|
Point of View with Barb
Sumner Burstyn - March 1 2004
Injustice inevitable in a society blind
to colour
Last week's political poll showed large numbers of New Zealanders
had shifted their support to the National Party on the basis of
a single speech that seemed to jump right into the heart of the
country.
But in all the public response - the polls, radio talkback and
letters to editors supporting the axing of special assistance to
Maori - no one mentioned what was to me an obvious point.
We have been here before, but the first time around the fight was
against feminism, the battleground was gender rather than ethnicity,
and the group struggling for independence were women.
The parallels are obvious. Reflect on the feminist struggle to
gain equal footing in society. Think about the special courses at
universities that only women could attend, the gender-based funding
for everything from health and sport to education and support groups.
And think of the sense of separateness women nurtured as they made
their way towards full participation in society.
Under the world view promulgated by National Party leader Don Brash,
all that focus on one gender to the exclusion of the other would
have been outlawed, despite the fact that gender-based assistance
has proven to be the most effective mechanism to bring about balance
in society.
New Zealanders seem to have forgotten a salient fact about Brash.
He is first and foremost an economist and as such he is a beacon
for economic principles translated into everyday life; principles
founded on ascribing economic value to various elements of society.
At one time women had little or no economic capital and were, therefore,
of little value, their opinion, intelligence, independence and capabilities
discounted, their gains ascribed to the extra assistance they received.
Today Maori occupy that position.
Brash talks of being colour-blind as a general principle. But you
cannot construct a just society by being ignorant of the racial,
social, and economic positions of groups within that society.
The political theorist and proponent of practical egalitarianism,
John Rawls, called it the difference principle. As an emphatic opponent
of the idea that if the rich get richer, the poor are automatically
pulled up behind them, Rawls says that without active government
intervention, economic inequality denies the poor even the full
civil liberties of a free society.
That free society conjured by Rawls is called democracy (a term
Brash uses frequently) and at its heart lies the concept of participation.
Knowing this, ask yourself: has special funding for Maori denied
others the right or ability to participate in our society? Has that
funding caused Pakeha or Asian or Pacific Island New Zealanders
to miss out on education, health or welfare?
Conversely, will removal of the special assistance disable Maori
from full participation in their country?
And, in considering these questions, what happens to the equation
when you shift them into the past tense and replace the word Maori
with women?
In truth, the only special rights being conferred here are those
already enriching people born on the right side of the colour bar,
just as privilege once gathered on only one side of the gender divide.
Ultimately it isn't about specifics such as this programme for
Maori or that welfare assistance. It's about the kind of society
we want, and the values that dominate.
Rawls recognised that in a democracy, "liberties collide". In other
words, the right to make and spend money, free of an onerous tax
burden, can be at odds with the need to support cultural and financial
differences of other members of that democracy. This is the nexus
that Brash is exploiting.
Just as the core of white male supremacy fought the rise of women,
they are now rejecting the success of programmes that are lifting
Maori out of past inequalities. As an example, 30 years ago Maori
life expectancy was on average 20 years less than Pakeha. Today
it is between five and seven. Special funding for Maori does not
cement dependency - it enables growth and change.
This is a defining moment in the history of our young country.
As a New Zealander I want a country where there is less inequality.
I believe others share this vision. Providing Maori with special
programmes has been one of the most effective means of achieving
that.
The economic life that Brash represents must take place within
a framework of equity, morality and opportunity, and until someone
comes up with a better system, other than the myths of trickle-down
and equal opportunity, or the fiction of hard work always resulting
in financial reward, then I will continue to believe in assisting
others and the effectiveness of using ethnicity as a means of targeting
that assistance.
In the end, it is difficult to think of a reason why anyone would
disagree, other than fear of empowered Maori or perhaps personal
greed.
ENDS
© Barbara Sumner Burstyn, 2004
Send your comments to:
Barbara Sumner
Burstyn.
|
