Introduction
Society attaches significance, and controls the formation of racial-ethnic identities and communities of ethnic minorities of a country. This essay will explore the ‘New Zealand Chinese Identity’ and the ‘Pakeha ethnicity’; depicting the challenges and experiences of immigrating to New Zealand as a foreign Asian in contrast to the effects of ‘White privilege’ and the different attitudes, treatment and experiences that are introduced due to the racial-ethnic identity differences.
Readings
‘New Zealand Chinese Identity: Sojourners, Model Minority and Multiple Identities’
This reading discusses the formation and significance of the ‘Chinese New Zealander’ identity. The “legislative processes and the socio-political dynamics” which impacted the immigration rules and policies of New Zealand have strong control and influence over the making of Chinese New Zealand communities and identities. The most h evidence for this very statement is the fact that the number of Chinese immigrants permitted to enter New Zealand was limited by the New Zealand government. Upon entry, the government then went on to further control what kind of immigrants were qualified to settle and apply for residence in New Zealand based on the immigrant’s economic background, the level of education attained and the social class they were a member of. Thus, the New Zealand government had complete control over the formation of the Chinese community at the time, but also continues to secure a level of control to this day. They aimed to ensure that the community consisted of members that would bring value and gain to New Zealand.
Aside from the legislations and policies put in place, the attitude of the host society, but also the immigrants themselves, is a major contributing factor that affected and controlled the formation of the Chinese community. The way in which the host society perceives Chinese immigrants affects the way they treat them – whether they are accepted into society or discriminated against, is determined by members of the host society. The latter often deemed to be the case as the Chinese were considered “undesirable aliens”. In order to settle and fit in to the New Zealand society, the Chinese were cautious and careful so as not to offend “mainstream sensitivity” but were also “humble, menial and not in direct competition” with New Zealanders in regards to trade and business; they ‘knew their place’.
There were more obstacles Chinese immigrants encountered: they were the only people in New Zealand subjected to a poll tax. In addition to this, “tonnage ratios, literacy tests and thumb printing” challenged them further, as well as the blanket permit system that was imposed in order to prevent Chinese and other coloured migrants from entering and living in New Zealand. They did not receive the right to be supported for unemployment or pensions despite their naturalised New Zealand citizenship. In this way, Chinese immigrants were forced to overcome the hardships and hurdles that were unfairly thrust upon them.
The evolution of the Chinese New Zealand identity over the years displayed a transition from a state of isolation and alienation as a result of discrimination, to New Zealand’s comparatively more tolerant attitude and treatment towards the Chinese post World War Two. In more recent years, Chinese immigrants were more welcomed as valued citizens by the New Zealand government; the positive impact of the rise of the Asian economy allowed New Zealand to be presented as a more globally multicultural and accepted nation. Whilst the earlier Chinese immigrants had assimilated identities, the new-comers introduced the idea of a transnational identity, allowing for new opportunities and experiences. New Zealand’s more welcoming attitude has brought immense change – welcoming Asian immigrants is strategically crucial in order to secure and fulfil New Zealand’s economic interests.
The Chinese New Zealander identity is both affected by external and domestic factors and situations that occur in society, in the economy and around the World. The issue regarding identity formation remains a topic of discourse and debate, and is constantly redefined by society.
‘Pakeha Ethnicity: The Politics of White Privilege’
This reading explores Pakeha ethnicity and the importance of social stratification in discussing the level of inequality and privilege present in New Zealand society.
Ballara (1986) defines the word Pakeha as the ‘Maori name for Europeans’. Many other contemporary Maori sources define the term as “White or New Zealander of European descent” (Moor, 2011 & Ngata, 2010). This reading makes note of the fact that there are advantages that belong to the dominant white majority in New Zealand however the advantages and the privileges are reinforced by its invisibility and is also disguised. McIntosh (2007) supports this statement: we should see white privilege as an “invisible package of unearned assets”. The norms and values of the White people, the ways in which they act and live serve as the basis by which non-White people are judged.
Pakeha acknowledge and support the symbolic nature and aspects of Maori culture; the incorporation of the Maori version in the national anthem, the Haka, the powhiri and educating people of Te Reo Maori. However, they oppose any possible potential aspects that may challenge and hinder the existing economic power structure such as ownership of Maori land, tertiary scholarships and awards for Maori students and so on. It raises questions and doubts about whether or not the Pakeha’s acknowledgment of the mere symbolic aspects of the Maori culture is actually genuine if they are not willing to share economic power and privileges.
The self-labelling as Pakeha represents their recognition of the cultural difference, and also displays the privileges that being a member of the majority group gives. In more recent years however, Pakeha ethnicity also served as a symbol of respect to the Maori in an attempt at acknowledging their “First Nation” status and the Treaty of Waitangi.
Ethnicity is a principle element of social stratification, and as a result, of inequality that is present within society. Maori, in comparison to the New Zealand population as a whole, were at an extreme disadvantage in terms of education and employment, but were also experiencing discrimination in institutions, workplaces and communities. The dominant majority Pakeha culture and social structure of New Zealand not only awards the Pakeha with privileges, the Pakeha-dominated institutions function to maintain that privilege to suit them best.
Pakeha, being the dominant majority group of New Zealand, have many privileges that are often considered obvious and taken for granted. The stark contrast between the treatment, and difference in lifestyles of Pakeha and non-Pakeha people i.e the Maori, reflects inequality as a problematic issue of New Zealand society today.
Reflection
The two readings covered crucial aspects regarding ethnicity; the experiences, advantages and disadvantages that resulted from being a member of certain ethnic groups. Both readings explored the notion of inequality present in New Zealand, and the unfair treatment they – the non-Pakeha people received due to a difference in racial or cultural origin and background.
‘Whiteness’ is a term coined to describe and define the act of “affording privilege to white people (McIntosh, 1988), but inspiring terror in those who are not (Hooks, 1997)”. In this way, White privilege is “invisible to white people, but clearly visible to those who are not (Ahmed, 2007); the privileges given to the White people are simply regarded as obvious, and those that do not have the privileges are the ones that are affected by it. Furthermore, the majority of ‘Pakeha’ or ‘White people’ are so accustomed to having access to the cultural and economic capital that it is now a ‘habit’ (Ahmed, 2007), an “integral, yet invisible” aspect of life. The “systemic advantage of whiteness” lies on the fact that it provides protection against social distresses, confers advantages and allows the White people to journey through life without being marked by ethnic or racial disadvantages (McIntosh, 1988).
The colonisation of New Zealand in the past, has in fact, moulded a society where White people have unearned assets and advantages that allow them to live their lives with greater convenience and ease than non-White people. However, members of the White majority seem to be in denial of such consequences (Colvin, 2009). The history, the events of the past are so important in that “the injustices of the past have real implications for our present lives” (McIntosh quoted in Henley, 2007) and the consequences still live on.
The Maori were, and still may be affected by discriminatory practices in the “domains of work, housing and healthcare” (Harris et al. 2006), as well as other Pakeha-dominated institutions. Verbal abuse, violence, poorer service provision, stigmatisation are but some of the ways in which basic Maori human rights and general living standards are challenged. The lower median income, the less likeliness of attaining a formal educational qualification or owning a house also supports this idea that the Maori are disadvantaged compared to the Pakeha.
Similarly, the Chinese New Zealanders also experienced hardships and barriers that prevented them from becoming a part of the New Zealand society.
Being a Kiwi-Korean myself, I related to these readings as they present the experiences of the non-Pakeha people – Asian and Maori in particular. Having immigrated to New Zealand from South Korea at the age of 1 with my family; mum, dad and older brother, I was able to experience what it is like for one to grow up as a ‘Kiwi’ in a utterly Korean-centred family, being educated and interacting with Pakeha students but also non-Pakeha and international students. Pan (1998) discusses the idea of being an ‘overseas Chinese’ where the person would “always be Chinese first’ and consider the host country as their secondary home. I personally relate to and am familiar of this statement as my parents, who were born and raised in South Korea, would always emphasise the importance of protecting and preserving my roots as a Korean. They ensured I remember my cultural background and my ability to speak and communicate in Korean, but also planted a strong image in my mind of South Korea being my ‘Motherland’, my first and most important home country.
However, as I grew up, I experienced an identity crisis during my intermediate years – I was confused as to how or who I would identify myself as. I had grown to love New Zealand, its culture and most important of all, my best friends that were white. However, rather than my original culture and mindset assimilating, I was able to hold onto my Korean heritage, as well as embracing the New Zealand culture and customs. The balance between the influence my parents, friends and teachers had on me shaped me into the Kiwi-Korean I am today; my parents educated me about and secured my Korean background, whilst all other external interactions I had with friends and teachers allowed me to learn and immerse myself in the New Zealand culture.
My parents, who grew up in Korea for most of their lives, felt a “stronger attachment to the homeland” (Ip, 1996), whereas my brother and I adjusted and were attached more to New Zealand, where we found greater peace and comfort. Furthermore, when our family first immigrated to New Zealand, my parents struggled to find stable jobs due to their limited knowledge and ability to speak English. However, like the story of the “lady and Mr Chan” in the reading suggested, my parents were deeply moved and taken aback by the kindness of fellow Korean immigrants who were able to help us settle down in New Zealand. As a whole, this reading in particular was one which I was able to relate to well as my family experienced a lot of failures and hardships after immigrating to this once ‘foreign’ country New Zealand. Being Asian, instead of White, made it difficult for my family to find a sense of connection to New Zealand and even after receiving New Zealand citizenship, we were exposed to racist remarks and comments made about us – often telling us to ‘go back to our home country’ when in fact, New Zealand was our legal, physical and psychological home.
2019-10-1-1569899204