Jason Momoa performs haka at the world premiere of Aquaman at the TCL Chinese theatre in Hollywood. Image: Getty
Jason Momoa performs haka at the world premiere of Aquaman at the TCL Chinese theatre in Hollywood. Image: Getty

ĀteaDecember 19, 2018

Once were gardeners, lovers, poets… and warriors

Jason Momoa performs haka at the world premiere of Aquaman at the TCL Chinese theatre in Hollywood. Image: Getty
Jason Momoa performs haka at the world premiere of Aquaman at the TCL Chinese theatre in Hollywood. Image: Getty

With actor Jason Momoa putting his problematic interpretation of haka on the world stage during the press tour for Aquaman, Tina Ngata revisits some of the myths and misunderstandings about Māori as a ‘warrior race’.

“The notion of a warrior gene as a scientific fact is actually based on the history of a scientific and cultural lie and that is the notion of a warrior race. The warrior race suggests that there are certain races of people who were born to fight, to be violent and to kill. It was described most graphically by one of the first English writers about our country who had never actually visited here but in 1830 wrote that “the land is inhabited by a savage, bloody warrior race with vengeance and war as the precious lifeblood of an ancestor, bequeathed from savage father to savage son.”

Where did that image come from? Where did the novelist Alan Duff get the idea of naming his novel Once Were Warriors, when a clear and actually objective analysis of our society would have shown that the book could more properly have been called Once Were Gardeners, Once Were Poets, Once Were Singers, and if you’re from Kahungunu, Once and Always Were Lovers.”

Next year will be 10 years since Moana Jackson’s pivotal ‘Once Were Gardeners’ lecture. I found myself going back to it this week, for healing. In this lecture, Moana, in his calm, factual, and grippingly clear manner, lays out the means by which we as Māori have come to be cast as violent brutes. First by explorers, and then by anthropologists and researchers, and then by media. He outlines how the state agencies, and in particular the justice and corrections systems, absorb and utilise these notions about our people – resulting in higher incarcerations – and how we too internalise these suggestions, resulting in more hurt across our communities, in our relationships, and within our households.

Sadly, ‘Once Were Gardeners’ is as relevant as ever. We are still largely portrayed in mono-dimensional stereotypes as violent, brutish, and irresponsible – even in movies made by Māori. We are depicted as poor parents, and poor partners who struggle to function healthily in modern society; as untrustworthy and prone to addiction. While Moana points out that early descriptions of us as savage warriors were offered by explorers to hide their failure to complete given tasks, it’s also really important to remember the role that these portrayals have played in maintaining colonial domination over indigenous peoples. Colonisation does not uphold itself voluntarily. Like any structure, with time, if neglected, it will begin to crumble. The myth of the violent, brutish, immature, dependent warrior race is one such tool, used to hold up the structure of colonisation. It does this by legitimising the need for a parent state to oversee us, correct us, and dominate us. The truth of the matter is that there is no such thing as a genetic disposition towards warfare and violence. There is no “warrior gene”. Conflict was, as with all peoples, just one dimension of our complex reality.

We are not a warrior race.

We are, and always have been, a race of voyagers, scientists, gardeners, lovers, poets, composers, philosophers, artists, orators, mathematicians, dancers, astronomers, builders and healers. We were peacemakers and keepers as much as warriors – and in many cases more so. The trope of the savage indigenous man is one that is capitalised upon by media and state in a way that is harmful and diminishing. In this sense, I have a concern about our representation in Hollywood, which resurfaced when I came across the recent haka performed by Jason Momoa at the premiere of Aquaman – and hence my search this week for the medicine that is ‘Once Were Gardeners’. I’m not that worried (as I hear others are) about the relative quality of what was performed. What I am concerned about is the hypermasculinity being placed around our culture, through Hollywood, and at the hands of Polynesian men. I am concerned with this continued fascination of media with us as a ‘warrior race’.

We are not a warrior race.

In 2015, after being signed for Aquaman, Jason Momoa offered the following on how haka made him feel: “When I did the haka, I went in and it was so fuckin’ awesome and gnarly, and they didn’t know that shit was going to happen. They didn’t even have a camera rolling, so they asked me to come back in and do it again. I did a nicer version the second time, because the first time my heart was pounding out of my chest and I was thinking kill, kill KILL! My adrenaline was out of control and I just called down to my ancestors and was ready to rape and pillage and defend the village. Then, I had to test a love scene right after.”

Now, I have to say here that I think it’s troubling that anything would “make” someone feel like committing rape. But it is especially troubling that in this case Momoa is attributing that feeling to our haka. It leaves me wondering what Jason Momoa thinks he is channeling when he performed our haka earlier this week.

Plenty has been written already about the rape scenes in Game of Thrones and rape jokes that Momoa has made about them. That’s a whole ‘nother discussion. What is particularly concerning for me in this case is that Momoa has suggested he channeled our tīpuna Māori – not any other tīpuna, not even his own kupuna Māoli – in order to play these roles. This role of rapist and pillager. These roles, written by white men, about a brown, savage, warrior race.

We are not a warrior race.

I have seen instances when Jason Momoa has spoken with vulnerability and respect for women. But that has been severely undermined by him misaligning haka with rape. It feeds the colonial lie that we are savage brutes and creates a justification for the stripping of our rights. The mass portrayal of us as a “warrior race” is a fictitious oversimplification that, if we are not careful, will simply continue to feed dominant narratives which justify the removal of our children from our homes, and the hyper-incarceration of our people.

Worse still, this one-dimensional exploitation of us as tangata moana contributes to the ongoing colonisation of our people within our own minds. We internalise these ideas and absorb them into our identities. It harms our relationships. It harms wāhine. It harms children. It harms our whānau who do not neatly fit into colonial gender binaries of how a man or a woman should be.

This month of all months, with a national focus on violence towards women, is a time for us to be mindful of how our own words, our portrayals, our emphases, contribute to a culture of rape and violence against women. It is a time for listening to the concerns of wāhine, not speaking over or minimizing them. It is a time for considering how media portrayals create bias. It is a time for accountability, and honest discussions about how we can do better. While we call our justice system and media to account for double standards, it is also important for us to deeply consider for ourselves how, and why, we grant permission for some kinds of harmful speech, and not others.

I don’t say this to hate on Jason Momoa, I say it out of aroha for our wāhine, for our tamariki, for our ira wāhine and ira tāne whānau. I say it for our rangatahi, and I also say it for our tāne, for whom this warrior trope also does great injustice. That said, it would be timely, and meaningful, for Mamoa to retract his statements about haka making him feel like committing rape, and instead make a commitment to helping to dismantle misogynistic colonial representations of indigenous peoples.

If we turn the clock back a further 20 years before ‘Once Were Gardeners’, we get to Moana Jackson’s ‘He Whaipaanga Hou’ report on the criminal justice system and Māori. Sadly, after three decades not only have we made zero progress, but the incarceration rates for Māori have actually worsened. Moana was very clear – racism and cultural denigration are both a part of the wider causative factors at play. As the government prepares to shift itself into gear for dealing to violence against women, it must join us in acknowledging the role of state colonial violence upon whānau Māori, and actively and vocally resist the perpetuation of racist colonial stereotypes carried through the media and state agencies.

We are not a warrior race.

Keep going!
Te Papa’s Toi Art gallery. Image: Michael O’Neill
Te Papa’s Toi Art gallery. Image: Michael O’Neill

ĀteaDecember 19, 2018

Biculturalism in our national museum can’t be a one-way conversation

Te Papa’s Toi Art gallery. Image: Michael O’Neill
Te Papa’s Toi Art gallery. Image: Michael O’Neill

Puawai Cairns, head of mātauranga Māori for Te Papa museum, writes about what biculturalism can and should mean in an institution like a museum. 

“Institutional biculturalism is often applied like makeup: it can create the appearance desired by both the wearer and the viewer, while beneath the surface the ravages of time remain. In the case of museums, the inherited ideologies of the western museology may be covered for public consumption, but after the performance, when the makeup is cleaned off, the old face remains as it has always been, the face of colonialism.”

When David Butts wrote these words in his unpublished dissertation Māori and Museums: The Politics of Indigenous Recognition 15 years ago, Te Papa was only five years old, a bright and shiny model of bicultural museum practice, heaving with new visitor-centric offerings. But was it an institution with newly applied makeup that merely provided better camouflage for colonial desiccation?

Museums Aotearoa have asked if I can write something about biculturalism to preface the preparations being put in place for the next conference in 2019, which is going to focus on the big ‘B word’. I’ve struggled with what to call this piece, so I’m writing about all the titles of biculturalism, and all those papers that are still to be written about this makeover sometimes gone wrong.

I had intended on giving this piece a suitably conference-y title like Biculturalism: a dissatisfactory inheritance, referring to the fact that sometimes biculturalism feels like a garment that has been handed down, like an awkward third-hand jersey that you don’t quite fit (Biculturalism: the unwanted hand-me-down).

I got caught up on whether this jersey should be termed a dissatisfactory or unsatisfactory inheritance. So I searched to find out what the difference is and Google spat this cheerful paragraph back at me:

“A sense of incompleteness, which leaves one feeling unsatisfied

A sense of wrongness, which leaves one feeling dissatisfied”

I mulled over the sense of incompleteness and dissatisfaction (Biculturalism: just enough to eat so you don’t starve). When is biculturalism bicultural enough to be satisfying? Is it when we have 50/50 equitable split or power between the Treaty partners? When there are more exhibitions nationwide that give more coverage of Māori stories and worldviews? When all your staff are bicultural (capacity, whakapapa etc)? Or when there is just enough of a presence of one Treaty partner in an institution to appear bicultural (as per the David Butts quote above) while not necessarily having a 50/50 partnership (Biculturalism: it may not be pretty but it gets shit done)? The vague expectations of biculturalism make it everything and nothing, it becomes the grand promise that never delivers a grand shift.

I reflected on the times biculturalism has actually helped me get shit done, remembering a moment when I cited biculturalism and our institutional obligations to it, in an exhibition meeting that advocated for more Māori representation. The strategy worked to a limited extent – I was able to add ever so slightly more Māori content – but it was not the ideal outcome. My arguments had to hinge on what value Māori content brought to a national conversation for non-Māori visitors, convincing decision-makers that non-Māori visitors would not be alienated by ‘too many’ Māori stories. In a bicultural framework, wouldn’t this also work the other way? That the other partner would have to make arguments that too many non-Māori stories would not alienate Māori audiences (Biculturalism: is it a one way discussion)?

There is also a sense of wrongness within a bicultural framework because it can disregard that other, older relationships exist – such as our whakapapa relationship and loyalty to Pacific people, who become either a voiceless part of the bicultural partnership or are placed in false opposition. Biculturalism locks you into a dialogical relationship, sometimes at the cost of more nuanced kōrero outside this binary (Biculturalism: it can be an exclusive conversation).

There is an anxiety that comes with being a bicultural partner and it chews at the heart of most Māori who work within a bicultural framework. By dint of our numerically lesser status within institutions, we become the bicultural Wikipedia, our opinions representative of the cultural other. This results in an ever-present anxiety, a fear that if you miss an email, miss a meeting, don’t agree to an invitation to be part of a steering group/expert panel, there will be no bicultural (read: Māori) opinion expressed. So you have to be on the ball, hyper-vigilant and, as a result, usually strung out (Biculturalism: there is no out-of-office-auto reply). This also exists with the requirement to carry out cultural protocols, to teach and educate the bicultural partner about te ao Māori while also navigating the demands of te ao Western workplace.

*

Ehara i te mea pani, me haehae (it is not enough to wear it as painted adornment, it should be carved)

I want to talk about what biculturalism can be, as opposed to this partially achieved social contract. Biculturalism is a system that requires constant advocacy from both partners, to protect the integrity and promise of the partnership. It cannot exist if one party is exerting all their efforts to realise the aspirations of the other without a mutual agreement that this will be returned in kind. To fully determine a bicultural relationship is not decolonisation, it is not an appeasement, and it is not mana motuhake – it is keeping a promise. Biculturalism is a framework that requires allies, accomplices, compromise and respect. Just as we learn from the story of tā moko when the practice shifted from painting on to the skin to scarification, if an institution has adopted biculturalism as its driving framework, it is not enough to only wear it as a temporary face of make up, it should be carved into its structure, as an irrefutable and undeniable statement.

But once this is done, the challenge that we must answer is if we still believe that biculturalism is the best system to help us navigate where we want to go? (Biculturalism: terminus, or just a train stop before somewhere else?)

*

 This article was first published in Museums Aotearoa Quarterly, December 2018.