New Zealand - bicultural or multicultural?

Again, New Zealand has embarked on an initiative of acknowledging, and apologising for, all of the suffering and the discrimination which the Maori population had to endure from their contractual partner of the Treaty of Waitangi, which is The Crown, today represented by the Pakeha of English origin. At the time, Maori were treated unjustly, tricked out of the land they inhabited, were forbidden to speak their language in public, and many other things too. Not that this was unusual behaviour, looking at it on a global scale, but I believe the English nation just believes that they could and should have done much better, and still can. A new, repeat attempt at seeing both ethnicities at the same level, with equal rights and equal access to the riches of this country, has been launched, this time less focussing on land rights and ownership, but more on language and health care. In a recent issue, the News Agency  “Stuff” brought an open letter to the Maori population, promising, from now on, to see New Zealand through “a multicultural lens“. When I read that, I saw a silver lining on the horizon. We need to lift our eyes to see the different Asian, South American, Middle East, African, different European, US and Canadian ethnicities. 

The main article that followed, however, disappointed in that regard. The apology focussed on an old, merely bicultural view, disregarding any other ethnicity currently residing in New Zealand. Why is that so? The behaviour and mistakes the Commonwealth nation is wanting to apologise for, may relate to what happened specifically towards the Maori tribes. However, Chinese immigrants were treated just as badly in the past, just as an example, and even today, using another European language than English in public can sometimes make the atmosphere feel tense. It makes me think that the reason for these repeat apologies and attempts to adress “racism” is a lasting feeling of guilt, and the centre of the efforts is rather to lessen the weight of that than to address actual cultural differences (not only to the Maori ethnicity) in a constructive and integrative way. I remember once standing up in one of these “Cultural Competence” courses for health workers, and asking why there was no representation of any ethnicity apart from the Maori (not even the Pakeha were represented by themselves). The answer sounded a bit awkward and ashamed - "Well, there is, you know, The Treaty of Waitangi, and this is our focus here really". What followed was rather a “Maori Culture tripping stones” course. 

The ongoing attempt to create equity and integration for the Maori population creates problems in itself. Trying to merge their cultural cornerstones, into one New Zealand society, at the same time trying to dissipate initiatives of too loud self-affirmation of Maori. Why play traditional Maori principles so little role in medicine, although Maori medicine has been studied and well described in literature? And, the whole social welfare system is based so much more on individualism rather than family structures. Regarding Te Reo (language), more and more Maori words are integrated into English language, rather than teaching Te Reo Maori grammars at school. The hierarchic and wisdom-revering mentality of the Maori does not match up with the youth-focussed, equalist and humanistic view of the white society, and is seen as backwards or inferior, something that has to be corrected rather than to be investigated with a sense of curiosity. In the same way we could do that in the areas of medicine, spirituality, and priorities. When talking about ethnicities, it might pay to involve a bit of healthy “discrimination”. To discriminate originally means to discern, to acknowledge differences. Maybe Maori have a different concept of governance and relationship to land, different social concepts, priorities, and so forth. 

If there is division between English Pakeha about the attitude towards the Maori ethnicity, this is, in my perception, also a schiasm within the soul of the individual New Zealander of English origin. This might not make things easier to deal with. Some topics of relevance linger carefully locked away from the conversational surface, protected by a minefield of taboos. What would make a real change easier, would be an honest acknowledgement, and sometimes discussion, of significant differences in heritage and culture.  

And yet, the New Zealand society consists of many more ethnicities, and people of different cultural, political and religious backgrounds. One could observe that they make different contributions to this society. 

True recognition, and true interest in the values of the other ethnicity, would be the beginning of the healing of a very old gap, and would finally make a more fruitful integration of cultures possible, or at least name and acknowledge differences, for instance in social structures, priorities, medicine, and spiritual views. 

Sure, in a way there is a treaty of only two cultures, that was set into a written form 180 years ago. But there should be an unwritten, ever renewing Treaty, involving all ethnicities that New Zealanders have invited to permanently reside in their country they once called Godzone.