Jump to content

Talk:Pākehā

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pakeha as Offensive?

[edit]

This article notes that pakeha is considered highly offensive by some, but is there any research into quantifying this? The New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study reported that they found no evidence the term was derogatory and yet their own article Ethnic Group Labels and Intergroup Attitudes in New Zealand: Naming Preferences Predict Distinct Ingroup and Outgroup Biases lists a letter to the editor asking why it is acceptable for Maori to call the writer or his non-Maori associates Pakeha when for him to call Maori [text omitted] would cause outrage. According to the study it would appear that the warmer a New Zealander is towards Maori the more like they are to favour the term Pakeha, and vice versa. Similarly, ethnic identity is slightly more important to those identifying as New Zealand European than those identifying as Pakeha. (Kiwi and straight New Zealander are even less ethnically significant). Whilst interesting neither fact reveals much of significance about those deeming Pakeha offensive. 118.208.1.18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term Pakeha is widely used within Maoridom, politics, academia and media and although it's not often used in a positive context, I can't see an obvious example where offence intendended by it's use. However, as with the term "Eskimo" it's well known that a certain section of the population do find the word offensive, archaic or divisive. It is widely considered that the etymology of the word is offensive though research shows that it's not, nonetheless there was a huge negative reaction when they added it to the census. The bottom line is that 88% of New Zealanders surveyed simply don't identify themselves as Pakeha and as a people we should respect that. 119.224.17.35 (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Politics in New Zealand Richard Mulgan, Peter Aimer full extract shows that the article as it stands is deliberately misquoting Mulgan and Aimer who write: "As for ‘Pakeha’, some reject it on the ground that it is supposedly offensive in origin, others because they do not like to be named in a language other than their own (Sharp, 1990: 64–69). But among those wanting to talk in terms of a ‘bicultural’ society, or of a partnership based on the Treaty of Waitangi, ‘Pakeha’ has increasingly become the favoured term for defining the dominant cultural group of European origin. As such, it has narrowed its original Maori meaning, which includes as Pakeha all people of European descent anywhere in the world." Kelly222 (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have at least 2 groups rejecting the term pakeha, and presumably a third that aren't fussed over its usage (neutrals), why is that the fourth group - those who are 'pro-bicultural' or 'pro-Treaty' are the ones dictating its usage in this article? It seems silly to me for instance for Trump or the Queen to be classified as pakeha, which is what the post above argues. You might be able to argue that in a Maori language context - I've no idea how that language defines and uses the term, but it seems absurd in English. The Jonathan Mane-Wheoki quote would seem to reinforce this as it'd exclude New Zealanders who are proud of their colonial ancestry, who wish to preserve their cultural inheritance, and to learn and teach their history and origins for instance. Just seems to me that the controversy over the term and the groups to which it is applied could be addressed better. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 人族 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a certain demographic of people who tend to dominate Wikipedia so that leads to a certain slant to articles. Certainly people from politics, media and academia have a large influence here. Everyone is free to try and improve any article though so go ahead if you think you can help. Oddly, there is a large body of reliable sources denying that the word is offensive yet there are virtually none which claim that it actually is offensive. 202.89.158.188 (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the fact that there are large number of sources (which will, due to left-wing dominance of universities and media, be mostly written from a sympathetic viewpoint) claiming it isn't racist is evidence that there are a large number of people who find it racist? There aren't many studies on the racism of the word "potato" because nobody thinks it is racist. 122.58.69.24 (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no, the fact that there's a large body of evidence stating that it isn't racist doesn't prove that it is. only racists find it offensive. 2404:4402:3306:3800:C097:81CF:606E:AEFE (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pākehā. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IPA in heading

[edit]

Kia ora koutou, I'm trying to change the pronunciation guide to better reflect how I think people pronounce the word. I think that the english pronunciation should be spelled /ˈpɑːkehɑː/, with the /e/ vowel. Previously said /ɪ/ which is wrong. Anyway, when I changed this, it came up with an error message of "invalid input: 'e'" - why is this? Is it because /e/ isn't on the list of english ipa vowels? It's definitely in NZ English - see (Te Ara. How do I fix this? I've changed it to /ɛ/ for now, cos that's closer to /e/ than /ɪ/. Anyone know how to fix this? cheers TreeReader (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attitudes to the use of the word 'Pakeha' in the early 20th Century

[edit]

Researching the ships built by the famous Belfast shipyard Harland and Wolffe I came across one of the liners built in 1910 with the express purpose of transporting British emigrants to Australia and New Zealand via Cape of Good Hope, and on the return voyage carrying frozen meat back to the UK. Built in 1910 for the Shaw, Savill & Albion Line the ship was named 'Pakeha'. There are Australian records of her voyages between 1912 and 1947. She ran Liverpool/Freemantle/Wellington from 1911-1913. During WW1 she was requesitioned by the Navy and carried troops to the Gallipoli campaign. She was used in WW2 as 'HMS Revenge' then later as a transport vessel and named 'Empire Pakeha' and then in 1946 the Shaw, Savill & Albion Line bought her back and renamed her back to 'Pakeha'. I think this shows that in the days of Britain as a Colonial power and throughout the 2 World wars the British did not see the word 'Pakeha' as a derogatory term otherwise they would not have taken this word to name a ship used to transport British emigrants to Australasia, in fact quite the reverse in that to name the ship 'Pakeha' must have implied that this was an familiar and likeable term for those seeking to emigrate to NZ. Andrew ranfurly (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

[edit]

In the etymology section, most of the final paragraph is supported by a list of four sources, provided without page numbers; (1) Williams, H. W. (1971). A dictionary of the Maori language (7th ed.). Wellington, New Zealand: Government Printer. (2) Ngata, H. M. (1993). English-Maori dictionary. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. (3) Ryan, P. (1997). The Reed dictionary of modern Maori (2nd ed.). Auckland, New Zealand: Reed. (4) Biggs, B. (1981). Complete English–Maori dictionary. Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.

I only have access to the 2012 edition of the 4th source, but I cannot find Pākehā in it, and I question whether it could support the paragraph, as it seems to be a simple translation book and provides no information on etymology. Could an editor quote the relevant sections from those sources to support the claims in that paragraph? BilledMammal (talk) 05:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pākehā&oldid=1224365851"