Talk:Pākehā

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:
Flag Pākehā is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] A compromise plan

How about we split it this way: We make New Zealand European as essentially a page about demographics. There are no Pakeha in New Zealand officially, because the people who count the nation don't include it on the census forms, and probably that's just as well. We came up with three names to go by, and that's just us, so the path of least resistance is to call us European New Zealanders, since most people don't have a bug with it. So, the page (Euro New Zealander) stays, and it links to "Pakeha", and vice versa. It becomes the more (for want of a better word) scientific way of looking at white New Zealand.

That leaves scope to turn Pakeha sideways into a more philosophical sort of page which can look into what is a pretty important cultural concept within the country. We can't talk about New Zealand and not talk about this idea, after all. That would just be a sin of omission.

We can have both articles; we just can't have a competition between the two articles for which ones gets to be the Official Page of White People in New Zealand. I don't think that's gonna make anyone happy. Kripto 02:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a brilliant idea. I agree. - A.J.Chesswas 15:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the dispute resolved then? Can we remove the merge labels? - A.J.Chesswas 22:50, 6 February 2007 (NZT)

Yes let's remove the merged labels. This way the New Zealand Europeans and the Pakeha each get their own page.NZ forever 02:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] field days

because if nothing else, we can agree it's not the New Zealand way to do things by halves: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British New Zealander is something you should look at. Kripto 01:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging British New Zealander into article

Is there any consensus about the proposal to merge British New Zealander into this (or the other) article? Kripto 06:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there is too much politics involved, and the meanings too unclear. For someone to decide that just because "Pakeha" is in the Oxford Dictionary, and "New Zealand European/British" is not (p.s. have you tried looking up ech word separately??), that Pakeha is the most appropriate word is a poor argument. The fact is, very few New Zealanders think about themselves in an ethnic way, but if pushed they will tell you they are of British, English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Dutch, Swiss, Polish, etc. etc. descent - they won't tell you they are [definitely] "Pakeha". Some will, but they tend to be the more radical/political types as seems to be the case with Shudda.

As I have said in other places on this page, the census has used NZ European, and before that British. These are actually meaningful terms tied to objective geographic and genealogical facts. The etymology of Pakeha is founded in what a Pakeha ISN'T, not what he/she IS. I still think it would be more appropriate to name this page "NZ European" and have a separate article on Pakeha, or a separate section within this article explaining the use and political dabet around the term Pakeha.

Evidence of prevailing ambiguity over terms:

Use of "European New Zealander" or "British New Zealander":

A.J.Chesswas 09:29, 30 January 2007 (NZT)

I think the dictionary is the best place to determine what the meaning is. The fact is that they mean the same thing (European New Zealanders and Pakeha). They should be merged, whether the article is called Pakeha or European New Zealander is not the point. Please don't resort to calling someone radical either. That doesn't contribute to the debate at all. I think that what is happening is some people are thinking the merge is about the preferred term, it is not! It's because they mean more or less the same thing. The etymology of the word Pakeha should be discussed in the article, but it's important to remember that this isn't the 19th century. The meaning of the word has changed, when it is used has changed, and who uses it has changed. That is like most words of course, so why is that a problem? - Shudda talk 21:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My point was "just because it's in the dictionary doesn't mean it's the preferred term". You say the media use the word Pakeha rather than European. Not so. Google News "maori" "european" then Google News "maori" "pakeha". The jury is still out but if you look at media alone then European is the preferred term. Sorry. Pakeha should in fact be merged with "NZ European" - not the other way around.

Shudda, if you want to prove your point you'll need evidence. I've given some links above re: the debate, and now shown via Google News which is the preferred term. State your case mate.

P.s. I'm working on a little something at the moment that I'll post on my blog soon re: "British New Zealander". Sadly there seems to be a shortage of material and primary research published on this debate. In my experience, which I trialled again at morning tea, ask a Kiwi their ethnicity and you'll get "European" most of the time... p.s. try asking someone a bit older than you and not studying fine arts or sociology at university!! - A.J.Chesswas 12:49, 30 January 2007 (NZT)

I didn't mention the media here. The sources you have put up here are poor. Discussion forums, blogs, and wikipedia article are not notable enough to include in an article (so why are you placing them here?). I don't care what the preferred term is, note I don't care! I'm not someone who gets upset over these things. However, I do think that the term European New Zealander and Pakeha mean the same thing. Hence why the article should be merged! My case was the New Zealand Oxford Dictionary (a pretty good source don't you think?), it's definition of Pakeha was a New Zealander of European heritage. What term people prefer in NZ, whether Pakeha, European, British, Kiwi, whatever, can be covered in one article. Rather then spread over two. I think you are missing the point of this entire debate. Unless someone who is described as Pakeha (remember, we are using the modern, dictionary definition) is different then a European New Zealander, then why should there be two articles? Also, I'll ask you again to refrain from comments that are meant to be offensive, please see WP:CIVIL - Shudda talk 00:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Pakeha isn't an option on census forms; we don't know how many people would have ticked it. But the point remains, it's 3 for, 3 against merging European into Pakeha, and no particular consensus about merging British New Zealander into anything. I think though, if European New Zealander doesn't merge, then BNZ is redundant, and if Euro NZ goes, then it seems that BNZ isn't going to be able to stand on its own. Can we get an up or down yes/no vote?

I thought I was done, but I also see there's a reverse edit being proposed to merge this article into European New Zealander. Can we, if nothing else, deal with the first two proposals before we get too far into debating other ones? Kripto 01:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you found my comments offensive, I certainly didn't intend them to be. I was just showing the importance of providing proof and sources for your statements. Perhaps you have a point that the articles should be merged. But for the sake of accuracy they should be merged under "NZ European", not "Pakeha", on the basis that European is the term most commonly used by people, whether media or otherwise (do the Google News search), and look at some discussions and forums on the topic.

My point about the dictionary is that the dictionary doesn't need a separate entry for "European New Zealander" because anyone can figure out how to merge the definitions for "European" and "New Zealander" together. Just because "Pakeha" is in there doesn't mean we should use it, because "European" and "New Zealander" are both in there as well. Forums and blogs are certainly USEFUL as they are written material that cannot be disputed about, compared to somebody's hearsay. Of course, they're not as NOTABLE as a reference to a published book. But look at the NOTABLE(?) articles referenced in the article; there remains much dispute over the word, and the article on Maorinews.com clearly says they consider Pakeha to be ANYONE NOT MAORI.

But I take your point we should go with the dictionary definition, and include a section on disputes WITHIN the article. BUT I think that article should be "European New Zealander", not "Pakeha", because of its greater currency in both media and general society. People will still be directed to the "European New Zealander" article when searching "Pakeha", but they will understand that "European New Zealander" is the most common reference and won't embarass themselves when they visit New Zealand.

Kripto, for the record, my vote is to merge "Pakeha" INTO "NZ European".

Regarding "NZ British", there seems to be a lack of source material to reference, which is sad, so I'm willing to see that incoporated into NZ European. I suppose it would be fair to even leave it right out, as there only seem to be just a few bloggers using it in common currency. I certainly count myself as NZ British, and know others I share this in common with, but it looks like I'm going to actually have to do some more research and encourage more publishing in the area myself before I can prove its validity as a 21st Century NZ ethnic group. A.J.Chesswas 14:48, 30 January 2007 (NZT)

Pākehā has been on census forms in the past. It wasn't in the 2006 census. I ticked "Other", and wrote Pākehā in the "Please specify" box. It's the word I grew up with in Waitara in the 1950s and '60s. I think I was in my 30s when I first heard myself called European. Worth noting perhaps, that in the South Island (I now live in Dunedin), the term Pākehā is an import from the north, and fiercely resisted by some. Kai Tahu people always used the term "European" when speaking English. When they still spoke Māori, we were tākata bola (= tāngata pora)—people of the sail, according to Jim Williams, the Kai Tahu specialist in Otago University's Department of Māori, Pacific and Indigenous Studies. I'm tempted to put it in the next census. As it is, I still use the word Pākehā of myself, NI import or not, just as I say saucepan rather than pot, or flannel rather than face-cloth. I do call a bach a crib these days, but only if it's south of the Waitaki river.

I don't think Pākehā is used only by the more radicalised Pākehā speakers. I suspect its use is relatively high among Pākehā living in smaller towns with high Māori populations. I understand that Māori have avoided living in the Stratford area, because if Taranaki ever takes it into his head to return to his old home, they would be right in the way. Koro Neil (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging European New Zealander into article

I definitely think the articles should be merged. The fact is that in New Zealand the term Pakeha is used all the time, especially in the media. Regardless of whether one considers the term offensive, it means the same thing as European New Zealander in almost all cases. If someone out there doesn't like the label then fine, however the this should be included in the article, rather then have several articles on the same thing (British New Zealander, European New Zealander etc etc). Some poor bugger out there that wants to learn about the term has to read several articles rather then one, its duplication, confusing, and pointless. - Shudda talk 01:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Most of the terms Pakeha / NZ European / NZ British / whatever are offensive to some and preferred by others, but the important thing is that all the terms refer to more or less the same people. It would be ridiculous to have seperate articles for Burma and Myanmar, for example - they are the same place even though which name is used is quite political. There will always be disagreement over which gets the page name (I vote for Pakeha), but as long as there is a good section listing all the terms and explaining the issues surrounding them, I don't really think anyone has anything to complain about. --Helenalex 02:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. I prefer this pages remaining separate, its easier. Pakeha is not used all the time, personally I think it’s come less common over the last few months. I also think we need a page for those who call themselves New Zealanders as a lot of people identified as that in the last censes. (Can anyone remember was Pākehā on the censes? I think NZ European was the term used. Brian | (Talk) 07:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter what the term people prefer, the fact is that they mean the same thing. Hence why I think they should be merged (duplication). My little NZ Oxford Dictionary states: Pakeha - noun, a New Zealander whose ancestors came from Europe. So why is Pakeha and European New Zealander different? They're not! They mean exactly the same thing. - Shudda talk 10:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose that Pākehā be used as the default page for non-Māori New Zealanders, and that any person who finds the title pejorative or offensive can write on this article "Many people in New Zealand are uncomfortable with this word and prefer to be called example, because reason". It doesn't add anything to comprehension when people start splintering off self-explanatory articles. Kripto 23:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather than merge New Zealand European into this article we should merge Pākehā into New Zealand European. Mainly because the term New Zealand European is more official and is used by most government departments (Statistics NZ, NZ Police etc...). We should also consider what term is prefered by the majority of white NZders and also what term is most sensible to use in the English language Wikipedia (NZ European).

Now there will be some disagreement as to which term is prefered by us lighter skinned NZders, but take a minute to read this.

Last year our 6th form social sciences class conducted our own mini-census in small groups to coincide with the 2006 census and one of the questions we posed due to the controversy surronding the introduction of New Zealander to the ethnicity section was

Which term would you prefer to describe your ethnicity. New Zealand European, Pakeha, White, (Ancestry) New Zealander or New Zealander.

Surprisingly the term White came out on top for most age groups with the exception of the 40-60s and the 60+ age group.

The Top two for each age group were:

  • Teens = White then Pakeha.
  • 20-30 = White then Pakeha.
  • 30-40 = White then New Zealand European.
  • 40-60 = New Zealand European then New Zealander.
  • 60+ = New Zealand European then New Zealander.

(We interviewed 112 people over 2 weeks aged between 13 and 66)

Arguss 00:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

We won't have three pages for clarity. If the three articles stay, then they will stay for political reasons. There isn't, after all a lot of information on the NZ European page, nor on the British NZ page, because what needs saying is already said in the article named Pakeha. In effect, thes other two pages are tokens. What people editing wikipedia prefer to be called is of no consequence whatsoever to this article, though of enourmous importance to the debate outside of here. Though it is heartening to see people talking about this sort of thing, it remains to me true that one article would serve the topic better. We can't write about it without addressing the concerns raised by people. That's the nature of the topic. But, we cannot write about New Zealand and leave Pākēhā out - as an idea alone, with its many discontents. Merge! Kripto 03:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with merging the two articles. NZ European should talk about history, statistics and influence etc...Pakeha should discuss orgins of the word, acceptance etc... Arguss 05:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

running total:

Kripto 02:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book Titles

I am removing the macrons from the words pākehā used in M. King's two book titles. Although I generally agree with the use of the macron, a book title should be spelt as published. Both books mentioned were published without the macron used in their names. http://www.penguin.co.nz/nf/Search/QuickSearchProc/1,,being%20pakeha,00.html?id=being%20pakeha. Following the links will allow one to see the actual spelling from the book covers. Stormrose

[edit] PC Nonsense?

What an unnecessary idea. Offensive PC nonsense.

You mean the article or the word? Bastie 10:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
As a Pakeha New Zealander, I have to completely disagree that the term is PC nonsense (and believe me, I really really hate PC bullshit). The term has a lot of relevance within the New Zealand context. --GringoInChile 00:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Here's what I don't understand. Is it a racial or a cultural thing? If you've got African or East Asian ancestors but you've grown up entirely in New Zealand and follow "standard" NZ Pakeha cultural norms (in sports, music, food, etc.) are you Pakeha? Doops | talk 05:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Strictly speaking they would be Pākehā, in the sense that the term means 'non-Māori'. But realistically, no they wouldn't, as Pākehā has come to mean the settlers to New Zealand of European extraction --Heyseuss 10:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
As a Pakeha myself I've always thought of it as a racial thing, denoting New Zealanders of European descent. However Pakeha have developed their own cultural identity that has been adopted many New Zealanders, both Maori and "New" New Zealanders. This includes wearing stubbies, putting tomato sauce on everything and backyard and beach cricket. I will always consider myself a Pakeha, not a British or European New Zealand as i believe this imply connections that should no longer exsit. Although this is completely off topic, I am in fact (and i know Adrian Work won't like this) a Republican. New Zealand doesn't need nor want a monarch on the other side off the world. User: HistoryKiwi
But if it's a racial category, then what about all the New Zealanders who are neither Paheka nor Maori? Doops | talk 00:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I think most people in NZ would consider it a racial or ethic category. Indeed, it isn't uncommon to see Pakeha as an racial/ethnic option. If you're not Pakeha or Maori, you might be a Pacific Islander, South Asian, East Asian (or sometimes seperated into Chinese, Japanese, Korean), South-east Asian, African, whatever. Nil Einne 14:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The Anglican Church of New Zealand, however, appears to see it as a cultural term: [1]. Doops | talk 22:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The term ethnicity is usually taken to refer to shared culture and geography as well as "race". This is why I think Pakeha is a useful word. NZ forever 02:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

'Political correctness' is a straw man. A straw man is an informal fallacy. An informal fallacy is an argument that is commonly wrong because of the nature of its reasoning. Precisely what we're here to avoid. Kripto 02:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The term 'Pakeha' is racist.

The term 'Pakeha' is actually a very racist term. I have never liked the use of the term, so I strongly identify myself as being a 'British New Zealander', because my ancestry is British (Scots) & I am very pro-British in sentiment anyway. - (Aidan Work 06:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC))

You may consider it a racist term. I personally don't find it racist or offensive as do a fair number of Pakeha like me... Nil Einne 14:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't state that first sentence like it is fact Aidan, that is your opinion. Personally, I identify myself as Pākehā, I don't identify as NZ European. --Heyseuss 10:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

ew i hate being refered to a british new zealander. people like that should go back to britain. Pakeha is the new us!

I'm a British New Zealander. I don't identify as a Pakeha and don't care much for Pakeha culture. I was born in the UK and still identify with my native culture and the first time I experienced Pakeha homelife was when I flatted with one. We're very different cultures. As for Pakeha being an offensive term, I don't believe that it is at all. Enzedbrit 00:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
it is not racist term, but i hate being called a Pākehā and always call my self a New Zealand European Bigkev
"European" denotes my relationship to ancestors I never met, and to a place I have not been within ten thousand miles of. "Pākehā" denotes my relationship to the neighbours and friends I grew up with. Koro Neil (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The term Pakeha is offensive. Some historians and linguists say that it is a broad term to describe anyone of non-maori descent in New Zealand, but that is not the way it is popularly used. In my experience it is used almost exclusively as a blanket term for white people. It's no different to calling an dark skinned person a Nigger. If the people of primarily european descent in New Zealand came up with a name for Maori that had had nothing to do with their culture, I seriously doubt that they would appreciate it.

But it is to do with our culture. We are New Zealand Europeans. As New Zealand Europeans, we identify with our New Zealand cultural heritage which includes Maori. While you have a right to take offense from the use of the term to describe you, comparing it to nigger is just plain ludicrious. It has neither the historical background nor the implied offensiveness. Perhaps you should investigate the Pakeha and Nigger articles before you make such offensive comments. Nil Einne 09:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Like calling a dark-skinned person a nigger? More like calling a Samoan, Tongan, Niuean or Tokelauan a Pacific Islander—a blanket term for Oceanic peoples. Pākehā can be used offensively, just as the word Māori is a term of abuse in the mouths of some people I have met. It's the attitude of the speaker, not the word, that is the offense. Koro Neil (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The merits of the term, the racism in it, be it naturally there, or all in your head, is irrelevant. Whether there's a 1:1 map between 'pakeha' and 'nigger' is a moot point. Whether it's 'PC nonsense', or that term is just a label used by people too lazy to formulate a real opinion isn't of much importance here. This isn't a social or philosophical forum, it's a straight up and down description of a concerpt. And that being the case, all it takes is a thing in it saying "People find this label offensive because..." and then show your working. Kripto 23:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The word Pakeha is just as bad as nigger (for negroes) or kike (for Jews), the Maoris just say that it means some inoffensive term so they may keep using it. Of course, the PC Nanny state of NZ would never dare point this out though --Hayden5650 09:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not a derogatory term at all. The famous proverb (E tipu, e rea) that Sir Apirana Ngata dedicated to his own grandchild urges young people to live successful lives by taking up 'ngā rākau a te Pākehā' - the tools of the Pākehā - for their material wellbeing. Think about it. If it meant any of the half-baked suggestions given on this page, Sir Apirana would have been insulting his own grandchild and his own tribe. It doesn't and he wasn't. Kahuroa 12:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And then it turned out that in 2006 maori made up 14% of the population and 78% of all crime. Maybe he stuffed up his proverb? --Hayden5650 06:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember that it means literally White pig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.64.200 (talk • contribs)

Only to the pig-ignorant. :) Copey 2

[edit] A matter or Perception.

Racist or not it's how you perceive the word. The facts are it is the historical name for our early European ancestors. Of course it is used almost exclusively as a blanket term for white people because Europeans were the only peoples coming here at the time. And yes there is a blanket name used to describe the indigenous people, it is "Maori". Prior to the common use of the word by Europeans the original "natives or indians" as they were written about described themselves by their tribal names. If you want to take the word literally as it means "belonging" (as in belonging to NZ) you could apply it to anyone born in New Zealand regardless of ancestry. Johnwill.

[edit] Racist?

omg i cant believe people are bickering about their identity on an online encyclopedia! Get over yourselves and just stick to the kaupapa. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts, not opinions. Pakeha is not an English word. But it is a uniquely New Zealand concept. Pakeha is a very specific term which describes European, and more specifically, British people in New Zealand.

Many Maori do not use the term Pakeha to refer to non-Maori people, only to people of European descent. Islanders (who are also called whanaunga), Asians and others are 'Tauiwi'. The word tauiwi is used in the Maori language to describe non-Maori. Pakeha are tauiwi, but not all tauiwi are Pakeha.

The word Pakeha has evolved to incorporate a uniquely 'Kiwi' culture, unique from Europeans in Europe, so Why the insult? It is not PC-ness, it is the Maori language. Embrace it e hoa, and stop being so Eurocentric. Know where you live. Aotearoa is a Pacific country with a Maori heritage.

Tamatoa 16:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

British people in New Zealand can identify themselves however they wish. Anyone can identify themselves however they wish. If one wishes to identify with one's European heritage, that shouldn't be discouraged. If it is, then every other culture with which one identifies should be discouraged? Eurocentric? That's a very unfortunate and racist view to take. Many people do identify as Pakeha, and fair play to them. Many others are proud of their roots and identify specifically with those roots. In this democracy, one is allowed to think that way. Enzedbrit 02:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong suggestion: refer entomology of Pakeha to the Maori Language Commission You will find the term Pa Keka as an origin from a particular tribe, referring in context to Fleas in a fort, red coat British soldiers when looked upon from a mountain/hill top as appearing as fleas jumping around in a pa/fort. This is a historical story. Though the humour of this may be in the mislabelling of Keha as a valid synonym of Flea. My research on the subject leads me to Keha from Polynesia as white glow and not flea. Perhaps flea should not have a synonym of Keha, simply as kutu. If writers wish to exclaim that it is not derogatory humour then the validity of Keha as a synonym of flea should first be exposed as a mis-translation of the tribal story. If you don't bother to contact the commission then you should not be writing an authoritive definition. [Pakeha Maori o te Koraha]

Pakeha cannot even be a real word, there seems to be no real definition for it. What a bloody joke. --Hayden5650 09:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to create separate articles

I think the word "Pakeha" got stuck back in the 19th century - by the time of the Polynesian and Asian immigration of the latter 20th century Maori were generally speaking English. They, like us, knew these new immigrants primarily as Tongan, Samoan, Fijian, Japanese, Chinese, Indian - not Pakeha; so the word Pakeha doesn't really have any mileage at all in relation to those groups. I think it would be fair to pin down a definition of Pakeha to naturalised "NZ Europeans" in terms of its useage by the English-speaking NZ population.

However, I must say that I was very suprised to be redirected to "Pakeha" after searching "NZ European". I do think an article on an ethnic group should be defined according to that group's language and culture. And you will find "NZ European" on the census forms of the last 50 years - not Pakeha. Maori would be highly insulted if we expected them to refer to themselves as "natives" - where is our dignity NZ Europe? I understand there will be people who desire to severe their identity with Europe and/or Britain, but if that is you then why not be a bit more creative and use your own language to come up with a name for yourselves? What is wrong with "New Zealander" anyway?

I propose that separate articles be created for "New Zealand European", "Pakeha" and, if desired, "New Zealander" (which could be merged with, or related to, Kiwi (people)). The "New Zealand European" article would actually describe the role of "NZ European" identity and culture as the dominant hegemonic force in the cultural life and history of our country. The "Pakeha" article would be focused on what that word means to Maori rather than to Non-Maori (preferably written by a Maori), with a section on its use by Non-Maori. The "New Zealander" article would describe the attempts at creating a NZer/Kiwi/Pakeha culture apart from any European or British identity.User:A.J.Chesswas 8 July 2006, 02:48 (NZT)

I absoloutely agree. New Zealand European is nearly the same as Pakeha. There are some that would disagree with that statement, but according to modern usage, it is the same. (To put it harshly: So for those people that say they are not NZ Euro, they are Pakeha, too bad you are both, and vice versa. Get over it.) However, seeing this is the English Wikipedia, I think the main article should be New Zealand European. The Pakeha article should either redirect to a section in the NZ European article, or perhaps remain a separate article.--219.89.17.68 12:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
If this keeps up, there is going to be a point where the process of political identification is going to subsume any attempt to describe the terms involved, which is what we're supposed to be doing. Pākehā means 'not Māori', it doesn't mean European, it just implies it. Thus, "New Zealand European" doesn't work as a 1:1 conceptual map. Kripto 01:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking down the word Pākehā

I've just removed this silly breakdown into Pā Kē and Hā. It was misguided and added nothing. In Maori (as in English) some words are compound words - but not all of them. --Snori 21:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
And I've put it back because you obviously don't understand the relevance to the truth and importance in history. Johnwill 13:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Removed again. Hint, if none of the reference material supports this approach then it's probably wrong - or at the very least Original Research.

Strong suggestion: refer entomology of Pakeha to the Maori Language Commission You will find the term Pa Keka as an origin from a particular tribe, referring in context to Fleas in a fort, red coat British soldiers when looked upon from a mountain/hill top as appearing as fleas jumping around in a pa/fort. This is a historical story. Though the humour of this may be in the mislabelling of Keha as a valid synonym of Flea. My research on the subject leads me to Keha from Polynesia as white glow and not flea. Perhaps flea should not have a synonym of Keha, simply as kutu. If writers wish to exclaim that it is not derogatory humour then the validity of Keha as a synonym of flea should first be exposed as a mis-translation of the tribal story. If you don't bother to contact the commission then you should not be writing an authoritive definition. [Pakeha Maori o te Koraha]

[edit] Usage

As the intro to the article states, many Māori interpret the word Pākehā to mean non-Māori. There was an interesting article in the New Zealand Herald today, The Kingitanga represents our history - and future, by Dr Rawiri Taonui who heads Māori and Indigenous Studies at University of Canterbury. He was reflecting on the life of Te Arikinui Dame Te Atairangikaahu who was buried yesterday. He wrote that "Dame Te Ata was better known to foreign Pakeha than native ones". Just an observation. Moriori 00:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

For reference, the NZH article is online [2], but it's "premium content" - i.e. they charge money to let you view it. -- Avenue 00:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English speakers

The info box says that 97.8% of Pākehā (NZ European) speak English, which I found surprisingly low. The figure has clearly been calculated from the table which is referenced in the link next to the figure. In this Census 2001 table, English speakers has been divided by Total People for NZ Europeans. However, closer examination of the table shows that Total People include 54762 people who are too young to speak. If they are excluded, then the true value comes out as 99.9%. Which figure should be quoted? GringoInChile 14:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I just got a headache trying to get my head around that.
Short Answer: Leave 97.8%
Long Answer: Although those 54762 people can probably speak English now, there will always be a certain number of people at any given time who are two young to speak. The real question is do we include these babies in the percentage? I would say yes. A Census is a snapshot of a single point in time, and at that time, a certain number of people could not speak English (or any language). The fact that they are too young has no bearing on the issue - they are still NZ Europeans and should be recorded with the rest of the NZ Europeans, therefore 97.8% of Pākehā can speak English. Just my two cents. Roue2 21:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. While it's technically true that only 97.8% of NZ Europeans could speak English, it is more relevant to give the percentage excluding infants (99.9%), with a note saying that's what we've done. -- Avenue 02:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Can we be sure that all those infants would grow up to speak english? -- Roue2 03:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
No, but I think it's a pretty reasonble assumption. If they don't its probably because they have left New Zealand. I agree with Avenue. --Helenalex 02:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to create separate articles II

Now that stats have been included in this article, thanks to the ethnic groups project, it is time to create separate articles for "NZ European" and "Pakeha". As I have alluded to earlier on this talk page, self-determination is essential to the identity of an ethnic group, and further, the name of a group should surely aspire to be as meaningful as possible. "Other" is essentially what Pakeha means, and that is totally inappropriate as a form of identifying a group. "NZ European" meaningfully comminucates the nature of that ethnic group, unlike the ambiguity of Pakeha (does it include Asians and Polynesians or not?). You hear "New Zealand European", you can expect to meet people who look and act European, with a colonial bent. You hear "Pakeha", all you know is you're expecting someone who isn't Maori. I'm going to begin work on creating a separate article, and should have this done in a few days. Even if it's just a paragraph with the statistical table. "NZ European" will discuss factual details of the ethnic group, "Pakeha" will discuss the origin, history and meaning of that term. User:A.J.Chesswas 16:54, 30 October 2006 (NZST)

Recently created a separate article New Zealand European. Arguss 01:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You talk about 'self-determination' as if all Pakeha / NZ Europeans / white NZers call themselves one thing and 'Pakeha' is a term imposed on us from outside, like calling Native Americans 'Indians' or something. I suppose I would be called 'NZ European' but I don't think I 'act European with a colonial bent' and indeed find such a description of myself offensive. While 'Pakeha' may originally just have meant 'non Maori', it now has a more complex meaning than that. --Helenalex 02:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And that's the problem - its complexity. "NZ European" has no compelexity at all. It's meaning is clear an much less debated. Lets run with it. User:A.J.Chesswas 16:54, 30 October 2006 (NZST)

[edit] Macron

I am removing the macrons from Pakehas to denote a plural of the word pakeha when spoken in English. Although it would not be incorrect to use macrons in English, it is not common to use them in English. When a word is taken from another language and brought into English, like paheka has been, that word often adopts to spelling and accent rules of the new language. Enzedbrit 05:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poaka

I fixed that nonsense about "poaka" being a transliteration of "porker". This is obviously false as the Maori (like all Polynesians) already had pigs before Europeans arrived. The Hawaiian word is "puaʻa" ("k" changed to a glottal stop). I'm amazed that it's been in the article for almost exactly a year and no one seems to have noticed. KarlM 06:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually Māori, unlike all other Polynesians, didn't have pigs or even chickens.Kahuroa 06:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population figures - delete?

Currently the article gives the number of Pākehā in NZ as 2,689,308, which is the number of usual residents identifying as a European ethnicity in the 2006 Census. I have two or three concerns about this. First, this includes people who did not identify as New Zealand European, but as some specific "European" group (e.g. French, Russian, Australian, etc), which doesn't seem right to me. Second, it does not include the 429,429 people who identified as "New Zealander" (by writing in this response rather than just ticking the "New Zealand European" option), although these people might well be seen as Pākehā by others. This leads to my other, more general, concern; given that the official figures do not refer to Pākehā, it seems like original research for us to be deciding which ethnic groups count and which don't. In the absence of a source reporting the number of Pākehā specifically (and not just related terms like NZ European), I think we should not report a Pākehā population figure. -- Avenue 21:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A.J.Chesswas 21:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed the NZ population figure. I think the language and religion figures should be removed as well, for much the same reasons. Any objections? -- Avenue 08:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
To follow the logic of Avenue above, which I think is good logic, it would seem misleading to have (New Zealand European) in brackets in the table header. As has been shown above, the two are not necessarily synoyms. I suggest removing (New Zealand European) from the table. People can discern that such are included within (but not syonymous with) Pakeha by reading the article. It is worth noting, too, that a White person who doesn't even live in New Zealand could be considered a Pakeha, thus the population could include the entire caucasian race!A.J.Chesswas 09:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they're not synonymous, so I agree NZ European is probably best deleted from the infobox title. -- Avenue 13:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It also follows that the figures concerning language and religion are not necessarily accurate. I assume these are the NZ European figures, and for the reasons discussed above it would be similarly inaccurate to apply those figures to "Pākehā". A.J.Chesswas 20:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I've now deleted those figures, along with the NZ European heading. I've left descriptions of common religions and language. -- Avenue 22:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent article and discussion

Just like to remark that I found this article (and the discussion thread) interesting, intelligent and balanced, especially as it appears to be a contentious issue. Well done contributors Wampusaust 04:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the pictures of white people.

Underneath the pictures in the infobox I want to write in italics examples of homo sapiens with low amounts of melanin . It's actually embarassing that we have example pictures of white people on this page. One, because it's normative; although Phil Keoghan and Neil Finn could be our alpha males (!), not a lot of people I know look like that, some aren't so Anglo-Saxon, and some of them are not men. Two, because it's caucasians, not a megamouth shark. We know what they look like. Three, because, again, with the long and continuous and long debate over P v. NZE - what does Neil Finn prefer to be called? And Phil Keoghan? I guess if he wanted to be called European, he wouldn't talk in an American accent, but, seriously, if anyone has any problems, speak now, but the next thing I'm going to do is go remove the pictures. Kripto 21:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with having "pictures of white people" on this page, or on the Anglo-Celtic Australian, European American, and Anglo-African pages. Why on earth are you embarrassed? If you feel that the examples here were not diverse enough, please feel free to add more, but lack of diversity is not a good reason to delete everything we had. I agree not all Pakeha look alike, and nor do all Caucasians. So your first point actually argues against your second. You may know what Pakeha look like, but we shouldn't assume all our readers will. Your best point might be the last; we don't know whether Finn and Keoghan prefer to be called Pakeha, NZ European, or something else. They might even prefer different terms in different contexts. I suspect they wouldn't mind being called Pakeha, based on the pendant Phil Keoghan is wearing in the photo, and on this quote from Neil Finn: "[...] set about bridging the distance between North and South, small towns and big cities, Maori and pakeha, NZ-born and recent immigrants alike", but I'm willing to listen to any evidence you have that they might object. -- Avenue 06:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edits by IP

I reverted some edits by an IP - seemed like OR to me - I fail to see why we should take their word as to which of the meanings of pā in an online dictionary is the 'most likely' origin of the first syllable of Pākehā. If they had quoted a reliable source apart from themselves, maybe Kahuroa 10:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Real Meaning?

As a New Zealander, I know what Pakeha actually means. It means "white pig". That's why alot of NZ Europeans don't like being referred to as Pakeha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.64.200 (talk • contribs)

Thats a myth. It doesn't mean that. - Shudde talk 05:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Wonder why he didn't read the article! Especially where it addresses silly claims that pakeha means white pig or unwelcome white stranger. It clearly says that "However, no part of the word signifies "pig", "white", "unwelcome", or "stranger"". Of course, if someone has preconceptions, then .......Moriori 05:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

While the claim pakeha means white pig may be false that does not change that fact that the term is offensive to some New Zealanders. As mentioned previously it should be viewed as similar to nigger which while offensive in some uses is not derived, officially or mythologically, from any offensive idea. The etymology of the word is simply black, with the term currently simply defined as a black person. Despite this it is viewed as highly offensive. In contrast pakeha has a clearly offensive mythological basis and obscure etymology. Both terms are derived from external cultures, nigger from European, pakeha from Maori ie neither is the label of choice for each group. The best advice should be only address a pakeha/nigger as such when the individual addressed applies the term to themself, and probably then only when any audience will respond favourably to its use.

As an aside the article does seem unbalanced with two individuals presenting positive views of pakeha but no positive alternatives. Are there no New Zealanders publicly proclaiming pride in their ancestry other than Maori? It also seems unbalanced dividing ethnicity between New Zealanders and Maori. Surely Maori should be New Zealand Maori which equates to British New Zealander or New Zealand European or ... New Zealander? 203.190.197.73 (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Pakeha cannot be equated to that of "nigger". That's utter b/s. The origin of Pakeha has now been so warped that people still living in New Zealand who are generational Europeans take offense through nothing but ignorance. The term "Maori" originally was given to the "natives" of New Zealand by the Missionaries, not by the Maori themselves but it's not classed as racist. I've found the only people who have a problem with being called Pakeha (which is a term that is only associated with New Zealand) are the people who still live in New Zealand, which is irony at its best. If being called New Zealand European is what is wanted then I guess that would have to make the Maori, Maori Europeans since most Maori have ancestry from Europe as well. StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid there are numerous errors in your argument StarSpangledKiwi. As for pakeha equalling nigger did you read my previous argument? The etymology of one term is non-offensive whereas the other is unknown but whose etymology in popular culture is offensive. Despite this the acceptable term is considered offensive the offensive term is considered acceptable. Makes no sense to me but maybe you follow the contrary logic. According to Wikipedia itself the missionaries referred to Maori's as natives. The Maori gave themselves the name Maori. Consider the fact that up until 1947 the Department for Maori Affairs was called the Department for Native Affairs. Clearly the term Maori cannot be considered in any way racist. As for the fact that only people living in New Zealand object to the term, well this is clearly false. I accept it is a term which is practically only used in New Zealand but this does not restrict its offence value. It only means that people are less likely to encounter and be offended by it. Obviously I find it objectionable and I make no claim to live in NZ. As for Maori rightfully being described as Maori Europeans again the logic does not hold. At best they could be called New Zealand Europeans with Maori ancestry. Maori is an ethnic classification not a nationality which according to my understanding precludes it from being used as a prefix. You could of course have American Maori or Japanese Maori, and Australian Maori are common. Oh just another thing I noticed in the Maori article. There is no limitation apparently as to who can claim to be Maori ie if Martians visited Earth they could conceivably claim to be Maori as long as they could prove cultural self-identification. Seems absurd but that is what the article claims. As an aside should I presume you are an expatriate given your choice of name ie star spangled banner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.190.197.200 (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. The talk page isn't for discussing whether or not the word is offensive. As the article makes clear, some people think it is, some think it isn't, and it's all a matter of opinion anyway. Unless either of you have suggestions about how to improve the article, stop yer bickering. --Helenalex (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - what about the balance issue mentioned above? 139.130.36.190 (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topic

This article is entirely about the word, rather than the people it describes, which is a little odd. I will expand it so people can learn something about Pakeha other than that we can't agree on what to call ourselves. --Helenalex (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is no agreement, even loose agreement on who or what the word refers to how can anyone make any claims about the people it describes? For example while Peter Jackson and Ernest Rutherford are mentioned as Pakeha did/do they consider themselves as such? If not then it is impertinent if not downright inaccurate to describe them as such. In the case of Rutherford it would appear a more accurate description would be as a New Zealander or a colonial, though the article at present does accept joint New Zealand/British nationality. Pakeha is a very modern invention as pertains to him. As a slight aside, at present there is more information about New Zealanders under pakeha than under Kiwi (people) which is the redirect of New Zealanders. That is absurd. Surely it makes sense to apply any facts and figures to the mainstream page than the controversial subgroup term? I strongly suggest that this section be rolled back and only corrections etc be maintained. Content pertaining to New Zealanders, whether of British, European or other ancestry should be incorporated in the Kiwi (people) section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.190.199.175 (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a loose agreement about who the term 'Pakeha' applies to - white New Zealanders. Although the word is sometimes used more broadly than that, it is the most common meaning. Whether or not Rutherford and others consider themselves Pakeha is not really relevant. Until some point in the nineteenth century most Maori did not consider themselves to be 'Maori' in the modern sense but it would be silly to object to calling Hongi Hika Maori. If we only described people in the way that they described themselves this would not be much of an encyclopedia.
There is no reason why the info on this page can't also be on the New Zealanders page, although obviously info on other New Zealanders would have to be added to it there. --Helenalex (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess the main issue is to centralise all the relevant info but avoid duplication Colonial from the Middle Island (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to avoid duplication, especially since no one can agree on what the appropriate name is. Yes, ideally there would be one page on the people sometimes known as Pakeha rather than two or three, but there is absolutely no consensus on what such a page should be called. This issue has come up in the past, and the only thing which doesn't immensely annoy lots of people is to retain multiple pages.
We should probably take comfort in the fact that at least we can all be civil and reasonable about our disputes. I also edit Northern Irish pages, and if you want to know why they spent 30 years killing each other, you should read some of their talk pages... --Helenalex (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Keha

Keha means 'pale'. It's not very commonly used, but you can see it in the name for the full Moon, Hina-Keha - pale Hina, see http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-BesAstro-t1-body-d1-d5.html I'm not sure if it originally pale, was a reference to pale like the moon, but that's why it's commonly used in the construction of the words for the various races of fairy people, and for the word Pakeha. I'm not sure where someone would find references, but I think it's in some maori dictionaries.

I think pakeha is just a modification of pakehakeha.

I did hear an argument that the first 'pa' meant a pa, or uh, village, but that sounds really silly, since wouldn't 'pa keha' be saying that the physical pa itself was pale, like whare ma would mean a white house (whare = house) not that the people of the house where white? Anyway... cheers.

- A. Nonymous, Wellington —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.238.36 (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pakeha Justice

This is now a commonly used term and I think it is best that it is mentioned. The origins of the phrase can be found http://www.hbtoday.co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?thesection=localnews&storyid=3654922 Unfortunately my edit was overturned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.36.54 (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That news story says she used the phrase, not that she originated it. From a quick Google search, the phrase dates back at least to 1883; see e.g. this article in the Hawera & Normanby Star. But I don't think it's a significant enough phrase to deserve a paragraph. It gets less than 120 Google hits. -- Avenue (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)