beautiful monsters

"There’s always that word, just. I don’t want just a picture. I want markings that represent my ancestry. I want a visible sign of my commitment to learning te reo, learning about tikanga Maori, and supporting tino rangatiratanga."

I can speak French, learn the poetry, bone up on the history, regardless of how much I might appreciate that culture, eat bagels or french fromage that does not give me a French heritage. To pretend to something I am not, is disrespectful to that people and would make inauthentic/fake - a wannabe. Regardless of how much you bone up on Maori culture that doesn't give you Maori hertiage or any right whatsoever to our culture. If you want markings that represent your heritage - then you need to invesitgate *your* own heritage, chances are if you did you wouldn't hunger after something that is _not_ a part of you. No matter how deeply you may appreciate another culture, it is not part of who you are.

I appreciate for a Pakeha that is hard thing to accept. Particularly since white entitlement mentality is such a large part of Pakeha culture, i.e the expectation that you are entitled to whatever you want from those who are 'other' to you.

If you want some visible sign of learning the reo, then get a certificate, frame it and put it on the wall. For a Maori learning te reo is amongst many things recovery and a triumph of winning back what was forcibly (sp) discouraged or originally banned.

" There are certain changes I want to make in my life before I go ahead with the tattooing. I want getting a tattoo to be part of a spiritual journey. I want karakia to be said. And I want the person who carves the designs to have knowledge of tikanga Maori. Why? Because Maori culture has always been a part of my life, and it has shaped who I am, as a person."

Well, as it was commented - kirituhi body art was created for Pakeha - so that they can get pretty skin art and put their individual interpretations on it. But since you are not Maori no matter how it has influenced you - you are excluded from the tikanga Maori traditions as it relates to Moko. Wanting to change another's culture to suit your Pakeha desires - is just the same ol, same ol, isn't it? A white person wanting to change an indigenous culture to suit your own personal values or desires.

"I think I’m resigned to the fact that someone is always going to be offended by what I do. There are some people who question the right of Pakeha to speak te reo, to practise kapa haka, to recite traditional karakia... all of which I do. But of course, if I don’t learn, I’m accused for my ignorance. Can’t win."

You don't have a _right_ of anykind to Maori culture. You don't have the right that belongs only to those of Maori or related Polynesian heritage. You have the privilege to learn te reo and certainly there would many that would encourage that you do learn it. For me, I encourage it because the design of the language offers a different insight and way of approaching the world. I think there is much that is lacking in the pakeha worldviews and perspectives that is detrimental to the human condition simply by the type of perspectives the language and the culture shapes.

If you are married to a Maori, or adopted into a Maori family - I don't see anything wrong with that either. For at the heart of 'Maori' culture is family. However you involving yourself in Maori spirituality - absolutely not. It's not coming from who you actually are. If there is to be karakia spoken let it be spoken by Maori. I would not see whites take ownership of that which maintains our soul.

"I’ve come to the conclusion that I need to do what feels right in my heart. And that means learning as much as I can.

I believe these treasures are beautiful and need to be passed on, and kept alive. "

The keepers of the Maori heritage - are Maori. Period. Get that really clear. Preserve your own histories and heritage. You may like myself do what you can to help other's preserve their heritage in various ways. However in doing so to in anyway think that this gives you some entitlement, or right is simply arrogance. Maori don't need your help in preserving our culture, obviously.

Seriously, from where I stand the one of the greatest lacks coming from the Pakeha/white/western communities in the world - is those who don't know who they are. And that only comes from a real connection to your personal family lineage, histories and connections (regardless from where your peoples are scattered). People don't become conscious of how real and how deep those connections are until they look towards their own blood lines. Until you understand your heritage you never get our culture.

Cheers

Posted by: Ckarena at January 10, 2004 03:52 PM

Thanks for your comments. Lots of very worthwhile things to think about.

I am not pretending to be someone I am not. I am not Maori, I am Pakeha. But I still believe that Maori culture is part of my heritage. From when I was a baby, the songs, the stories and the language have been part of my life. In fact, from before I was a baby. I am investigating the heritage of my ancestors, and yes, I do feel an affinity with the music, stories, and language of the Celts. But that is only a part of who I am. If I only hold onto that culture, I feel incomplete. Part of me is missing.

Ok, so learning te reo Maori, and tikanga Maori is not my right or entitlement. It is an immense privilege for which I am extremely grateful and honoured. When I talked about people questioning my right to do these things, I wasn’t trying to say that I should automatically be entitled… I was just trying to convey the confusion of some people saying, “hey, it’s great that you’re doing these things,” and others saying “you should be doing these things, it’s your responsibility,” and then others saying “you shouldn’t, you have no right.” Does that make sense? There’s a difference between saying, “it’s not your right to learn, it’s a privilege which you might be given,” and saying “you have no right to learn, ever, under any circumstances, and nothing you do will ever give you that right.” Personally I don’t think these things are zero sum. I don’t think that if I am given these treasures, then there is less to go around for other people. I think the more they are given, the more they grow and live. And you’re right, it is not my place to decide how to care for these things, how to keep them alive. You’re also right that I don’t need to help Maori to do this. But I am privileged to have been given the opportunity to learn, and to be able to celebrate these taonga, alongside others, Maori and Pakeha.

I most certainly don’t want to change traditions relating to Moko to suit myself. I guess what I want to do is explore whether the understanding of Kirituhi can be expanded to acknowledge that this can have spiritual significance, and deep symbolism, rather than being “just a picture.”

I think that the key word in my original post was “want.” I was being completely honest about my desires. But just because I want something doesn’t mean I will be able to have it, or that I should. I’m just putting my thoughts out there as I work through these things.

I think you are absolutely right that there is much that is lacking in Pakeha worldviews and perspectives. I think that is why, even as a child, I was drawn to Maori culture; because it fitted better with what, in my heart, I felt was right and true.

And yes, I agree with you that many in Pakeha communities don’t know who they are. I feel very lucky that I was brought up with an awareness of my family history, and that I have always been able to take part in Celtic culture. But, as I said before, although this is an incredibly important part of who I am, it is only part, it is not the whole picture.

I would never try to claim “ownership” of Maori spirituality. Again, this learning is an immense privilege that I have been given. I have chosen to accept this gift. And people have said conflicting things about this. At times like this I don’t know what to do but to think long and hard, and then follow the path that I believe in my heart to be right.

Posted by: Fi at January 11, 2004 03:17 AM

Still mulling over your words about spirituality. I think it would be really hard (if not impossible) to learn te reo without learning about Maori spirituality. The two aspects seem so integrated and interdependent.

Posted by: Fi at January 11, 2004 03:31 AM

Kia ora,

" But I still believe that Maori culture is part of my heritage."
When I hear a statement like that, I have to say it's kinda offensive. I know in what context you say that, but no part of being Maori, or Maori ways is part of your heritage. You inherited nothing from us. I get " From when I was a baby, the songs, the stories and the language have been part of my life." However I would actively discourage Pakeha from feeling any part of Maori is New Zealand heritage. Mainly because you are only getting a Pakeha slant on a part of Maori culture. You're accessing Maori culture as a Pakeha. That's not the same kind of experience. Maori culture has impacted you - and probably your generation more than any other before it, as it will be for upcoming generations. The last 20 or so years it has made major headway - and with that however I also foresee the same kind of problems that indigenous overseas have experienced when Westerners/Pakeha take an interest or feel that the 'indigenous' culture is part of their culture now.

Again - it's about FAMILY. You are not family. Maori is not a 'style' - although that's a typical western 'thing' to make it so. Let's face it there was no 'Maori' before there was Pakeha - there was just family. But "Maori" in the original context the Young Maori party used it - as that which is based in natural laws and practises are clear 'ma' and 'life embracing/enhancing/ connecting' and easy to the understanding. No, true you can't avoid spirituality with Maori tikanga because spirituality is not seperate thing - the language has a design that is not a part of English.

(Going off on a weird/strange tangent perhaps. I was watching a Buffy episode "Hush" if you're a Buffy fan it was in the fourth season, when Sunnydale had their voices wisped away in their sleep. By 'the Gentlemen' pale skinned, steel teethed victorian gentlemen who glided around the town cutting hearts out of people. Usual Sunnydale stuff. I was watching the commentary by Joss Whedon the director and author. The story he said was about 'communication' about making the point that when you stop speaking that's when the main communicating starts happening. And he made some comments about the English language which reflects some of my frustration with it; in that it's so limiting - it cuts things into 'it is this' and 'not that'. It's disconnected, it's not an integrated whole, it's not concept based it's 'thing' based. For me, it's an alien language and it has a appropriated design suited for a 'thing based' or closed-system, hiearchiarly dualistic based society that Western culture predominantly is. Anyhoo, I appreciated the chap saying that. And it reinforces a comment made by Indigneous around the world - if you want to get what Westerners mean, Never listen to the words they speak read their body/voice tone instead.)

" When I talked about people questioning my right to do these things, I wasn’t trying to say that I should automatically be entitled… I was just trying to convey the confusion of some people saying, “hey, it’s great that you’re doing these things,” and others saying “you should be doing these things, it’s your responsibility,” and then others saying “you shouldn’t, you have no right.” Does that make sense? "

I don't know the context of your conversations. I would agree however with every statement that was made above. I don't see why contradictions - negate the reality of the intent or truth of them all. Life doesn't fit neatly into 'this' OR 'that' catorgories. Or into 'this' therefore it can't be it's opposite at the same time. Those statements can all be true at the same time, or none true at the same time, or one or the other taking turns, depending on the circumstance or situation. (You're perspecitve or comment is in essence totally/typical "Pakeha" thing to say)

So, this is me expanding on each statement in turn. I would say you have no 'right' whatsover to anything that is Maori. You're not family. And lets face it your history and inheritance is that of the coloniser. It's a bit of cheek to claim some connection to that, which your people did what they could to eradicate, put down, demean and destroy. Regardless of who you are as an individual or weren't there, That - is your heritage. Hence for many why they feel an immediate anger if you make claim to something that is here today, for you to enjoy, not through any actions of your own, or your people in the main, but despite them, here because of fights hard fought and won. It's like claiming a piece of the cake, when you didn't participate in the baking and kept on bashing the cook while he was working. And for some Maori if they can't access te reo teaching, which many can't. It's like not getting a piece of the cake whilst the cook-basher goes before them.

*hey, it’s great that you’re doing these things* Ae, to that, as I say I don't know the context of your conversation. Personally I think it's a good thing you are learning Maori language - simply because it offers ways of looking at the world - that is profoundly SANE and because for many Maori it was a responsiblity to make people 'tangata whenua' of the tauiwi.

Of sanity, I see a lot of evil done in the world mainly because of 'perception', the control of perception, the limiting of perception to skew the truth of events and situations. There is a strong 'bad' inherent in Pakeha culture (which is why one of the meanings of Pakeha - is without breath/connection) to limit perception. For example there is a Pakeha tendency to reference 'one' perspective as if there is 'one perspective' in pretty much all their activities. It's a mindset that inherently racist, sexist, whatever-ist _by design_. It's non fluid and is a perspective that came out of a culture that was hierachial, closed-system orientated, dualistic (in the sense of duals as opposites one being superior/dominant and versus it's 'inferior'/lesser other half). Another topic if you want to know what I'm talking about.

It's also a good thing, in that it gives you a real opportunity to talk and communicate and 'get' what others are saying. That's a good thing. So that you can get connected to the people and a 'world' that is different from the ones you came from. eg the tendency for whites when they colonise to make their new homeland another 'england' and hence all the damage that, that brings. Or to not wish to make family with the people already there. Family is always the connector between the new peoples and the old.

It's also can and will be a bad thing - if you think the learning of our language - and ways (by the way WHICH Maori ways; Puhi, Toa, Waitaha, ??? or is there some kind of 'pan-maori' culture now?) ..cont. if you think that gives you some say, right or standing to speak for or have a voice in a Maori setting. No. I notice how when Maori ways become mainstream-ish the State steps in and starts pakeharizing it eg the Kohanga Reos. Maori things taught in Pakeha systems - takes the 'Maori' (ma--ori = "that which is based on nature-based principles is ma 'clear' to the undertanding and life connecting/enhancing') out of the whole process.

*“you should be doing these things, it’s your responsibility,” I agree with that also. If your people have done some harm or damage to another it matters not if you individually had nothing to do with it. We are not islands - you have a great deal of privilege that you inherit by virtue of being white. A lot which is built on a whakapapa of injustice. It is your responsibilty to fix the damage done - because things don't change until they change. Things from the past generations continue onto present generations if the present generation don't act differently to those preceding it. Without that action, injustice continues with the new generation. (eg Whites are always saying the taking of the lands of other peoples is in the past get over it, it's stopped. Which is crap, look at US warring with over 245 countries in the last 150 years -with the support of the colonizing countries. Nope, little change at all.)

In Maori cultures you will see that practise when we screwed up or did wrong in many cultural practises and teachings, e.g why you got Parihaka - for example, you were not aware that Te Whiti was a son I think of a Chief who sailed over to the Chathams and did damage to the people there? Why the white feather? Or what about the proverb 'gone like the Moa?" the practises of setting aside reservations and periods where forest was left fallow - and sayings to remind the present geneartion to act collectively to if not fix, not repeat the faults of the past. Not to mention the practise to teach the tauiwi how to become Tangata Whenua - people of the land.

"There’s a difference between saying, “it’s not your right to learn, it’s a privilege which you might be given,” and saying “you have no right to learn, ever, under any circumstances, and nothing you do will ever give you that right.”

Ae, on both above statements.

"Personally I don’t think these things are zero sum. I don’t think that if I am given these treasures, then there is less to go around for other people. I think the more they are given, the more they grow and live."

Unfortunately, history and present tells us from looking at New Zealand or any other country, that when White people take an interest in indigenous cultures there use of them causes them to be changed. For example there was a time people were discussing Te Reo in all the schools which Patu Hohepa of the Maori language commission was against - why? Because the people in the main teaching "Maori' would be Pakeha. There are I think only really 70 or so people really equipped to teach te reo well, and even they need to be trained. I was talking about this to him a couple of years back discussing teaching them via virtual classrooms. If Pakeha taught te Reo, it would have a 'look' - but the guts, perspectives, and references would be pakeha-fied. How can they not be? - Pakeha by design don't in any shape and form have to their thinking models that fit with Maori perspectives. So yes, there is a great potential for 'whiting' out the culture, because unfortunately Pakeha outnumber Maori. And Maori are still a recovering people.

Othere examples of that ---as "Maori' takes on a flavour of the week to the rest of the world. We note that things that were designated "maori' become labelled "New Zealand" when they become appreciated by whites overseas, ie I thought that when last year they started calling the Maori Haka, the New Zealand or Kiwi haka. It is a current tendency that when Maori are successful they get called "new zealander" when we are in the wrong we are "maori". When something becomes appreciated by whites of other nations - that 'maori' thing gets re-labelled as "New Zealand' culture which is synomynous (sp) with Pakeha/White. No, to that. This indicates no appreciation of Maori, just a thieve mentality of taking credit where it is not your due. Another example, I was looking at that website you have on the Parihaka project. I think from memory they wanted to make it a "New Zealand" celebration. Well, it's not is it? It is not about Maori and Pakeha collaborating together to show how a small people can win against the many. Gandhi was directly influenced by that event. And from him Martin Luther King was influenced. That type of thinking, how you can be small and defeat the mighty is inherently Maori - it was how many wars were won, and how peace also was won. It is a story of a small people who defied a colonizing genociding, oath breaking culture by following a concept of 'fighting peace' and understanding of human nature, that was never part of that people's culture. And still isn't understood widely today. It is not something celebrated by Pakeha; I noticed earlier this year when the grandson of Gandhi or MLK (can't remember which) and the member of MLK organisation came to give homage/respect to Parihaka - it scarcely got mention in Pakeha media. Why? Because it is not a "New Zealand" thing. It's distinctly Maori. That website is christian, and I can understand why they would like to appropriate that day for all New Zealanders - but Christianity hasn't got the reputation of making peace, only talking about it.

If you meet with anger, to your celebration of Maori culture - it's because in the bank of human relations between Maori and Pakeha - Pakeha are in debit - too many withdrawals taken out - of theft, esteem-destroying practises, lies, broken oaths etc. I believe as more deposits are put into the collective 'bank' of good will - that anger will dissipate. But it aint there for many. Although Pakeha on an individual basis as family or just decent folk get recognised I think for their own deposits, regardless.

"I most certainly don’t want to change traditions relating to Moko to suit myself. I guess what I want to do is explore whether the understanding of Kirituhi can be expanded to acknowledge that this can have spiritual significance, and deep symbolism, rather than being “just a picture.”

As I said Kirituhi was given - (literally it came about because some of the foremost ta moko experts went to Germany and were shocked at the literally thousands of no-hopers who were copying Goldie pictures and what have you on their face)...anyhoo, was given so that Pakeha would have something that fitted their cultural ways. Seriously, get real. If a thing is authentic - doesn't it have meaning?

I read about a woman who raped as a child, and lost her breast to cancer, tattooed a dragon I think - over that image. To reclaim herself to herself. That's got meaning surely? Or a woman who lost her lover and put a symbol of him on her thigh. It all has individual meaning. But Pakeha don't have that kind of culture - or a history or heritage like ours.

i,e moko comes out of a process that is collective and family based that your heritage has nothing to do with. Pakeha culture in many ways is very individualistic - and 'self-contained' it's was the many meanings of 'pakeha' referenced by the old prophecies.
If you want to give your Kirituhi meaning, it is I guess dependent on your personal authenticity. Since you are not Maori will never have authenticity based in Maori culture. To be authentic you are true to yourself, isn't that sufficent? The 'maori type' design references for many Pakeha their appreciation or 'connection' with Maori culture. But recognises though that the are Pakeha referencing Maori culture - to their personal meanings they have about it. Often for many it's about 'tribal' and all the things that they were taught being 'tribal' about. The meanings can only come out of your own history and life.

"I would never try to claim “ownership” of Maori spirituality. " I was speaking to your desire for Maori prayer or to any way to lead Maori occassion. No, to that. There are too many Maori youth and people regaining or refinding their heritage, my feeling while any of those who are the rightful heir stand, none other stands in place. Even in places where there is 'none' - let the place stand empty and call out.

Cheers

Posted by: ckarena at January 26, 2004 08:11 PM

I was planning to get some traditional maori tattoos done before reading this artical, but it never crossed my mind that I,d be insulting anyone. I apologize and have changed my mind, I am looking into kirituhi instead. Does anyone know of any good books that I might reference to help me stay clear of any maori symbolism to meet my non-maori background and have a similar tattoo.

Posted by: johnny utah at January 31, 2004 01:37 PM

Hi Johnny Utah,

Go to sites like these to get legitimate reference books:

http://www.tamoko.org.nz/hoko/custom.shtml
http://www.tamoko.org.nz/artists/tumoko/faq.shtml

Any queries - you can ask at the Ta Moko Forum here: http://www.aotearoa.maori.nz/viewforum.php?f=6

cheers

Posted by: ckarena at February 1, 2004 04:52 PM

Ok, first of all, appologies for causing offence with the statement about heritage. Actually, I thought heritage had a broader meaning, but actually I was using the word incorrectly. I was trying to convey the fact that Maoritanga has influenced me, from childhood, and help to shape who I am, and also the identity of my ancestors since arriving here.

The reason I identify as “Pakeha” rather than “New Zealander” is because Maoritanga is a part of my life. That, together with the landscape and other aspects of life here, is what sets my identity apart from that of anyone who comes from other countries. It also sets me apart from Maori, of course. But I don’t see how you can imply that it’s wrong to see the culture as part of my own. How can it not be a part? That doesn’t mean I have the right to control Maori culture. But if we define culture as patterns of behaviour, arts, beliefs, institutions etc, then part of my culture is learning Kapa Haka, and appreciation of whakairo, and participating in my Marae, and learning te Reo Maori.

“I don't know the context of your conversations. I would agree however with every statement that was made above. I don't see why contradictions - negate the reality of the intent or truth of them all. Life doesn't fit neatly into 'this' OR 'that' catorgories.”

No, of course not. I totally agree that all of these could be true. But that doesn’t mean that feeling confused is wrong or invalid. There really hasn’t been enough dialogue about Pakeha identity, and I think there is a lot of confusion, I’m sure I’m not alone in sometimes feeling that whatever I do is inevitably wrong.

“There is a strong 'bad' inherent in Pakeha culture”

OK, I find that remark very offensive. For a start, which Pakeha culture? It’s not like we’re all clones is it? Secondly, inherent means permanently and inseparably attached. Yes, I totally agree that there are some bad tendencies in Pakeha culture. But that doesn’t mean that all Pakeha have those tendencies, or that they will be always part of Pakeha culture, or that they are found throughout Pakeha culture. I think that the dualistic perspective is incredibly harmful, but I don’t think that it is inherent in Pakeha culture.

“ (by the way WHICH Maori ways; Puhi, Toa, Waitaha, ??? or is there some kind of 'pan-maori' culture now?)”

A range of course, because my teachers have been from different backgrounds: Kai tahu, Rangitane, Rongomaiwahine, Te Arawa, Taranaki and Te Atiawa.

“ It's also can and will be a bad thing - if you think the learning of our language - and ways... if you think that gives you some say, right or standing to speak for or have a voice in a Maori setting. No.”

I don’t think I have a right to have a say in anything that affects Maori. But I do think I have a right to have a say in matters that affect my own life.

“We are not islands - you have a great deal of privilege that you inherit by virtue of being white. A lot which is built on a whakapapa of injustice. It is your responsibilty to fix the damage done”

Agreed.

“ Another example, I was looking at that website you have on the Parihaka project. I think from memory they wanted to make it a "New Zealand" celebration. Well, it's not is it? It is not about Maori and Pakeha collaborating together to show how a small people can win against the many.”

No, but it is an event that has repercussions for both Maori and Pakeha. I just thought the website was interesting, because I think it would be good if more people understood what happened at Parihaka, and it would have a lot more relevance than Guy Fawkes.

“But Pakeha don't have that kind of culture - or a history or heritage like ours.”

Don’t have what kind? Tattooing? Has been in Europe since the 8th century. Spirituality? Seems to be a worldwide phenomenon, throughout history. The combination of the two? Is important in dozens of cultures.

“I was speaking to your desire for Maori prayer or to any way to lead Maori occassion. No, to that.”

I wasn’t talking about leading Maori occasions, I was talking about saying karakia with a class. I’m confused, again I’m afraid, because you say “Personally I think it's a good thing you are learning Maori language” and then “true you can't avoid spirituality with Maori tikanga because spirituality is not seperate thing” and then you say I shouldn’t say Maori prayer? OK, sorry, but it’s too much for my dualistic white brain. I still feel like whatever I do, it’s going to be wrong.

Posted by: Fi at February 1, 2004 07:37 PM

Regarding kitituhi, ta moko: I believe these treasures are beautiful(thus the imitatations) by those who appreciate how beautiful they look so that is a compliment isnt it? and they need to be passed on and kept alive like other traditions and the reo, kia ora mo tena.
However, it seems the "keepers" of these treasures also choose who can and cannot ornament their skin and it is this I find overbearing. Its a big drawback and another cause of division for those who are proud of their maori association, but have not lived in NZ for a long time and by personal choice want something to identify they are Maori out their in this Ao nui.
Ka mutu te korero mo tenei wa

Posted by: Tuahine at February 7, 2004 02:47 PM

kia ora koutou!

oif. okay, so i don't want ta moko. that's what i've gathered from this. but it doesn't seem like i should want kirituhi either if everyone is just going to stand around saying, "well, they're just a silly poser who can't have ta moko." . . . so if both of these styles will offend everyone, can somebody give me a good idea for something representative of NZ (but not a kiwi bird, thanks) that would be acceptable? . . . though, i don't know why i'm really concerned about offending more people. the tattoos i already have do that well enough anyway (though i still don't see why being pagan--even if i were, and i'm not--would personally offend another human being, but human beings are stupid as a rule, aren't they?). but yes, something that won't come as a crushing blow to anyone would be nice.
interesting discussion by the by. i confess to mutt-ness, however. with a grand total of seven nationalities in my blood-stream--not all of which are white. but i guess it's all pakeha, isn't it? meh. oh well. i don't think luck (good or bad) of a draw in terms of genealogy is anything to mourn or be excessively proud of. i mean we're all going to die, aren't we? and that's really the bottom line. so get inked, pierced, carved, or what have you. physical pain is the reality--and occasionally an interesting/meaningful/hott experience.

*peace*love*penguins*
das Haeschen

Posted by: das Haeschen at February 18, 2004 01:33 AM

G'day to all,

I just came by this site by chance and were reading the comments.

Basically my roots come from Ruatoria and I've been in OZ for most of my life. I have limited knowledge of my family tree. I identify with my Maori heritage but am pretty much ignorant of customs and pratices.

My question is I'd like to find out if there is a database which contains 'Moari signatures?

I would like to find out my own TA MOKO not for tattooing myself but to learn basic design and what each shape represents. What could be better than my own WHAKAPAPA which I could hand down to my children with pride.

Regards
Hopeless

Posted by: Marz at February 19, 2004 09:24 AM

“But I don’t see how you can imply that it’s wrong to see the culture as part of my own.”

Since when is Maori culture ever a subset of Pakeha culture? I get that Maori culture/s have influenced you. I’m not debating that. I don’t appreciate however, when you start using any kind of terminology that suggests you have right of birth or you have some kind of entitlement to it. That this is something you ‘inherit’ or it is part of your identity or expression of ‘who you are’.

And that’s the crux of the matter. A butch dike can wear a plastic dildo – but it doesn’t make her a man no matter how much she acts or feels the part. You can swing pois, learn the lingo and karakia all you want but this is not an authentic part of who you are. For Maori these things are representative of connections to family, history and land. And it will never be so to you. Why? Because you are not family, your family histories to Aotearoa is different entirely and your heritage is rooted to another culture entirely. Like I said in the beginning, I can eat as much fromage, wear a beret and a stripped black and white t-shirt. However I participate in the activities it is not going to make me French – these things are nothing more than attachments.

I suppose I am sensitive to your talk, simply because too often when Pakeha do get involved in Maori pursuits they strive to take ownership. And I think essentially this is really what you are on about. You want some kind of claim to Maoritanga that is ‘real’ or ‘authentic’, that you can say this is ‘me’. And I am connected to it – and it’s connected to me. That it’s ‘yours’. I think, that’s a pakeha thing.

(Whether you like it or not, Pakeha have a culture too. I wish you lot would bloody well start working it out what it is. I’ll give you my take on it below)

I find many Pakeha since the mid eighties have felt kind of threatened identity-wise by the revival of Maori cultures because they felt that they have less a footing on Aotearoa than Maori, have felt, less ‘right’ if they admit it to be here, then Maori. Some respond by striving to stomp on it, or just use it to sell product. Some respond by wanting to take bits they like and making it “kiwi’ culture; the never-ending wish for one mono-culture. And assimilate all Maori into the Pakeha fold –finally. And then – I think there is a new generation of Pakeha growing up since the late 70s that are more and more growing up in a bi-cultural world. Where the influence of Maori culture is impacting more and more the Pakeha world. Of that generation, I can understand how there experience of Maori culture is unlike any generation before it. Because Maori in one form or another is impacting every part of their lives. I stand back and watch these ones.

However, if you think European spirituality and tattooing is the same as Maori (?) Please, point out to me in Europe or any country that your ancestors have come from Fionaigh (sp) that have the same culture as Maori? Show me where the pattern and meaning and type of tattooing they engage in is the same as what Maori do? Or show me where the spirituality matches any one of our iwi? Pakeha do not have the same kind of culture as Maori do – if you did we wouldn’t be having this conversation in the first place. If you are serious in thinking so, obviously from all that Maori culture has influenced your life, it hasn’t been sufficient for you to tell the difference between it and Western cultures.

OK, I find that remark very offensive. For a start, which Pakeha culture? It’s not like we’re all clones is it? Secondly, inherent means permanently and inseparably attached. Yes, I totally agree that there are some bad tendencies in Pakeha culture. But that doesn’t mean that all Pakeha have those tendencies, or that they will be always part of Pakeha culture, or that they are found throughout Pakeha culture. I think that the dualistic perspective is incredibly harmful, but I don’t think that it is inherent in Pakeha culture.

Actually, I think it is. I think it’s one of the defining things about Pakeha culture. And I am talking about _Pakeha culture_ I am not saying “all Pakeha are”. Do you get the difference? Obviously you can’t say “All ___ (fill in the blank) are _____ (fill in the blank) about anything. Regardless there are things which typify the larger Maori cultures, iwi cultures, whanau cultures, or an individual. And there are thinks that make for “Pakeha culture”.

I find Pakeha get really touchy about Maori telling them what they see is “Pakeha” about being Pakeha. Who better to comment though, we live in BOTH worlds – and usually have both heritages. :)

Posted by: ckarena at February 21, 2004 07:57 PM

"I think that the dualistic perspective is incredibly harmful, but I don’t think that it is inherent in Pakeha culture."

It irritates me, that Pakeha don't get that they do in fact have a culture. And it interests me that what many Maori see is so obviously "pakeha' never gets commented on by Pakeha. So I am going to share just two observations about 'pakeha culture'.

A comment that many of the old Mâori made was that the tongue of the Pakeha was split like that of the Tui (when they prepared it for cooking or something -) which I think referred to the duplicity of speech; to say one thing but mean the other. But it is a useful analogy for a tendency of Pakeha culture; that is to think of the world in terms of opposites even though these opposites are simply two sides of the same thing. By making an artificial split he divides the world against itself by living out this illusion of opposition as if it were true.

In explanation; underlying untold EVERY day Pakeha dialogue is the tendency to see much of the world in terms of pairs like mind and body,black and white, or male and female but describe these things in terms of divisions or barriers between them eg; mind versus body, spirit versus matter, male versus female, good versus bad. And with this there's always a sense of this or that one being better, preferred or superior to it's matching pair.

There's also along with this a tendency to see these things in oppositon, if you support one thing an automatic assumption is made that you oppose the other, whether you do or not. If you support Mâori you are anti-white, if you support women's rights you hate men for example.

This thinking has a tendency to automatically lend itself to an antagonistic or adversarial way of approaching the world and communicating. Which was observed and commented on by many Maori of old and to this present day. Or the underlying assumption that one thing must dominate the other the other must be in submission to it. Eg mind over matter, heaven above earth, spirit over matter, teacher over pupil, leader over subject, boss over employee, etc. You can see this cock-eyed kind of thinking dominate the courts, politics,talk shows….actually anywhere and everywhere - every day.

It gets a bit loopy loo because where you have anyone do anything that's different to the 'norm' than those people who are 'different' are automatically perceived to be attacking or opposing the other - because that's what that kind of thinking gives you.

A most obvious example, how many times you open the paper and someone's saying gay people wishing to live a married lifestyle are attacking 'the family' or an 'affront' for merely being. I watched another example, on 60 minutes a while back seeing zillions of people get bent out of shape with those married couples that don't intend to have children criticised for 'attacking family life'. There are heaps of examples…just being Mâori is often an affront to Pakeha culture. And much of that is tied down to another Pakeha cultural characteristic I call for want of better phrase being 'tui-eyed'. (see below)

The Church I used to belong to came down very heavily on women who 'challenged' the Priesthood by showing any form of leadership or authority. A sister missionary who was the best missionary on the field could not be praised publicly as this 'challenged' Priesthood dominance. i.e Priesthood was superior to female - if female took the male role then she was 'naturally' seeking to upsurp the 'natural order of things'. According to Pakeha view of the world (which by the way is not the way every other culture views the world).
(And which superiority btw was non-existant; on that particular mission the best missionaries were Mâori, Pacific Islander and women as a norm.) Basically anything that is different must be opposed, must be the enemy or must be controlled, subdued or made subordinate to the 'norm'.

Along with this thinking is the tendency to put things in camps (obviously)and to assume that you are either 'all this' or 'all that'. I was talking to this White American who married a coloured woman of some kind. He was insistent that his daughter had to choose between 'white' or 'black' you had to be one or the other. (Leaving aside the obvious point that the traits you inherit are from your mum and dad rather from your white or black side) With this thinking there is a tendency for them when they decide to negotiate peace or compromise they approach it by "looking at both sides" as if there were 'two opposing sides'.
=== that's one observation.

Posted by: ckarena at February 21, 2004 08:30 PM

Here's another observation and again remember when I say Pakeha - I am referring to Pakeha cultural traits.... or cultural traits that were derived from Pakeha worldviews and histories. I am not saying all Pakeha are _____(insert comment that suggest all the same). I am saying those traits that typify Pakeha culture. Even if today, many assimilated Maori are brought up to think exactly the same way and/ or act the same way. That is the case, but even so, these notions didn't come out of Maori cultural perspectives.

Here's another example of one - I can't help but share it, coz it's one that I think is a really really real 'baddie'.

: "Rangikai' was telling me at one time that the old Mâori likened the Pakeha to the Tui bird one reason being that that bird looks at you with 'one eye'. And that the Pakeha viewed the world in the same way through a 'one' or 'mono' perspective.

Trying to make sense of Pakeha culture when I was growing up. Because the larger culture (Pakeha) always assumes that it's 'norm' that it 'is' and because I was operating in two world - It so obviously to me was not the 'norm', nor was there a 'norm'. (BTW I'll comment that most white people don't really get they even have a culture - they often think other people do, but not them. I've even heard it from their lips "we don't have a culture".)

ANYhoo, I figured when I was 15 that maybe the Pakeha psyche has some underlying belief that all processes, structures and relationships can be reduced to a single element, that everything can eventually be explained by one governing principle. Because they act like it does.

For example in conversations, dialogues in real life or on BBs, when a person asks a question, I notice that people often assume that there must be only one answer, and thus that if there's more than one answer then their task is not finished and the question's not really answered.
This is "mono/tui-eyed-culturalism'. I notice it generates endless debates on the nature of "This" versus "That". Because there can be only "one" answer. That you haven't got it 'right' unless you brought it down to 'one answer' or 'standardized' things so we have got it 'straight'. And in saying this, I am saying it's not something they consciously do. They just act that was as if it's a given.

Regarding Ta Moko, a well-known Moko expert Mark Kopua was making comment on David Simmons interpretation of Ta Moko (David's a Pakeha who's a self appointed Maori expert on ta moko) Mark was using him as an example of Pakeha who love to standardize our [quote] "various tribal ways" to their "one and only way" thinking, who should look in the bloody mirror and ask if they should be tampering with our stuff. If he wants to contribute - he should slash at his own culture"[unquote]

....Is another example of pakeha mono-one-culturalism; the need to take diversity and 'standardize' it to one way which they put a
label as "THIS is the REAL way of doing it -what it's about - what it IS". "The one TRUE way". ( A way of thinking that is jest gonna make for trouble - because there is never ONE true way, and the world is a fluid open changing system).

It's as if there's a compulsion to reduce things to "definition" that has "this" + "this" + "this" to it's make up. (To set it apart from that which doesn't - it's like they have the whole world organised around boxes with labels on it). And if things don't conform to that definition everyone is getting it wrong.

(And if some of things in one box is in another box as well, then you have upset about the 'real nature' of that thing. I'll give you a classic example. I went to a Dyke karoke night. I thought if there was ever a group of people who hated-isms it would be gay. Coz they cop a lot of stuff that Maori get. And yet - I was listening in on conversations - and it was the same ol. "Is she butch or femme?"... "She can't be butch"...(*debate*...*listing of characterisitcs*....*discussion of characteristics*" Then they relaxed when they figured she was a 'soft butch'. I walked out thinking: 'Now WHY did I think it would be different with this lot???'

The following are the kind of comments that are typical of "mono/tui-eyeism" "the REAL ______(whatever)", the "ONE and only", the true, the perfect.. Like a Real man is, a Real Mâori is, a Real believer is…the TRUE believer, the Perfect car, house, cat, dog etc. In the dyke karoke night for example that conversation was debating 'real butches' etc. Until those two had found another label for her - she was looking a bit 'fake' for not fitting the proper label.

When I look at how at how Pakeha run their relationships and families, for example, 'mono-eyeism' is expressed in the belief that there is some single best way, some ideal marriage, some perfect partner, some perfect way to look or act
to get there, and the goal is to get as close to that ideal as possible. Therefore all possibilities are ranked on a hiearchy - good, better, best --and that only the best one counts. There is a constant comparison of lives; people, things and themselves to a single ideal, and points are taken off for any way in which a person differs from that ideal. Open up your newspaper, magazines turn on your radio or telly and it's everywhere the 'one way of being' your supposed to aspire or look to. eg if you're female 'be skinny, smooth skin, model figure etc etc'

I was thinking "darwinism", "racism" and "eugenics" are other classic examples
of 'one/mono/tui-eyeism". The racist has this one standard eg a set of beliefs, goals, objectives and descriptions under the catorgory of 'white' for example. It's like a 'white ruler' that he uses to measure all other people by. And everyone else is assessed on a sliding scale of how well they approximate this 'standard'of 'white and all that's associated with White' which is of course the only way one should be.

EG: In the old days they classified the races
according to their 'evolutionary development' on this scale of white is 'best'; Chinese and Jews were ranked higher on the scale than blacks which were at the other spectrum. It's dangerous this 'one eyeism' of course when you have only
one set of values as the 'norm' than other important values are ignored simply because they are not listed under the 'one way'. A people that had a goal of maintaining the earth - is inferior to one that had a goal of changing the earth. Because 'whites change the earth' therefore that is 'advanced' and the other people are 'backward'.

It doesn't matter what you use as the 'ruler', it can be any race, any age, any sex, any sub culture, any liking - any ANYthing. But the design of that thinking always the same. Rac-ist, sex-ist, age-ist or whatever-ist actions and thinking are just different choice of colours for the same kind of ruler.

And this is one of the "pakeha-isms' that really is very very f&***$@ up.

It's one cultural trait - that could stand being dropped - and the alternative Maori perspectives be explored. Because unlike the above - they're sane.

Posted by: ckarena at February 21, 2004 09:34 PM

HI, I'm another Fiona who was browsing on the Internet for Kirituhi, and found this intriguing chat. ckarena, I have some questions for you. (BTW, I am a white woman living in America with Canadian and Australian Citizenship, with Celtic and Eastern European ancestry.)I like what your comments are. They are extremely articulate and close to your heart. That attracts me. I like when ideas are given a forum to be shuffled around and challenged.

I am personally very interested in multiculturalism and diversity. Is it possible to bridge the gaps of communication between groups of people where there has been so many hurts in the past? Or, for that matter, where there has been little or no common ground? I am not just talking about Paheka and Maori, I am talking about Pakistani and Indian, or Chinese and Japanese. Maybe that question is too broad. I am first of all interested in my part-- how I can bridge the gaps between myself and other cultures, but I am also interested in if there is a process that everyone who coexists alongside people who are different, can enter into, to abide together harmoniously.

When you speak from the strength of your family, your heritage, your cultural rights, it is beautiful, inspiring, and easy to agree with. But when you start talking about "Paheka culture" as one huge entity and make generalizations based on what you've experienced in your own life, I'm just kind of baffled. Not that I don't have criticism for myself or my ancestors, or the country I live in. I do have a lot of criticism. But it is not healthy to be 100% self-critical. It leaves me with nothing to grasp on to for footing. And, like you, I want to be grounded, healthy, and whole. So, if you'll allow me to take a paragraph from what you wrote and mull over it:

"When I look at how at how Pakeha run their relationships and families, for example, 'mono-eyeism' is expressed in the belief that there is some single best way, some ideal marriage, some perfect partner, some perfect way to look or act
to get there, and the goal is to get as close to that ideal as possible. Therefore all possibilities are ranked on a hiearchy - good, better, best --and that only the best one counts. There is a constant comparison of lives; people, things and themselves to a single ideal, and points are taken off for any way in which a person differs from that ideal. Open up your newspaper, magazines turn on your radio or telly and it's everywhere the 'one way of being' your supposed to aspire or look to. eg if you're female 'be skinny, smooth skin, model figure etc etc'"

What exactly is the translation of the word "Paheka"? Does it boil down to the colour of one's skin? If this is Paheka culture then I want no part of it. If this is Paheka culture, then I'd rather live as an individual with no roots. I'd rather that's how people who meet me would see me, anyway, and that's how I try to treat everyone I meet-- as an individual first, rather than as a part of a group. I think if I treated people as one part of a group, (when I am not within that group), rather than as an individual, I am in danger of being pre-judice in my attitude and thoughts. I don't want to pre-judge the individual based on what I know about the group. I don't want others to treat me this way either.

Some small part of me wonders if you are really saying what you think in these emails or if there is more. Perhaps what you are thinking does not translate well. At least, to me reading it, it sounds like you are more interested in seeing yourself as part of a strong cultural group, and others in the same way (Paheka as a part of a strong cultural group that you don't like). You mentioned the good versus evil way that Paheka sees the world-- but it sounds like this is the way you see Paheka-- as the embodiment of evil, that you don't want a part of. I'm trying to understand.

I am just an outsider who is not even from New Zealand so maybe what I am writing is not relevant at all. And my reasons for writing are not because I want something from the Maori culture, but because I enjoy other cultures. I live in a very culturally diverse society where unfortunately there is still oppression and injustice ingrained in every system. I long for the day when there is more justice and I know that those who have been oppressed must arise in their own power and fight it. I cannot speak as an indiginous person, but I can say that I do want empowerment for the oppressed all over the world even if it takes away my comfort and my privelage. But I hope that in the process of fighting for some power back, that you and others would resist the urge to be cruel in your deeds, words, or perceptions. My question for you is, what do you want ultimately? Is it possible for us all to strive towards peace and harmony with each other? That is what I am interested in. How can we dialogue together in a way that doesn't harm our future dialogues, but promotes peace.

That's all for now. I REALLY hope you and others respond. It is out of uncertainty and questioning that I write. I know that the less I try to answer my own questions and the more I'm open to answers outside of myself, the more likely I am to learn something new, and to grow in wisdom.

Peace,
Fiona

Posted by: Fiona at March 14, 2004 09:01 AM

good evening to all of you - or rather good morning in NZ...
Looking for a book about moko (which I saw in NZ when I was there over Christmas but failed to buy and am now desperate to get...),I have stumbled over the discussions on this site.
I am currently working on a quilt project - but reading the discussion about ta moko has somehow stopped me dead.
Now I would like to ask for your view, opinion, any feedback appreciated...
The project is a quilt for a european quilt competition about the world and how you see it. I am supposed to pick one continent (firmly connected with one colour), so I decided to go for Oceania in green. I read up on the various areas of Oceania - Australia, NZ, Polynesia, Mikronesia etc - and found that tattoo is used widely to symbolize family, heritage, achievements. And my picture - even before visiting NZ - was clearly connected with tattoo/ moko. In Rotorua we went to see a family hangi event - which really impressed me and I quite liked the impression I had - that Maori culture and tradition is still alive in NZ and Maori are proud about that.
So - my project is a depiction of moko-like tattoo in fabric. I have studied old drawings from an old book, photos I took during the hangi - and wanted that other book as well to be as close to moko as possible.
Judging from your discussions - this is about the worst thing I can do ("when imitation is the biggest offense... ").
Or would I not by close to "real" moko anyway - because just copying the images does not represent moko correctly anyway ?
I am lost - please help !
Karin in Germany, clearly Pakeha - but still willing to learn...

Posted by: Karin at March 24, 2004 04:45 AM

To Karin,

I posted your letter to the Ta Moko forum on the Aotearoalive.com - here's some responses:

"Aloha Karin....while not Maori I am Polynesian. I am Hawaiian and the tatto tradition while not wide scale as my Maori cousins is too still alive amongst us. I cannot speak for the Maori, much less the family that you were able to photograph "moko patterns" from at their hangi but let me put it to you in this fashion.

Say for instance I was invited to your family gathering. It is at a very old and grand castle. Within that castle are tapistry ages old hanging about. On that tapistry are hearldry designs that catch my eye. Now I am there and take a few photographs perhaps with or w/o the permission of the house and family. As you remain as their guest at their castle you find out how important and reveired those pieces of heraldry are and what they mean to the castle's family. Time comes and you take with you the cherished memories of your stay at that castle.

You're at home now and for some project you are involved in whether it be for a grade or for personal gain you feel that since the images are on your camera's negatives they are "your' s and you use them in a design say for instance on a quilt for a bed.

Now ask yourself these questions:

a) did you have explicit permission to photograph those pieces?
b) if so, did your host explain what they mean to them and impress on
you the sentimental value it has on that family?
c) Does the relationship you have with that host family warrants your
actions...such as using the designs in any way or likeness for your own
gain be it a grade , financial gain or prestige?
d) Does your action have legal ramifications? Does you action cross
that cultural and sentimental boundary?
e) Do you have the willingness and understanding of what it would
take to maintain the responsibilities connected with those cultural
icons/designs etc.?

I know in terms of tatto, I cannot have one till the last person of my mother's generation is passed on. It is because of a family kapu and kuleana= restriction/responsiblity. I also know the feeling when I see some one who has created a quilt with sacred Hawaiian familial tattoos that belong to my family and family line and that quilt is sitting on a couch and people are sitting on that representation of my family. Its horrifying!!!
I can't have a tattoo due to familial responsibilities and yet a total stranger who has taken a picture from his zoom lense of my family's sacred designs and boom their bum's sit disrespectfully on it!~ NOT A NICE PICTURE.

Hope this helps , Karin.....Im sure you will hear lots from the folks here in AC. Please stay open for this is a wonderful oppurtunity to learn. Submitted with aloha. Reno Kapo Villaren.

PS: I had a "brain fart" and didn't know if this went in a couple of times.
Sorry Kat and Rangi. E kala mai...Reno. "

Posted by: ckarena at March 26, 2004 05:58 PM

To Karin - this is another response:

"Kia ora ki a koe e Karin,

well, my personal whakaaro are this. Although your enthusiasm to express your aroha for our culture is great, you don't know the means to do it through yet. It is offensive for you to put ta moko (especially to copy directly) designs onto a quilt because of the tapu and noa tikanga that we have.

The designs represent history, people, places and many other things associated with 'whakapapa'. It is revered by us, and is sacred. How would you feel if we used pictures of the Swastika as way of promoting Modern Germany to the international community? The point that I hope you will be able to understand is that these patterns mean something that invoke responses. They are symbols with many layered meanings that mean something.

The ta moko on a quilt is just as offensive to Maori as the swastika would be offensive to modern Germans who saw it used to promote modern Germany because both have meanings and histories and when the patterns are used inappropriately it does, and will invoke anger from the cultural group who own those designs through their intellectual property rights.

This is not meant to be a hostile reply. I suggest you do some reading up on tikanga Maori (NZ) first before attempting to promote tikanga Maori and the tikanga of the Pacific Islands.

Sorry for making the reply brief, but I hope you will refrain from putting our ta moko designs on your quilts.

Aroha nui,

Tane-ariki
_________________
ko Ngati Whanaunga te iwi

"We use a language which makes up in obscurity what it lacks in style"- Rosencrantz and Guildernstern Are Dead by Tom Stoppard

"Expect more of yourself" - Gail Perry"

Posted by: ckarena at March 26, 2004 06:01 PM

I just stumbled across this website as I was searching around the web for various things Maori, since I had just recalled seeing something on tv about the Ta Moko. I noticed in your discussion that references were made to duality and "mono-eyeism". Forgive an American who has very little knowledge of the history of white colonization of your chunk of the globe (for discussion sake I'll assume it went more or less like it did here), but when I read those things I was struck by the inherent hypocracy in your arguement, ckarena. You accuse the Pakeha of automaticaly trying to see "both sides" because there must be "opposing sides". You have already done this on your own, between your own culture and (more or less) any other. You in some way have already bought in to the dualistic perception of humanity, just from a different perspective. Don't get me wrong, if you want to keep your sacred art for yourself, you'll get no argument here. To me it seems that this person is trying to integrate himself (or herself, whichever) into your culture, not because of some sense of entitlement, but because of a feeling that, to them, it is home, it is somehow right for them. I don't know about eating all that fromage and berets and whatnot, because I am not French, but if you moved in next door to me, and performed all the neccesary tasks, you would be American. Now, I know that citizenship and cultural identity are two completely different things, but on the other hand, acting as though your culture has so many of the answers that the world needs, and then refusing to accept people who happen to agree with you seems a bit counterproductive to me. My intention is not to anger you ckarena, and I certainly agree that for a large part of our history, my culture has been pretty shitty to the rest of the world. I can however, tell you from experience with some of my more close-minded countrymen that having a few outsiders who have an appreciation for your culture is a resource to be cultivated, not a threat. Apologies for the spelling and grammar, I've been up all night.

Peace.

Posted by: Brian at April 7, 2004 01:56 AM

Kia ora Fiona,

I don't have that much time online - so it's takes a while before I have 30 minutes.

"When you speak from the strength of your family, your heritage, your cultural rights, it is beautiful, inspiring, and easy to agree with. But when you start talking about "Paheka culture" as one huge entity and make generalizations based on what you've experienced in your own life, I'm just kind of baffled."

I refer to you to the remark made in above posts:

"And I am talking about _Pakeha culture_ I am not saying “all Pakeha are”. Do you get the difference?

Obviously you can’t say “All ___ (fill in the blank) are _____ (fill in the blank) about anything. Regardless there are things which typify the larger Maori cultures, iwi cultures, whanau cultures, or an individual. And there are thinks that make for “Pakeha culture”.

I put that qualifer in because when I speak to Pakeha they pretty much all respond as you and Fionnaigh do. "Hey! are you saying 'all pakeha are' - we are 'one entity'. 'You can't generalise...blah, blah, blah. Incidently, I view that response with some wry cynicism. I think it's been typical of Western culture to paint 'others' as all the same, eg all American indians are painted as if they came from the Plains, all Maori are the same. Lets get real, it has only been over recent years, that the wider Western world, has started to recognise the diversity within any 'other' culture. As opposed to it's own. And you might ask yourself if the offense of identifying a "Pakeha culture' - is offensive because it's not a position that many whites have been put in a position to see, with regards to their own culture. How many books are there on 'what it means to be white?' In comparison to all the information (written mainly by whites) about what it means to be other, or who the 'other' _is_. ?

Understand-- I don't know you from squat. So don't assume that because you belong to a certain group, and I notice traits of that group - that automatically means 'you are such and such'. You get to know people over time, dialogue etc. But because you belong to a group that acts in a similiar fashion - I put this to you: I have noticed Pakeha friends and strangers have in the main been taken back with the notion that they have a 'pakeha culture'. And often the assumption is similiar to foriegn speaker in another land who says "I don't have an accent - you do".

It's like identifying a white or Pakeha culture is seen as offensive. I view that response when I run into it with cyncism - because throughout this conversation we have been talking about Maori culture - why was not any one offended with that notion? ;P

Regardless, there are in fact traits, behaviours and ways of thinking typical of cultures. Is that something you can agree to? And when I identify some of those traits, I, my ancestors and other Maori notice peculiar to the Maori, typical of the Pakeha, why would one think that is strange? Or that it is a 'generalisation' of 'all Pakeha'. Why would that baffle you?

Some of the traits I mention that are distinctive --i.e
- Did not originate with Maori, were not common with Maori, didn't come from our history, were not there prior to Pakeha. Hence - Pakeha traits.

- That are common-place in Pakeha culture
(which is not saying every single pakeha every born, dead or ever will be does exactly the same thing - because hey - common sense tells you that is not true of ANYTHING etc etc)
- That come out of PAKEHA culture
- That are NOT the norm across other human cultures
- That tags, or pointers, or indicators of Pakeha culture, or show an influence by Pakeha culture ie when Maori pick up those traits, it came from that outside influence

Now if you were coming from a Maori perspective- you would know identity is never static - and there is few absolutes. The whole language/perspecitve is based on an understanding that the world/universe is in constant change, an open system and infinite perspective and tied to times and circumstance - but hey, you aren't. So there you go. Same explanation given. In this conversation I am not reference people as = this, this and this. I have pointed out several traits that I notice that are distinctive of Pakeha culture and a very prevalent and common place in Pakeha culture eg split-tongue perspective, mono-eyeism etc for lack of better words.

A poster said: "I think that the dualistic perspective is incredibly harmful, but I don’t think that it is inherent in Pakeha culture."

Obviously they didn't like that trait associated with themselves or the group they belong too. I'm sorry, but that trait was new to Aotearoa, it came from that new influence - which is Pakeha culture. Do you think it is non existant in your culture? You can't see it common place - then I think those who cant see it, are like fish who don't get that they are breathing in water, till you take them above the surface. When you live in the cultural equivalent of below and above the surface - the differences are really clear. It's not a trait, I like either, I think it's unhealthy - and I think it needs to go. I think Pakeha need to change that perspective because I have seen a lot of evil come out of it. (And to belabour the point - some don't have that perspective, in saying Pakeha - I am referencing the culture)

EG
"a tendency of Pakeha culture; that is to think of the world in terms of opposites even though these opposites are simply two sides of the same thing. By making an artificial split he divides the world against itself by living out this illusion of opposition as if it were true."

"In explanation; underlying untold EVERY day Pakeha dialogue is the tendency to see much of the world in terms of pairs like mind and body, black and white, or male and female but describe these things in terms of divisions or barriers between them eg; mind versus body, spirit versus matter, male versus female, good versus bad. And with this there's always a sense of this or that one being better, preferred or superior to it's matching pair."

Now, someone prove to me that Pakeha haven't historically thought Male was superior to female for example??? You think that's a common trait of EVERY other human culture?? I can think of other cultures - that have it as inherently and 'naturally' so that Male and Female are two complimentary, interdependent, equal parts of a whole - and would not understand 'the battle of the sexes'. That is a tiny part - but common place Pakeha EVERY DAY cultural occurance. It is a trait that when Westerners have colonised countries such as New Zealand, have sought to force that 'natural order' onto the indigenous community. Unfortunately with some success.

And God - have a look at the 'mighty' US of A - with it's cries of "Good" versus "Evil" that justifies illegal wars, slaughter of children, women and men because a few are designated as 'evil' and a whole country must suffer because of it (and coz they have oil and they get to try out their fancy toys of war). And of course USA is 'good' and 'right' - therefore it can not do evil.

Please don't kid yourself - that you haven't a culture. Or think, that pointing out those traits is saying " I will box and label you all so".

You quoted me here:
"When I look at how at how Pakeha run their relationships and families, for example, 'mono-eyeism' is expressed in the belief that there is some single best way, some ideal marriage, some perfect partner, some perfect way to look or act
to get there, and the goal is to get as close to that ideal as possible. Therefore all possibilities are ranked on a hiearchy - good, better, best --and that only the best one counts. There is a constant comparison of lives; people, things and themselves to a single ideal, and points are taken off for any way in which a person differs from that ideal. Open up your newspaper, magazines turn on your radio or telly and it's everywhere the 'one way of being' your supposed to aspire or look to. eg if you're female 'be skinny, smooth skin, model figure etc etc'"

"What exactly is the translation of the word "Paheka"?" In the context of this conversation - what are you asking for? An identity?? That trait - is noticeable in Western culture. Are you saying it is non existant?? Are you saying you don't want to be like that? Or arent like that - or what? It doesn't matter if I call you pakeha - the description comes after the behaviour not before. If that particular shoe fits -where it. If it doesn't, it doesn't. You in the vicinity of the shoe store, but you don't like selection.

Identity for me is not a label - that describes the context of the box, the can or 'the human package'. So are you asking for one trait to define all?? eg colour of the skin. If it is I will ignore you.

Identify for me, is like a signpost pointing to a certain country which is another. Each traveller will have many things they will report on the same - and things that they will see that is unique. The land they go to, is how it is because of the generations of events that happened before today, as well as the current times and climates of this day. Realistically whether you want to see yourself without roots - is an indulgence of some kind. Because you have roots, you are influenced by the wider history you came from, the local settings, the wider settings, the times, the family etc - AND you are an individual.

It's not individual VERSUS group - that's not real. But a very pakeha perspective. Because you are an individual and part of a group/groups.

"and that's how I try to treat everyone I meet-- as an individual first, rather than as a part of a group."

Personally speaking, I like your offence. But I don't get why you would think you have to treat people as if they are all the same. No one's making you. You deal with reality. I don't have a set of codes that I must treat Pakeha like so, or Maori like so, or this like so. Though in any given circumstance from a meeting with a client from a particular company, to a church meeting, to meeting with IT, or HR or this or that - you are aware of certain ettiquette or traits or tendency. Personally I find it smart to be aware - but the on going moment, over time and relationship - tells you who people are in relation to you and the circumstance you are in. It's fluid.

A while back when I first came to Australia - I was in Church - and it irritated me, when I was sitting on the pulpit to notice that everybody was sitting in groups according to nationality. There's only two cultures in the early days Maori and Pakeha - so this grouping was even more noticeble. To make a long story short - I decided to change that because - I think that kind of division is artificial.

I put on a youth project - got to know each individual kid in their home - there was about 30 odd. Found their passions, talents and fears - and connected them to other youth based on those commonalities. Eg the lebanese youth and the Samoan youth - who had a passion for rap. Two groups of girls - one a passion for classical dance the other group modern who 'hated' each other (as pakeha do when they are in so called 'oposing factions') - connected them by creating a dance that used both styles - and each style highlighted the other - and complimented the other. And the working together to put it together naturally brought out the commonalities.

To your question about 'multi-cultural' harmony etc etc. I ran that project in numerous communities, had over 98% participation - it's a no brainer. Quit - your box and label thinking.

You unite people simply by being open to the commonalities - which are many.

The seating changed after the play - by itself, simply because the parents interacted with the other parents in the various projects found things in common. Some things were shared cultural traits - love of family. Some had nothing to do with race - love of cooking, support of youth, sense of humour - whatever.

Yes - I do think Pakeha have something to learn from Maori and every other culture. But I don't support the pretence that you are something you are not. You can't connect with others on common ground if you aren't basing your relationship on what you really are, rather than who you would like to be.

Posted by: ckarena at April 9, 2004 07:32 PM

Brian,

I think you need to read the posts - and clear on what is being said.

Eg "You accuse the Pakeha of automaticaly trying to see "both sides" because there must be "opposing sides".

No, I didn't. I said there was a tendency to see dualism in most things. Male, Female, Black, White... to see things in terms of pairs. So do Maori, many of the Aboriginal tribes believe that in nature all things come in pairs. But what I notice that is common of Pakeha culture is to see opposition between pairs. To go Male versus Female. And to hold that one of the pair was superior to the other. White versus Black. Light versus Dark. That there is value judgement made on two sides of what Maori would consider the whole - eg HUMAN is the whole of Male and Female. Even in the sense that a human has both male and female energy/gender.

"I was struck by the inherent hypocracy in your arguement, ckarena. You accuse the Pakeha of automaticaly trying to see "both sides" because there must be "opposing sides". You have already done this on your own, between your own culture and (more or less) any other."

Oh? Where have I said that Maori are superior to Pakeha? Or think so? You will find historically and even to this present day that is a trait more commonly associated with Pakeha. eg in our current times Maori are getting a lot of anti-Maori bashing by Pakeha and government. As the government wants to take ownership (again) of Maori land and divest Maori the right that all NZers have to go to the courts. That attitude that it is okay to treat Maori as inferior has much to do with this attitude to see Maori versus Pakeha - and Pakeha as the superior, norm and standard.

I think to put your brain in to gear before you write. You can in fact view the world in pairs - male and female, black and white, and I think these pairs and others mentioned are two sides of the same whole

male + female = human
black + white = absence of light + all light
or (drawing in of light - giving out of light
us + other = stand point etc

I don't however think that because there are two pairs they are naturally adverse to each other. Unless you are in a culture that acts as if they were - which to mean is an insane perspective. Because it is not reality

"To me it seems that this person is trying to integrate himself (or herself, whichever) into your culture, not because of some sense of entitlement, but because of a feeling that, to them, it is home, it is somehow right for them..... but on the other hand, acting as though your culture has so many of the answers that the world needs, and then refusing to accept people who happen to agree with you seems a bit counterproductive to me. "

To lets repeat some points -
yes, I think Pakeha could pick up perspectives and ways of thinking and frankly drop some of their cultural traits. I think however they should do so - because what they are doing is harmful, unhealthy for both Maori and themselves.

And I don't have a problem with you, Fionaigh or anyone else learning these things.

BUT - you don't take an aspect of my FAMILY - can we repeat that F. A. M. I. L. Y which is what ta moko represents and pretend that THAT is who you freaking well are!!@! Because you are NOT part of my family and you don't get to wear the heritage that belongs to my grand fathers and grand mothers. Which is what those drawings/writings represent. You have your own family - you like every other person on this planet has their own family. So you don't go stealing my family identity - that does NOT belong to you. And how can you THINK to think that would be a Maori way to act?? To disrespect your own ancestors by taking on anothers??

Is that really so very difficult to understand?

You identify Maori as race or culture - but the traits and cultural habits came out of Families. The land, history, past and present shaped that family cultures. Hence the commonalities. Fionnaigh's past has not made her my family, at least on the Maori side.

Frankly, Brian I see a lot of people who 'appreciate' another's culture by wearing their clothes, or engaging in 'cultural activities' these things aren't the contribution frankly that most indigenous people would like them to take away. Those things of worth to them - impact there lives - by not making them different. Simply revealing the fuller capcity they have available to them - and they can fit it to their own circumstance. And be aware of greater range of choices to be then they have now.

Posted by: ckarena at April 9, 2004 08:02 PM

Explain to me how what you just said is not you yourself speaking of a conflicting duality between the Maori and the rest of the world because that is where I miss you. How is learning another culture (or family style or whatever) that you find superior to your own unhealthy to anyone, especially if the new way seems more righteous and truer than the one you had previously? Do you wish to condemn paheka to only aspire to the virtues of their cultural past? (If so, the world is in for a rough time. Believe it or not many of us, myself included, wish to live in greater harmony with the world around us- we don't wish to continue making the mistakes of our cultural past.)

Why must what my ancestors (by vast majority people I've never even met, people who surely never cleared their actions by me) dictate what I am? I ask this out of genuine confusion, as my particular chunk of Paheka culture doesn't much care for who my ancestors were, but for who I am. (I realize that this has nothing to do with our discussion, but I am curious to know more about your culture.)

What is or is not a Maori way to act does not concern me, as I am not the one trying to integrate myself into your culture. I admire from a distance, and that is good enough for me. I wasn't even discussing ta moko, so we can skip that too. Can't your F.A.M.I.L.Y. include people that you love, people that are important to you and your community, regardless of what culture they come from? "So you don't go stealing my family identity - that does NOT belong to you." No worries there, why would I. Like I said, I am not stealing, I am looking at pictures and reading. I am happy with myself and my cultural identity. As for the way Maori act, well, that is what I am here learning about, wouldn't you say? You have confused me with this Fionaigh person, and what he/she wants. I am sorry that your people are having problems in the NZ courts, and I do not deny that my people have a long history of believing in their "superiority". However, I did not accuse you ever of saying that Maori were superior. If you read the quote that you yourself posted, I said that your argument supposes conflict (ONLY conflict- not the superiority of either side) between Maori culture and other cultures. You put words in my mouth. I was deliberately vague with that statement, so that I wouldn't be accused of saying that MY culture was superior, but you got it all turned around on me.

Either way, my post was not a reaction to the idea that Maori would not want a paheka stealing ta moko. I don't want anyone else's geneology tattooed on my face or any other part of my body, that would be worse than stupid, as I am sure this person, with such a respect for your culture, would agree. I was reacting to the idea that this person would be entirely excluded from the Maori way of life for no other reason than the fact that her/his ancestors are not Maori, which also seems silly to me. Lifestyle, not tattoos. "Is that really so very difficult to understand?" No, I understand the Ta Moko thing entirely. I think anyone who wants to put someone else's family history on their body is a moron. But that isn't what my post was about.

Posted by: Brian at April 11, 2004 10:45 AM

ckarena,
I am mulling over your post. Thanks for fleshing out your thoughts. I think I am beginning to understand you more, and I am also reflecting myself more as a result of your promptings. I am digesting the Paheka culture thing and starting to understand and recognize what you're talking about. I'll write more later.

Posted by: Fiona at April 20, 2004 01:15 PM

'Slan Folks, came upon your debate re. tattoo-ta moko. I am Highland Scots by descent, Pictish/ Norse before that.Born and bred in Aranui, CHCH. I wear my clan crest "carved with iron" on my chest [Scots], the next will be on my legs [Pict/Norse] all the better to offset my kilt.The art/patten will represent who I am. The artist will be a kinsman of mine, [same Scots clan].If when he works on me he incorporates some of the style of his other iwi as taught to him by his kaiako whakairo, then,that is his choice[and my good fortune to be so honoured.] He knows his stuff,I know mine, He knows me and I know him. Anyone else had better know us before issuing any sort of challange. Neither he nor I abuse culture we both impart it. Hope this helps. "Claim Your Own Culture-Accept The Culture Of Others As A Gift" 'Slan,IanPat

Posted by: IanPat at May 2, 2004 10:39 PM

Kia Ora everybody I came onto the forum from Barcelona, my town, with many bloodlinks on some regions from spain, Cuba and even Italy and Germany, but faraway links, more from my mother than me, so My only direct-blood family is just two people now, I don´t know when or how I started to feel the Maori culture, started to study it te reo Maori and met ta moko artist, everyone of the ones I met told me that Maori is not just a neme to wear proudly from a Land, because you got to feel it in your heart, everyone of them told me I got a Maori soul on a Tauiwi skin, but I wear moko on my skin inked by Maori coming from Maori´s chiefs and Toa (s), and they accepted me as one of his "faraway brothers". Hope it helps on the forum.

Posted by: Oriol at May 3, 2004 11:23 PM

Kia Ora and hullo

a few rambling thoughts

ckarena said:
"Yes - I do think Pakeha have something to learn from Maori and every other culture. But I don't support the pretence that you are something you are not. You can't connect with others on common ground if you aren't basing your relationship on what you really are, rather than who you would like to be. "

This conversation is about tatoos and why we want them. It is also about culture and our rights to other's cultures. It is about authenticity. Being original in the true sense of the word-- coming from our origin. this conversation is also about tradition being passed on, and if it should morph and change or remain constant through the ages. (Should cultures blend styles?)

Call it paheka culture, or call it consumer culture: the predominant western culture has some ugly attributes...

The hunger to be someone or something we are not and to identify ourselves with that comes from a kind of consumer culture that makes everything readily available to us, and so we see ourselves as a blank slate onto which we can add things, possessions, ideas, styles... tatoos

The lust for acquiring things also comes from a deep spiritual chasm which is not met in our culture, or an alienation.

I called myself an individual. I am, but I realized through this conversation that I am partly an individual as a result of feeling alienated. I need to be honest with myself and see that what I really want is family, a sense of connection and resulting spiritual wholeness, and not merely to identify myself as an individual. So, like ckarena made me realize, I need to dig deeper into myself, my history, my family for some truths about myself. The Ta Moko tradition can teach us to each do that within our own circles of family and ancestry.

Identity through visual symbol and Blending cultural symbols...
I have a nostril ring. I got it done because I thought it would connect me to a culture I am drawn to and have a connection to: India. I didn't get it as a rebellious thing, or as a fashionable thing. And people look at me differently now that I have it. After I got the nosering and I was reading about the Bandit Queen of India (a really interesting book by the way) and I realized that a nosering in Indian culture is a sign of the ownership of women. I can't accept that symbolism for myself, so I need to rethink why I have the nosering and create new meaning for it. I think sometimes this is what happens when we adopt other people's culture-- we cut ourselves off from the original symbolism and power, instead recreating a personally significant meaning. I am not saying this is a good or a bad thing. Obviously some people are way more opposed to it, some think it's great. I loved what one poster said:
"Claim Your Own Culture-Accept The Culture Of Others As A Gift"

Positive or negative, I believe we can all agree that the world is not static. Meanings attached to things change as they pass from hand to hand. Thus, the importance of retaining the original meaning, through the purest possible connection to its source.

In western culture and I think all around the world (although I could be wrong) there is a shifting back to the roots, to the ancient, to the authentic. In this age of 'advancement' people are wanting to get footing again. The environment is at jeopardy, our souls are at jeopardy, and damnit-- we're just goddamned lonely! (Okay, I speak for myself.) I think we all on this chat probably know the spiritual significance of the so-called "alternative lifestyle"-- one which embraces spirituality and the environment before other things like success and prestige. It draws us back down into ourselves and the earth from which we came.

Quote...
To end with a quote from Sue Monk Kidd, "Dance of the Dissident Daughter":
"Mystical awakening ...involves arriving at an experience of unity or nondualism. In Zen it's known as "samadhi", the experience of the mind no longer divided against itself. When our nature is no longer divided against itself, the inner splits are healed and we see the earth and spirit as one. Transcendence and immanece are not separate."

Posted by: Fiona at May 16, 2004 11:53 AM

you cannot tell who is maori and who is not maori in our day and age. As you said that knowing comes from the heart, but it is people like you that stops "white hearts" from expressing what is their cultural heritage. This is especially relevant when it comes to the ancestors of rakauhatu, of whom many would not "know" anymore, except with their hearts. Truth is truth - and the truth seeker is what Aotearoa needs.

Posted by: Jenny at May 26, 2004 05:21 PM

Fiona says that she loves my phrase "claim your own culture - accept the culture of others as a gift", yet she seems not to understand it. In the case of her nose ring she seeks a new reason to sport it. Had that aspect of Indian culture been gifted, the problem would not have arisen. "New-age" people piss me off.They steal from others ,a wee bit here ,a wee bit there, to try and fill their hollow souls. CLAIM YOUR OWN CULTURE. DON'T STEAL FROM OTHERS. To the rest of you, good health , energy to your quest, 'slan IanPat.

Posted by: IanPat at June 9, 2004 01:57 AM

I think if the line "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" stands true really up until the issue of religion arises. Take the didjeridu for instance, it's used as a sacred instrument in the australian aborigional culture but is non-discriminantly used by white people in a fun sense. The didjeridu, therefore, is apart of both cultures although interpreted differently. If a white person uses maori style tattoos simply for their appearance and not for religious or 'identification' then I really don't see a problem.

Posted by: adrian at June 26, 2004 02:29 PM

Kia ora Brian,

I've been busy, so taken me awhile to get back to this conversation. Which has been an interesting one. Ive decided to do the blog thing - mainly because I got a sweet teensy awesome laptop so want 'to do stuff'. A lot of the stuff you put in your last post has already been answered so Im not going to repeat myself where I can help it.

“Explain to me how what you just said is not you yourself speaking of a conflicting duality between the Maori and the rest of the world because that is where I miss you.”

You haven’t understood the conversation on duality. I was speaking of a _way of seeing the world_ that organises the way people re-act and act in the world. People don’t seem to understand that culture actually edits and shapes what you can literally see – and what you don’t. Pakeha perspective of the world is one of seeing dualities as confliction between those dualities – that this is a given. That’s something I notice most whites aren’t aware of about their own pakeha culture. And something I notice many indigenous cultures comment on about whites. That for them there are inherent ‘right’s and ‘wrong’s and one side of pair is on the ‘right’ side, the ‘strong’ side, the ‘superior’ side etc. And one is not. And that perspective gives you a way of acting in the world, interpreting the world – which is seen as ‘inherent’, given, natural or universal. It is however not. It’s just a white perspective, a white way of seeing and a white way of interpreting a world. It is a cultural perspective – not a universal one.

My point was there is a big difference to have a standard operating style in the world of seeing conflict inherent and an attitude of domination or submission in dealing with those different to yourself. To, for example another way of going around the world and seeing that all things are necessary for the life, balance and well being of all. If you stop and think it through, you’ll notice that the first operating style actually creates conflict and aggression by design. I am saying there is no such thing as inherent ‘opposition’ between opposites. I am also saying that Whites make conflict with that perspective – by design. (Personally I am strongly for changing that way of being in the world) I am not saying there is no such thing as no conflict – there is, however there is much that makes for conflict inevitible and this cultural trait -very much so.

‘ How is learning another culture (or family style or whatever) that you find superior to your own u healthy to anyone, especially if the new way seems more righteous and truer than the one you had previously? ‘

Can you view another culture outside a framework of ‘superior’ or ‘inferior’?? How would you rephrase that if ‘righteous’ , ‘truer’ or ‘superior’ wasn’t in your vocabulary? Think about what assumptions you make when you use that kind of terminology and thinking. Try asking those questions without placing either culture in a 'superior' or 'inferior' context and you might understand the conversation.

‘ Do you wish to condemn paheka to only aspire to the virtues of their cultural past? (If so, the world is in for a rough time. Believe it or not many of us, myself included, wish to live in greater harmony with the world around us- we don't wish to continue making the mistakes of our cultural past.) ‘

I think when in the process of ‘learning’ another’s past you are repeating the mistakes of your cultural past. You need to wake up. Brian this conversation hasn’t been about “whites shouldn’t learn about Maori culture’. Go back and read. This conversation has been about taking things without right, or permission. Whether you like it or not any people have things that they will share and equally things they will not hand over.
~Later on reply to Fionnaigh.

Cheers

Posted by: ckarena at June 28, 2004 09:29 PM

i just have one little thing to say..i have read all of your little discussions and all i can see is this.. maori keep their own culture, scots keep their own, chinese keep their own, screw everyone who isint my culture this is mine you cannot share or appreciate or whatever with my culture..so the F#$@% what? lets all become some sort of vicious Xenophobic ramblers? yes i can understand you dont want someone to attack your cultural identity by gettting moko on their face from someone elses genealogy..but i am a friend of a man i know from egypt who lives with me in Ireland and has henceforth been accepted in to my clan as "family" not refused because he is supposedly "other" or some crap. we have accepted him as family as our friend. and he has not lost any of his culture in being supposedly "assimilated" as we have been joined with his culture and his family as well! so we have become a single Egyptoirish culture or what have you...and yes for the most part i consider supposed "white" culture to be abhorrent, yeah we have the crusades, the inquisition etc. etc. but to ascribe an entire thought process based on someones skin? thats just racist! im with my brother, you know..the supposed outsider, the "egyptian".. and he makes a valid point. since he is "tan" or "middle eastern" does that mean based on his culture or his skin that he is going to go hijack a plane and crash into some people? eh? it seems that some in here truly just want white people to piss off and get away from their culture, but at the same time they think that we should learn about their culture. double edged sword. and i know youll accuse me of dualistic thinking, but you seem to be constantly thinking in dualistic terms yourself, white people vs everyone else.. does that transfer over to religions? can i never be buddhist because im not indian? could someone never learn and be a part of maori spirituality? what if someone was white and was raised since they were...oh.. lets say 4 among maori culture, since they are white are they forever banned from that spiritual sense of the world because they are white? it just seemse everyone is speaking in circles. i mean no disrespect toward anyones culture religion, thoughts, etc. but it seems that people think just because im white, im think the same way, am going to make the same mistakes, and genrally am the same way as my ancestors, and thats just wrong. Was i the one who killed africans when i went into africa? me myself? have i gone across the sea and shot some people living in reservations? am i at fault for the entire 2000 so history of problems my "whiteness" has done to everyone? if i am then i might as well go nip off and blast my head off because from teh look of things i will never in my lifetime make up for any mistakes i make.. enjoyed reading this cauldron of xenophobia...you all have a nice day..

Posted by: Sean at August 7, 2004 03:16 PM

hey im half maori, and half european, im just woundering if i could get ta moko, or Kirituhi, i would much prefer the real thing, but through my family-(maori side) i am seen as an outcast and they do not see me as maori, do not beleive i should show my maori side, so im just woundering because Ta Moko is very close to the hearts of every maori and im stuck in the middle of this

thanks Hikawera

Posted by: Hikawera at August 10, 2004 11:28 PM

Hey all.

Just been looking around for info about Kirituhi styles, and found your various postings. I admire anyone who expresses themselves and their views - regardless of so-called 'politically correct' nonsense.

Anyhow, I'm part English, part Rhodesian (now Zimbabwe) and part Scottish, and while I can easily appreciate the cultural differences between all of these groups of people, I have always considered myself, first and foremost, to be ME.

I visited NZ for a while a couple of years ago, and I've seriously thought about leaving my home-country (which, to put it bluntly - has begun to grind down my soul). I felt a tremendous connection to New Zealand, and began to think about getting a tattoo to carry with me wherever I am - to remind me of the experience of finding a country with which I felt such a bond.

As I looked around, simply trying to find ideas for possible designs, I srumbled upon the idea of 'Kirituhi' rather than 'Ta Moko'. This intrigued me, and also saddened me a little. When I was travelling around NZ with my folks, I came across many, many people who went out of their way to be as friendly and accepting as any I've met (probably more so, in fact).

Anyway, to get to the point - surely we all bleed the same, whether tattooed with Ta Moko or Kirituhi... it saddens me to think that even if I go out of my way to show respect to the Maori culture and identity - by deliberately and carefully avoiding symbolism of a culture that doesn't belong to me - I could still cause offence or derision, regardless of any tattoo being for me, not for others to judge.

Nevertheless, as I say, it's good to read all your views on such things.

Peace, all.

Posted by: John at August 20, 2004 06:15 AM

Sean,

I think this conversation has been above you. There is major big difference between white people appreciating your culture and them telling you how that culture should be, and what you should do and that they have decided they are as much Maori as you are, if they put on the trappings of your culture. That's put into simple speak, that I hope even you can understand. AND the other major point that a race minded twirp like you doesn't understand. Is that it is about FAMILY. Maori aren't a race - we are many peoples that have a family based culture - and you don't have any RIGHT to belong to my family by demanding so, as you seem to think you have.

For the South African - appreciation doesn't mean entitlement. Get over it people.

Posted by: ckarena at August 24, 2004 09:28 PM

Part of the problem, I think, is that other people's cultures don't have a particularly strong identity. OK, I've decided not to get any kind of 'tribal' tattoo. But, I still want a tattoo that means something to me about who I am and where I come from. Unfortunately, the only 'culture' in the country of my birth that's strongly associated with tattoos is that of the xenophobic, unpleasant skin-head idiots with the cross of st. george tattooed on their giant beer swilling bellies. That just ain't who I am.

I guess what I mean to say is - respect everybody's cultures, but please don't keep everybody too seperate from each other. That's how bad shit starts, know what I mean?

peace out. y'all.

Posted by: John at August 28, 2004 01:11 AM

Here is a link on the topic of leading ta moko special.
http://www.tamoko.org.nz/artists/uruora/kirituhi.html

Posted by: ckarena at August 31, 2004 10:54 AM

Just a question-- whose blog is this?

Posted by: Fiona at September 8, 2004 08:43 AM

well.

this was good to read. i thought to myself "getting a maori design would be nice. they look great and would mean something to me, being a new zealander that loves my country"
oh no, thats not enough.
but if everyones going to get all huffy puffy about it - i think ill just leave it for a while aye...

am i aloud to wear a green stone necklace?
is that ok? is it really?

oh someone please, lecture me.

ive been wearing one since i was a child.
as far as i see we are all the same. except for our attitudes.

bahhh who cares ill get one and u can say what u want HAHA im sucha a Pakeha , right?

yeah theres my lil beatch.

Posted by: jodi at September 28, 2004 09:56 PM

What do you think about this? I guess I don't feel so bad about being Paheka anymore.

"After Cooke claimed New Zealand, whaling and other ships arrived to harvest the bounties of the fertile warm waters of New Zealand. Soon conflicts between native Maori, the new settlers and traders began. The Maori, who were cannibals, were extremely warlike, with much inter-tribal fighting among themselves. They cannibalized many of the foreign settlers arriving in ships, mainly from England. The Maori, however, were not the first people to arrive in New Zealand. They were preceded by a peaceful dark skinned race who were no match for the warlike warrior tribes of Maori who arrived in long canoes holding several hundred warriors each. It wasn't long before the Maori had overpowered the more docile original settlers and settled the land. In fact it wasn't long before the Maori had driven the earlier native settlers almost to extinction. "

Posted by: Fiona at October 5, 2004 06:09 AM

Fiona, when will the message get through to you. You are not a Pakeha,because you are not a Kiwi ( a New Zealand Born New Zealander) Stay out of our Kiwi Family debates BE YOURSELF

Posted by: IanPat at October 11, 2004 09:44 PM

This is quite a conversation. Although I would need time to mull over the characterizations of Western culture made here, I do think that there is quite a bit of truth to them, at least in spirit. I am an American, the epitome of white consumer culture. It doesn't get whiter than me, folks! But I am also a student of anthropology and philosophy, and that has allowed me to not only cultivate a deep appreciation for other cultures, but to also look at mine critically as well. I'm not entirely sure I would agree that Westerners have a sense of inherent ownership and rights to things that would not otherwise belong to them, but I do think that that was certainly the attitude of whites and Europeans for a terribly long time. Now that a fierce sense of democracy has taken its place, that sense of superiority has been replaced by the attitude that everything should be free to be adopted and shared and transmitted. It's very foreign, especially for Americans who come from such a diverse society, to us to be confronted by a people who are very protective of their customs and traditions. We tend to feel like such a culture is telling us we are not worthy or we are inferior, probably because our egos are so fragile :). What we need to understand is that not all cultures are open to sharing their traditions, because these traditions have significant meaning only in context. That context is extremely specific: people who belong to those cultures through heredity. It's not a statement of superiority or an act of isolation. If you take it out of context, not only is it meaningless, but it causes the traditions to lose meaning even in context. If everyone suddenly has facial moko, then the process by which it is earned will become merely an incidental matter of degree. Of course this is insulting to indigenous cultures. But the conflict isn't one of ownership, it's philosophy. The Western world wants everything to be democratic and free and open, not out of selfishness or greed, but that is not possible, appropriate, or realistic in a lot of cases. The Western philosophy may be well meaning, but it needs to be tempered with an understanding of the realities of other cultures. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

On a slightly different note, I am awed by Maori culture. I think it is beautiful and inspiring. I have no intention to become anything like a Maori because the concept of becoming Maori is absurd. Anyone who feels the need to force themselves into a culture to which they don't and technically can't belong must be lacking a strong self image or background. While this is surely a stressful and painful condition to bare psychologically, the cure is not to adopt a culture to which you cannot belong. There is a distinct difference between admiring a culture and trying to become part of it. I think every culture should encourage others' fascination and admiration, but those others should in turn know, respect, and strictly adhere to the limitations to which they can participate. I think the idea of kirituhi is a good compromise and will satisfy the desire to wear Maori designs while preserving the authenticity of ta moko. Very rare is even the Westerner who would steal a Maori's heritage when they have a perfectly viable alternative, provided they've been educated about the differences.

Personally, I am actively looking into kirituhi for myself, but I will not undertake any Maori styled tattoo until I've learned everything I can about this issue and the practice itself. I would be truly ashamed to find out that what I meant as an act of deep respect and admiration turned out to be the exact opposite.

Posted by: thissounddefense at October 22, 2004 07:27 AM

like many others who posted here i was just surfing around, (for some ta moko tats) and found this..i am a maori my tribes are Te Rarawa, Te Aupouri and Nga Puhi and i am currently designing a Ta Moko (shoulder) for me and my father.... i see alot of posts and people who are really into the maori culture.. i personally believe non maori people can get ta moko

this is a quote from tamoko.com.au - a great site for info and designs but like the artest says never copy a maori design that isnt for you!

"Sometimes it is useful to view Maori tattoo designs as a kind of language. In this context, then, a true statement can be said about you in a language that is not your own. If I were to say that 'you have a mother and father' in (for example) German, the statement is still true whether you are German or not. Within Moko-style designs there are universal themes concerning nature, spirituality and humanity.
There are, however, certain subjects that cannot be covered and certain traditional designs that would also not be appropriate for non-Maori.

If a pattern is devised FOR YOU, ABOUT YOU, then it cannot be anything but appropriate.

However, IF THE DESIGN HAS BEEN COPIED, then you are wearing someone else's design, story, family, expressions etc ...
THIS COULD CERTAINLY OFFEND!!!!!!! (Maori, the wearer and their family!)

Concerning offensiveness to Maori, over non-Maori wearing a Maori tattoo, if it is done in the correct way I see no cause for alarm, however, there will always be some, that think Maori designs are for Maori people only.
I think that generally, people who are offended by a Pakeha wearing a Maori style tattoo do not understand what the design is expressing!
To me, I am happy that people, regardless of their descent and genealogy have respect and admiration of Maori art, so much so, as to wish to wear such a beautiful piece for the rest of their lives!
In any case, whatever your opinion, it certainly beats the way some Europeans used to collect Moko in the early colonial times!!!"- Ben Te Hau

so if the tattoo is designed for you then you should where it proudly no matter who you are or where you are from so on so on

Posted by: farnorthboy at November 12, 2004 06:08 AM