Brief 2 - Critical Response

Dinner with the cannibal - Witi Ihimaera 

Witi Ihimaera is a popular and highly acclaimed New Zealand author. He has published many works, including short stories, novels, and poems. His work centers around cultural clashes between Maori and Pakeha viewpoints, and changes in Maori life.

Dinner with the Cannibal is about a man who goes to dinner with another man and is surprised when he discovers that he is the main course. The poem is a metaphor for European settlers and Maori people. The invitation to dinner is a representation of the signing of the Waitangi treaty in 1840. “Dinner”, the eating process symbolizes the robbing of land, power, language and culture of the Maori people by Europeans. Witi believes that the taking of all these Maori assets is as cruel as Cannibalism. A Cannibal can be defined as a person with no basic humanity. This metaphor is very strong because Witi does not say the European settlers are “robbers” or “killers”, but “Cannibal”, this means they don’t just rob or kill, they rob, kill and then devour the killed people, they have no primary humanity. The Cannibal eats the narrator in a specific order: this is legs, arms, heart, liver, kidney and eyes. “The legs” represents Maori land, as legs are the fundamental structure of the person, land is also the home of Maori, the production areas of Maori. Once land was taken away, Maori lost homes. 

Theme (Dinner with the cannibal):
•Nostalgia for Maori life-In the seventh stanza he speaks of his people’s grief for what has been taken from them

•Oppression of Maori- The poem uses cannibalism to symbolise the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. The British violated many terms of the treaty, and so Witi considers it to be a vicious savaging of Maori, rather than a fair agreement between two cultures. Just as the narrator was hoaxed into going to dine with the host, the Maori were enticed in by Britain’s promise of a brighter future.

•Loss of land and culture- The writer has used the loss of limbs to symbolize the loss of independence and choice Maori felt when their land was taken away from them by the British. “A landless man may just as well be limbless”. The cannibal eats the man’s legs first and from there he eats his internal organs and tongue. This is representative of the loss of culture Maori experienced, along with their language being forbidden in schools. The last thing to be consumed was the eyes and this signifies the European government withholding the fact that they had reneged on the terms of the treaty.

•The sacred and the profane- The dominant subject matter in the poem is cannibalism and there is occasional referencing to Christianity. This is a huge disparity between religious suggestions such as “eat and drink the body and blood of Christ” and the unmentionable subject of cannibalism. It is interesting that the British should view Maori as being savages, and yet the acts of savagery they carried out on Maori were equally as savage.

• Other themes are regret at the fatal impact of colonization and disempowerment of Maori.

Structure and analysis
Overall the poem has a clear structure to it, it is quite orderly and has set stanzas. The tone of the poem is one of sarcasm. Witi uses irony- The cannibal’s impeccable sophistication is actually opposite to his behaviour. So within the poem the host begins eating the guest. He first eats his legs and then moves onto his other limbs. When the host is breaking the guest’s arms, it portrays that the power of the people is being taken away. Arms are used to fight back and protect, and without them we are defenceless. The heart is at the centre of the human being and hold’s a person’s joy, sadness, grief and hope. When the heart no longer functions, the human will fail.

“Ah, there it is,” he said, impaling my heart with his fork
And lifting it from its protective cage
I wept to see its pulsing beauty”

These are powerful words, showing polarities within the poem, the harsh language of ‘impaling my heart with his fork’, followed by a softened ‘I wept to see its pulsing beauty.’ This polarity is witnessed again before the cannibal eats the legs, arms and heart, which are extremely violent acts; he actually asks quite gently “You won’t need these, will you?” The Europeans professed to be kind and polite, but were very cruel toward Maori. The treaty has come under much speculation and scrutiny ever since it came about. It has resulted in Maori having a sense of insignificance in their own society, and being stripped of their possessions.

“Cruelly, he left my brain intact to wonder
Why I had ever accepted his invitation to dine
150 years ago —“

Witi agonises over how his ancestors were deceived so shockingly by these intruders and how detrimental and devastating the treaty has been for his people and culture. His use of language is fascinating and holds the reader’s interest. He has been so clever placing formal and polite language alongside such venomous deeds. He has purposefully eliminated the use of full stops in this poem to represent the ongoing struggle that Maori people endure and have done since 1840. The use of –at the completion of the poem is illustrating that there is doubt about whether the cycle of anguish will continue. This poem shows the critical impact that colonisation can have on natives and in this case Maori.

NOBLE SAVAGE - Reverend Mua Strickson-Pua  

Noble Savage is about the struggle that Maori and Pacific Island people encounter and the stereotypes that come along with it. This poem is powerful, emotional and confrontational in nature with a rawness to it based on social injustice. Through his craft Strickson-Pua is able to unleash anger, pain and his feelings towards the injustice of racism.

Analysis 

The structure of the poem is neat and at the start of every stanza there is sort of a title such as “Romantic Notions” and “Alas the noble savage”. The title Noble Savage in itself is contradictory however the majority of the poem is full of stereotypes such as “the noble savage works factory floors,” and “civilized man hunts the concrete jungle,” the first quote is a stereotype of Maori or Pacific Island people and the latter represents white people. The poem portrays Maori and Pacific Island people as not quite human in the second line when the poet says “sub human species”. Whereas in the second stanza white people are portrayed as civilized and even more than human when Strickson-Pua says “becoming a god to himself.” This created a huge contrast between the different nationalities. This poem has a mocking tone to it because of the stereotypes placed within it. The last stanza is important as it has a sense of resignation and at the same time freedom when the poet says “return to the shadows of imagination now gone savage to be noble and free.” This acceptance is like the poet is coming to terms with his cultural identity and it is a powerful ending to the poem. 

Comparison 

I originally thought that the poems were quite similar but upon further inspection I realised they were quite different. The similarities are that they both deal with Oppression within culture and disempowerment of culture. Also both poems have a barbaric tone to them in different ways such as Dinner with the Cannibal is barbaric in its subject matter whereas Noble savage is barbaric in the way that Maori and Pacific Island culture is stereotyped.

Personal Response 

 I feel as if I related more to the first poem, Dinner with the cannibal. Firstly, because I too have felt oppressed by "white" people and secondly, because I found it hard to understand the meaning or what 'Noble Savage' was about. Now when I say oppressed, I don't mean literally oppressed by white people. When I say that I mean metaphorically. I found it really hard to 'fit in' in Fiji when I was constantly being judged by the colour of my skin. If I were to claim that Fiji was my home, I would immediately be put back in my place with a quick remark like, "Whatever Peta, you're white".  So therefore, speaking in a metaphorically sense I have been oppressed by white people but instead by the white in me.