What Outsiders Can Usefully Say

https://asiapacificreport.nz/2018/11/24/mary-louise-ocallaghan-time-we-heard-the-pacifics-take-on-the-pacific/

pn201

Comments from  long-time Australian journalist Mary-Louise O'Callaghan on the passing of foreign journalists who lived and worked in the Pacific and the opportunity now to  hear from Pacific journalists with analyses from their perspective came as a little surprise.

Where has she been for the last few decades? Or by "Pacific" is she  thinking only of  PNG and perhaps Western Melanesia?   In  the wider Pacific local journalists have long been presenting news that reflects their perspectives and their agendas, though they do tend to be swamped in our media by our journalists who see the Pacific from New Zealand perspectives.  It's a rare Kiwi voice such as Prof David Robie who identifies with and usually reflects Pacific news priorities.

But it was her next statement when she wrote of  an "insight only an indigenous member of an indigenous society can have" that caused me to pause and reflect a little longer,

Indigenous? Only indigenous? Which Indigenous when they disagree? Think of Fiji. What of others born and raised in the Islands?  Have they no insights?  

True, indigenous people  have insights into their society, as we all do of our own societies, and some of the insights only they can know, but sometimes other influences may  impair  indigenous and local insights for political, religious or other purposes. And sometimes, on some issues,  the insights of outsiders may better analyse  a society.

I'm not thinking about the comments on the social media about my postings by anti-FijiFirst activists.  I'm thinking back to New Zealand in the 1960s when an outsider, an American Jewish sociologist, saw things in our society that that we either did not or did not want to see.   Many of us reacted very strongly, telling him to go home and fix his country's problems before telling us what to do about ours.

David Ausubel  wrote a book The Fern and the Tiki (1960) in which he said our race relations were not as good as we (Pakeha) claimed.   Bill Pearson wrote a review of the book in the Journal of the Polynesian Society (December, 1960), reprinted below,  which I invite you to read while reflecting on what insiders and outsiders can say and do.

I think Ausubel's observations  are as sound and pertinent now as they were then,  Note that he observed three Pakeha responses (overt racism. racism denied (assimilation), and equal relationships)  and a defensive and offensive response by Maori.   -- ACW

David Ausubel (1918-2008) 

 Dr Ausubel admits that the racial situation is, in relation to that of some other countries, reasonably good (pp. 155-6, 211); he complains, however, that the situation is not nearly so good as most pakehas like to believe, and that the worst feature is 'the national self-delusion which blocks recognition of the existence of a problem' (p. 156).

He was surprised at the frequency of frankly anti-Maori sentiments; he soon could define the outline of a common pakeha stereotype of the Maori as lazy, shiftless, unreliable, improvident, happy-go-lucky, with such occasional concomitants as living off social security and family benefits, being sexually promiscuous and frequently drunk. Behind patronising attitudes he found a deep-seated belief in Maori inferiority, a belief partly reflected in the ignorance of and indifference to the history and traditions of local Maoris, and more seriously reflected in unwillingness to understand current problems the Maori people are facing.

Many pakehas are willing to accept Maoris as equals only if they conform to European values and standards, while other pakehas may deride them for attempting to act otherwise than they are expected to.

Many pakehas, too, are unable to distinguish between the enforced segregation of a minority and segregation that is desired by them: thus, some pakehas, in the name of an abstract equality will advocate the abolition of the four Maori seats and the Maori schools at the same time as they are complacent about the exclusion of Maoris from the more desirable suburbs.

For most pakehas integration means assimilation and they dislike any perpetuation of distinctively Maori values and traditions since it offends their desire for complete conformity. Dr Ausubel is right to point out that a nation that boasts of being a modern welfare state should be ashamed of the standards of health and sanitation that exist in some rural Maori communities.

Besides this critical survey of the attitudes of a majority to a minority, Dr Ausubel recognises the existence of a number of pakehas who live and work unselfishly among Maoris, speaking their language, knowing their culture and traditions, and working with them for their advancement.

Turning to the attitudes of the Maori, Dr Ausubel finds a range of attitudes, from shyness and suspicion through a relatively benign hostility and some surviving bitterness over confiscations to sullenness in reaction to pakeha prejudice.

He also discusses the attitudes of Maoris to themselves, attitudes formed in the context of pakeha prejudice: feelings of inferiority and self-contempt, as well as an increasing attitude of pride in being Maori.