This is an archive of past discussions about Pākehā. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 4: from January 2010

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

PC Nonsense?

What an unnecessary idea. Offensive PC nonsense.

I'm about as politically incorrect as you can get. But, even I can't see how changing the spelling of a book title from "Pākehā" to the spelling used by the author of the book is "PC Nonsense". There's enough PC nonsense to complain about (especially in New Zealand) without you inventing more out of thin air. BlueRobe 23:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueRobe (talk • contribs)

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)

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)

I have to agree. Being labeled a "Pākehā", and being told that the word "Pākehā" is not offensive, is rather like being pissed on and told that it is raining. BlueRobe 23:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueRobe (talk • contribs)

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

I too really hate that term - I'm not a "pakeha" and I dont want a name given to me by another people, after all we don't call them (Maori) by some English name. Why some people seem to think we should shun our European heritage is beyond me, and quite frankly disgusting and offensive to our ancestors. Just because we live in NZ doesn't mean our history is automatically erased, I'm a European-NZer and will never consider myself a 'pakeha' like certain self-hating parts of 'white' New Zealand. Do you think Asian-NZer's call themselves 'pakeha'? No they don't because they at least have a little respect for their heritage, and so should we. I believe the term is racist as the only time I've heard it used in conversation is to insult someone, for those of you who think it's an acceptable term are seriously deluded. Unfortunately no major study has ever been done to determine European (or other non-Maori) people's preference of term, although based on my own experiences I would say at least 75% of Euro-Nzers' oppose the term or at least don't use it to describe themselves. In fact it seems to be that only very liberal people use the term to describe themselves; as I suspect they consider it a form of appeasement to Maori (white/colonial guilt). —This unsigned comment added by 121.79.213.103

Have you anything to contribute to the article? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I loathe the term myself so it was fascinating to read of it's use in a S/F book. A Maori chieftain uses it to a Samurai in the same context as another might use the term White Dog. I'd use Yellow Pig as an example but that might give offense. Interestingly it's an American not PC Pakeha author. 203.25.1.208 (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

I identify as Pakeha, but not New Zealand European. On that basis, it doesn't make sense to merge the two. The two identities are different. The first implies a closer bond with New Zealand culture and suggests that the person no longer associates himself/herself strongly with his or her European roots (I fall into this category). The second term implies somebody who is a white New Zealander, maybe even born in New Zealand, who maintains a strong connection with the European roots of their ancestors. Put it this way - if I walked into a bar in Beijing and saw a Brit and a Maori, I'd have a beer with the Maori. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Me I'm the reverse. I'd chat with the chap I saw as having a similar culture. I was born and bred in a former British colony which just happens to be in the Pacific but I don't share any culture with the Pacific Islanders. I accept the New Zealand European definition you give though. New Zealand's only got a couple hundred years of history, unless you count oral, and what there is is pretty boring. British & European on the other hand well several thousand years of Kings & Empires rising and falling, varying cultures, advanced societies and achievements ... Not much of a competition when you compare that to Gallipoli and um well not much else. Given the contention surrounding the word, even if I did want to embrace a non-European/British etc New Zealand identity I sure wouldn't use Pakeha.118.208.121.198 (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's clear from this that you are a New Zealand European and that I am a Pakeha, and that we both believe there is a difference between the two. Therefore, the two articles should not be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.75.103 (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

That is ridiculous. For your next trick you can dramatically reduce New Zealand's literacy rate down to 90% because babies and infants have not yet learned to read and write. BlueRobe (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2010 (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)

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)

Well, I'm white with Scottish heritage. I'm Pakeha, but not New Zealand European. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

An excellent decision. The macrons should stay on the Maori language page for Pakeha, but they should be removed from the English language page because macrons are not used in English. "Pakeha" is no longer a Maori word, but has assumed a status as an English word (what the linguists call a "loan word") - just like "kindergarten" is an English word that has been loaned from German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.75.103 (talk) 09:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Bugger?

I was told that the origin of this phrase was "bugger off" or "bugger you" in English by a New Zealander, supposedly shouted at Maori by white sailors. I don't know whether this is true or not, but are there any sources which list this story? --MacRusgail (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Urban legend, for which there is no evidence. I was told that the origin of the word Gàidhealtach was "crackhead" because that's what happened to the heads of Highlanders who fought the poms. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a mention of this in Belich's Making Peoples. From memory he doesn't think it's true either but if anyone can be bothered looking it up it can go with all the other false origins. --Helenalex (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Now now! There is no such word as "Gàidhealtach" - presumably you either mean "Gàidhealach" or "Gàidhealtachd"... Neither of which sound anything like "crackhead".--MacRusgail (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've also heard that story, more credibly although still anecdotally applied to a completely different Maori word ("pakaru", meaning "broken"). In the absence of an authoritative source, I think the existing "Origins of the word" section should stand. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If this explanation is in common circulation, shouldn't it be mentioned with a disclaimer? --MacRusgail (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can find an authoritative third-party source, go for it. "I was told" and "I've also heard" aren't really good enough sources for additions to an article, unfortunately. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion Page Location

What's up with the discussion page address? I tried jumping to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakeha and found it had no content and was part of the Rivers Project??? The article link's right and when you jump back you get here. Why's this page got a gibberish address, specifically the P%C4%81keh%C4%81 component at the end? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.121.198 (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've had a go at fixing it - it looks like when Pakeha was redirected to Pākehā the talk page never got redirected. The page address isn't actually gibberish, it just looks like your browser isn't set up right to read macrons. Daveosaurus (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

And what pray tell are Macron's? I believe they are mentioned in my Latin book and I've seen dots or something of that nature associated with Nordic, and possibly Eastern European variants of the Roman Alphabet but seeing as I'm an English speaking Kiwi, English is the closest thing we have to a planetary language and this is the English wikipedia why would I want to install a foreign language pack? I have the same problem with Jap etc characters too. 118.208.121.198 (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You could always look it up on Wikipedia. See here: Macron . Note that in New Zealand, the Māori language is not "foreign"; it is indigenous.Daveosaurus (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Indigenous ok but it can still be foreign. It's not Kiwi/English and is not an Indo-European language so is more foreign that Greek or Hindi. 203.25.1.208 (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Indigenous ok but it can still be foreign. To whom? You don't mean an official language of NZ is foreign in NZ?222.152.170.109 (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that I can explain it much clearer. Foreign = Other. Now you can't get much more other than culturally/linguistically unrelated to Indo-European which is where most New Zealanders come from. You've pretty much got to go back to the Tower of Babel before Maori, or their ancestors, were not other to those of Indo-European heritage. Even within the Indo-European paradigm there's heaps of room for otherness. 118.208.79.2 (talk) 07:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion Clean UP?

The discussion page is really long and some of it quite dated. How about cleaning it up. Archive or delete the old content. If need be summarise the Pakeha is X/racist and institute a rule along the line of the Tarpit section of the Baen Bar FAQ's

Extract
THE LA BREA TAR PITS

Some topics have mired in muck, choked to death, and sunk out of sight several times over. After each is listed the standard positions taken. Let them continue to quietly decompose. Most end up in Blazes (or worse) when the corpse is excavated and carted out for another round.

And so to put into effect

Pakeha:
1) is racist
2) means white pig
3) equates to gaijin
4) equates to nigger
5) is worse than gaijin and/or nigger
6) is a meaningless word
7) means Non-Maori (Yes this is roughly the same as Gaijin but considered PC polite)
8) is the historical name given to Europeans by the Maori
9) is an identity given to X by the Maori
...
99) is an emotive word some identify with, some abjectively hate and never the twain shall meet. Can we move on now boys & girls?

If your comment has anything actually constructive to add to the debate/article other than "I think Pakeha ..." then feel free to add else don't bother.

Agree, disagree or ...? Colonial from the Middle Isle (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

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:

merge European into Pakeha - 3 - (Shudda - Helenalex - Kripto)
keep NZ European - 1 - Brian
merge Pakeha into European - 2 - A.J.Chesswas - Arguss (changed vote)

Kripto 02:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with merging for two reasons: 1) "Pakeha" and "New Zealand European" are two distinct ethnic groups, as some people identify with one group and not with the other. 2) According to the article itself, Pakeha refers to "non-Maori New Zealanders", and therefore encompasses white, black and yellow-skinned people. Only some of these people are from European stock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

2010 comments

"...most people don't have a bug with it..." I have a bug with it. I am not a "European" New Zealander. I am a Pakeha. Many Pakeha object to being called European New Zealanders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a New Zealander. I don't have any maori ancestory, so I don't see why I need to be a second class citizen. The title "New Zealander" suits me fine 121.73.190.95 (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Boldy Bold. Think about what you just said -- only people with Māori ancestry are second class citizens. Discuss. Moriori (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anyone, anywhere, claiming that you are a second class citizen. I also don't see anyone, anywhere, stopping you from calling yourself a "New Zealander"; so feel free to relax. Daveosaurus (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

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":

http://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/reports/viewchapter.asp?reportID=D6BBBFAC-EB90-4AEB-9113-8F8D2305BA3F&chapter=4
http://teaohou.natlib.govt.nz/teaohou/issue/Mao67TeA/c13.html
NOTE: Very important term in discussions over land grievances - it was not Pakeha who stole the land, not Polynesians (Tonga, Samoa, Fiji), not chinese) - it was NZ British, and NZ British still exist today as an ethnic group held accountable for those grievances
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race
http://grognard.com/xtr/reviews/c33cnt.txt
http://www.teara.govt.nz/1966/N/NationalGroups/Yugoslavs/en

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)

I'm a 41 year old guy from Northland, not a "radical", and I am Pakeha. I strongly object to being called a "European New Zealander". On the census form last time there was no Pakeha box. I ticked "Pacific Islander", because I live on a Pacific island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

See I'm the opposite. More akin to the 20 something Yuppie. Southern born and bred. I'm not sure when I heard the term Pakeha, teens or 20's I'd guess. If you'd asked me my identity it'd be Kiwi of British (and European) ancestry. British Kiwi if you want. Still is. Think my family including my cousins would be too. Of course there's never been many Maori in the area's we've lived in fact they're probably a smaller minority than White African's or Asian's thinking back to my schooling. Then again I was gaijin at my last school not that that made any difference. 118.208.121.198 (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that just shows that the two of us are different. You're Kiwi of British/European ancestry whereas I'm Pakeha. We identify with these terms differently, because they are subtly different ethnic/cultural groups. New Zealand is a young country in which White people are still grappling with their identities. Therefore, not a good idea to merge Pakeha with European. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I like that suggestion of Koro's - tangata pora. I think I could go with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)