‘lacked depth’ and that, ‘We have waited for many years for a serious and comprehensive inquiry into the position of the Maori in society. I feel I know more about attitudes in remote societies in Malaya and Peru, thanks to the B.B.C.’ Part of the difficulty was that the programme was too ambitious. An examination in depth of one vital aspect of Maori-Pakeha relationships would have been more revealing and less glib and superficial. ‘Compass’ touched on so many facets of the situation, all of which cried out for a detailed analysis—the teaching of Maori culture in schools; the role of the Mormon Church; interaction between Maori and Pakeha in the city; urban drift of young Maoris etc. The programme thus stirred a little dust here and a little dust there, and then, because none of the dust was allowed to settle, the overall picture was completely obscured. One reason why many Pakeha New Zealanders assume that everything in our racial garden is perfect is because Maori attitudes and Maori grievances are almost never thrust under their noses. ‘Compass’ made an attempt to do this by presenting a quick succession of Maoris who made provocative statements, and then, before their mouths had closed on their last syllable, the camera darted to someone or something else. Because these statements were so brief, and no attempt was made to illustrate their validity, one fears that the overall effect would have been so much water off the Pakeha duck's back. Further evidence of superficiality was the fact that the programme because of its brevity was forced to deal almost entirely in generalities. One of the curses of Maori-Pakeha relationships is generalisation. The Maori is rightly concerned at Pakeha viewpoints based on stereotypes of the ‘typical Maori’. Equally untrue is the stereotype of the ‘typical Pakeha’ held by many Maoris, such as the one on the programme who remarked that the Pakeha view of integration is one of the Maori being obliged to move over completely to the Pakeha side of the street. I for one emphatically reject this generalisation. It is true that there are many unthinking Pakeha who think this way but many many others do not. Equally of concern was the fact that the programme could be severely criticised for its lack of objectivity. Commentator Reg Harrison set the tone of the programme at the very beginning by saying words to the effect that New Zealand was fortunate in the way it combined Maori equality with white supremacy. From then on the Pakeha took the count. It is of course true that there is much to criticise, as I have done above, in Pakeha attitudes towards the Maori, but all through the programme there was a concentration on the negative and barely any mention of the positive aspects of race relations, and in this an injustice was done to the Maori as well as the Pakeha. Except for the woman who said she has ‘nothing against Pakehas’ the programme left an overall impression of Maori resentment towards their Pakeha brethren. There was no mention of the tremendous fund of Maori goodwill towards the Pakeha without which race relationships would be in a much less satisfactory state than they are today. Similarly it should also have mentioned the Pakeha goodwill (untainted by paternalism) which exists in many places, and the many Pakeha who work quietly and patiently trying to make true integration a reality. I longed for a contrary viewpoint to some of the glib assertions made by the commentator and some of those whom he interviewed. For example, constant reference was made to the necessity for reversion to, or retention of, the trappings of pre-European Maori culture as a panacea to the wicked materialism of modern Pakeha society. Perhaps someone could have put forward the viewpoint that this nostalgia must be tempered with realism. Perhaps too much longing for a vanished and ancient way of life impedes progress. One could argue that the American negro, taking into account the comparative numbers, makes a much more significant contribution to the arts, sciences, professions and economy of his country than do the Maoris in this country because the former do not have to dissipate their energies between an ancient and a modern culture. A programme which presents a picture of the Maori as underprivileged, unappreciated by their Pakeha brethren and robbed blind of their cultural heritage and their land at every turn, denigrates the Maori and grossly overstates the case against the Pakeha. With TV, the N.Z.B.C. has a medium which can be used to make a significant contribution towards better understanding between Maori and Pakeha. However, in presenting programmes on this vital subject the Corporation must retain its objectivity and allow the viewer to draw his own conclusion from a judicious combination of fact and all facets of informed opinion. —Alan Armstrong