Wallace's blog: Wanganui (Sep 18)
Wanganui.
The face off on Close Up last night between Maori activist Ken Mair and Mayor of Wanganui Michael Laws was top television. I hadn't seen nor heard from Ken Mair in a long time, but I can remember around the time of the Motua Gardens occupation, his name was spoken with contempt on the lips of many Pakeha. A professional stirrer, not a real maori, whiter than a pakeha and so on.
Watch the Close Up interview here.But Mair wasn't the one sounding like the activist on Close Up last night. It was Michael Laws who sounded indignantly fundamental, vowing to fight the Geographic boards decision with " every fibre of his body. "
The essence of Laws argument essentially boils down to the fact that it's been spelt without an H for a very long time, and so it has accrued what he calls a 'mana' all of it's own. And the fact that nearly 80% voted to retain the current spelling in a referendum on the name change.
Ken Mair's argument comes down to the correct spelling. He maintains that it's not for the people of Wanganui to decide on a vote-off on whether they should put in the 'H'. It's what is correct. If a Maori name is spelt incorrectly than correct it. As I've pointed out in a previous post, this subject of putting the H back in Wanganui has (like the Maori seats issue) been festering for over a century. Both issues are going to have be resolved, if not by the Mayors and politicians of today, then by those of tomorrow.
So who should we listen to? The sad thing about this overblown debate is that the answer is entirely obvious. If it's a Maori place name and if local Maori themselves feel that it's been misspelt, then it is their decision alone. Revealingly, while opinion is split between non-Maori on this issue, Maori are pretty much speaking with one voice. It shows how we still need to focus on bi-cultural race relations before we start adopting ourselves as a multicultural country.
Then again, I often think that Laws doesn't mean what he says.
It's all about a bit of profile building - that much is
transparent. He is a talented broadcaster, if not my scene,
and he writes a thought-provoking column. He'll get under your
collar, and will force you to defend a stance. But on this easily
solved issue, the vigour with which he is defending his position
strikes me as unusual, maybe a little manufactured. It was Ken Mair
that acted with mana and grace on the Close Up interview.
What do you think? Have your say on our message board!
If you want Backbenches updates, just Facebook
me;
www.facebook.com/wallace.chapman
is the address
