When I was first asked to write this article, it was to be a report of the National Commission of NZUSA's May Council. However, the more I thought about one aspect of the Commission - the discussion over the 'haka party' incident - the more I considered that the topic warranted an airing in an article of its own. And so this article will be devoted entirely to this issue; perhaps more inforamtion on the functioning of the National Commission will be forthcoming in a future Salient.

Apart from the National delegates from each campus, those during this discussion included Janet Roth (AUSA President) and Kevin Haigh (AUSA Education Vice-President and participant in the haka party.) The debate started with these two people giving their versions of the incident. Perhaps it would be useful at this stage to give a background to the affair.

The haka party is performed by Auckland University School of Engineering students (or engineers during capping.) In it they wear grass skirts, paint their faces brown, and 'tatoo' themselves with lipstick. As many as one hundred male engineers, dressed this way, rampage around the university and through the streets of Auckland. They chant a mock haka, shout obscenities and aim to disrupt as much of ordinary life as possible.

Good, Clean Fun?

Perhaps there are those among us who would consider that this twenty-five year tradition is 'good clean fun', given and taken in the spirit of capping. But this is far from the truth. Many groups, especially Maori students, have always held the view that the haka party is racist and an affront to the Maori Community. This feeling came to a head this year, when Maori activists from the He Taua (War Party) group managed to end the haka party in a confrontation which resulted in the hospitalization of several engineers, and the arrest of eleven Te Haua members on charges of rioting.

Thus two antogonistic views developed: those who see that the issue is primarily one of racism, and those (mainly the engineers) who see the issue purely in terms of the violence committed. Janet Roth immediately released a press statement which stated that the engineers were meted out only the punishment that they deserved and urging that all charges against the Maori activists be dropped. Naturally, this statement angered the engineers, and in a heated forum the next day, a motion of no confidence in Roth was moved. As this article is written the result of this motion is not known.

However, to return to the debate at the National Commission, both Haigh and Roth gave their versions of the incident, the differences being that Haigh claimed that the engineers were unaware of any bad feeling towards the haka party and that he was concerned only with the violence that was used on his friends.

It would be best to clear up this first statement of Haigh's right now. To claim that the engineers were unaware of any opposition to their actions goes beyond the bounds of comprehension. Maori students have expressed their opposition to the haka party since its inception. They have made representations to the engineers calling for the end to the haka party. AUSA has policy which opposes the haka party. To be as liberal as possible to the engineers, the most they could claim is that they ignored the opposition in the mistaken belief that opposition to the haka party is unfounded.

A Racist Act

It is my belief that the haka party is, in fact, a result of racism; and racism of a specific kind. There are two types of racism: conscious and unconscious. Conscious racism is easily detected - in manifests itself in fascist politics (such as those of Hitler's Germany and South Africa today) and in instances where people are condemned or ridiculed on the basis or race.

Unconscious racism is more difficult to detect but it can be objectively seen in the actions of all of us when, without thinking about it, we prejudge a person or group of people of one race solely on "the basis that they belong to that race. Unconcsious racism can also be described as an act which is objectively racist, but subjectively (in your own mind) is not racist. Unconscious racism is largely a result of the culture, the political system or even the nature of the family like in which a person is brought up in. As such it tends to exist covertly with in your mind surfaces, say, in the type of joke you find funny, or the way in which you talk to European (or Jewish, or Malaysian) students. But the difficulty of pin pointing unconcious racism in no way diminishes its seriousness. In fact, I believe that, of the two, uncious racism is the more dangerous.

It is precisely because this type of racism is so difficult to recognise and eradicate that it poses a greater threat than the racism which is entirely visible. Unconscious racism can result in acts which are just as offensive as any act of concious racism — certainly unconcious racism, from the point of view of those who suffer from it, is much more frustrating.

I believe that the haka party incident is a result of the unconcious racist atittudes of the Auckland engineers. And, the violence of the incident is entirely a result of these racist attitudes. Consequently, there can be no condemnation (in a court of law or in any other form) of the violence used by members of He Taua. The violence came about because this situation could be averted by no other means - years of talking and 'conciliation' on this, and many other issues of Maori rights, have proved that a peacefull settlement of these antagonistic contradictions is impossible. After all, the incident has brought about the effect that has been vainly desired for years; the haka party has been stopped - for good.

The Policy Decided on

This attitude was reflected in the National Commission in the fate of the first three [unclear: motions] presented on this topic. The first was That NZUSA condemns all conscious and [unclear: the]page 5cious racist acts - a motion that was [unclear: pas-manimously]. The second motion read NZUSA recognises that the violence [unclear: rated] with the haka party at Auckland [unclear: entity] was a direct result of domestic [unclear: ra-] and the inability of society's "normal nels" to adequately bring about social [unclear: Be].

After much heated discussion this motion was also passed, with one dissenting voice and one abstention. Unfortunately this motion was emasculated at final plenary, where each delegation gets the chance to change the way they voted on motions (and even the motions themselves.) The motion ended up with all the words after ".......domestic racism" deleted. Well, at least half of the reason for the haka party incident will be recognised by NZUSA.

The third motion was That NZUSA condemns physical violence as a means of expressing an opposing view in New Zealand. Apart from being an extremely badly worded motion (what about Australian violence) it fails to recognise the point made earlier that in this case, violence had become the only way to solve the conflict. With a division of opinion, this motion was lost.

It is my opinion that these motions constitute good policy for NZUSA. They recognise the evils of racism, they recognise that members of He Taua are sufferers of domestic racism and in effect, condemn the Auckland engineers for their racist act. As a result, NZUSA will tour a Maori activist (probably a member of He Taua) to further inform students of the evils of domestic racism, and the question of violence in society.

What is Violence

It is this question of violence and our society which warrants further inquiry. It is a question which has been raised by the haka party incident, but not answered by it. Violence, and the role it plays in social change, is certainly not a question which is confined to the area of Maori Rights. Violence is a question which arises especially when we consider the prospect of fundamental changes being made to the type of state we have in New Zealand.

Our developed capitalist state is a pro duct and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antogonisms. That is, our society, and others like it, are constituted of several distinct social classes. The primary class antagonism in our society is that the interests of thworking class are diametrically opposed to those of the bourgeois classes; and it is a contradiction which, objectively, cannot be reconciled within the present system. Thus, the capitalist state is not an organ for the reconciliation of class antagonisms - rather, it is an organ of class rule, of the oppression of the "working class by the bourgoisie.

The state then, in New Zeland, creates an 'order' which both legalises and perpetuates this clas rule. The class antagonisms, however, cannot exist indefinitely; that is, social forces work towards the eradication of class oppression. But the oppressing classes will not give up their position without violent opposition. Obviously, the liberation of the working class requires a violent revolution in order to destroy the state power of the oppressor classes. It is in this context that violence and social change must be seen. To oppose violence as a means of solving any social conflict is politically naive. It is a matter of fact that to change the state in a fundamental way - violence is necessary and inevitable. The morality of the cause mitigates the use of violence.

The oppression of Maori Rights and the Maori people is part of the wider oppression of the state. It is an economic advantage to the ruling classes to keep the Maori people's status low. Racist attitudes are merely tools in this wider economic oppression. The liberation of the Maori people (and the eradication of racist attitudes) will come only through the liberation of the entire working class. Violence itself is a necessary tool in this eventual liberation; that the haka party could be stripped by no other method than violence indicates this.

This, I believe, is the light in which the haka party incident must be seen. It is an indication of the role that political violence must fulfil in the final working out of irreconeciliable social antagonisms. In itself, the violence cannot be called "revolutionary" — it simply indicates that the social con-tradictions that produce the oppression of the Maori people, cannot have a non-violent solution.

Stephen A'Court.