Talk:Pākehā

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating 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: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic Groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

	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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 A compromise plan 2 field days 3 Merging British New Zealander into article 4 Merging European New Zealander into article 5 Book Titles 5.1 PC Nonsense? 5.2 The term 'Pakeha' is racist. 5.3 A matter or Perception. 5.4 Racist? 6 Proposal to create separate articles 7 Breaking down the word Pākehā 8 Usage 9 English speakers 10 Proposal to create separate articles II 11 Macron 12 Poaka

[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)

[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:

• http://www.additiverich.com/morgue/archives/001232.html
• http://www.additiverich.com/morgue/archives/001242.html
• http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/forum/viewtopic.php?t=255&view=next&sid=2b3daf715e742d1adc1264eeeac46e27
• http://www.nzmusic.com/topic.cfm?i=15134&start=1&1=1&#post238464
• http://metamorphosism.com/archives/000056.html

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)

[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:

• 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)

[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)

[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

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)

The merits of the term, the racism in it, be it naturally there, or all in your head, is irrelevent. 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)

[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]

[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)