Political correctness caused problems for Larry Summers at Harvard. A particularly virulent form of political correctness resulted in riots around the world in the case of those Danish cartoons which, depending on your point of view, either satirized certain believers of Islam or blasphemed the Prophet Mohammed. More recently, the Deutsche Oper in Berlin canceled its performances of Mozart’s "Idomeneo" because of a combination of political correctness and giving in to fear. An interesting example of political correctness popped up in New Zealand recently.
First, some background. In 1840 the British entered into a treaty, the Treaty of Waitangi, with several hundred native (or Maori) chiefs in New Zealand. The Treaty had three main articles. While there have been, and still are, disputes concerning the meaning of the clauses (the English words and native words have somewhat different meanings), in general the Treaty’s three articles did this: The first article granted the Queen "sovereignty" over New Zealand. The second article guaranteed the continued "chieftainship" of the native chiefs and their ownership of their lands and treasure. The third article gave the Maori the same rights as all other British subjects.
In the last thirty years the Treaty has become central to New Zealand political life. To some, the Treaty established a partnership between the Europeans ("pakeha") and the Maori, a so-called partnership of two peoples in one land. To many who view the Treaty this way, this interpretation has become almost a secular gospel that cannot, and must not, be challenged. In other words, it has become a pillar of political correctness in New Zealand.
Not everyone agrees with this interpretation of the Treaty – or with this approach to governing New Zealand. The head of the National Party (the more conservative major party), Don Brash, a former Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand and a latecomer to electoral politics, has strongly disagreed with this interpretation.
Brash’s most recent statement on this point came in an article published in The New Zealand Herald (Auckland) on October 2, 2006, in which he said the following: "[A]ll New Zealanders, whatever the ethnicity of their ancestors and whenever they or their ancestors arrived in New Zealand, must be equal under the law. And all must receive help from the Government based on their need, and not on their race."* Before that, he said, in part:
"[I]t may well have made sense in 1840 to think of the Treaty of Waitangi as being between two very distinct groups of people – the indigenous Maori people on one side of the Treaty-signing table and European settlers on the other.
But that view of the world simply no longer makes sense. Through six or seven generations of inter-marriage there are few if any people in New Zealand who have only Maori ancestors.
That is not to deny that many New Zealanders choose to identify strongly with the Maori part of their ancestry, and with Maori culture. That is absolutely their right.
Neither is it to deny that the Government of New Zealand, on behalf of all New Zealanders, Maori and non-Maori, has an obligation to specific groups of Maori to compensate them for the injustices done in the past. …
But it is quite wrong to argue that because Maori are over-represented in negative social statistics, the Crown, or the Government on behalf of all New Zealanders, has somehow failed to discharge its obligations under the Treaty."
What has been most amazing about Brash’s article, however, is not what he said, but what others said about it and him in response.
Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples said, "We never talk about the man, but what he’s doing is evil – directly negating our existence." Of course, Brash specifically said that many New Zealanders identify with the Maori part of their ancestry and it is their right to do so. How that means Brash is "negating" the existence of the Maori is unclear.
Prime Minister Helen Clark said that she found Brash’s brand of politics "odious" and that "[m]any of us who have contact with the Maori world know there’s a distinctive culture, and it’s something we treasure in this country." But Brash did not object to those who identify with their Maori ancestors or say people should not identify with the Maori culture.
Other comments went beyond amazing into amazingly confusing. In addition to calling what Brash said "evil," Winston Peters, leader of the New Zealand First Party, a party that itself has called for ending different treatment of Maori, said: "When New Zealand First says that Maori don’t want special treatment, we do not mean that Maori should stop being Maori. When the current leader of the National says he does not want special treatment for Maori, he means that Maori have no reason to want to be what they are – Maori." In others words, we’re good guys and he’s not, but we can’t really explain why.
Finally, Rosemary McLeod in The Dominion Post (Wellington) tied Brash to eugenics and from there to racial purity and, of course, the Nazis. She said Brash "must be convinced that racial purity means something pretty significant," though Brash did not say that and she did not explain why she thinks he is so convinced. She asked whether "the fact that Maori have intermarried with other races for a century or so mean they can no longer claim an identity of their own?" Of course, it doesn’t. In fact, Brash specifically said that he understood "many New Zealanders choose to identify strongly with the Maori part of their ancestry, and with Maori culture. That is absolutely their right." Given this, what concern does Ms. McLeod really have?
But this is the point of political correctness. Political correctness takes the view that it is so obviously right that anyone who opposes its policies or preferences can only be doing so for improper purposes or motives. The politically correct cannot believe that anybody who disagrees with them could have good intentions or could do so in good faith. The politically correct view is so obviously right and moral that any disagreement can only be for selfish or some other "bad" reasons. (It is this feature of the politically correct mindset that lends itself so well to those on the political left. In the United States it is not uncommon for liberals/Democrats to reject the idea that conservatives/Republicans could possibly disagree with them for any reason other than selfishness and meanness of spirit. See, for example, Howard Dean’s statement that Republicans are evil.)
In addition, because it is so obvious to the politically correct that they are right, sometimes they find it hard to state reasoned arguments for their positions. They are not used to having to defend their views, so when they are challenged, instead of arguing on the facts, they just state their conclusions louder or call their opponents (and their opponents’ positions) names like "evil" and "odious."
All Don Brash did was to state a fact: Because of "generations of intermarriage there are few … people in New Zealand who have only Maori ancestors." And a position: "[A]ll New Zealanders, whatever the ethnicity of their ancestors and whenever they or their ancestors arrived in New Zealand, must be equal under the law. And all must receive help from the Government based on their need, and not on their race."
But in doing so, Brash attacked one of the main pillars of political correctness in New Zealand. In response, his opponents lashed back, not with reason and argument, but with mischaracterization and insult. Unfortunately, this is too often the way it is with the politically correct, wherever they are.
---------------------
* Since The New Zealand Herald requires a paid subscription to read the complete article, I quote it here:
In the past few days a storm has broken out about the National Party's policy on things Maori, with Tariana Turia making it clear she intends to withdraw her acceptance of my invitation to dinner next month.
What is still unclear is whether this strong reaction is based on National's policies or on a misunderstanding of the selective comments reported by the Herald on Sunday after the paper asked for my opinion on a speech by Supreme Court judge Justice Baragwanath.
In terms of National's policy in this area, nothing has changed since the last election.
The important thing for the National Party, and for me personally, is that all New Zealanders, whatever the ethnicity of their ancestors and whenever they or their ancestors arrived in New Zealand, must be equal under the law. And all must receive help from the Government based on their need, and not on their race.
It was in this context that I reacted strongly to the address given by Justice Baragwanath to the Law Commission's 20th anniversary seminar in August.
Justice Baragwanath seemed to argue that, because Maori health and social statistics showed Maori to be in a worse position on most indicators than non-Maori, New Zealand law and institutions have failed to deliver on the promise of the Treaty.
He added that so long as Maori are under-represented in the Auckland Law School there is more work to be done.
I reacted strongly to this view when asked about it. I said that it may well have made sense in 1840 to think of the Treaty of Waitangi as being between two very distinct groups of people - the indigenous Maori people on one side of the Treaty-signing table and European settlers on the other.
But that view of the world simply no longer makes sense. Through six or seven generations of inter-marriage there are few if any people in New Zealand who have only Maori ancestors.
That is not to deny that many New Zealanders choose to identify strongly with the Maori part of their ancestry, and with Maori culture. That is absolutely their right.
Neither is it to deny that the Government of New Zealand, on behalf of all New Zealanders, Maori and non-Maori, has an obligation to specific groups of Maori to compensate them for the injustices done in the past.
It was a National Government which first settled many of these grievances, particularly those of Tainui and Ngai Tahu.
Any National Government led by me will accelerate that process, so that historical grievances can be dealt with fairly, fully and finally.
But it is quite wrong to argue that because Maori are over-represented in negative social statistics, the Crown, or the Government on behalf of all New Zealanders, has somehow failed to discharge its obligations under the Treaty.
If Maori New Zealanders die more frequently from lung cancer than non-Maori do, for example, it is almost certainly because Maori New Zealanders choose to smoke more heavily than other New Zealanders do, not a result of some failing by the Crown.
Similarly, if there are relatively few Maori at the Auckland Law School - and that despite preferential access arrangements for Maori - that is not a failing of the Government, but a result of decisions made by individual Maori.
I repeat what I noted at the outset: the important thing for the National Party, and for me personally, is that all New Zealanders, whatever the ethnicity of their ancestors and whenever they or their ancestors arrived in New Zealand, must be equal under the law. And all must receive help from the Government based on their need, and not on their race.
That is the only way forward for New Zealand in the 21st century.
I certainly hope that Tariana Turia will reconsider her decision to withdraw her acceptance of my dinner invitation, so that any remaining misunderstanding can be sorted out.
Recent Comments