Pregnant women warned off Te Papa tour

[marie_speeds]

well you could start by not insulting non maori by the repetitive use of the word p****a

the literal translation of this is less than polite and many people find your use of it insulting

I don't...

[MSTRS:Me]

There was a time when menstruating women were discouraged from the butchers for fear that they would ruin the meat, and were not allowed near sailing ships for fear they'd cause it to sink. These were both "white" superstitions.

Which no-one believes anymore. Because there is no reality behind those particular superstitions.

The thing about superstitions is their origin. ALL of them started out as an event that 'someone' decided occurred because...
Often the outcome was less than desirable, so prohibitions developed to avoid that situation again. Depending on whether there was good reason (ie health related via hygiene), or perhaps just the idea caught in their imaginations, the superstitions became part of a group's culture.

It is a no-no for Maori to sit on a surface where food comes into contact with = health. Bare arses can leave some pretty nasty germs to contaminate what one eats. Still relevant today, even with clothing and (possibly) better medical treatment.

Origin unknown - but walking under a ladder is bad luck = personal safety. That bucket of paint tottering on the top, falls on you. Still relevant today.

Origin unknown - spill some salt on the table? Toss some of it over your shoulder, to keep the Devil away. Yea right.
(I'm guessing someone was attacked whilst eating with their back to a room. It caused them to spill the salt they were using, and they had the brainwave to toss some behind them into the eyes of their attacker. The attacker's sight was affected, and he was able to be over-powered)


Don't walk around a cemetery widdershins, at night. Cross yourself if a black cat walks in front of you. Who knows....

[MSTRS:Me]

How backwards is it to give credence to an afterlife secured by painful human sacrifice ?

Some of the weirdest superstitions come from religion. Of all types.

Someone always had to feed the Tohanga. Because he couldn't touch food with his own hands.

[Banditbandit]

well you could start by not insulting non maori by the repetitive use of the word p****a

the literal translation of this is less than polite and many people find your use of it insulting

Yes, I am aware of some people's interpretation of the word Pākehā. Why are people insulted by the use of a word that means non-Māori New Zealander? Should we therefore be insulted by the word "Māori" which means a Māori New Zealander?

And yes, there are many theories of the origins of this word. But origins of a word are not the same as contemporary usage. Languages change and develop according to how people use a word.

For instance, when I grew up the word "computer" meant something very different to what it does today. Should we therefore stop calling this technological marvel we are all using a computer because that's not what the word means?

"Gay" had a very different meaning when I was growing up ... "Far out ..." an expression common when I was a teenager did not mean a long distance away, as it used to. "Cool" is used in a way that has little to do with temperature.

So languages change and develop and the meaning of words change. Whatever the origins of the word (and I am not an expert and will not argue in favour of one derivation or another) today it indicates a non-Māori New Zealander .. with no insult attached.

We have no objection to being called Māori. This word once meant "ordinary" ... but now it means a people ...

The intended use of the words is not one of insult, but one of indicating a different ethnic/cultural group from us ...

[MSTRS:Me]

The intended use of the words is not one of insult, but one of indicating a different ethnic/cultural group from us ...

Good post. Except this line - doesn't apply to others with dark skin.

[Banditbandit]

go check out the unusually high number of male genitalia on the carvings at waikato museum, there for all to see, especially the children, who have to pass them to go to the hands on science display room. i can understand fertility worship, blah blah, but these were done for the purpose of shock im sure.
like a certain maori mural that shows a male part entering a female part painted by female crims, in a family meeting room.

This has little to do with fertitlity worship or a purpose to shock. The genitalia indicate a human being - carved figures with no genitals are spiritual beings ... (Imagine when the missionaries arrived and promptly chopped off the genitalia from our tipuna figures - instantly turning human beings into Gods ... what a laugh we had ...)

The size of them indicates the potency of the person - and potency not just in fertility terms but also in mana terms .. it may also be related to their fame (or infamy) as a lover - such as Kahungunu, who had many wives and was a reknowned lover ... and frequetly carved with alarge erect penis ... what is carved on a pou for a figure is very much dependent on the story the carver wants to tell ...

There is nothing wrong or shocking about procreation or sex. Ranginui and Papatuanuku and the atua did it - that's how they created the world and us ... it is only western, Christian-influenced, middle class morality that says it is wrong and shocking ... If our spiritual beings indulged in sex why should it be hidden in our culture?

In that western morality cars and bikes become phallic symbols ... in our culture we get to express it openly ... and much more healthily.

And what amuses me most is the Pākehā wearing of Tiki. In one of our stories, Tiki is the creator of human beings, and is the atua of sex - sex for pleasure .. I wonder how many Pākehā wearing tiki know this ...

[Banditbandit]

Good post. Except this line - doesn't apply to others with dark skin.

Yes. That does present us all with a problem.

The problem I see is that as human beings we tend to identify groups as "other" and label them so - even if members of the group we identify do not necessarily identify themselves in that group. The best example of this is the label "Asians". Members of that group may well accept they are "Asians" by virtue of being born in that area - but that's all the word signifies. There are hundreds of ethnic groups within that label - groups with very different cultures and genetic make ups. How misleading can the term "Asian" be?

"Māori" is also a conglomerate label, though with a lot less variance within it than "Asians". Many of us do not like the label "Māori" - prefering an identification with our Iwi.

The term Pākehā was originally intended for people who came from Europe and it still retains some of that flavour. The Treaty of Waitangi is an agreement that allows people from the British Isles to settle in New Zealand. We never invisioned the presence of other groups here.

"Tauiwi" is a term which does encompass non-Euopean origin and European origin New Zealanders - but I think that by the time that word gained credence and acceptance the concept may well be irrelevent as our high rates of intermarriage indicates that we will, at some point in the future, become one people.

We just like sleeping with each other - a natural human occurance - and soon we will all have both Māori and non-Māori ancestors ...

[MSTRS:Me]

Labelling - simply a way of 'understanding' = us/them. That understanding is from the point of view of our own social mores...nothing to do with actually knowing.
European as a label has as much validity as Asian. Take me - I'm predominantly of Scottish extraction. Doesn't make me European - I suppose Caucasian would be more accurate. But since I was born here, to me that makes me New Zealander. I'm not tangata whenua (apparently), but I'm not European either.

[Banditbandit]

Labelling - simply a way of 'understanding' = us/them. That understanding is from the point of view of our own social mores...nothing to do with actually knowing.
European as a label has as much validity as Asian. Take me - I'm predominantly of Scottish extraction. Doesn't make me European - I suppose Caucasian would be more accurate. But since I was born here, to me that makes me New Zealander. I'm not tangata whenua (apparently), but I'm not European either.

The problem with the concept "tangata whenau" is that it makes complete sense within our culture, but not very much sense within Pākehā culture ... (what a problem we create just being human)

Originally "tangata whenua" was applied to the people who where here before the major voyaging waka arrived somewhere around 1000CE to 1200CE ... and I'll bet the newcomers then had issues with it ...

[MSTRS:Me]

... and I'll bet the newcomers then had issues with it ...

And they had a pretty neat way of dealing with the 'problem'...

[duckonin]

The problem with the concept "tangata whenau" is that it makes complete sense within our culture, but not very much sense within Pākehā culture ... (what a problem we create just being human)

Originally "tangata whenua" was applied to the people who where here before the major voyaging waka arrived somewhere around 1000CE to 1200CE ... and I'll bet the newcomers then had issues with it ...

Are you a full blood Maori ?answer no ! so why then do you rabbit on about (our culture 'Maori')? when quite clearly your natural culture would be very divided.

Or is it that you make a dollar like the rest that associate with a culture that really does not exist anymore, bet this shakes your grass skirt a bit..

[MSTRS:Me]

Are you a full blood Maori ?answer no ! so why then do you rabbit on about (our culture 'Maori')? when quite clearly your natural culture would be very divided.

Or is it that you make a dollar like the rest that associate with a culture that really does not exist anymore, bet this shakes your grass skirt a bit..

That's a bit harsh. Anyone is free to 'identify' with what they see as their cultural/ethnic heritage.
It is the perceived enforcing of parts of that heritage on others that sticks in the craw of many of those others.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Ata marie āku hoa i tēnei rangi ataahua

We have a very different view of the world and how it functions. Would you knowingly expose unborn children to what you thought was a dangerous situation ? Would you knowingly expose women to a dangerous situation which might cause her to become infertile? Would you knowingly expose western art treasures to potential danger ? Would you knowingly expose Christian sacred objects to potential defilement ? I think not. We might see the potential dangers as very different - but to us the dangers exist.

These taonga (treasures) have mauri and mana - they are alive - and need to be trerated with respect or they will become noa and the spiritual forces released for who-knows-what result. We are warning people of dangers we see. If others choose to respect those warnings we thank you. If you do not choose to respect the warnings, we have done our part and our best.



It is not up to Pākehā to tell us which parts of our culture we should hold on to and which we should change. Just as it is not up to a Buddhist to tell a Christian which parts of their religion should be changed ..

And we see no contradictions in our worldview. The contradictions are between Pākehā and Māori worldviews ...



Do we not? A significant group of our society believe that our place in the afterlife has been secured by the violent and painful human sacrifce of a man who was hung on a cross to die in one of the most painful deaths human beings have devised. And they rememebr this by drinking (symbolically) the blood and eating the flesh of that man - every Sunday ... Have we not evolved ?



They are not saying women can't enter. Te Papa is advising women of our beliefs, ASKING that these be respected and letting them make up their own minds.




As I said, they are not forcing women to follow that belief - they are advising and asking them to respect it - but allowing them to make up their own minds.

And yes, respect is a two-way street. We are forced to function in, and respect, your culture every day. (Yes, we laugh it it - but never where you can see us.)

For instance, when you greet people, do you say Hello and shake their hands ? What if we want to hongi with you - an intimate greeting which breaks down barriers instantly and forms a bond with the person I've just met. How would you feel if I stepped forward to hongi ? Probably, like most Pākehā, you would feel uncomfortable, step back, avoid it. Pākehā are reluctant to hongi except on a marae and then feel uncomfortable about it ... So we are forced to follow your culture in such a simple thing. When we meet in your environment, do you offer us a cup of tea and food? We always would - not matter whether you were Māori or Pākehā. My experience is that Pākehā only do so for important ocassions.

When we are at your house, do you start to clean up a meal and do the dishes while we are still there? I have seen many Pākehā do this - but to us it is a sign that we are to leave. This makes us uncomfortable as many Pākehā make it clear that is not the intention.

When a child is disciplined at school, they are told to stand up straight and look the principal in the eye. To us this is a sign of disrespect as the person standing is in the dominant position and the inferior should never look them straight in the eye as it is a direct challenge.

Such simple things which we see and you do not. Follow through your day and see, in your interactions with others, how much of what you do is based in New ZEaland's western-derived culture and how much you exopect those around you to interact accordiong to those norms. Then you might appreciate respect for another culure.

We respect and function in your culture. We do not see the same in return ... You can say "We did not know" and you did not - but Pākehā have been in this country for 200 years and they have not learnt how to live in this land. On the other hand, every day we are forced to follow your cultural norms.



How backwards is it to give credence to an afterlife secured by painful human sacrifice ?



Te Papa is not saying that at all .. the journalist who wrote the piece aimed for an interpretation as you suggest. A skillful piece of sensationalism .. but that is not wehat they are saying at all. A small tour for regional museum staff is not a public event or a ban on the museum as such ...



We have no problem seeing it fitting into today's world. This is still Te Ao Mārama ... nothing has changed for us in that respect, except the Pākehā arrived with different ways of doing things and expected us to accept those ways. Some of us do not accept that.



Infertility ... still births .. miscarriage .. the defilement of a tapu object.



Is it ? Have they forbidden it? No. Is it agaist Human Rights to make women sit up stairs in a Synogogue? Is it against Human RIghts for the Catholic Church to forbid women to become priests? I think not - and the same applies ..



There are many objects in museum collections which are not always on public view. Many museums rotate objects between storage areas and viewing areas.

The difference here is that in vieweing areas trhe objects and public are separated by the glass cases the objects are stored in. On this tour people will be in areas where these objects are not protected in such a way.



Yes - if you read the article, yes.



What part of your culture could you point to to say that was the justification for not allowing anyone with a Māori tattoo to see it? If you can (which I doubt) theen of course that would be respected (and laughed at) ...

Generally I am heartened by some of the responses in this forum, and I thank you for those. But I am equally saddened by the tenor of the article adn by the response of some here. We clearly have a long way to go yet.

I mutu ahau ēnei kōrero. Tāku mihi ki a nga tangata ka panui koutou ki kōnei.

Tōku aroha, tōku mihi nui ki a koutou, those you are supportive and those who are trying to learn and understand.

Thank you for that. I feel as if I have learned something.

I do not agree with it, but you have clearly, and passionately argued your point.

And since arguing on teh internets is completely pointless, I'll leave it there.

[Banditbandit]

Are you a full blood Maori ?answer no ! so why then do you rabbit on about (our culture 'Maori')? when quite clearly your natural culture would be very divided.

Or is it that you make a dollar like the rest that associate with a culture that really does not exist anymore, bet this shakes your grass skirt a bit..

"Culture" is a very slippery thing ... and has more to do with behaviour patterns and ways of seeing the world than it does about blood quantum.

All cultures change and develop depending on external and internal factors. My ancestors who came here on the voyaging waka were not Māori - they were Pacific Islanders - and developed a culture here we now call Māori ... and in response to external forces that culture has changed and adapted to the world we now find ourselves in .. just as New Zealand's European-derived cultue has adapted itself to this land, the peoples in it .. and modern technology.

When I grew up, like most New Zealanders, we were not rich and I can remember when we got the first telephone in our house. That caused a culture change - we could talk to people without being face to face with them. Now I carry a very small cellphone - what a massive shift in culture (all our cultures) with just one small device .. and we can all name other things that have changed our cultures - computers, television - passenger jet aircraft ...

Does it mean we should reject all those things to hold onto a "pure" culture? I know some of my friends and colleagues want a "pure culture" ... I argue with them just as much because there is no such thing ...

The question also revolves around the issue of power. Pākehā immigrants tried to make us change our ways - and we were naturally resistant. Just as I am naturally resistant, as a biker, to people trying to tell me how to ride and behave on the roads ... That resistance is a natural human reaction to the unjust exercise of power - and it doesn't matter what ethnic group people belong to .. we are all human beings ...

We do want to try to hold onto our behaviour patterns, values and beliefs - because they make more sense to us - and seem fundamentally more human - than those we see in our Pākehā friends and relations.

(Good try - but I've heard and discussed all these challenges before. It takes more than that to "shake my grass skirt" as you so wrongly put it ...)

Oh .. and yes, our culture does still exist .. maybe what doesn't exist is your perception of what our culture should be ...

[Virago]

Yes, I am aware of some people's interpretation of the word Pākehā. Why are people insulted by the use of a word that means non-Māori New Zealander? Should we therefore be insulted by the word "Māori" which means a Māori New Zealander?

And yes, there are many theories of the origins of this word. But origins of a word are not the same as contemporary usage. Languages change and develop according to how people use a word.

For instance, when I grew up the word "computer" meant something very different to what it does today. Should we therefore stop calling this technological marvel we are all using a computer because that's not what the word means?

"Gay" had a very different meaning when I was growing up ... "Far out ..." an expression common when I was a teenager did not mean a long distance away, as it used to. "Cool" is used in a way that has little to do with temperature.

So languages change and develop and the meaning of words change. Whatever the origins of the word (and I am not an expert and will not argue in favour of one derivation or another) today it indicates a non-Māori New Zealander .. with no insult attached.

We have no objection to being called Māori. This word once meant "ordinary" ... but now it means a people ...

The intended use of the words is not one of insult, but one of indicating a different ethnic/cultural group from us ...

I too am learning a lot from your articulate and reasoned input. Cheers.