By Chris Trotter*
It is difficult to see the Arts Council’s decision to defund Shakespeare as anything other than “propaganda of the deed”. In the current, unusually tense, cultural climate, the idea that a decision to refuse a $30,000 grant to an organisation responsible for introducing the art of William Shakespeare to a total of 120,000 (and counting) secondary school students might, somehow, pass unnoticed and unremarked is nonsensical. The notion that the Council’s decision was a carefully targeted ideological strike is further buttressed by the comments attached to its refusal. To describe these as incendiary hardly does them justice.
Every year the Sheilah Winn Shakespeare festival invites secondary school students to compete for the best interpretation of an excerpt drawn from a Shakespeare play. To date, upwards of 120,000 students have participated in this hugely popular competition. While the Arts Council’s support accounts for only a tenth of the festival’s budget, its decision to deny this year’s funding application was couched in language that has outraged English teachers, English scholars, and educated English-speakers, here in New Zealand and around the world.
According to The Guardian, the arts funding body, Creative New Zealand, in its advisory panel’s funding assessment document, stated that: “while the festival has strong youth engagement, and a positive impact on participants”, it “did not demonstrate the relevance to the contemporary art context of Aotearoa in this time and place and landscape”.
Putting to one side the self-evident reality that a festival involving thousands of young people in acting, directing, set-designing and painting, costuming, composing and providing incidental music to a host of independent theatrical productions, offers an unassailable prima facie case for being of great relevance to New Zealand’s “contemporary art context”: how should we decode the assessment document’s gnomic formulation: “Aotearoa in this time and place and landscape”?
Given that all state institutions are now required to ensure that their decisions reflect the central cultural and political importance of te Tiriti o Waitangi, as well as their obligation to give practical expression to the Crown’s “partnership” with tangata whenua, the advisory panel’s meaning is ominously clear. At this time, and in this place, the policy landscape has no place for artistic endeavours that draw attention to the powerful and enduring cultural attachments between New Zealand and the British Isles.
Expressed more bluntly, Creative New Zealand is serving notice on applicants for state funding that, unless their projects both acknowledge and enhance the tino rangatiratanga of Māori they will be deemed to have insufficient relevance to the “contemporary art context” to warrant public financial support.
This is even worse than it sounds. Not only does it structurally disadvantage the 60% to 70% of New Zealanders who trace their ancestry to, and derive the greater part of their cultural identity from, the British Isles. It also means that unless the applicants are able to demonstrate a genuine familiarity with Māori language and culture, they are practically certain to lose out to applicants who can. In other words: “in this time and place and landscape” and absent the most powerful institutional and/or commercial patrons, Pakeha applicants should expect to be refused Creative New Zealand funding.
Is this drawing too long a bow? Not when the Council’s own assessment document seeks to know “whether a singular focus on an Elizabethan playwright is most relevant for a decolonising Aotearoa in the 2020s and beyond”.
A “decolonising Aotearoa”. Here exposed is the unabashed ideological bias of the Arts Council and its assessors. There is a considerable head-of-steam building among some Māori (and their Pakeha supporters in the public service, academia and the mainstream news media) for a wholesale stripping-out of the political, legal and cultural institutions of the “colonial state”, and for their replacement by the customs and the practices of te ao Māori. At present, this is the agenda of the “progressive” elites only. Certainly, no such proposition has been placed before, or ratified by, the New Zealand electorate.
Not that these same elites would feel at all comfortable about important cultural judgements being placed in the hands of the uneducated masses. Indeed, it is likely that the decision-makers at the Arts Council are entirely persuaded that an important part of their mission is to so radically reshape the cultural landscape that the “decolonising of Aotearoa” comes to be seen as entirely reasonable. If re-educating this benighted Pakeha majority means limiting their own (and their children’s) access to the works of “an Elizabethan playwright” (a man who is, indisputably, among the greatest artists who ever lived) then so be it.
Too much? Once again, the document released by the funding assessors, suggests otherwise.
The panel of assessors is concerned that the festival’s sponsoring organisation, the Shakespeare Globe Centre New Zealand, is too “paternalistic”, and that the entire Shakespearian genre it is dedicated to promoting is “located within a canon of imperialism and missed the opportunity to create a living curriculum and show relevance”.
That’s an imperialistic “canon” with one “n” – not two! Alluded to here, presumably, is the entire theatrical menu of Western Civilisation: from Aristophanes to Oscar Wilde. (The English had no empire to speak of in Shakespeare’s time!) A cultural collection which, apparently, has no place in a “living curriculum” – from which, one can only deduce, Dead White Males have been ruthlessly purged. Only by excluding the cultural achievements of the past, the Arts Council seems to saying, can any artistic endeavour hope to “show relevance”.
To those who shake their heads in disbelief at this rejection of historical continuity, it is important to make clear just how hostile the post-modern sensibility is to the whole idea of a materially and imaginatively recoverable past – a past with the power to influence both the present and the future. The post-modernists hate the idea of History as both tether and teacher – fettering us to reality, even as it reveals the many ways our forebears have responded to the challenges of their time. When post-modernists talk about relevance, what they really mean is amnesia. Only an amnesiac can inhabit an eternal present – post-modernism’s ideal state-of-being.
Shakespeare and his works are downgraded and rejected precisely because his words and his plays connect us to the past – revealing the tragi-comic continuity of human existence. More than that, Shakespeare’s art is of a power that at once confirms and dissolves history. In his incomparable mastery of the English language he reminds us that we are more than male and female, rich and poor, Māori and Pakeha. What this “Elizabethan playwright” reveals to us, and hopefully will go on revealing to succeeding generations until the end of time, is the wonder and woe of what it means to be human.
Or, in the words of the man himself:
But thy eternal summer shall not fade,
Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow’st;
Nor shall death brag thou wander’st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou grow’st:
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
109 Comments
"Given that all state institutions are now required to ensure that their decisions reflect the central cultural and political importance of te Tiriti o Waitangi, as well as their obligation to give practical expression to the Crown’s “partnership” with tangata whenua, the advisory panel’s meaning is ominously clear. "
Winston Peters is spot on about this. National appear luke warm.
Watching A Midsummer Night's Dream with Puck's dialogue entirely in Maori was a thoroughly enjoyable experience. Seemed an actually creative New Zealand approach to Shakespeare, unlike this proposed one.
English is an official language of New Zealand, and the global lingua franca, and Shakespeare (and arguably, the Bible) should both be taught in our English literature curriculum because of their incredible significance to how we use the language today.
NZ has a strange type of co-governance which is imposed as a top down project.
I don't think Kiwis have a problem with Maori as a official language, and Maori schools and other Maori oriented services being part of our society. Other countries do this. Swedish is a second language in Finland for instance and there are various co-governance arrangements so that social services can be provided for Swedish-Finns.
But co-governance in NZ seems to be about imposing a governance agenda on the non-Maori part of the partnership as much as it is about enabling Maori specific initiatives.
And does Co-governance achieve any measurable alternative outcomes?
Many government agencies have adopted Maori culture in their branding, but does that change the overall outcome? E.g. the RBNZ are making monetary decisions by talking to Tane Mahuta, are these providing good outcomes for Maori let alone the rest of the population? Would these decisions be any different without the inclusion of Maori culture?
The treaty created the nation so cannot be abandoned by the nation. The treaty needs to grow similar to the USA's constitutional amendments. Alternatively we can return to only male property owners (all Māori and select Europeans) having rights. Squabble about it for long enough and NZ will wake up as a smallish province of China or Australia.
“did not demonstrate the relevance to the contemporary art context of Aotearoa in this time and place and landscape”
Shakespear, the KJV Bible - history, culture and the English Language.
Soon we will have a mash up of Maori and English, in Aotearoa. Only looks "odd" with tourists and visitors from abroad.
That's nuts - no English speakers the world over these days speak the English of 17th century England. And we wonder why so many of our children are not engaged in what we are teaching in our schools;
https://e-tangata.co.nz/reflections/stood-down-from-life/
If Shakespeare is to be offered in secondary schools - offer it in the Arts (not the English) curriculum.
And even where the Arts are concerned - the question is what would Creative New Zealand have to have not funded if it had retained this funding?
Things do change folks. I'd rather study Bob Dillan's poetry, personally.
Yeah true. Hopefully National are elected to undo this racist nonsense....oh wait...
"New Zealand has always supported the overall aspirations of the declaration, and we already implement most provisions contained within it," says Mr Key.
The statement in support of the declaration:
- acknowledges that Maori hold a special status as tangata whenua, the indigenous people of New Zealand and have an interest in all policy and legislative matters;
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/national-govt-support-un-rights-dec…
"“Aotearoa in this time and place and landscape”". So all artists have to exist in their own place, time and landscape. That rejects Shakespeare's Scottish play and Verdi's version of Shakespeare's plays.
No science fiction, no history, no foreign culture just endless Shortland Street?
Meanwhile Melanesians in NZ are complaining that they are ignored. The majority of Pacific Islanders are Melanesian and they speak over 1,000 distinct languages. The remainder of the Pacific speak English, French and a small group of closely related Polynesian languages.
In September the NZ govt released its 100 page 10-year Pacific Languages Strategy and Melanesians and Micronesians barely get a mention. As the Melanesian commentator says "The fact the consultation process wasn’t questioned, and the strategy went on to be approved by Cabinet, is a major cultural blunder. It reiterates how we’re often minimised as part of Aotearoa’s Pacific diaspora, and reinforces the incorrect assumption that Polynesian cultures and countries can represent the entire Pacific region in Aoteaora".
That's an interesting point. Add to that the Fijian Indians who have a unique position in it all. The ones I know struggle that they identify as a pacific islanders but are lumped in with continental Indians ( I guess it's a bit like kiwis being lumped in with English in, for example, spain).
I'm starting to wonder if I'm even welcome in this coutry. My family have been here since the 1860s in every branch. My parents are retired English teachers who pur considerable effort into teaching Shakespeare. I remember the pained expressions on the face of my father as he dutifully sat at the table spending the first part of summer marking NCEA English film essays many of which were on the subject of Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet. Held in derision by students but nevertheless the most acclaimed English playwright of all time, it's too easy to dismiss Shakespeare as colonial. At some point you have to accept that European New Zealanders have a right to their cultural history, too. Shakespeare is in the whakapapa of every Pakeha New Zealander, there are so many popular English idioms that trace directl lineage to him.
If the Treaty is indeed a 50:50 partnership, denying arts funding to Pakeha arts must at some point become a breach of the Treaty? Or don't Treaty obligations go both ways? What of my tipuna? My original family reo (Gaelige) is probably more lost than Pacific languages including Maori.
The simple way to avoid these criticisms is to eliminate arts funding altogether. If you don't want to do that, then don't be so blatantly political when doing the allocation...
It is a sad state of affairs. My kids have Maori (Tainui) and NZ European ancestry from their Mum, with their first European relative arriving in NZ/Aotearoa the 1830s. They are pale skinned and speak with English accents, they neither identify with, or deny their Maori heritage. They have been told to go home on more than one occasion by their school mates. The actions of the government and their agencies may be well meaning, but they are driving people apart rather than bringing them together.
We have one lovely but misguided blended tween in the family that is 'all in' on the colonisation mantra - but who doesn't do kapa haka; didn't take te reo as a subject; doesn't want to go to the secondary school that her siblings did because it's too "hori" (her word not mine - I know, awful); and would rather hang out at the MMA gym, than the local marae. I offered to buy her Tears of Rangi last week and she said she wouldn't read it. It's a real worry - an 'activist' but with no knowledge of matauranga Māori.
Decolonisation is a scary word to people who are not Maori as it is unclear as to what the end goal is. I think this needs to be explained more clearly. My kids have an ancestor on my side that was a senior officer in the British Empire (not in NZ) in the 1800s, they also have ancestors on their mums side who were Irish and others who were Maori. Are they the coloniser or the colonised? how or why should they choose a particular race or culture to be aligned to? They are who they are, a bit of everything, like a lot of New Zealanders.
I thought this short and not very often viewed video was a good explanation of decolonisation:
Decolonising Series - What is Decolonisation?
Decolonisation is something an individual should do for themselves.
Absolutely agree. But, the answer to the question is easy - they are both. Celebrate all your ancestors, but learn to know the good with the bad. It's just an honest conversation we all have to calmly and rationally participate in. And, I love the fact that the British Crown signed a treaty with iwi - and I like the treaty wording and intention as well. But, the breaches and the legislative crimes against the treaty partner are legendary. I read something about many of the chiefs trying to petition Parliament to ban the sale of liquor by the British to their kin. Obviously their pleas went unanswered. Laws were both written and not written to the detriment of our first peoples. And who suffered most from neoliberalism? Our working class, of course.
I grieve for the society we have created. It could have been so different. Indeed, it was when I arrived here in the 70s.
The problem with decolonisation is what the politicians would do with it. To an extent i suggest many Maori will believe it would place them in charge of the country. But Maori today are a minority. Most would understand that it would make the Treaty obsolete with the expectation that it be re-negotiated, but with whom? It was originally between the British Crown and Maori, but if we decolonise (and thence become a republic) there really can be no treaty, as within a democracy there is in essence already one between the Government and the people, and Maori are a part of the "People".
Most rhetoric today focus's on Article 2 of the Treaty, but largely ignoring the last part, that of the "right of preemption over the lands", but Article 3 confers the rights and privileges of British citizens, and there is very little debate on what that means. And what debate there is, is very contentious. But in the end those rights simply boil down to one man, one vote.
My belief at the moment is the current situation serves Maori best in all levels. And as for Maori, for everyone else the concern is what the politicians are doing in seeking to entrench their power and privilege, and be less accountable to the people.
Disband the Arts council.
Cultural warfare is underway. It's a pity that's happening but the Arts council chooses to take a single side when it should have chosen a universal one.
Further, their advisors don't represent maori as they are. The advisors are part of the overpaid elitists movement, cementing their position using extremism.
Let's join that fight. The Arts Council will be the casuality.
WCC is onboard too, or would be were it not for covid.
https://wellington.govt.nz/news-and-events/news-and-information/our-wel…
If we limit our horizons to culturally signifiant historical art relevant only to Maori we will truly become a hermit nation of one eyed people. Kiwi's love to travel and experience other lands, people and cultures.
Respecting our history and enjoying the rich fruits from other countries is not mutually exclusive.
1984 is ironically playing out in NZ.
...... ".. Relevant to Maori..." But but. Is it actually relevant to Maori?
Maori and Paheka are not two separate entities with a big canyon in between. But promoting that canyon suits the elite, including Special K.
We are more a mix with vast overlaps. So lets get it all it all in.
'Decolonising Aotearoa?' The arts council need a history lesson. The old bard was writing in the Elizabethan era, hardly a time of imperialism and colonisation. The Roanoke colony was 1584 and is possibly one of the singular events in this period. British expansionism really hit its strides in the 18th C and was in full swing by the 19th C. Perhaps we should ban Charles Dickens and consign Oliver Twist to the rubbish bin.
I wonder how many of NZs Maori population like the direction the country is moving in? It is often quoted that Maori are 17% of the population and the inference is that those advancing their cause are universally behind the proposition. I'd suggest a significant number are embarrassed by the current approach.
Ardern-most divisive PM ever. Good riddance 2023
One side of the treaty had laws permitting 8 year old children to be sent down coal mines where they would pull carts in seams too narrow for pit ponies. The boys and girls would be underground for a week. If the other side had cannibalism then that is the side I prefer.
A very sad state of affairs indeed. Jacinda is a disgrace and should be held account, with her ministers for what they are doing to this country. Maorification what a joke, if it wasn't for colonization there would be nothing in NZ, they would still be living off the land or each other. I find it ridiculous that I can't have a flu jab because I am not Maori or Pasifika yet my white tax dollars can be happily taken for said free jab. Shakespeare not being of relevance to Maori is simply the last straw. Similar to other commenters on the page it should be one vote equal one person none of this 16% or 17% of the population hold us to ransom. There is now a greater divide than ever in NZ between Maori and White - thanks to Jacinda. Inept and out of her depth since day one, the accidental prime minister.
You would find that Winston and Seymour are in agreement with most of your comments and they are both Maori by the current definition. So it is not as simple as you make out, not all Maori agree with this separatist agenda. That is why we get the strange situation where Kelvin Davis calls a brown skinned woman too vanilla.
I agree it is not as simple as I make it out to be, but it also doesn't need to be as complicated as what they are making it. All of NZ's peoples need to be treated the same, have the same benefits etc regardless of the skin color or whether your part Maori or not. Someone being pushed ahead in the line in front of me because they are brown reeks of racism, anyway let's see what happens with the election in 2023.
Breaking news. They have been SLAMMED as "complete knobs".
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/complete-knobs-creative-nzs-sheilah-winn-…
Once again the whole world is laughing at how mind-numbingly stupid "Aotearoa New Zealand" is.
The 'woke' board is sure gonna be shocked at the level of whiterage going by the number of articles and airtime seen on this decision. Is white NZ culture being eroded piece by piece in a grand scheme to make the whites irrelevant? A deep stake wokeness after your very identity?
Perhaps it's just another board funding decision and nothing more. This goddamn antiwoke crowd is so damn sensitive to any and every decision these days.
Except they described Shakespeare as being, "located within a canon of imperialism".
They should have just said it was time to move on after ten years of funding especially considering the world is awash with Shakespeare stuff. Virtually all of the European culture in NZ is "located within a canon of imperialism" so it nicely confirms the fears of many who were being accused of cringe in the past for claiming there was a looming danger.
A toxic and twisted ideology has infected government, academia, the public service and other institutions in this country. This ideology advocates a binary world of Maori or Pakeha, Us or Them, your with us or against us, Maori good, British bad. It is not what you think or do, it is your whakapapa that identifies you.
It is not "progressive". It is a "regressive", parochial and prejudiced ideology that ironically contains elements of fascism.
Think carefully when you cast your vote next year.
We probably should all put our money where our mouths are and donate to the givealittle page the Shakespeare Globe Centre has setup.
It's a timely reminder to spend a bit more of our own energy and focus on things that are personally important lest they are lost and forgotten. I don't want to live in a world without British culture.
I agree with Creative NZ not contributing funding towards the Shakespearian undertaking. The funding is available elsewhere apparently. I like the focus on NZ/Aotearoa centric creative endeavours. Let’s tell our own stories and practice our own art forms. I think calling this cancelling Shakespeare is a bit over the top. This seems to me to be yet another thinly veiled attempt at Maori bashing by this author which has been quite successful judging by some of the comments.
Yes, it is a worry - and indeed the US has gone way backwards socially/progressively since I lived there. Very sad to see.
All that said though - we really, really need all of our young children to flourish in NZ - and sadly we cannot ignore the statistics where Pasifika and Māori youth are concerned. We have to lift all boats if as a society we are to prosper. If tikanga can be embraced because it is an answer to our ills - I'm all in.
I wouldn't suggest we force tikanga on anyone. It's not something you can do anyway, as it requires interest on the part of the learner. Just like you can't force Shakespeare on anyone. But, I should be able to choose to go to a doctor that is knowledgeable on tikanga, just as I should be able to go to a writer that is knowledgeable on iambic pentameter.
So you are saying the MoE is forcing this learning and practice on its employees. But doesn't an engineering firm require quality assurance practice of its employees; and a hospital require hygiene practice of its employees; and a Catholic School require participation in Mass of its employees; and the All Blacks management require all of its player employees to learn, practice and perform the haka... and the list goes on. I used to be a promotional rep for a record company and was required to attend the concerts/gigs of our performing artists - like their music or not.
Education today is not culturally neutral - I'd suggest it never has been. I recall standing every morning in the classroom and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance "one nation under God..."
I agree our mainstream education system is failing many and that's because we often fail to engage and to inspire everyone as the individual they are;
https://e-tangata.co.nz/reflections/stood-down-from-life/
My eldest daughter really enjoyed this competition! Sadly it appears our youngest will not have the same opportunity.
Then again, I am truly beginning to wonder if it would be a wise move to ever return to NZ!
It's part of a much bigger "re-programming" of our youth, being instigated by woke zealots, without our (the parents) consent.
Chris is correct and I for one am pleased he recognizes the danger!
An independent public inquiry into Creative New Zealand's funding priorities and decision-making is required. I have made the case here:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/readingroom/creative-nz-slammed-again#c-6866
Yes, and we need expected outcomes fully articulated and agreed, against which decisions can be measured. What is happening currently is that outcomes are not articulated in a formal way but informally transmitted down from the Beehive, to try and get around the inevitable opposition.
And so in the end... After a big knicker twisting party it turns out it was just another organisation with poor communication.
The key imperialism comment coming from one external assessor... If only a more reasoned and less emotive reporting and commentary would occur. Rather than toxic rants.
Can the Arts Council say
1. that they are promoting Maori and Pasifika art
2. that they are promoting non Maori art
3. that they are promoting the evolving art of New Zealand (not Aotearoa)
If only no. 1 applies, please re-name appropriately to "Maori and Pasifika Arts Council" or similar.
"Creative New Zealand encourages, promotes and supports the arts in New Zealand for the benefit of all New Zealanders through funding, capability building, our international programme and advocacy."
Methinks that culture and arts can grow and evolve. And measured in various ways. A balanced composition of members is best, not dominated by Maori elitists, White supremacy, religious zealots or gangs.
And appointments for a short term, not a career civil servant.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.