Introduction to this Website:
The introduction of Maori superstition into New
Zealand scholarship, together with false claims of colonial wrong-doing
continuing to the present day, spreads grievance among Maori and builds racial
animosity. Two talks at the Wellington
campus of the University of Otago have brought this sharply into focus, and
three documents presented here consider this worrying trend.
First is a copy of an article for the Otago
Daily Times published on of Thursday, 5 June 2014. Second
is a comment on the impact of a policy that demands inclusion of superstition
in university scholarship and a review of some aspects of pre-contact and
colonial New Zealand. Third is a
comment on the paper claiming racism in health care, published in the journal BMC Public Health.
__________________________________________________________
This appeared
in the Otago Daily Times of Thursday, 5 June 2014.
Claims of serious racism in the New Zealand health system are disputed by John Robinson, of Wellington.
AT the University of Otago
Wellington campus I recently listened to a claim of serious racism in the New
Zealand health system, suggesting Maori report experiencing significant racial
discrimination and poorer health care. This is heady stuff, not to be
taken lightly. If true, we should all be concerned.
However, a careful study of the
research shows the claim was not established by the facts presented.
The study considered
perceptions of treatment and well-being with questions such as “Have you ever
been treated unfairly (for example, kept waiting or treated differently) by a
health professional (that is, a doctor, nurse, dentist etc) because of your
ethnicity in New Zealand?”
The researchers were unaware of
the uncertainty of what had been measured, which could be either the attitudes
of different groups of Maori or the attitudes of health workers.
The two groups whose experiences
and views were compared are those who considered themselves to be Maori and
those who thought they had been recognised as Maori by others. The
two groups are similar to the self-reported measures of sole Maori and mixed
Maori in the Census, and the reported differences (racism perceived by 3.4% of
those seen as European and 5.6% seen as Maori) tell a familiar story of a
well-established pattern of increased differences with greater Maori
identity.
An attempt was made to estimate
the relative importance of a limited selection of social factors using a
standard mathematical process. Many contributing factors were not
included and the basic requirements of the mathematical procedure (I have a
doctorate in mathematics), that the relationships are linear and that the
causal variables are independent, were not satisfied. The pretence
of scientific objectivity was meaningless.
Despite the study's limitations,
it leapt to the conclusion of racism among health
professionals. “Results suggest that, in a race conscious society, the way people's ethnicities are viewed by others is associated with tangible health risk or advantage, and this is consistent with an understanding of racism as a health determinant.”
professionals. “Results suggest that, in a race conscious society, the way people's ethnicities are viewed by others is associated with tangible health risk or advantage, and this is consistent with an understanding of racism as a health determinant.”
Sadly, this is not an isolated
incident, and claims of colonial wrongdoing are now all too readily accepted,
steadily building a picture that supports calls for separate and unequal
treatment together with a return to traditional Maori culture.
A further talk continued the
theme of damage to Maori health, suggesting the importance of Te Reo Maori as
fundamental to health and well-being.
This was akin to a pleasant Sunday School revivalist meeting, as we introduced
to the womb
of the universe and told of the importance of tapu as a guiding principle of life, of matauranga with a list of gods of the universe and rongo, the principle of peace and harmony. Traditional Maori culture was presented as having all the good attributes of the best of Christianity.
of the universe and told of the importance of tapu as a guiding principle of life, of matauranga with a list of gods of the universe and rongo, the principle of peace and harmony. Traditional Maori culture was presented as having all the good attributes of the best of Christianity.
Facts are not required for such
myth-making. The reality is that Maori life before the Treaty was
dominated by vengeful utu, when intertribal war reduced the population by
about one-third in just 40 years.
Colonisation put an end to the
killing and freed the many slaves. The rapid population decline resulting
from decades of war and social disruption, with a lack
of young people and of women, steadily reduced until numbers were growing by the end of the century, when Maori leaders were educating their people in modern hygiene and medicine.
of young people and of women, steadily reduced until numbers were growing by the end of the century, when Maori leaders were educating their people in modern hygiene and medicine.
All Maori Members of Parliament
voted for the Tohunga Suppression Act 1907, to curb the ``baneful effect'' of
tohunga such as Rua Kenana, whose activities were causing concern among so many
chiefs.
It is important to make a
careful choice of what is best in traditional Maori culture.
The Maori Members of Parliament made a choice in 1907 when they supported much of Maori culture and acted against those harmful aspects that threatened the well-being of their people.
The Maori Members of Parliament made a choice in 1907 when they supported much of Maori culture and acted against those harmful aspects that threatened the well-being of their people.
A choice must be made now
whether to turn a blind eye on the revisionism that writes new and inventive
stories and demands race-based separatism supported by false research.
Claims of ethnic discrimination
produce a harmful social impact. The atmosphere at the talk on racism as
a health determinant was antagonistic towards critical comment.
After several efforts for
discussion with the researchers were rebuffed, I prepared a commentary
(falseracism.blogspot.co.nz).
There is no evidence whatsoever
of racism in New Zealand health care.
The claims of harm due to colonisation and continuing racism imparts a
distorted education on the next generation and, if taken seriously, will lead
to a choice of health care based on false premises.
__________________________________________________________
A Maori world view to guide scholarship
The University of Otago has set down a framework
to present a more cohesive approach to Maori strategy across all campuses of
the University. The intention is to
“Integrate into existing programmes and develop new quality programmes in Te Ao
Maori, te reo Maori and other robust kaupapa Maori options.” [1] This is a sweeping requirement as Te Ao Maori
means ‘a Maori world view’.
The consequences of such policies are
evident. A presentation at the
Wellington campus of Otago University supported that superstition and calls to
return to ancient gods. [2] A previous
unsupported claim of racism in health care had received uncritical acceptance
(other than my own comment). [3]
This is part of a
national movement to make matauranga
Maori an essential factor in qualifications and programmes, including
Matauranga Maori Evaluative Quality Assurance processes for the Education
Qualifications Authority. Matauranga Maori is a term for a body of knowledge that was first
brought to Aotearoa by Polynesian ancestors of present day Maori and can be
defined as ‘the knowledge, comprehension, or understanding of everything
visible and invisible existing in the universe’. Landcare
Research explains that matauranga Maori
can be defined
as ‘the knowledge, comprehension, or understanding of everything visible and
invisible existing in the universe’, and is often used synonymously with
wisdom. In the contemporary world, the definition is usually extended to
include present–day, historic, local, and traditional knowledge; systems of
knowledge transfer and storage; and the goals, aspirations and issues from an
indigenous perspective. “Maori practice collective decision–making at all
levels of their society. A consensus (kotahitanga) is reached following
robust discussion among individuals, families and communities, with the debate
often including social, cultural, spiritual, economic and political dimensions
to the environmental issue under discussion.”
This
introduces a spiritual dimension – mysticism
– as a basic element of New Zealand scholarship,
including science. The benefits of
modern knowledge as a replacement for primitive superstition were once
recognised. “The greatest factor which
retards the progress of the Maori in health matters, is the influence of the
past”, where “disease was supernatural visitation” and tohungas “a medium
between people and gods”, a form of witchcraft. [4]
Pre-European tribal culture
Claims of a healthy and peaceful Maori culture
before the arrival of Europeans (as in [2]) are contradicted by the evidence
([5], [6] chapter ‘Maori at the time of meeting’). There was a population explosion during the
first few centuries after the arrival of Polynesians, in a land of plenty. Once the moa were eaten and extinct, and
seal numbers much reduced, the diet was poor.
When skeletal and comparative
evidence of mortality is combined with fertility estimates for the precontact
Maori population of New Zealand, the rate of population growth is found to be
too low to populate New Zealand within the time constraints of its prehistoric
sequence, the probable founding population size, and the probable population
size at contact. ([7], I quote
this reference because my study of the data led me to the same conclusion) The estimated completed fertility rate derived for prehistoric Maori is
near the lowest recorded for living anthropological populations, and a
fit with the evidence of fertility and life expectancy suggests a population
decrease of 0.4% a year, a decline by about one-third in a century in the
centuries before 1800.
It may be that the population was in fact
steady rather than declining, but the evidence certainly provides no support
for the picture of a healthy people.
Mass intertribal warfare
Traditional Maori intertribal warfare was evident
in the many fortifications protecting against rival tribes. The introduction of muskets resulted in a
blow-out of fighting and killing. “Of an
estimated 100,000 – 150,000 Maori living in New Zealand at or around 1810, by
1840 probably somewhere between 50,000 and 60,000 had been killed, enslaved or
forced to migrate as a result of the wars (working from estimates generated by
Ian Pool and others).
In the main that occurred in the short space of twenty-five years from
1815 to 1840.” ([8] page 17)
Demographer Pool made the absurd and
exaggerated claim that mortality resulting from the intertribal wars is “a minor factor” since those killed would have died eventually
anyway. “The ethnographer Percy Smith was responsible for the claim that there
were 80,000 deaths over the first third of the nineteenth century, from both
direct and indirect mortality caused by warfare. Yet over 100,000 persons could have been expected to have died
over this 30-year period in the ‘normal’ course of events, with or without
wars.” ([9] page 44, [6] page 68)
In a thorough exploration of
casualties in the early 19th century intertribal wars, historian
Rutherford introduced a more reasonable estimate. “The old style, pre-musket-era tribal wars appear to have
destroyed not less than 2,000 people in each five-year period, or say 400 a
year, a rate of loss (about 2.5 per 1,000) which presumably the Maoris could
stand without appreciable diminution of their total population.” ([10], [6] page 64)
This has been taken into account
in my own calculations where
the loss of life in battle (43,600, from Ruthford [10]) was discounted by 0.25%
a year (11,365) in order to account for an assumed ability of the population to
sustain some losses during a period of war.
The estimate is then of a population decline of 32,325 attributed
directly to war losses. An additional
decline of 15,000 was due to the disruption of the society and the resultant
negative demographic distribution. ([6] page 66)
The disruption referred to
includes a shortage of young
and women, and poorer living conditions (often moving from dry to damp areas
nearer crops with poorer sanitation, hiding from attack [4]), which together
provided the conditions for a long-term demographic collapse.
Disease is accounted for by basing calculations
on the observed population decline as measured in the census counts after 1857,
which include any such losses. I have
been unable to find any satisfactory collation of deaths due to disease, and
(as noted above) a reasonably healthy population would be able to sustain the
loss of 2,000 people in a five-year period
Colonial and national government
The assumption of considerable wrong done to
Maori people implicit in discussions of the impact of colonisation in health is
incorrect. A comprehensive study of Maori
health and government policy made the point that “more extensive health provision was made for
Maori between 1840 and 1940 then has been generally recognised.” ([11] page 15)
Much of health funding came from rates, which
were not paid by Maori, and this created very real difficulties for many
regions. However hospitals were “open
to Maori equally”.
It is worth thinking of this treatment of rates
payments. In many societies rates have
been charged to all land owners as a means of both pressuring people to get
work and join the cash economy, and taking land away when rates were not
paid. Despite the considerable recent
rhetoric claiming land-hungry settlers, that was NOT done in New Zealand. Meanwhile the same health care was provided
to Maori as to others, always at no charge for those who could not
pay[11]. That unequal treatment in
favour of Maori was recognised by Apirana Ngata.
“In
times past, rates were not levied on Maori lands. This was not because of the
Treaty of Waitangi. Likewise in days
gone by Maori lands were not affected by taxation and again it was not because
of any provisions in the Treaty. The Treaty had provided for “all rights and
privileges of British subjects”. If the
law had adhered to the spirit of the Treaty, Maori land would have borne the
burden of rates and taxation long ago.
It was in the year 1894 that Maori lands were subjected to rates and
then it was half of the rate and it was not until 1910 that full rates as for
European lands, were levied.
It was only in the year 1893 that Maori lands were taxed, it was a
light tax, half of the tax payable by the Pakeha. However, only leasehold Maori lands were taxable. It was in the
year 1917 that a heavier tax was levied on leased Maori land equivalent to half the rate of taxation on European lands. …
The Pakeha authorities could see the Maori back could not carry the
burden because of inexperience and general confusion in his own
affairs and for this reason the impact of this part of Pakeha law was to
be made gradual. “
‘A bird cannot fly
without feathers’. …
We cannot grasp the
Treaty as a shield to use against rating and taxation. It is the leniency of
the law which has spared us.”
[12]
References
[1] University of Otago, Maori
Strategic Framework 2007-2012.
[2] Te
Huirangi Waikerepuru, Te Reo Maori: pivotal for health & well-being,
University of Otago, Wellington, May 2014.
A talk
about the impact of colonisation in health and the pivotal importance of Te Reo
Maori in physical, cultural and spiritual restoration of Maori that is
fundamental to health and well-being.
[3] Ricci Harris and Donna Cormack, Racism
as a health determinant: implications for Maori health and inequalities,
Eru Pomare Maori Health Research Centre, University
of Otago, Wellington, talk December 2013.
[4] Peter Buck, Medicine among the Maoris, thesis. This is available in many libraries,
including the Wellington City Library.
[5] Philip Houghton 1980, The
first New Zealanders, Hodder and Stoughton
[6] John Robinson 2012, When two
cultures meet, the New Zealand experience (Tross Publishing)
[7] Alexandra
Brewis, Maureen Molloy, and Douglas Su’e’on 1990, Modeling the
Prehistoric Maori Population, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 81:343-356
[8] Crosby R D 1999, The Musket Wars
- A History of Inter-Iwi Conflict 1806-45. Reed, Auckland
[9] Ian Pool 1991, Te iwi Maori, Auckland University Press
[10] Rutherford J D, Note
on Maori casualties in their tribal wars 1801-1840, James Rutherford papers, 1926-1963. MSS & Archives A-42, Box 16, Folder 6,
Special Collections The University of Auckland Library
[11] Derek Dow
1999, Maori health and government
policy 1840-1940, Victoria University. 362
[12] Ngata A 1922. The Treaty of Waitangi, an
explanation, by The Hon. Sir Apirana
Ngata MA, LLB, LitD. First
published in 1922, with a translation into English by M R Jones. Published again by the Maori Purposes Fund Board with footnotes
added.
__________________________________________________________
The following note was published as a comment for the journal of the London-based
open access publisher, BioMed Central, BMC Public Health, where the paper on Racism as a health
determinant: implications for Maori health and inequalities had been
published. It is a shorter version than
a first draft that was
rejected “as not being suitable for publication”. There was no reason for this, as it satisfies the journal policy,
being not indecent, offensive, or contain
negative content of a personal, racial, ethnic mature. The two sections included here with a yellow background were removed at the request of the journal.
Their article in the journal, BMC Public Health is at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/13/844 and my comment at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/13/844/comments.
Their article in the journal, BMC Public Health is at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/13/844 and my comment at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/13/844/comments.
Claimed
racial discrimination in the New Zealand health system; a rebuttal
Dr John Robinson
This paper ascribes ethnic differences in perceptions
of health as due to racial discrimination against Maori.
“Within
New Zealand and internationally, there is recognition of the important role of
racism as a basic underlying cause of ethnic inequalities in health”
“In
New Zealand, Māori report experiencing disproportionately higher racial
discrimination at an individual level that has been linked to a range of
adverse health outcomes, heightened health risk and poorer health care as well
as contributing to ethnic health inequalities between Māori and Pākehā
(European).”
“Results of
this study suggest that, in a race conscious society, the way people’s
ethnicities are viewed by others appears to have tangible health risk or
advantage, and this is consistent with an understanding of racism as a health
determinant. Dismantling the structures of racism is complex yet vital in our
efforts to achieve a fair society that facilitates equitable outcomes in health
and other social indicators and also enables self-determination of priorities
and solutions for Māori.” [1]
It would be highly worrying if this assertion of
different treatment based on racial prejudice in the health system were to
hold. It is a serious charge against
health professionals. However, the
analysis is faulty and this is not so.
The study considered perceptions of treatment and
well-being as in answers to questions such as:
“Have you ever been treated unfairly (for
example, kept waiting or treated differently) by a health professional (that
is, a doctor, nurse, dentist etc) because of your ethnicity in
New Zealand?” ([2] Question
5.10)
There is considerable uncertainty here of what
is measured. While it is assumed here
that the attitudes of health workers determine the replies, it may well be the
attitudes of different groups of Maori that are tested, as some will be more
ready to perceive poorer treatment based on ethnicity than others. Given the current debate in New Zealand, with a
considerable emphasis on claims of past wrongs and suggestions of a
constitution involving separation by race in a partnership model of governance,
this is highly likely.
Such
moves towards ethnic separation are evident in this research, which was carried
out in the Te Rōpū Rangahau Hauora a Eru Pōmare Maori Health Research Centre, as well as the antagonism
towards a non-Maori (myself) raising pertinent questions regarding the analysis
at a public meeting. An assumption of past harm and continuing unequal treatment is clearly
expressed in this paper.
“Internationally,
there is substantial evidence of unfair inequalities in health between ethnic
groups and, for many countries with histories of colonization, inequalities
between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples within the same territory (e.g.
New Zealand, Canada, and Australia). In
New Zealand, there are significant and long-standing inequalities in a range of
health outcomes, risk factors and healthcare between Māori (indigenous peoples)
and Pākehā (European). … Within New Zealand and internationally, there is
recognition of the important role of racism as a basic underlying cause of
ethnic inequalities in health.” [1]
The claim of “unfair inequalities in health between ethnic
groups”, either now or in the past, with “racism as a basic underlying cause of
ethnic inequalities in health” is incorrect.
In fact “more
extensive health provision was made for Maori between 1840 and 1940 then has
been generally recognised.” Although
much of health funding came from rates, which were not paid by Maori (and this
created very real difficulties for many regions), hospitals were open to Maori
equally, then as today. [3]
The two groups whose experiences
and views were compared are those who considered themselves to be Maori
(“how you classify your own ethnicity”,
self-identified ethnicity) and those who thought that they had been
recognised as Maori by others (“how
other people usually classify your ethnicity in New Zealand”, socially-assigned ethnicity). Since the socially-assigned ethnicity is
based largely on appearance, that group will consist of those with the greater
degree of inherited characteristics (most who report themselves as Maori are of
mixed ethnicity). The two groups
are similar to the self-reported measures of sole Maori and mixed Maori in the
Census, and the reported differences tell a familiar story of a
well-established pattern of increased differences with greater Maori
identity. It may be noted that the percentage of those who perceive
racism in health treatment (3.4% of those seen as European and 5.6% seen as
Maori) are small, with a considerable majority reporting no such perception. There is no comparison with perceptions of different
treatment by other ethnic groups.
The authors
recognise that others have observed differences between differently defined
groups of Maori.
“Other studies
have also examined health and social differentials within the Māori population
and shown that health and socioeconomic differences exist for different Māori
populations based on their self-identified ethnicity. For example, people who identify solely as Māori have been shown
to have more disadvantaged socioeconomic status and worse health than people
who identify as Māori and European”
They do not,
however, consider the many possible reasons for differing health outcomes. Statistics New Zealand, in comments on differentials in life expectancy, points out that the Māori/non-Māori
differential partly reflects different rates of diabetes and smoking, as well
as socio-economic differences. [4]
Although there were a number of questions concerning smoking in the
survey ([2], Questions 3.19-3.27), smoking was not considered as a possible
factor here.
Contributing
factors may lie outside the scope of the questionnaire and the full picture is
complex. Most analysts are cautious
in reaching a conclusion, as shown by economist Brian Easton in an overview of
ethnic differences, where he suggests social contacts (a feature of Maori
society, not defined by the actions of others) as a contributing factor.
“Econometric work suggests that only one third of the
difference between Maori and non-Maori employment participation can be explained
by the personal characteristics measured in the population
census.” There may be other
personal characteristics not measured, which also have an influence. “However it seems likely that the most
important determinants of the differences are social variables, summarized in the
concept of ‘maoriness’. A possible practical example is that it is known that the most
important source of job recruitment involves family and friends. The Maori is
handicapped in doing this because of their lower employment rates, but also possibly
because the Maori network is not as geared as the non- Maori family to carry out this task.” [5]
Easton finds that his
chosen variables provide a fit for just part of the difference. He then labels the remainder ‘maoriness’
and seeks a reason for that part of the difference. The authors here carry out a similar
analysis and assume that it is a consequence of racial discrimination. One problem here is with the understanding
of just what is being measured and of the full range of possible contributory
factors. Another is with the validity
of the analysis on which they rely.
The data was analysed to consider whether
differences could be due to a limited selection of socioeconomic experiences
using “Survey analysis based procedures” and concluded that “In multivariable
analysis, Maori who were socially assigned as European-only had a significant
health advantage.”
There are serious limitations to the application of
logistic regression. The choice of
independent variables to provide a best fit for a dependent variable may be
incomplete, leaving out key causal factors.
The methodology assumes linear relationships across the whole range,
which is often far from the case. And
the set of independent variables must not be highly related. The process can handle a degree of
covariance, with some relationships among the independent variables, but when
those variables are highly interrelated the process can be unstable and a small
change in measures may result in a significant change in the output. Given the complex and non-linear
relationships among socioeconomic experiences (the various social variables such as health,
education, income, employment and demographics are clearly interrelated), neither
requirement is satisfied.
Here the whole remainder, left after a questionable
analysis for a limited range of socio-economic variables, is labeled racism,
ignoring the lack of supporting evidence and the many possible
alternatives.
The history of New Zealand is of considerable cultural
shifts, and many remaining differences are the consequence of past cultural
practices. Maori are descended from a
Polynesian people who lost contact with the mass of humanity when they moved
away from islands off the coast of Asia to Remote Oceania some 3,200 years
ago. Since the coming of Europeans and
others from all parts of the earth they have moved from a Stone Age tribal
culture to share the opportunities and life experiences of a modern developed
nation. [6] Those gaps can best
be understood by a thorough, robust and comprehensive study of past
experiences, social statistics and associated analyses, and not by jumping to a
simplistic assumption of racism, in the past and continuing in the twenty-first
century.
This comment is made following the refusal of the research
team to meet and consider the limitations of this study, despite my many
efforts, which included an interview with the Dean of the Wellington Campus of
Otago University.
This paper makes an unproven claim of racism among health professionals, that “the way
people’s ethnicities are viewed by others appears to have tangible health risk
or advantage”. The claim of racism on the part of health
professionals is a serious charge that is in no way justified, and not to be
countenanced in the absence of definitive proof.
References
- Harris R, Cormack D, Stanley J. 2013:The
relationship between socially-assigned ethnicity, health and experience of
racial discrimination for Maori: analysis of the 2006/07 New Zealand
Health Survey. BMC Public Health 13:84
- Ministry
of Health: 2006/07 New Zealand Health Survey Adult Questionnaire.
- Dow D
1999: Maori health and
government policy 1840-1940. Victoria University.
- Statistics New Zealand 2009: New
Zealand Life Tables: 2005–07
- Easton
B: The Maori in The Labour Force. In, Labour,
Employment and Work in New Zealand 1994 (pages
206-213). Edited by Morrison P S. Victoria
University of Wellington.
- Robinson
J L 2013: A plague of people. Tross Publishing
This is my first draft, which was refused by the Journal.
Claimed racial discrimination in the New Zealand health system; a rebuttal
Dr John Robinson
A recent
paper ascribes ethnic differences in perceptions of health as due to racial
discrimination for Maori. [1]
“Within New Zealand and internationally, there is
recognition of the important role of racism as a basic underlying cause of
ethnic inequalities in health”
“In New Zealand, Māori report
experiencing disproportionately higher racial discrimination at an individual
level that has been linked to a range of adverse health outcomes, heightened
health risk and poorer health care as well as contributing to ethnic health
inequalities between Māori and Pākehā (European).”
“Results of this study suggest that, in a race
conscious society, the way people’s ethnicities are viewed by others appears to
have tangible health risk or advantage, and this is consistent with an
understanding of racism as a health determinant. Dismantling the structures of
racism is complex yet vital in our efforts to achieve a fair society that
facilitates equitable outcomes in health and other social indicators and also
enables self-determination of priorities and solutions for Māori.”
That study
forms part of the considerable research into the different social experiences
of Maori. The particular feature of
note is the conclusion reached, that social measures may provide evidence of
racism, with reference to a definition of racism as, “a system consisting of
structures, policies, practices, and norms) that structures opportunity and
assigns value based on …the way people look [racially]”.
It would
be highly worrying if the assertion of different treatment based on racial
prejudice in the health system were to hold.
However, since the analysis is faulty, this is not so, and the
impression of racism – a serious complaint made against the health profession –
must be countered.
The survey population
The
two groups whose experiences and views were
compared are those who considered themselves to be Maori (“how you classify your own ethnicity”, self-identified
ethnicity) and those who thought that they had been recognised as Maori by
others (“how other people usually
classify your ethnicity in New Zealand”, socially-assigned ethnicity).
Since the socially-assigned ethnicity is based largely on appearance,
that group will consist of those with the greater degree of inherited
characteristics. These measures may be
related to the self-reported measures of sole Maori and mixed Maori in the
Census.
“Other studies have also examined health and
social differentials within the Māori population and shown that health and
socioeconomic differences exist for different Māori populations based on their
self-identified ethnicity. For example,
people who identify solely as Māori have been shown to have more disadvantaged
socioeconomic status and worse health than people who identify as Māori and
European”
The reported differences tell a
familiar story, of a well-established pattern of increased gaps with greater
Maori identity. This is as expected
since many mixed Maori have considerable non-Maori identity and associated
links to other cultures. There may be a
number of social, historical and economic reasons for that pattern, quite apart
from the assumed racism.
Data analysis
The data was analysed to consider
whether differences could be due to a selection of socioeconomic experiences
using “Survey analysis based procedures” and concluded that “In multivariable
analysis, Maori who were socially assigned as European-only had a significant
health advantage.”
There are
serious limitations to the application of mathematical techniques such as
logistic regression. The methodology
may be used to examine the dependence of one dependent variable on a set of
other independent variables, and assumes linear relationships across the whole
range. Given the complex and non-linear
relationships among socioeconomic experiences (the various social variables such as health,
education, income, employment and demographics are clearly interrelated), neither
requirement is satisfied.
There is
considerable uncertainty due to the unproven assumption of linearity. In addition, with covariance, when dependent
variables are interrelated, the resultant output will be unstable and untrustworthy.
When makings use of approximation
techniques, it is essential to understand the limitations and whether any
inexact methodology may be inappropriate, providing only a misleading
appearance of quantitative accuracy. The
multivariable linear algebra that is a part of the methodology involves matrix
inversion. This is possible so long as
the determinant of a matrix is non-zero.
The process can handle a degree of covariance, with some relationships
among the independent variables, but when those variables are highly
interrelated the process can be unstable and a small change in measures may
result in a significant change in the output.
Applications of linear regression to
social measures have proved to be unstable, with in some cases the addition of
a variable giving a poorer fit. Despite
the failure of the data sets to conform to the mathematical requirements,
linear regression is frequently used by economists and sociologists. Colleagues at the Applied Mathematics
Division (DSIR) told me that their efforts to point out that this was an
inappropriate use of methodology, by government departments including Treasury,
were ignored.
Economist
Brian Easton provides a useful overview of ethnic differences. He places some reliance on the methodology
but is cautious in reaching a conclusion.
“Econometric work
suggests that only one third of the difference between Maori and non-Maori
employment participation can be explained by the personal characteristics
measured in the population census.
The report
acknowledges there may be other personal characteristics not measured,
which also have an influence.
However it seems likely that the most
important determinants of the differences are social variables, summarized in the
concept of ‘maoriness’. A possible practical example is that it is known that the most
important source of job recruitment involves family and friends. The Maori is
handicapped in doing this because of their lower employment rates, but also possibly
because the Maori network is not as geared as the non- Maori family to carry out this task.” [2]
There can be many reasons for ethnic differences in
social variables and many are outside the range considered in the paper under
consideration. Easton suggests network
connections and Statistics
New Zealand, in comments on differentials in life expectancy, points out that the Māori/non-Māori
differential partly reflects different rates of diabetes and smoking, as well
as socio-economic differences. [3]
There were a number of questions smoking in the survey ([4], Questions
3.19-3.27) but smoking was not considered as a possible factor here.
Snapshot or time series
In
the social sciences a measurement taken at one point in time can be misleading;
it is important to determine whether any ethnic difference is new, is
persistent, or is a part of a convergent trend. The history of New Zealand is of considerable cultural shifts,
and many gap are the consequence of past cultural practices.
This
is a remarkable story. Maori are
descended from a Polynesian people who lost contact with the mass of humanity
when they moved away from islands off the coast of Asia to Remote Oceania some
3,200 years ago. [5] Since the coming
of Europeans and others from all parts of the earth they have moved from a Stone
Age tribal culture to share the opportunities and life experiences of a modern
developed nation. Despite a couple of
centuries of living together, and much intermarriage, significant differences
remain in social measures between their descendents (mostly of mixed ethnicity)
and others. Those gaps can best be
understood by a thorough a robust and comprehensive study of past experiences,
social statistics and associated analyses.
The
post-war move to the cities, with the greater integration of Maori into all
aspects of New Zealand society, coincided with a considerable improvement in
many social measures. For example, Maori post neonatal mortality reduced from
78 deaths per 1,000 births in 1943 to around 10 after 1975; life expectancy at
birth improved from 44 years in 1924 (65 for non-Maori) to 69 years in 1982 (75
for non-Maori). A one-year
consideration of ethnic imbalance fails to recognize that improvement. Measurements taken at one point provide a
snap-shot only in a developing story and such incomplete information may
produce a misleading narrative.
Given the
considerable range of explanatory factors it is important to make a careful
choice of what to consider or emphasise when reaching conclusions on an
analysis such as this.
Persistent gaps
The
limitations of linear
regression is just one issue in the search for explanatory factors
of gaps (differences in many socioeconomic experiences) continuing today in a
complex situation that is changing over time.
Many researchers have studied information from many sectors in search of
understanding (as Easton noted above).
My own wide-ranging consultancy research into Maori
experiences and expectations for many organizations has been based principally
on the collation and analysis of social statistics, in a period from 1986 (for
Professor Ngatata Love, Dean, Faculty of Business Studies, Massey University)
to 2002 (for Treaty of Waitangi Research Unit, Stout Centre, Victoria
University, a project for the Forestry Rental Trust), and has included work for
the Department of Maori Affairs and Te Puni Kokiri (Ministry of Maori
Development).
It is important to consider whether
the persistent gaps between Maori and others in social experiences may be in
part due to racial attitudes and behavior, to racism (prejudice based on a
belief in the superiority of a particular race or antagonism towards other
races) against Maori. In sixteen years
of research and work with a number of organizations dealing with Maori affairs
I had found no evidence of this; rather there are many projects providing
additional resources to Maori.
I was
then interested in a suggestion of significant racism as a determinant and
attended a presentation on “Racism as a
health determinant: implications for Maori health and inequalities” at the Wellington campus of the University of Otago. The evidence was far from convincing.
I was concerned with the
claim that racism had been suggested since (1) the research did not in fact
identify racism and (2) unsupported claims of ethnic discrimination have a
harmful social impact. Indeed the
atmosphere at that talk was such that a comment was met with considerable
antagonism, and I felt uncomfortable raising a genuine question concerning the
methodology.
I then approached the Dean.
Since the reply was inadequate my response was forthright.
“I have made a peer review of this research and found that the
paper does not meet acceptable academic standards. You have said that ‘as
a University, we welcome discussion and debate’. I do too, and I repeat my request for such discussion and
debate. I request an appointment to
discuss this issue with you.” [6]
That brought
an offer to meet and we had a most useful discussion following which I asked
the Director of the Te Rōpū
Rangahau Hauora a Eru Pōmare Maori
Health Research Centre for a meeting with her and the researchers. The invitation to meet as responsible researchers (to ‘welcome discussion and debate’) was declined. The copy of the published paper provided confirmed my understanding of the research, gained at the seminar. It failed to recognise the limitations of the methodology and the weakness of the inferred conclusions.
Health Research Centre for a meeting with her and the researchers. The invitation to meet as responsible researchers (to ‘welcome discussion and debate’) was declined. The copy of the published paper provided confirmed my understanding of the research, gained at the seminar. It failed to recognise the limitations of the methodology and the weakness of the inferred conclusions.
Perceptions of racism
The data
is from responses to questions in the 2006/07 New Zealand Health Survey
concerning self-reported experiences and impressions, with a focus on Maori
ethnicity.
The study is of the association between
socially-assigned ethnicity (compared with self-assigned ethnicity), individual
experience of racial discrimination and health (self-rated health and
psychological distress). The
interpretation of racism as an important factor determining ethnic difference
is based on replies to questions concerning a perception of unfair
treatment. For health, this is:
“Have you ever been treated unfairly (for example, kept waiting or
treated differently) by a health professional (that is, a doctor, nurse,
dentist etc) because of your ethnicity in New Zealand?” ([4] Question 5.10)
Of self-identified
Maori, some 3.4% of those who socially identified as European and 5.6% those
who socially identified as some Maori reported some individual experience of racial
discrimination in health (ever).
([1] Table 3) A majority of
self-identified Maori, 82.4% socially identified as European and 70.1% socially
identified as Maori, reported no experience of unfair treatment in any of the categories.
This study is restricted to those people who self
identified as Maori. There is no
indication of experience of unfair treatment or racist attitudes towards
individuals with any other ethnicity, and no control group.
It is
important when considering possible explanatory causes to recognize that the
responses will be influenced by, and indicative of, awareness and beliefs
relating to race in society. This is
most significant today, as some Maori believe that there is reason for
grievance in past historical events and desire a separation by race of
governance in New Zealand.
Ethnicity
is self-identified, and reports the different perceptions of those who most
strongly state a Maori identity. There
was no consideration that such perceptions may be socially engendered. The current large number of strongly argued
Treaty claims, claiming special rights and payments to tribes on the basis of
race, are based on a picture of history that asserts widespread colonial
wrongs to native peoples. That process
and the resultant distortion of history to support legal claims have built an
atmosphere where many Maori have come to believe in a presumption of racism
among non-Maori. This raises the
possibility of a readiness to assume racism rather than actual racist attitudes
among health professionals.
Those feelings are often evident, as in the antagonism
towards any differing opinion shown at the meeting when this paper was
presented, as well as at a series of “constitutional debates” at Te Papa in
2013. The responses may provide a
measure of racial feelings among the respondents rather than the actual
attitudes and treatment by health professionals.
The paper considered
here makes an unproven claim of racism among health professionals, that “the way people’s
ethnicities are viewed by others appears to have tangible health risk or
advantage”. The result is a stimulation of racial
disharmony based on research directed towards an assumed racism on the part of
health professionals. This is a serious
charge that is in no way justified, and not to be made lightly, nor to be
countenanced unless definitive proof were to be forthcoming.
References
- Harris R, Cormack D, Stanley J. 2013:The
relationship between socially-assigned ethnicity, health and experience of
racial discrimination for Maori: analysis of the 2006/07 New Zealand
Health Survey. BMC Public Health 13:84
- Easton
B: The Maori in The Labour Force. In, Labour,
Employment and Work in New Zealand 1994 (pages
206-213). Edited by Morrison P S. Victoria
University of Wellington.
- Statistics New Zealand 2009: New
Zealand Life Tables: 2005–07
- Ministry
of Health: 2006/07 New Zealand Health Survey Adult Questionnaire.
- Robinson
J L 2013: A plague of people. Tross Publishing
- Email
from the author to Dr Sunny Collings, Dean and Head of Campus
University of Otago, Wellington, 18 February 2014
