John Langley: Cultural prejudice as strong as ever

COMMENT

"Redneckism" is alive and well in this country, yet we delude ourselves that it is not. We think we have made progress in race relations and to a small degree we may have. After all, some of the All Blacks seem able to sing some of the words of the first verse of the national anthem. Progress indeed.

But underneath, prejudice is alive and well. But if you suggest such a thing, the immediate response from many quarters is that you are being politically correct.

Political correctness, at its worst, is tiresome, nit-picking protocol that stifles debate and progress.

But this should not be confused with common decency, a concept that seems alien to a number of groups.

I am often amazed at how quickly the ill-informed and hypocritical launch into attacks on things Maori when their initiatives, businesses or prominent figures go wrong, conveniently forgetting that, in most cases, the same things also go wrong for Pakeha in much larger doses.

Over the past few years we have had the Maori loans scandal, Tuku Morgan's undies, Tau Henare's overseas trip, Tuariki Delamere's immigration advice, Maori television, some dodgy land deals, and the temporary demise of Donna Awatere-Huata. (I say temporary because she doesn't strike me as the sort of person just to fade into the landscape.)

When these things happen, the response from many, including the media, is a wringing of hands and a rolling of eyes, as much as to say, "What can you expect? Another Maori botch-up".

The pose adopted is paternalistic and patronising and it implies that to a large degree Maori cannot be involved in such important affairs as public-service posts and businesses.

Now let's put this into the context of our history over the 1980s and 1990s. During that time many of our assets were sold off because of the dogma of the day, only to be bought back at huge cost because they had been badly run or were not profitable enough to sustain in private hands. Think Air New Zealand. Think railways. Think Bank of New Zealand.

I wonder how much money has been squandered on the back of what were seen to be sound public policy decisions.

Also during that period we saw the biggest sharemarket crash since the Great Slump of 1929.

So-called high-flyers went to the wall, often taking the investments of those who could not afford it with them. Think Chase Corporation, Equiticorp, Judgecorp, Goldcorp and Landmark, to name a few.

Their collapse helped to plunge the country into one of the biggest downturns in modern times. I wonder where the men who ran those companies are now. Has anyone suggested that Pakeha are not fit to be involved in public policy or business as a result?

Put bluntly, the indiscretions and mistakes of Maori pale into insignificance compared with the monumental blunders that have been carried out by their Pakeha counterparts during the same period.

Another example of old-fashioned prejudice is when it is periodically suggested that all children should learn Maori in our education system.

This really gets them going. Howls of outrage. New Zealand children have enough trouble speaking English, let alone learning Maori. If they have to learn another language, wouldn't it be better to learn Chinese or Japanese?

Let's look at this. In many countries, children learn two or even three languages at school. In Hong Kong, for instance, the goal is to be trilingual and biliterate by 2010. In other parts of Asia, children are taught English as a matter of course. In Europe, children may be taught several languages.

Essentially, there appear to be two reasons for this: one is a matter of principle, the other a matter of pragmatism.

The principle relates to being able to communicate and understand those you live with.

The pragmatism relates to being able to engage in the language of commerce which, fortuitously for us, is English.

Presumably, New Zealand children are just as intelligent as those in other places, so why not teach them the language when they are best able to learn it?

Why Maori rather than Chinese? That's simple. We live here with our fellow citizens, who are Maori. It is important that we understand and be able to show respect for our fellow citizens if the country is to have any future. It is hard to develop that understanding and respect unless you have some knowledge of the language.

Simply learning about customs and culture in social studies doesn't cut the mustard and never will. I am not suggesting that learning Chinese, Japanese or French is a bad thing. Clearly, it should be encouraged for the same reasons. Learning Maori should not be encouraged, however; it should be required.

Some years ago I had a Maori colleague who looked at me sadly and said how difficult it had been for him to go through life and have almost no one pronounce his name correctly.

We have come a long way since then and it gladdens my heart when I hear my children pronounce Maori words and phrases in a way that I never would have at their age. However, that is not enough.

A person's language is the window to their culture. It is more than a means of communication.

It denotes and describes the history, principles, values and behaviours that are significant to those who use it. It describes and defines the way relationships work. It determines how we define our aspirations and future.

Rather than avoid this issue, as we have done, what would be so hard about making a commitment to our fellow citizens, saying that we do value them, do want to understand them and to be part of their future, just as we expect them to be part of ours?

* Dr John Langley is the principal of the Auckland College of Education.