RICHARD BOOCK
Well, not so much a teacher in this case, as a professor. In fact, we're talking about the head of Maori studies at Auckland University. And let's be honest, but for Mutu's belief that I apparently harbour white supremacist leanings, a product of the region from which my ancestors migrated, I'd normally bow to her superior qualifications. Clearly, however, one can't be both a white supremacist and a supporter of tolerance at the same time.
The potted story? This one started with a recent Department of Labour report showing that Maori were more likely to express anti-immigration sentiment than any other ethnic group, or Pakeha. Mutu, of course, was quick to blame the immigrants for this, and especially the white ones. If the Government would only cut back on the number of white folk in New Zealand, she reckoned, Maori attitudes towards white folk would vastly improve.
And that's sort of where she lost me, to be fair. Please feel free to help me understand. It's not that I'm surprised about the report's results, given the oppression and injustice suffered by Maori over the past 150 years. But surely that doesn't that make racial stereotyping acceptable, either. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that. Or have I missed something again? Is the answer to racial intolerance really racial intolerance? Who would've guessed?
Another question. It's true, I'm no academic, but it looked like the report had surveyed about 1000 people living in New Zealand on their perceptions of immigrants. Yet Mutu's remarks suggest she's conducted her own study on migrants' perceptions of New Zealanders, in particular Maori. It sure would be nice to see the data. Especially the bit that shows how restricting white immigration would lead to less racism against Maori.
Again, given Mutu's credentials, I should probably just shut up and take her word for it. It's just that the Auckland in which I live doesn't feel split along such black and white lines anymore. These days Asians speak derisively of Pacific Islanders and Maori, and vice versa; Pakistanis and Indians besmirch each other, those from the Muslim Middle East are increasingly vilified. From what I'm told, it's a natural by-product of the melting pot.
Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong (most people don't need an invitation) but the Labour Department report results didn't isolate a particular Maori antipathy towards white immigrants, either. Just that they were the most likely to agree with negative statements about immigrants in general. Which makes far more sense than Mutu's explanation regarding the arrival of a plague of white supremacists. If you didn't know better, you'd almost think she was hoping for it.
And that's where I'm stuck, really. I've run aground on Mutu's idea that the best way to ease Maori concerns about race relations is to not have any. That Maori would have a better relationship with white people if there were only fewer of them; that they wouldn't have similar issues with immigrants from non-white countries. That an immigration ban on anyone who didn't support Maori policy was the way to go. Like algebra, none of that made any sense to me at all.
Oh well, I did tell you I couldn't understand.
Read more of Richard Boock in the Sunday Star Times.
