force do if the situation turned for the worse - send some up in a cargo plane towing a sign asking the “geezer” to stop and come down.
How do you measure the lack of national self-awareness?
Really, what a laugh. Keep taking drugs and watching reality TV. By the way two people I work with do live in their vehicles, they say it is OK.
hmmmmmmmmm
Date: 2012-11-26 07:54 pm (UTC)15,000 people are a significant percentage ? (the number of people who added Pakeha to the 2009 census)
That's not even 1% of the population of New Zealand
But a nice emotive smoke cloud
Re: hmmmmmmmmm
Date: 2012-11-26 07:59 pm (UTC)Re: hmmmmmmmmm
From:Re: hmmmmmmmmm
From:Re: hmmmmmmmmm
From:Re: hmmmmmmmmm
From:Re: hmmmmmmmmm
From:Re: hmmmmmmmmm
From: