Entry 2226, on 2022-07-17 at 15:01:42 (Rating 4, Philosophy)
My previous blog post "Some Controversial Views" has been deemed not controversial enough by several readers, so apparently I have to try harder to offend people. I don't go out of my way to write controversial stuff; I just write what I think, which is sometimes seen as controversial (as well as true, of course). So what could be more controversial than the subjects I covered in the last post: gay pride, abortion, trans rights, and indigenous culture?
Well, the suggestion has been made that I should cover the infiltration of indigenous cultural values and beliefs into academia. For various reasons - not the least of them being potential persecution by the bureaucracy for having contrary views - I would prefer to talk about this phenomenon in relation to the country in general, which includes what is happening in universities, but is not limited to that.
So, with the understanding that the following is not necessarily my view, but a perspective I think is worth considering, let's get started...
I'm writing from the perspective of a New Zealander, so I will be concentrating on how the imposition of elements of Maori (the original inhabitants of this country) culture is affecting our society. But this is a global trend, so similar issues affect other countries.
There are several areas where Maori culture affects modern society in general, including universities: language, political correctness, and indigenous perspectives being applied to traditionally Western areas of knowledge. I'll have a look at each of these and make a few comments from perspectives I have heard from both supporters and detractors of the new regime.
So first, language. There has been a recent trend to use Maori names for various organisations, to rename many places to their Maori names, and to use the Maori language more in general. This is inconvenient, and possibly significantly problematic, for many people, because very few New Zealanders have a thorough knowledge of that language. A lot of people have problems remembering the Maori names for government ministries and other organisations, for example.
One case of this is the New Zealand Transport Agency which is now usually called "Waka Kotahi" which seems to translate to "one car", although the word "waka" originally meant canoe, according to what I can establish. But I always thought this was the Ministry of Transport, which is actually "Te Manatu Waka" apparently. You can see how this becomes confusing. The Maori language has no words for many modern concepts and technologies, so it is unsuitable for many of the tasks it is asked to cover.
So what have we gained by applying confusing, largely irrelevant, names to organisations based on Western structures? It's pure political correctness, and it's annoying, a source of inefficiency, and potentially confusing.
A similar issue exists for common place names in this country. We often hear in weather reports, news, and other sources, the Maori names of places which have always been referred to with their English names in the past. Non-Maori speakers have to subconsciously try to remember which place is being referenced and, even if they can do the translation, they might lose track of the larger topic under discussion.
And then there is the habit of many in the media today of using Maori for quite significant sections of their reporting. A word here or there most people can cope with, but in general once large sections of a language unknown to them starts, they just stop listening. Many people refuse to even listen to programs or TV or radio channels which indulge in this habit.
But is there another side to this story? Is it reasonable to use a language which was the first one used in this country, pre-colonisation, and is an official language of New Zealand, and is still seen by many, especially Maori, as an important part of the national identity? Well, sure, I can appreciate that perspective, especially from an emotional angle, but we need to be more cognisant of the practicality of this, and decide on how far the use of the Maori language, which has very little practical applicability, should be taken.
And if people aren't familiar with the language, should they not learn more of it? This is one reason it is used more today: as a form of persuasion for learning. Well sure, if a person wants to do that, that's fine, but many people have neither the time nor interest in learning a language which has minimal use beyond understanding material being inflicted on them through a process which is little more than social engineering.
The second issue I listed above is "political correctness". This phrase is often used in a derogatory sense, but for the more woke elements of society it is just another way of saying to do the right thing. In other words, it really is doing what is correct in a political context. Of course, I am using it in the more negative way here!
There is little doubt that the PC elements in society, including most politicians, give Maori culture favourable treatment. A positive spin is applied to any events involving that culture, and a negative one to the dominant Western culture. For example, many people claim that the way Maori treat the environment is being portrayed in such a positive light is flawed at best. Many would claim that Maori did far more damage to the environment than the settlers did, in fact, and there is good evidence supporting this idea.
And any events from the past where Europeans acted unfairly or violently are emphasised, but far worse events involving Maori are ignored or excused. If we are going to hold cultures to account for their past misdeeds, should we not do it in an equitable way?
The final issue is indigenous perspectives being applied to traditionally Western areas of knowledge. There has been a certain amount of controversy over this recently, and it has become a fairly significant source of disagreement, as well as involving the usual attempted cancelling of people who refuse to accept the politically correct perspective.
Primarily, this involves the concept of "Maori science". Whether this is a problem or not partly depends on how precise your definition of the word "science" is, but I think it is fair to use the non-archaic use which is a systematic process to discover and validate new knowledge. Note that in this sense, it does not refer to a simple body of knowledge, but more to a formal and objective method to establish that information.
So, in the more general sense everyone has science, because every culture undoubtedly has a collection of knowledge which is acquired and maintained through social processes, like written or verbal histories, teaching, etc. But science in the true sense is more than that, and involves careful and systematic accumulation of knowledge which has been verified through processes such as double-blind experiments, peer review, and statistical analysis.
That makes science a far more exact term, and one which can really only be applied to the methods which primarily arose first from Greek philosophy, then became more formalised during the Enlightenment. Note that this means that very little, if any, real science comes from traditional knowledge. So from this perspective, there is no Maori science.
This was reinforced to me recently when a person I was debating recommended I look at the work of an esteemed Maori astronomer (which I assumed meant a person pursuing the science of astronomy). But when I looked at his work, it was really mythology, and contained nothing that I would call science. Note that I think there is nothing wrong with mythology, but please don't call it science!
But there is a more important aspect to this too, and an even better reason why "Maori science" just isn't a thing. Science is science. It is the same whatever its origin might be. So by adding "Maori" as an adjective modifying the noun, you either get something which should really just be called "science" or could be called "Maori knowledge" or "mythology".
Do we call the discoveries of Darwin "English science" or of Hubble "American science". Well, we might if we wanted to emphasise the country of origin of the scientist involved, but the actual process is the same and when we evaluate the value of a scientific discovery, the knowledge under discussion should be judged on its merits, not the cultural background of the person who made the discovery.
So I don't take "Maori science" seriously, because it is actually mythology (according to what I have seen anyway) in the same way as I don't take "Christian science" seriously, because it is actually theology. Of course, I take just plain old science done by Maori people or Christians seriously, but that usually isn't described as anything beyond just plain old vanilla science.
To summarise all of this, and to state my underlying philosophy on this topic: I want to ignore people's ethnicity when it isn't relevant. I want everyone to be treated the same, and that means no special privileges for either the dominant majority of people, or the allegedly oppressed minorities. I will celebrate excellent science done by a Maori person as much as anyone else, but diluting the prestige and effectiveness of a primarily Western construct, like science, by allowing scientifically illiterate material in, is going too far.
And using the Maori language is fine, and I really don't mind too much if a bit of it is used in news and other sources, but when it makes understanding the material impossible to anyone except fluent speakers, that is going too far.
Criticising the bad and celebrating the good aspects of a culture is fine, but do it evenly. If you want to criticise Western culture for using slaves in the past, then aslo criticise Maori culture for doing the same thing.
And if real science is done by a Maori person then I will acknowledge that as much as if it was done by anyone of any other culture, but don't ask me to pretend that myths are science, because that is unacceptable to me.
That's about as controversial as I can get on this subject, so I hope that makes those asking for a more extreme diatribe happy. If not, please add your own controversial opinions on the subject to the comments!
Comment 1 (7233) by Allan on 2022-07-21 at 10:04:03:
Strange that there has been no comments logged so far.
Language: For some reason it is felt there is an obligation to adopt Maori language into all our Govt departments and place names. Strange because as I understand it the Maoris had no written language.
I have no problem with Maori or any other residents in NZ wanting to retain some of their National language, but please do not expect me to adopt it, as I cannot see it having any value in todays world. Maori is both annoying to listen to, and in my opinion has no use in our education system. When we are having problems with funding education, teaching Maori or other languages should be available to those who want to pay for them as an option.
When it comes to place names, I am still referring to Mt Egmont, Mt Cook, Mt Tasman etc as I am more proud of what our European explorers achieved, and feel it is far more part of my hereditary background than Maori will ever be. That is not to say that I do not appreciate learning of Maori exploits and myths, because even though they relied on their history to be handed down verbally, and it has probably been embellished over time it may have some truth. Perhaps they really did fish the North Island up.
Comment 2 (7234) by OJB on 2022-07-21 at 19:54:44:
Yes, I agree with that, although I am probably a little bit more tolerant of the "Maorification" of stuff than you.
For example, I refer to Mt Taranaki, not Egmont (who was Egmont, anyway? Answer, some pommie git called John Perceval, 2nd Earl of Egmont), but I still use Mt Cook (Captain Cook was a great explorer and important in our history). So I think there is room for both, although there are so many places with Maori names already I really don't think we need any more.
I completely agree with you about the teaching of the language too. Make it an option, because only truly essential things should be compulsory.
I think it is important to understand the difference between myths and real history. We shouldn't get the two confused. And no, as I said above, there is no Maori science.
Comment 3 (7235) by OJB on 2022-07-21 at 19:58:52:
Just did a bit of research on the 2nd Earl of Egmont...
"Perceval sat in the Irish House of Commons for Dingle between 1731 and 1749. In April 1748, he was created Gentleman of the Bedchamber to the Prince of Wales. He was made a Privy Counsellor in January 1755.
He sat in the Parliament of Ireland for Dingle (1731–49) and in the House of Commons for Westminster (1741–47), Weobley (1747–54) and..."
You've got to laugh. You couldn't make this stuff up!
Comment 4 (7236) by Allan on 2022-07-21 at 20:57:06:
I believe Perceval was the first person to calculate the height of Mt Egmont, hence his name is of some importance when associated with the mountain
Comment 5 (7237) by OJB on 2022-07-21 at 21:45:14:
I had never heard that. I heard he had helped fund Cook's expedition, or something. I'll have to have another look. Maybe I'll go back to calling it Mt Egmont!
Comment 6 (7238) by OJB on 2022-07-21 at 22:05:05:
According to Wikipedia: "Mount Egmont in New Zealand was named after him by James Cook in recognition of his encouragement of Cook's first voyage. While the mountain has returned to its original Maori name of Taranaki since the 2000s, the Egmont name still applies to the national park that surrounds the peak and geologists still refer to the peak as the Egmont Volcano."
Comment 7 (7239) by Allan on 2022-07-22 at 10:08:30:
Yes I probably jumped the gun here. It is along time since I studied this history, and on reflection I believe it was some other climber/explorer who boiled the billy of water on the top of Mt Egmont to determine the temperature of the boiling point, and thereby determine the height.
Comment 8 (7240) by Anonymous on 2022-07-22 at 11:08:38:
You can’t hear it, but I am applauding. In handling this self-imposed (or rather intimated-to-you) topic you have chosen the most strategically intelligent way, in my view, one can choose in the circumstances: giving your deliberation the tinge of scientific objectivity. This kind of seeming impartiality is even better than using the perspective of practicality, although you also use it in passing. Both are a convenient and useful shield against ideological “backdraft” but work only effectively in a liberal society and under a political regime that recognises a degree of right to free speech. You might as well make use of it while it lasts. The STASI would have seen right through it.
If I search for your motivation for this kind of quasi-objective, cautious assessment , I think I find it in your preambling remarks: “For various reasons - not the least of them being potential persecution by the bureaucracy for having contrary views - I would prefer to talk…”[end of quote].
Searching for motivation of course has the disadvantage whatever the outcome it has great deniability (i.e. the researched side can deny it and claim gross misunderstanding – where the thought police would accept no such excuses).
But asking for motivation is a legitimate method in the sociology of knowledge enterprise which by and large is based on the premise that knowledge, ideas, opinions, beliefs etc. arise in a causative sense from a socio-economic baseline; or in other words have some causal connection with socio-economic “interestedness”. Does it apply here?
I almost feel I should apologise for my blunt assessment of your assessment, but then I claim the objectivity of the scientist as my motivation and shield from persecution if need be.
Among the multifacetedness of my knee-jerk like responsive move there is disappointment. In your mellifluous musings there is no hint of a big-picture recognition. Long-term effects for instance in engineering a change of national identity, the ethics of social engineering per se, the principles of democracy and the “terror of the minority”. Can you dig a bit deeper? What a nice side-step of the topic’s (potential) brisance by arguing about Sir bloody Percival. Who the heck cares in this context.
Comment 9 (7241) by OJB on 2022-07-22 at 11:22:13:
To Allan: Ah, the old boiling point method for measuring altitude. That's very good. Not sure how accurate it is, but it's a brilliant application of basic chemistry!
Comment 10 (7242) by OJB on 2022-07-22 at 11:28:36:
To Anonymous. I presented a nuanced view for two reasons: first, as you observed, to protect myself against any repercussions of having too strong a view which can be attributed to myself; and second, because I genuinely believe there are two sides to this story (as there is to every story) and I wanted to present both of them. Simple "rants" which take one perspective and ignore others are less persuasive to people who aren't already converts to my view, at least in my experience.
I accept your criticism that I concentrated on the detailed view and didn't take on the "big picture". Maybe I will revisit this subject soon and present some of those larger societal effects.
Comment 11 (7267) by Ken Spall on 2022-08-19 at 17:40:37:
Hi Owen, not sure how this will fit in with your above comments, but I’d like to throw in another potentially controversial comment. Māori here in NZ seem to regard themselves as indigenous - I don’t agree. They have only been here a relatively short period of time and (maybe flippantly) are an immigrant race the same as the rest of us. Surely a controversial topic for consideration?
Comment 12 (7268) by OJB on 2022-08-20 at 12:09:49:
According to Wikipedia under "indigenous people", the definition includes "...whose members are directly descended from the earliest known inhabitants of a particular geographic region..." So "earliest" doesn't mean "forever". After all, the only place humans would be truly indigenous would be central Africa; every other location was populated by humans from Africa.
So I don't think you can create a case based on that, although there are plenty of other ways to criticise the pro-Maori policies we see today.
Comment 13 (7282) by Ken Spall on 2022-08-27 at 17:26:05:
Fair comment, but after looking at the wide definitions of indigenous in various dictionaries I’m still not entirely convinced that this term applies to Māori. A bit of a grey area of course debatable.
Nevertheless, I do enjoy reading your various commentaries.
Comment 14 (7283) by OJB on 2022-08-27 at 23:05:24:
I don't think the argument that Maori have no special status here depends on them being or not being indigenous. We all came from somewhere else (except for Africans), just at different times. With no formal system of establishing ownership Maori can't make a legal claim so I say we all have the same status and rights. It seems the most rational view, and the one which should result in the least conflict.
Comment 15 (7284) by Ken Spall on 2022-08-29 at 14:40:55:
Yes, I would certainly agree with that way of looking at it. After all our racial origin is just a simple random accident of birth.
Comment 16 (7285) by OJB on 2022-08-29 at 17:54:26:
I think having separate rules for different groups of people, especially when it is based on race, is a recipe for disaster. It just breeds resentment and misunderstanding. We need to move on to where we are all just New Zealanders. Most "Maoris" are more European than Maori anyway. It's just a matter of current fashion that claiming to be Maori is seen as a positive thing.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE