The word ‘Haka’ caught my eye. It’s not one that I’m used to reading on American blogs. It was a headline on Reclusive Leftist Hilary vs the Haka. I clicked on the link, although I assumed she didn’t meant what I would mean if I used the word. Haka, to me and where I live, is the word for traditional Maori dances.
But it turns out that Violet Socks did mean that, sort of, and it was based on a blogger called River Daughter who has been using the word that way for a couple of months. River Dancer explained the metaphor she was making like this:
It’s all advertising and Maori war dancing. It sure looks ugly but it’s not as bad as we think.
River Daughter has continued to use haka as a metaphor for sound and fury from the campaigns that lack substance. In fact she expands what she means by the metaphor here:
What we have here is a Haka. A Haka is a Maori wardance, usually performed by men (figures) to scare and intimidate the enemy. The dancers do a lot of chest pounding and screaming and making truly scary faces complete with bulging eyes and sticking out their tongues. But just like the online world, they aren’t going to hurt you. It’s just to make you feel like they are the most dangerous people on the planet. So what if they scream at you, jostle you or make nasty faces?
To read such an ignorant characterisation of the haka makes me really angry. I have seen haka performed to congratulate and acknowledge achievement. I have been on protests where haka are performed. The racist subtext here isn’t very subtle ‘angry brown men are scary’, but deeper than that is the colonialist attitude towards Maori culture. River Daughter has no idea of Tikanga, she probably doesn’t even know what the word means.
From her posts, I’m guessing the only context River Daughter’s seen the haka is a sporting one. New Zealand’s Rugby team perform a haka before each test. While I think her description of the role of haka in a rugby test, is racist and ignorant, what she wrote was even worse, because there are many more haka than Ka Mate ((the name of the haka most often performed before rugby tests)) and many more occasions where they are performed than rugby tests. I have seen haka performed as congratulations, as protests, as challenges, as rituals. River Daughter knows very little about the haka, but she is writing as if what she knows is all there is to know.
My point is that the Haka is not River Daughter’s, Violet Socks’s, yours or mine to turn into a metaphor of any sort. It’s worse because this particularly metaphor was ignorant, inaccurate and disrespectful. But I would never use the haka as a metaphor, even an accurate one. That’s one way appropriation works, the idea that you’re entitled to use other people’s culture, even though you know nothing about it.
A note for the comments: There are many threads to discuss the US Presidential elections, this is not one of them.
Edited to add: Sorry I had an incomplete draft and I posted that one rather than this. This is the complete version of my post
*headdesk*
rd claims she knows what she’s doing because she lived in hawaii. well, if you know what you’re doing, then you haven’t got an excuse.
Maia, your post is cut off–it doesn’t look intentional
What does Hawaii have to do with New Zealand? Yes, this form of appropriation is as is true with many forms, both ignorant and offensive. But not surprising, unfortunately.
A metaphor is always an appropriation, a misappropriation even. That’s how the language grows.
The “offensive” part, I must say I do not understand. I’ll wait to see until Maia’s post is complete, it seems cut off at the moment.
One of the bloggers seemed surprise when someone else told her something about the Maoris’ haka that she hadn’t heard about, but she had in her posting compared haka to a “mind-fuck”.
Tom Wolfe. back in the early 70’s, called this `mau-mauing’–he titled one of his essays `Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers.’
“What does Hawaii have to do with New Zealand?”
My understanding from talking to some Maori about it is that no one’s really sure where the Maori are “from” (they’re relative newcomers to New Zealand, as indigenous peoples go), but Hawaii is relatively high on the list of possibilities.
I don’t know if there are forms of dance among indigenous Hawaiins that are similar to Haka, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Again, if I’m recalling correctly, the Maori have very similar kinship terminology to the Polynesians… it wouldn’t surprise me if there were a bunch of things that signified historical cultural exchange between the various groups that are listed as possibilities for Maori “origin.”
Since Maia’s post isn’t complete, I can’t say for sure, but my reaction to the argument she seems to be making is that the problematic aspects of this particular metaphor — or appropriation — are in its only partial knowledge of and misrepresentation of Haka, which seem on the surface to play into racist stereotypes about which groups are seen as repositories of brutality.
I don’t personally object to informed and non-racist use of non-western concepts in western linguistic constructions, even though I suppose those concepts are “not (mine/ours/appropriate pronoun)” as Maia seems to be defining the term. I’m not sure whether Maia would object to them or not.
speaking of appropriation, youtube to “haka byu”
I’ll admit that I don’t know much about Haka, but her explanation of the metaphor makes sense to me. She had a situation she wanted to describe, and she found an analogy that worked.
Would it have been more or less offensive if she’d used a more general term, i.e. “war dance,” instead of referring to something specific? Is the problem mostly about inaccuracies?
As for the issue of appropriation, I have trouble with the idea that she can’t use an apt metaphor just because she herself is not Maori.
Yeah, I’m somewhat aware of Maori history and Hawaiian history, though certainly no expert but my reference was I guess to an intentionally sarcastic comment about someone being Hawaiian and thus allowed to engage in this cultural appropriation. Because Hawaii is not New Zealand.
I went to both blogs, read it, read the discussion including one comment where someone was told they were derailing the thread just by bringing up the cultural appropriation. I found it offensive incuding the terms like “mind-fuck” but maybe that’s just me. But then I don’t buy into the argument that it’s okay for feminists to engage in appropriation of cultures and people’s lives in ways that is offensive to make some point about sexism or something that is sexist.
Yeah, it seems that part of Maia’s post is missing but not this part at its end.
Ditto, on that last line.
But Radfem, the post, or indeed your own indignation, was not about the use of “mindfuck” but about the fact that Maia found the “appropriation” disrespectful and offensive.
“Mindfuck” is maybe… unfortunate but I don’t think there was any intention to be disrespectful, just a way to describe what the author saw as the purpose of the Haka (as used by the All Blacks before rugby games, mind you, where it can be argued it is the main purpose…)
But appropriation? I am sorry but you don’t really explain anything in your comment, you just re-iterate the point. Which seems to be that we are not entitled to use metaphors pertaining to other cultural practices or identities. Ultimately, it is the whole point of cultural exchanges that such a view could put into question.
Drop the strawmen please. That’s not what I said!
I didn’t and don’t like the reference to the haka being a “mind-fuck”. I actually think I’ve been fairly clear about that. Twice. I agree with the section of Maia’s post that appeared at its end but I’m not going to speak for her. I’m still recovering from the use of racist “natives” used by a reknowned feminist author for her book to show how sexist stereotypes could be subverted. I think what she said is important when referring to such “unfortunate” incidents of cultural appropriation.
The appropriation and reference of Maoris of their own culture in the oft-cited case of the members of the All-Black rubgy team is different than when individuals outside their culture do so. Though trying to explain that is like trying to explain why Whites are racist when they use racial slurs and then justify it by saying, “well, the [insert racial group] do it!”
You make my point exactly when you use the word, “entitled”. Thank you.
I second Radfem — the argument of this post is not missing. Appropriating things for metaphors is not ok.
And to respond to Nattles:
“War dance” comes with its own set of problems, but it’s still wrapped up in the same ideas about white perceptions of aggression in other cultures. Not trying to jump around too much here, but I can’t help but draw a parallel to “respectful” depictions of Native Americans as related to sports teams. The man depicted in the Florida State Seminoles Logo is no Chief Wahoo but they both come from the same assumptions that Native Americans are especially fierce, savage, aggressive, warlike, etc.
ARGH – sorry about that – I had two versions of this post and posted the wrong one. Now my points should be a little clearer.
Mandolin – I find the larger questions a bit complicated. I know that I never use Maori concepts, or parts of Maori culture as metaphors lightly (in fact I think I’ve probably never done it for exactly that reason). The ignorance I’m talking about isn’t he sort that can be solved by spending a bit of time on wikipedia (although that’d be a good first step), but a deeper ignorance, that I still have after spending 25 years in New Zealand. There are Maori words, koha (contribution, often used by Pakeha to mean donation) is one, that have come to be very widely used by pakeha, particulalry progressive pakeha. And it always makes me a bit uncomfortable, because I’m never sure that we’re using it right, and I’m worried that, particularly in cities, it would be easy for the pakeha use of the word (if it is wrong) to be used more than the Maori use of the word. That’s not even a metaphor, that’s just trying to use the concepts straight. There are other words, like wahine (woman), which I don’t have the same problem with because the Maori concept and the pakeha concept match better.
speaking of appropriation, youtube to “haka byu”
Yeah, I think it loses some of its effect when they slap their pads…
It seems to me that you (Maia) make two arguments in your post: First, that this appropriation of the word “Haka” is wrong because appropriation is by definition wrong; and second, a narrower argument that this appropriation of the word “Haka” is wrong because it is a misuse of the word that betrays ignorance and disrespect.
The second, narrower argument I agree with. But the first one… I’m always a little unconvinced by broad anti-appropriation arguments. They seem too similar to the arguments in favor of broad copyright laws.
To me, this seems to be saying that using the Haka as a metaphor is wrong because it is not “ours,” as if the idea of the Haka is property, and we should determine the morality of how we should behave by considering the world in terms of property rights.
But I’m not sure that a concept, a dance, an art form, or a word can be anyone’s exclusive property, or should be treated as such. I think the losses to everyone if we began viewing such things exclusively under a property model, even under a cultural property model, would be considerable. We should be moving away from the property model of thinking about art and ideas, not towards it.
Well I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know enough about Maori culture, although I was aware that the Haka was more than a “war dance”. I do know though that when it comes to rugby (especially) Internationals the Ka Mate is above all a challenge, it is certainly seen thus by the opposition. Correct me if I am wrong but its use by the All Blacks pre-dates by far the inclusion of Maori players in the team. Now there I can understand the use of the term appropriation.
(Actually I heard quite a lot of Kiwis saying that, prior to the late 70s, the AB haka was a bloody disgrace. Once again I am not a specialist but a quick look on You tube reveals some truly awful things)
So I can understand and support the fight against that kind of appropriation; I do understand the dangers of it but I am sorry if I insist : River Daughter used the haka as a metaphor; that means that she didn’t use the haka, she used the concept of it, mainly the concept that the All Blacks have exported to the western culture at large. A metaphor is never a “straight” thing, it’s always a managed mistake, a approximation to explain a concept. A metaphor always deform the more familiar term to explain the less familiar.
And as our horizon expand we are bound to encounter and use more and more concepts borrowed from other cultures and such borrowing will always be inaccurate. That doesn’t mean they are disrespectful.
Speaking of this Radfem, I am sorry you object to my “entitled” although I didn’t use it in the sense you meant (disclaimer: as a non-native English speaker I can sometimes not be immediately aware of the range of senses of a given word. But it’s all right: you don’t seem to be either); I am sorrier that you used it to dismiss my objection out of hand. There used to be a rule in internet discussions that people would, out of two possible meanings in what their interlocutor said, kindly choose the more favourable.
But hey! That was a long time ago…
Actually Ampersand (do I ever stop talking?) I think there is a difference between using a word or a concept, as I would defend it, and appropriating the whole practice. The Haka is a good example of this.
The way I understand Maia’s concern is that key elements of Maori culture are being borrowed by the culture at large, changed and twisted because misunderstood, and then re-injected in their twisted, weird new form into the original Maori culture (if only because of the power of mass media) at the risk of transforming the latter into a commercial, dysneyfied parody of itself.
That’s a concern I can understand; how it applies to River Daughter I still don’t know.
Going to bed now, I’ll stop bothering you…
Well, no. I don’t think it’s okay for them to do it in ways that’s offensive either.
Different forms of appropriation, IMO, have very different pitfalls. It seems to me that the primary pitfall of this kind of metaphorical use is not the use itself, but misrepresentation and the reinforcement of stereotypes.
Like Amp, I’m unpersuaded by broader arguments about this type of appropriation.
I’m not sure this even fell in the category of a “broader interpretation” given that the use of it almost overwhelmingly falls under the misrepresentation and perpetuation of stereotypes. I just found it and the entitlement to present a cultural tradition the way it was used and re-used in these blogs to be offensive. I think it’s beyond a mere “use” form of appropriation but that’s my opinion. It bothered me and I said so and that’s that. Obviously, many people probably disagree and the issue of appropriating from cultures even for the innocuous purpose of calling it a metaphor bothers me. And I think appropriating an art form which is often done is a bit different than what was done here.
And I think even to use it as a metaphor, you should understand what you’re using a bit better than in these cases, where they admitted they didn’t know much and in one case seemed surprised that it wasn’t just about cultural traditions done by men.
As both Amp and I said earlier.
“We should be moving away from the property model of thinking about art and ideas, not towards it.”
Amp, I disagree with this pretty strongly. A unilateral move away from the property model would be a lot more beneficial to monied, culturally more hegemonic bodies (white supremacist consumerist culture) than it would be towards smaller indigenous communities like the Maori. I’m not trying to speak for the Maori here, just point out what I see as being problematic in your argument.
It’s a little like the “everyone shouldn’t be racist” argument. Yeah, sure, but it’s in everyone’s best interest for _white_ people to start not being racist, because white supremacy has a stranglehold on the rest of us. I think the “everyone should move away from the property model” argument is true, but since smaller indigenous communities have the most to lose from appropriation, AND because whatever “reverse appropriation” they’re doing *back* doesn’t have the same effect, I think it’s somewhat shortsighted to argue that it’s just as important across the board.
I also read your argument as being somewhat condescending, in that there are many strategies that indigenous (and other) communities dealing with appropriation can use to protect themselves and their culture. Obviously you disagree with the more property-ethic-flavored one, which you’re more than entitled to do, but “we should be doing X” is a rather didactic construction…
I’m simply amused that the blogger in question opted to use an obscure (at least in my part of the world) cultural metaphor instead of going for something most anyone can recognize — say, a kitten turning sideways and arching its back as it hisses, or the birds I watch out my window every day puffing up their feathers to make themselves three times larger than they really are. Is this not the same kind of agressive misrepresentation River Daughter was looking to describe?
Barry and Mandolin – I don’t think I’m making the argument you think I’m making. I’m not arguing about appropriation in genreal, but about appropriation of the haka.
In particular you seem to jump from me talking about appropriation in New Zealand to any Western appropriation of non-Western cultures. To me that is missing the most important point here, and that is colonisation. I stand on stolen land, where te reo (Maori language) was beaten out of children, and where Maori culture is a huge part of the resistance to colonisation.
As for an ownershipbased model – I can see what you’re saying, but I don’t think the only options are open access or an ownership model. With the haka, or anything that is passed down from one generation to another in that manner (and there are haka that are specifically about resisting colonisation), each generation couldn’t be said to own it, but to be caretakers of it for the next.
Maia — good point. That does put your argument in a light I hadn’t been considering. And I agree, appropriation seems much more objectionable in that specific context.
My concerns about “general appropriation” is the entitlement that comes with it which is often shown by a majority population which is oppressing a minority (or in some cases minority oppressing majority population)that it’s colonizing or enslaving for example. Despite what at least one individual stated here, I am expressing an opinion and have very little control of what other people get or choose to do.
I agree with this and also about indiginous peoples in the United States, where there’s some similarities in both how cultural traditions including language have been either outlawed by Whites or beaten out of indigenous people including children at the federal boarding schools. Then Whites appropriate those same cultural elements, often stereotype them for their own use including entertainment. I guess it’s the time and time and time again that cultural appropriation including stereotyping has been done whether to subvert sexism or to entertain one’s self or others including in the situation involving Amanda Marcotte’s book makes me wonder if there’s a way or means to avoid this or even a will in many cases.
I’m not particularly persuaded that the need to safeguard cultural icons is greater for indigenous peoples in Australia, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, etc., than it would be in — for instance — the Congo, where the history of colonialism is extremely bloody and extremely recent.
I’m also not sure exactly what the boundaries of your argument *are*, really, though I appreciate your clarification. I still think that I probably disagree with you. I do think that people being well-informed and acting/writing/speaking/whatevering in an anti-racist way ameliorates many kinds of appropriation.
Did I ever say that certain indigenous populations needed special consideration? I probably should have been more clear in my words but this wasn’t my intention. I’m having two entirely different conversations at one time so I’m a bit less attentive to word choice than is usual. I do apologize for that.
I was using the indigenous populations in the United States as an example, because there are noticable parallels between how the cultural traditions have been banned or beaten out of people and then co-opted or appropriated often in a stereotypical fashion. The same most definitely would apply to many African and South-American cultures not to mention Asian ones and others as well.
There’s nothing wrong with disagreement. I just am leery of appropriation in general more in specific terms but also including general given the history. I don’t believe at any point I stated specifically that other people couldn’t do it nor did I forbid them. It just makes me feel uncomfortable.
I don’t buy this entitlement argument. The whole idea of free speech is that you are entitled to say what you want in the way that you want to say it, even if it offends and upsets other people. Therefore there can be no valid entitlement grounds for objection.
What Radfem said in 20 and also what Katie said in 22.
It’s hard to see how important protecting aspects of ones culture are when you come from a massive, world-dominating culture. But I’ve spent most of the past 20 years living in places where the languages and other aspects of culture have been outlawed and, as Radfem noted, physically beaten out of the local populations (try Googling “Welsh Not”). As a result, I get very impatient with arguments that minimise the importance recognising that some cultural expressions as belong to specific groups of people.
Most groups–whether you want to call them “ethnic groups” or “nations” or whatever–have been minimised, minoritised, silenced and even pretty much erased from the official public eye by dominant groups. This is hardly something out of the ordinary or restricted to certain times and places. Every nation state in existence today is far more complex in its composition than the official line it gives to the rest of the world.
Given all this, that most people see their identities either misrepresented or completely blotted out, to say that anyone is free to come along and pick up a random bit of the minoritised group’s culture and just use it, when those bits of culture are pretty much all that’s left to give the group identity, is plain wrong. In fact, it’s yet another example of the sort of offhand brutality and cruelty that comes from privilege.
I realise this is probably a bit garbled, but what I’m trying to get across is that it’s very easy to say that culture shouldn’t be seen as “owned” when your culture isn’t in danger of disappearing. When it is, when every little scrap of it has to be carefully safeguarded, it’s very hard to not see those scraps as very precious possessions.
No, Crys T, I think what you wrote makes a lot of sense.
Mandolin – I don’t know where you got that list of countries. I would say my argument applied anywhere with a history of colonisation. Although the specifics of that history would depend on the nature of that history.
It’s interesting to me that you’re still talking about anti-racism, rather than colonialism. I’d agree with you that if people were coming from an informed place, and more importantly took into account hte history of colonialism in what they did, then that would . But, as I said earlier, in New Zealand what that generally means is pakeha who are aware of the history of colonisation don’t use the haka. I guess what I’m saying is that in this case being more informed generally does lead to recognising that it isn’t yours to play around with. Or rather that the only way that informed pakeha could use the haka, would have to take their subject position into account, and they’d have to primarily be talking about colonisation.
maia, what’s a pakeha?
I don’t think racism and colonialism can be neatly separated out, or separated out at all.
FTR, I got the list from “standing on stolen land.”
Mandolin – I don’t either, but I don’t think that’s a reason to talk about racism as synonymous with colonialism.
Sailorman – European New Zealander
I honestly wonder what would be Maia’s or Radfem’s take on the last 2 parts of that post on the BBC website namely Civil War Horror and Intellectual Pirates.
I’m not particularly persuaded that the need to safeguard cultural icons is greater for indigenous peoples in Australia, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, etc., than it would be in — for instance — the Congo, where the history of colonialism is extremely bloody and extremely recent.
Indigenous Australians have only been legally recognised as citizens of our own country since 1968. What were you saying about recent?
As for the rest of it… why is it such a radical suggestion on a progressive blog that white bloggers should be leery of appropriating language and culture from non-white minorities, particularly minorities they’ve had little to no contact with? As in, unless you’re absolutely sure your usage is non-problematic and accurate, don’t use it?
I was labouring under the understanding that this was a pretty common anti-racist assumption and basic 101 in putting the onus for avoiding racism and colonialism on those who are most likely to benefit from it.
The point isn’t that Violet’s usage WAS horribly problematic and violating… it is that the usage was inaccurate but presented as informed, potentially problematic, and coming from a position of privilege that doesn’t seem to have been taken into consideration. Since those are all hallmarks of colonialist appropriation, shouldn’t that be enough for a “yeah, maybe I should use a more appropriate metaphor”?
…
argh, she argh’d quietly to herself.
what. the fuck.
…
sorry, nothing more coherent or useful to add, my brain is full.
Greetings
I am a Maori of the Ngapuhi Iwi (tribe)
Seems to be one or two factual errors in some posts, first off, Maori being beaten for speaking Maori at school, has been blown way out of proportion.
The Minister of the Crown around the year 1910 in charge of education for NZ was Maori, he wanted Maori to learn and speak English at school, Maori at home.
Of course with the passing of time and as Maori joined the majority in taking work in the cities a lot of Maori lost the ability to use their language.
Maori in the All Blacks, there has always been Maori in the ABs except for those tours of Apartheid South Africa.
The first natives tour of Britain was by players of all races born in NZ.
The haka Te Kamate when used by the ABs, yes it was a shambles until Buck Shelford was captain, his words, if we are going to do it, do it right.
When discussing issues of colonisation and racism, I think distinguishing between colonies and settler colonies (where the colonial power built permanent settlements and continue to dominate indigenous populations). Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand are probably the easiest to link especially when you’re talking about indigenous issues.
Maia, I’d be more impressed with your argument if you’d written it in a language you could reasonably claim as your own, rather than using a mishmash of appropriated, borrowed and just plain stolen words from other cultures. Your hypocrisy (or perhaps ignorance) is profound.
In case you’re genuinely unaware, modern English is a random mess of words taken from other cultures and languages, not least of which is the common mixing of latin and greek terms in the same word. It doesn’t get much better after that. One thing you can say about increased global communication is that it’s making english even broader than it was before. From poppadums to pavlovas, mana to misogyny, english is impure and getting worse.
Oh, and speaking of recent history, didn’t England only outlaw slavery in 1957 or so?
No. Legislative abolition, as opposed to the de facto abolition of Somersett’s Case, was achieved in 1803.
And Moz, no: your characterisation of English as a “random mess of words” is even more inaccurate than your historical knowledge of slavery in England (and btw, when you say “England” do you mean England, or are you referring to the UK?). News flash: the existence of loanwords in everyday vocabulary is an experience that is hardly limited to English. And English is hardly a “random mess”. Last I checked, it was a regular old Indo-European, Germanic language…no matter how much some of its speakers would like to attribute some sort of unique, “special” character to it.
And mixing Latin & Greek roots in the same word is “common”? Really? In over ten years of studying language and languages, I’ve never heard that one before. In exactly what percentage of English words does this phenomenon occur?
And Arnaud: so, just because a handful of people who happened to be Basque infringed someone else’s copyright, that means that small nations’ claims to owning their cultures are invalid? And actually, on second thought, I don’t give a toss about that Brit reporter anyway: it’s a huge issue that people like that reporter, usually from more dominant cultures, frequently English-speaking ones, come along, make money and build careers off of reporting situations and incidents occuring to smaller, relatively less powerful groups, then think that they somehow own the stories.
” Last I checked, it was a regular old Indo-European, Germanic language…”
Not quite. Indo-European, yes – regular old Germanic language, no. English is quite anomalous within Germanic. For one thing, the verb system, especially the tense/aspect part of it, much more closely resembles that of Irish and Welsh than that of either German or the Scandinavian languages. As far as the lexicon goes, there is so much French influence in ther basic lexicon, not academic or learned language but basic vocabulary, that it has been remarked that if it were not for the existence of documents attestig to AS, if you only had the modern language as evidence to determine the affiliation of the language, there would be no principled reason for assigning the language to Germanic as opposed to Romance. (This kind of situation is not so uncommon.) What English clearly is is a British langugae along with Irish and Welsh, but then Sprachbunds are only for colorful people in remote parts of the world, so we don’t call it that.
Appropriation is not a simple binary good/bad issue. There is a spectrum between obnoxious and disrespectful appropriation e.g “Indian” war whoops at football games on one end and then ofn the other end respectful though distorting cultural borrowing e.g the widesperead use in Japan of English language on T-shirts or whatever, or what appears to be English as long as you don’t know english – it may be distorted, but it comes from a basic respect for the source culture.