One language

Press, 22 April 1986, Page 20

One language

Sir,—This self-righteous rubbish about Maori culture and the preservation of it is outrageous. There are no Maoris left in New Zealand, only New Zealanders. To keep alive a language and culture that produced barbarism and savagery is ridiculous. We may as well institute in our schools compulsory study of Stone Age language and philosophy. The purpose of education is to provide children with practical skills to make them able and responsible adults who can contribute both to themselves and a community as it is today. This modern version of Maori culture is an insult to the intelligence of the Maori and his ancestors. The Maori chiefs of olden days were intelligent people who did not embrace Christianity and the English language out of folly. Maori language and culture may be preserved, but as a relic of the past, of genuine interest, but of no practical value today.—Yours, etc. PAUL SHEPPARD. April 21, 1986.

Sir,—Robin Mitchell’s article, “Room for only one language in N.Z.” (April 15), appears to be based on three lines of argument: 1. That Maori should not be made an official language because it is less widely spoken than English. However, Maori is by no means a dead language. It is still spoken and, like all languages, it still has the potential to develop. 2. That Maori as an official language would supersede English. Of course that would not happen. Everyone should have some knowledge of both languages, though they need not speak them equally as fluently. 3. That Maoris can easily speak English. True, but speaking one’s own language, as. Robin Mitchell does, gives one a secure cultural identity. English and Maori can both be incorporated in our education system, thereby leading to a greater understanding between the two cultures. Let us give Maori a recognisable status in New Zealand.—Yours, etc., ANNA DOWLING. April 19, 1986.

Sir, —Robin Mitchell’s article (April 15) contains good and not-so-good points, but it does highlight a widespread confusion between bi-culturism and multiculturism, which are mutually opposed. The former recognises only Maori and an ill-defined “pakeha,” which presumably includes everybody else. The latter represents a society in which people of many different origins can feel free to make their own individual contributions to the best of their ability. Its interests are best served by keeping English the sole official language while encouraging others, including Maori. Our education system should require all young people to study at least two languages

(one non-European) other than English; such a policy would lead to a better understanding of the English language itself and would prepare future generations to understand other peoples and cultures in a way necessary to survival and economic well being.—Yours, etc., J. S. PALLOT. April 21, 1986.

Sir,—Your permission to grant Robin Mitchell a half-page to insult and belittle the Maori language appals me. I question your wisdom in this as it implies your paper shares this bigoted paranoia also. The fact that you chose to ignore almost the recent historic event of the arrival of the two voyaging canoes from Hawaii and Tahiti emphasises this. My roots go back 58 generations in this land. Mitchell and yourself have only been here five minutes in comparison. Until you can claim otherwise, who are you to tell me I have no right to my own language in this, my country. Your Victorian attitude has reigned too long. If you cannot accept change I offer you an alternative, get out. The South African regime would welcome your type.—Yours, etc., M. A. A. SCHROEDER. April 18, 1986.