Tapu Misa: Let's get beyond ridiculous stereotyping

Andy Haden. Photo / Sarah Ivey

I have tried to teach my children not to let themselves be defined by others. Reject stereotypes, stand tall, be your own person.

So I'm not sure which former All Black "great" annoys me more right now.

Andy Haden for the suggestion that a mythical "three darkies, no more" selection policy is the reason behind the Crusaders' success - strenuously denied by the team's management, and not backed up by the evidence.

Or the mind-blowingly silly assertion by another ageing ex-All Black, Bernie Fraser, that Pacific Island players need things explained to them with "simple concepts".

Sad to say, this probably reveals more about Fraser and the attitudes prevalent in New Zealand when the Fiji-born former winger was playing rugby, than the Fijian players he once coached.

In an interview over the weekend, Fraser goes on to make the rather strange comment that he had been "the biggest racist out" in his rugby-playing days. "I regard myself as a coconut and I call every other Polynesian a coconut."

Does someone need to explain racism to him in really "simple concepts"?

(Dear Bernie, being "too bloody PC" is not the problem here. It's that race issues are more complicated and sensitive than a quick soundbite suggests.)

My eldest son wanted me to leap to Andy Haden's defence this week because he thinks there may have been some truth to what he said; that he was just being cynical when he uttered the nasty "darkies" word; and that Haden has a point about the physicality of players dictating their style of play.

"If you're strong, maybe you are more likely to go through the wall than around," he says.

It sounds reasonable. My son is a smart 17-year-old, a history and politics buff who has never played rugby. He's doing his best to resist the stereotypes, but he slips too easily into the generalisations being peddled by Haden and others in the rugby fraternity - that New Zealand rugby is being ruined by the dominance of Pacific Island players: big, dim-witted oafs who aren't capable of playing intelligently.

As with any race-based theory, there's always a grain of truth. Everybody knows, don't they, that the island boys are explosive, physical and instinctive, rather than tactical and strategic like the white players.

They're also inclined to pray too much, according to Haden, making their non-religious teammates feel uncomfortable, and causing division in their ranks.

Ergo, the browning of New Zealand rugby is bad. Thanks to Pacific Island players we will never be great again.

Or so the thesis goes. The problem is it lumps Pacific Islanders into a one-size-fits-all problem, as if all players of Pacific descent are cast in the same mould. It ignores the enormous differences between Pacific people, and the range of talents, strengths and weaknesses each individual brings to the game. And that's short-sighted as well as racist.

Who exactly is the quintessential Pacific Island player, anyway?

Is it the religious, never-on-a-Sunday Michael Jones, who in his heyday was ranked the best flanker in the world?

Or Sione Lauaki, who seems to get into trouble every time he goes out?

What about Bryan Williams, Joe Stanley, Olo Brown, Jonah Lomu, Tana Umaga, Rodney So'oialo, Mils Muliaina, Keven Mealamu, or George Smith in Australia? Where do they fit on the continuum?

The idea that these players share some kind of inherent mental inadequacy based on their Pacific heritage is ridiculous and wrong. It's as ridiculous and wrong as the corollary that every Pakeha rugby player is an intellectual giant.

It goes without saying that rugby requires different kinds of physical and mental abilities.

Let's by all means talk about the need for balance in our rugby sides. But if players are being picked for the wrong skills, whose fault is that?

And if New Zealand rugby hasn't worked out how to get the best out of the Pacific players it selects, then maybe it needs to spend more time finding out what makes its players tick and how it can take advantage of the diverse talents on offer in this country.

Rugby can be a great unifying force, but our rugby fraternity's record on race relations has been checkered at best. The grudging, too-slow apology to Maori players for our shameful pandering to South African rugby's racist demands during the apartheid years being a recent case in point.

Canterbury seems to be on to something - and if we're to believe the denials, it's not what Haden and others seem to believe.

The franchise seems to pick the best individuals based on nothing more mysterious than the skills and qualities its selectors think they'll bring to the game and the team.

And then it puts time and effort into making them better.

That's what works - not some real or imagined racist quota.

Tapu.Misa@gmail.com