New Zealand's Cringe-Worthy Viral Haka Protest Is A Warning For The West
A recent protest in New Zealand's Parliament in which lawmakers broke into a Haka—a traditional Maori dance—has attracted global attention. One might wonder, what egregious measure under protest warranted such a dramatic show of opposition? The controversial bill had essentially one simple premise: equal rights for all citizens under the law.
Growing up in New Zealand, it always struck me how at school awards ceremonies, awards were segregated. I was given my Valedictorian certificate alongside the Maori equivalent for someone with Indigenous ancestry. This special treatment extended into every area of life—Maori were held to separate standards for academic performance, university admission, and medical school seats. In fact, those with certain ancestry were entitled to an entirely separate set of special rights and privileges, including reserved seats in the national legislature, priority access to medical care, special funding for public housing, and over $2 billion in cash transfers.
To understand how New Zealand’s society became so segregated, we need to revisit its history. The Maori arrived in New Zealand around seven centuries ago, and are generally presumed to be the first settlers on the islands. Despite attempts throughout my school years to sanitize Maori history, the archeological record paints a very different picture of violence and brutality, rife with genocide, widespread cannibalism, and the trading of severed human heads as war trophies and items of trade. Unsurprisingly, however, these aspects of Maori history were strangely absent from the curriculum.
The Treaty Principles Bill that was protested in the viral video was introduced to establish and reinforce equal rights for all New Zealanders. Recent interpretations by courts and bureaucrats of the Treaty of Waitangi—a founding document signed in 1840 between the British Crown and various Maori chiefs— have promoted a view that effectively creates two classes of citizens, as evidenced by co-governance arrangements and racial quotas within public institutions.
New Zealand’s two-tiered system results in policies that offer different rights and privileges based solely on ancestry. These include exclusive access to taxpayer-funded services, guaranteed positions on government boards, and even the establishment of a separate healthcare authority for Maori people. The Haka protest in Parliament was much more than cultural expression—it was an outright rejection of the idea that all citizens should be treated equally under the law.
This scenario should serve as a warning for countries like the United States, as discussions about land acknowledgments, affirmative action, reparations, and an incessant fixation on historical “injustices” have become commonplace. While an understanding of past wrongs is important, the sins of a country’s past should never be used to create further divisions within society. As New Zealand’s experiment has shown, no amount of succumbing to demands will ever suffice, and special privileges, once granted, are nearly impossible to revoke.
The core issue lies in the unintended consequences of policies that perpetuate a cycle of grievance and entitlement. When corporations, universities, or government institutions differentiate rights and privileges based on ancestry or ethnicity, the foundational democratic principle of equality is undermined. This inevitably leads to resentment and a departure from the ideals of a unified nation.
The United States has seen this exact dynamic play out time and time again over the past few years. The NFL and NBA have routinely played the “Black national anthem” alongside the Star-Spangled Banner. Microsoft, McKinsey, and many other prominent companies have internship programs exclusively open to those from certain minority groups—excluding minority groups that are overly successful. Alongside Stanford, Columbia University, Georgetown University, the University of Oklahoma, UCLA, and many other colleges offer special graduation ceremonies for Black, LGBT, or low-income graduates.
We must consider here the long-term implications of creating social and legal distinctions between citizens. The New Zealand experience shows how this social segregation can erode the social fabric of a society. The system teaches certain groups that they are inherently incapable of competing with everybody else and that they need permanent government assistance and special treatment just to participate in society. Job interviews become exercises in proving the right ancestry rather than a contest of merit.
America has already proved once that “separate but equal” was inherently racist and destructive. With segregated graduations, internships, and even national anthems, progressives appear headed in that direction again. For the United States, this should be an important learning opportunity—to recognize the importance of equal rights under the law and to approach the redress of past grievances in a way that fosters unity rather than deepening divides.