All posts tagged Mana Party

Feed the Kids – unanswered questions

It’s very difficult to get answers on important questions about the Mana led Feed the Kids campaign. A more typical response to queries is this from Martyn Bradbury at The Daily Blog:

And i think you reek of poverty denial and are floundering badly in terms of offering up any actual argument against feeding the poorest children in the poorest schools with your crocodile tears about all the other kids. You are using that as a barrier to progress.

After your baby boomer nostalgia and inflated hysteria over the cost you actually offer nothing to the debate.

Very ironic being accused of “floundering badly in terms of offering up any actual argument”, Bradbury has been short on argument and long on inflated criticisms. He has avoided answering questions, responding instead with abuse.

I have tried to debate on facts but they are hard to come by.

How many hungry kids?

The Feed the Kids fact sheet quotes a common number:

Using official household income statistics, it is estimated that 270,000 (25%) children live in poverty…

That is an often quoted figure, but it’s based on statistics and does not measure how many kids go hungry. And the website makes no attempt to quantify it.

Because of that level of poverty many children go to school without a proper breakfast and lunch.

Frank Macskasy’s Daily Blog post Why Peter Dunne won’t “Feed the Kids” was as vague.

Many are going to school without breakfast or lunch.

That’s a major omission in their argument. The Community Campaign for Food in Schools does put a figure on it:

…an estimated 80,000 children regularly arriving at school hungry…

I don’t know what criteria or research that is based on. It’s a lot of kids, but far less than the poverty figure.

How many kids go to school?

According to School Roll Summary Report: July 2011 there were 2,548 schools with 758,094 enrolled children.

That makes an estimate of 10.5% of hungry children.

How many in decile 1-2 schools?

Decile 1-2 schools are 20% of schools but have only 14.8% of children at school – higher decile schools tend to have have bigger rolls. That’s about 112,000 children.

How many hungry kids in decile 1-2 schools?

I can’t find any breakdown on that, but it must be less than the estimated total of 80,000 hungry kids but it will be higher than the 10.5% (which would be 11,580).

How much is the Feed the Kids policy?

Mana have costed their policy at $100 million per year. That’s $890 per year per child, or $17 per week.

Assuming that less then half of decile 1-2 children are ‘hungry’ that is $34-$50 per week per hungry child.

Is the money best spent across all children who go to the schools? Or would it be better targeted at families who would benefit the most?

Just a start?

A number of people say the policy is just a beginning. Bradbury:

We need universal food schemes like they run in most developed country’s around the world.

Mana Party policy:

MANA policy priorities are to:

Provide healthy meals for all children at school.

If Feed the Kids was extended to all schools the cost would $600-700 million per year.

Is feeding all kids in schools the best way to spend this amount of money?

Is this what parents want?

I think more information and more debate on this is necessary.

Abusing anyone who questions whether the Mana bill is the most sensible approach will condemn the bill to failure, and will discredit the motives of the bill’s supporters.

And that won’t help any kids.

Perhaps there will be some more immediate assistance anyway, this year’s budget will be revealed on Thursday.

For the record – I’m interested in exploring options and discussing/debating the hungry kids and poverty issues. I don’t hate kids. I don’t want poverty to get worse. I don’t want kids to starve. Frank, Martyn et al – how about some mature debate?

More information: Hunger for Learning brochure

 

7 Comments
by Pete George on May 13, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on May 13, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/05/13/feed-the-kids-unanswered-questions/

“Maori Party…dead or dying”

Interesting comments by ‘xtasy’ at The Standard on the Maori and Mana parties and their futures.

The Maori Party generally more or less appears to be a “dead” or “dying” party now.

Founded initially upon Tariana Turia leaving Labour, due to issues with their foreshore and seabed legislation, Sharples and others joined her to establish a party to seek redress from what Labour introduced into law, and a kind of “movement” was started.

The downfall of the Maori Party clearly started by going into a support agreement with a National led government, and to somehow at least passively “agree” to a range of controversial policies, naturally also to amend the law affecting foreshore and seabed matters.

But Maori Party members – repeatedly told by their elected MPs, that the agreement with Key and his National led government is good, necessary and will bring more benefits than being in opposition, have increasingly felt hood-winked.

Harawira brought on the challenges that arose through working with National and its other support parties. An internal rift developed, and Harawira left (or was forced to leave), to form Mana.

Mana is supposed to be a new, inclusive “Left Party”, but most know, it is primarily led and organised by and through Harawira and his closest supporters. Yet he always wishes to emphasize, that Mana stands for the rights of Mana PLUS others, e.g. Pakeha, negatively affected by bad right wing policies.

Maori Party support has dropped and they will struggle to get voted back into Parliament, since Tariana has announced her retreat. Sharples is just too much of an old power loving hanger-on now, as one must seriously question his ability to influence the decisions of the government he supports, and is member of as a Minister. Flavell made a challenge, but Maori Party leaders are too scared now to see it through.

Harawira made comments on National Radio this morning, basically admitting, that Mana is in a way the other Maori Party. He talked about working together, some form of alliance, or something in that direction. He also presented his interest as a “leader” for Maori interests.

There was suddenly not much talk about inclusiveness and Mana being more than just an “alternative Maori Party”.

Looking up their website tells you enough, how it is run and what the priority political emphasis and support base is:
http://mana.net.nz/
http://mana.net.nz/2013/01/is-mana-maori-a-possibility/
http://mana.net.nz/kaupapa-vision/

It appears to be an “inclusive” party so far, through some images and presentation, but when looking closer, it becomes clearer to me, that Mana is primarily a party established by Harawira as “independent” MP for Tai Tokerau, who appears to have seen a need to try and boost membership and support by allowing in Minto, Bradford and a few others, to establish a wider set of leading members. Yet in polls it still struggles to get above the 1 per cent rate.

See also this newspaper article from the Northern Advocate:
http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/news/harawira-id-lead-maori-mana-party/1724449/

So I feel, Harawira now has to come CLEAN, on what is ultimate mission is, where he stands, whether he really wants to be primarily a Maori leader, or to keep working on a more inclusive leftist party.

My suspicions are, he wants to be the former, as that is what he feels more passionate about.

Hence again, my conclusion is that not just is Labour in a situation where it is struggling to find a “new way” as a “left” or at least “left of centre” party, Mana is also about to fall to pieces, given Harawira’s newly revived true aspirations.

Maori Party will soon be “dead”, I would expect, at least no more than a party in a similar situation as ACT is in now.

From The Standard post Maori Party in terminal decline

by Pete George on January 24, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on January 24, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/01/24/maori-party-dead-or-dying/

Maori Mana merge?

An interesting tweet:

Mihingarangi Forbes ‏@Mihi_Forbes
Is there a Mana-Maori Party merger in the wind? Both Harawira and Sharples say it’s a possibility

The Maori Party are finding survival a challenge and their leadership transition is very muddled. Voter support for a Maori dedicated party is diminishing.

Harawira will have discovered that running a one MP party is very hard work and when on the fringe of the political spectrum prospects of gaining significant political power are very limited.

So a re-unification of Harawira and the Maori Party makes some sense.

But it complicates the leadership situation. Harawira would be likely to want to score some sort of leadership role as part of a merger deal, but Pita Sharples seems reluctant to let go and Te Ururoa Flavell seems anxious to further his political ambitions.

With Tariana Turia’s planned retirement that would leave a merge party very male dominant.

 

by Pete George on January 22, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on January 22, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/01/22/maori-mana-merge/

State of the parties

Coming in to the middle year of the term I thought it was worth looking at the state of the parties. Two are in strong positions, they rest have significant problems to address.

National

Not without problems last year but National are still in a strong position, and with virtually half the MPs they should be. And they are polling nearly 50% higheer than their nearest rival. National’s main challenges will be to progress their MOM asset sales programme without too much damage, and to establish a much clearer and stronger vision and mode of operating.

John Key has had his problems but still has very good public support. His health could become an issue.

Labour

After losing the 2008 election Labour are on their second new leader but still show little sign of reinventing, reinvigorating and rebuilding themselves. They are dogged by an old guard dominated caucus split by leadership issues, and the party has problems with factional infighting that involves old guard union interests and old guard activists.

Labour seem to have settled for being a second tier party reliant on the Greens to compete with National.

After promising a difference David Shearer has failed to inspire or excite the party nor the public and looks owned by the old guard. He may learn and transform but that will take a major change in tactics and tact.

Green Party

The second party in positive territory, the Greens have built support well since a successful leadership transition. If they can hold their current level of support to the next election they will have done well. There main problem is a lack of a stong senior partner – if Labour remain weak the public may be wary of a stronger but smaller Green Party pulling a centre-left coalition too far left.

Both co-leaders are doing well in their constituency. Greens even managed a genuine leadership batle where Metiria Turei prevailed over a more extreme left looking Sue Bradford.

NZ First

The Peters Party did well to get back into parliament with a good muster of MPs to make up the numbers for Winston, but the old campaigner is not as sharp or persistent as he was and there isn’t a lot to stand out amongst the rest. If they maintain support they could be a coalition playmaker next time round but at this stage they don’t have a lot to offer a new Government. They have become a grey and protest vote party with little more of note to offer. It’s hard to see NZF surviving when Peters goes.

Maori Party

The Maori Party was already struggling to maintain levels of support and this was complicated when Harawira split away. Now their leadership transition is not going well. They will have difficulty maintaining relevancy, especially if they lose any more seats and if they don’t get a coalition deal next time. Whanau Ora could cause them problems.

Act Party

John Banks is still there but the party is in a precarious state. He isn’t making much impact in his return to parliament. National will be much more careful (or they should be) helping Act in an electorate next elexction, and they will be grateful if Banks fades off the scene. Act have to completely reinvent themselves or they won’t survive past 2014.

United Future

United Future has one of the most experienced and long serving MPs in Peter Dunne but it’s survival is totally reliant on him not retiring, and even if he stands again he will have another battle to retain Ohariu. His party has a sound and palatable set of policies but fails to appeal, so unless electable candidates inherit an opportunity the party is Dunne. The Super review this year may raise some interest in the party.

Mana Party

Hone Harawira should ensure a seat and a presence, and Mana may possibly find a way of picking up an extra seat, but then their only hope is being essential to make up the coalition numbers. How Harawira would deal with being in coalition is like a Maui voyage, totally uncharted territory.

by Pete George on January 22, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on January 22, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/01/22/state-of-the-parties/

Rating the parties for 2012

This is my view of how the parties have performed over the first term, based on an outsider’s media and online impressions as an interested follower of politics, plus some interaction with some MPs via Twitter and emails.

National 5/10

National have attended to the key things steadily and competently – they have continued to manage the economy in an extended period of difficult worldwide conditions. So they get a pass mark overall. But balanced against that are a number of poorly managed issues, especially in education, and difficulties dealing with their MOM asset programme (although that was predictable) and the ongoing Dotcom dealings.

Online – their interaction is sparse. John Key’s ID is used for party PR (I don’t expect him to have time to spend online). Stephen Joyce uses Twitter for diary announcements. Tau Henare is active but it’s mostly trivial. There’s occasional bits and pieces from others. Judith Collins has dipped her toes in Twitter and has seemed to genuinely attempt to engage. Very little email response from National MPs, and they are not visible in the blogosphere.

Maori Party 7/10

The Maori Party keep achieving what they can as a reliable part of the coalition government, but maintaining their independence by voting against National and for their ideals and committed positions. They are not very visible online (Te Ururoa Flavell tweets a bit) nor much in media but that’s not where they need to be to engage with their constituency.

UnitedFuture 7/10

Peter Dunne has a very heavy workload in a one MP party, representing an electorate (in which he is active) and as a minister. As usual does what’s required reliably and industriously, and he is active online, engaging on Twitter and Facebook. He does his parliamentary and electorate jobs capably, but has a challenge reviving his party.

Act 3/10

John Banks had a very difficult reintroduction to MP duties due to excessive media coverage and hasn’t risen above this. He has also been dogged by his Dotcom dealings. Seen as little more than a proxy for National. I acknowledge that after a long absence it was a huge task returning to parliament and setting up office in a gutted party. Much to do for Banks and Act to survive.

Labour 3/10

Labour have continued their disappointing last term non-recovery. They are struggling with an impatient party that feels alientated from caucus, and David Shearer has failed to measure up as a great fresh hope – the measure is heading downwards. A dysfunctional caucus, maverick MPs, poorly prepared policies and botched hit jobs all make 3/10 seen generous.

A number of Labour MPs are active online, some doing well and engaging but with a few notable embarrassments. Their Red Alert blog is ineffective. Some will respond to emails.

They have to deal with major dissent and competing factions, plus some interesting changes to their selection rules. Much to do.

Greens 8/10

The Green Party grown it’s parliamentary footprint, they have grown in stature with Russel Norman’s leadership in particular significantly outshining all other opposition leaders. New MPs have added to their strengths. They have some challenges proving the viability of some of their policies and selling themselves to a wider (non-adoring) audience but have made excellent progress.

Their biggest problem is being seen as a party that wants to ban too much and wants to impose their social ideals on everyone. They should work on addressing these to maintian their gains.

Their MPs and party are the most active online through their blog, Twitter and social media and they will engage, and will respond to emails.

New Zealand First 4/10

Struggling to make a decent impression. Winston Peters tries hard in Parliament and challenges the Government at times but is not the dogged Winston of the past, he often seems dog-tired and battling with motivation.

The rest of the MPs seem to be minor shadows under the wily but wilting wizard.

Not much online, Richard Prosser tweets a bit but little of significance. Early email response have tailed off.

Mana Party 4/10

Harawira mostly works within his own realm and seems to be maintaining a following but only sometimes comes out into the open – sometimes controversially. Little impression in parliament (difficult for a one MP party). He may maintain a niche but could struggle to grow beyond that. Active on Facebook and one of several Twitter accounts is active.

If any parties or MPs want to respond please comment, or email – petedgeorge at gmail.com – and I’ll post it.

by Pete George on November 29, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on November 29, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/11/29/party-review-2012/

Watered down Maori support?

The latest Roy Morgan poll will put the spotlight on National’s performance and how the main parties stack up, but there’s also an interesting minor party move.

Minor party support in polls is very fickle, but there could be a sign on Maori Party and Mana Party support, in the wake of water rights publicity.

  • Maori Party 1.5% – down from 2.5%
  • Mana Party ^ (signifying less than 0.5%) – down from 1.5%

Greens, NZ First and United Future have all gone up, suggesting that people dissatisified with National and Labour are moving their support, but both Maori parties have not picked any of this support up, they have lost support.

Poll results are rounded to 0.5% which equates to 4 poll respondents.

Maori+Mana support dropped from 4% (31-37 people) to 1.5% (10-16 people).

Is this a sign that support for Maori parties has been watered down after publicity on water rights, disunity and a perception some Maori are opportunists trying to get anything they can out of Government?

If nothing else it highlights the fact that Maori/Mana support has dropped from about a quarter of the 16% who identify as Maori to less than an eighth.

by Pete George on October 11, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Issues
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on October 11, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/10/11/watered-down-maori-support/

Labour’s plan – redistribution of wealth

David Clark is Labour’s spokesman on Revenue. He said on his blog yesterday:

My bill to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr was narrowly defeated. But I’m determined to keep up the fight for a fairer distribution of our country’s wealth.

David Clark is rated as an up and coming Labour MP. On live chat on Thursday Duncan Garner rated him:

7:38
Comment From Guest

I thought David Clark’s questioning of the Minister of Small business was the best light hearted moment of the week. ESP. Asking him how he would describe a director who signed a document he didn’t read
7:39
Duncan Garner:

Guest

yes it was hilarious. he’s actually impressive. i rate him. Labour should promote him and demote some of the useless ones. Clark is one to watch. Nice fella too.

And David Shearer said in a party announcement on Wednesday:

This is a tremendous opportunity for David Clark.  As an Eisenhower fellow he will get access to heavyweight thinkers and decision makers, and will make important contacts that will last a lifetime.

In his first year as an MP, David has already marked himself out as one to watch.

In Clark’s weekly Red Alert post, By The Numbers:

1.50 -  the dollar amount National and its coalition partners couldn’t see fit to give to our lowest paid workers as they voted down my member’s Bill.

That’s not just talking about giving workers Government (our) money. It’s also forcing many businesses to increase their costs, to redistribute not ‘wealth’ but scarce resources in very difficult economic times.

Clark is spokesman on Revenue, that’as the Ministry that collects taxes off us.

Finance is the ministry that chooses where to spend and give that money. Labour’s Finance spokesman is David Parker, who has had a close association with David Clark. In a recent speech Parker spoke about fairness too:

We need a breakthrough in our economy.

History shows that the fair distribution of the rewards of work is necessary for a fair and prosperous society.

This is why the UN Declaration of Human Rights gives prominence to freedom of association – the right of workers to join unions so they can better negotiate their share through collective bargaining.

A fair share for workers, higher wages and higher productivity go together.

So it looks like there is a strong emphasis within Labour on “the fair distribution of the rewards of work”.

That means taking more money off some people (employers and higher earners) and giving more money to other people.

And it means forcing businesses to increase their Labour costs whether it makes business sense or not. And if it doesn’t make sense they’ll employ less people. Or close their business.

Increasing the minimum wage substantially more than the current rates that increase with inflation was a major focus of David Clark’s and Labour’s election campaign in 2011.

And Clark has vowed to do the same next election in an interview on Channel 9:

Dunedin Labour MP David Clark has vowed to take his campaign for an increased minimum wage to voters at the next election.

That follows the close defeat last night of his Private Members Bill to raise the wage from $13.50 to $15 an hour.

While Dr Clark says the increase would have had no effect on employment, his claims are not supported by a local employer’s association.

(More details in linked video)

And Labour has other policies designed to redistribute money, including Paid Parental Leave and David Shearer’s own plan to feed children at school – Education (Food in Schools) Amendment Bill.

This is just how the Labour Party and it’s MPs are leaning.

If Labour form a coalition with the Green Party that would put a greater emphasis on redistribution of money. Metiria Turei is currently promoting giving Working For Families payments to beneficiaries.

And if the Mana Party is also needed to get Labour’s numbers that will further push the redistribution, especially if Sue Bradford and John Minto become crucual votes.

by Pete George on September 22, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on September 22, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/09/22/labours-plan-redistribution-of-wealth/

The Mana plantation owner

There’s quite a bit more to what Hone Harawira has said than a bit of abuse. From a Newstalk ZB interview: Harawira on his ‘house n****r’ comments

Marwick: Now the attendance or non-attendance of both National Party Maori MPs and the Maori Party MPs at the hui organised by King Tuheitia seems to have ruffled your feathers somewhat. What is your objection to them not attending?

Harawira: No, actually I’m not objecting to them not attending, I’m objecting to the fact that John Key is telling them they can’t.

The fact of the matter is, people are jumping up and down about a phrase I used, right, but if people want me to stop using terms from Alabama in the 1950s then they should tell the Prime Minister to stop acting like a plantation owner from Alabama in the 1950s.

There’s a number of Maori MPs in his party, two of whom are high ranking ministers, they have their own mana, and they have their own standing in Maori society, and he should show them the respect that they deserve and allow them to make their own decision as to whether or not they’ll attend the national hui on water.

Marwick:: Do you think it was right to use such a pejorative term thought, because I know if I used it people would probably thump me and they’d be right to do so.

Harawira: Ah look Felix, you have to live with the things you say and I’m comfortable with the things I say.

My comment was about how the way in which the Prime Minister showed an appalling lack of understanding of the mana that his Maori MPs have. It’s an insult to them, (they should) make up their own mind.

What’s the point of having ministers that you want to rank highly in your cabinet, if you’re going to do all their thinking for them, particularly Maori ones.

And understand this, they’re not being invited as National Party MPs, they’re not being invited as Cabinet Ministers. It’s a national hui on water for Maori. It’s not an Iwi Leaders hui, it’s not a claimants hui, it’s not a Maori Council hui. It’s an open hui for Maori. They are Maori. They should come.

Marwick: Why should they?

Harawira: Because the issues that are going to be discussed there will probably lead to some of the most important decisions that Maoridom will make in my lifetime, and your lifetime for that matter. That’s why. It is that important.

Water, and the status of water to Maori and to the nation are at stake here, and it’s important that everybody’s point of view is heard. They bring a different point of view to the table, like everybody else. They should come, and John Key should not be telling them not to.

Marwick: What impact then do you think this hui could have on government policy, given the position that the Government’s already put out there?

Harawira: I’m really not sure. All I want to see is that Maori see water as an important issue, to make a decision on, that they set a timeframe on which that decision can be made with as wide a participation as possible from Maori people, and that they not be locked into a timeframe gerrymandered by the Prime Minister to facilitate the sale of assets that most New Zealanders are opposed to.

Aside from important issues like:

  • what 1950′s Alabama has got to do with slavery or New Zealand?
  • why “some of the most important decisions that Maoridom will make in my lifetime” will come from a hui organised at very short notice
  • if water is such an important issue for the country why is the hui so maori dominated
  • on what basis Harawira speaks for the hui
  • how representative of Maori as a whole the hui will be
  • how representative of the whole country the hui will be

…there’s a key point to take from this.

Harawira’s main objection regarding the National Party Maori MPs seems to be that “the fact that John Key is telling them they can’t“.

So he says “They should come, and John Key should not be telling them not to.“

As Harawira says, “they have their own mana“. Maybe they can decide for themselves what they do and who they listen to. Why should National Party MPs take their orders from the Mana plantation owner?

by Pete George on September 8, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Issues, Politics
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on September 8, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/09/08/the-mana-plantation-owner/

Interviews with Hone Harawira

Felix Marwick’s interview with Hone Harawira yesterday:

Harawira on his ‘house n****r’ comments

Chief political reporter Felix Marwick talks to Mana Movement leader Hone Harawira about his use of the term ‘house niggers’ in a Facebook post in relation to Maori MPs and the issue of a national hui on water rights

Online report: Harawira denies calling MPs ‘n*****s’

TV One on Breakfast (video):

‘I didn’t call anyone a house n*****’ – Harawira

Mana Party leader Hone Harawira says he “didn’t call anybody a house n*****”, and New Zealand needs to “mature”.

News report: I have ‘nothing to apologise’ for – Harawira

TV3 Firstline (report and video):

Hone claims win for Sharples’ hui u-turn video

Mana Party leader Hone Harawira says his “house nigger” comment on Facebook yesterday led to the Maori Party’s u-turn on attending a hui on water ownership.

Despite admitting his choice of words was questionable, Mr Harawira is claiming victory for convincing Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples to attend.

Campbell Live (Thursday – report and video)

Mana Party leader Hone Harawira says his ‘N-word’ slur was never directed at his former Maori Party colleagues.

by Pete George on September 7, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Issues, Politics
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on September 7, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/09/07/interviews-with-hone-harawira/

Explaining ‘house nigger’

One of Hone Harawira’s Facebook supporters has explained their take on the term:

Alvina Ropata Edwards ‎’The house nigger, as defined by Malcolm X, is the slave who imagines himself to be thought of as kin by his master because they live in the same house.’ ‘A black person that sucks up to the white man for benefits.

From slave times where the house nigga would get to work inside the house as opposed to picking cotton out in the hot sun’.

A black person that does their best to please white people even if it means disowning their own racial identity.

Alvina’s explanation of ‘house nigger’ simply confirms that it has been used here in a very derogatory way.

MPs on parliamentary wages can hardly be called slaves.

Maori Party MPs have more Maori voter support than Mana, and three times the number of electorate MPs. They happen to be representing and working for different Maori, so Hone is abusing many Maori who simply see and do things differently.

That’s a bit stink.

Urban dictionary: house nigger – a black person that does their best to please white people even if it means disowning their own racial identity.

Wikipedia: House Negro – (also House Nigger) is a pejorative term for a black person, used to compare someone to a house slave of a slave owner from the historic period of legal slavery in the US. The term comes from a speech, Message to the Grass Roots, given by African American activist Malcolm X, where he explains that during slavery, there were two kinds of slaves: “house Negroes,” who worked in the master’s house and “field Negroes,” who performed the manual labor outside.

Malcom X: The House Negro vs The Field Negro

by Pete George on September 6, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Issues, Politics
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on September 6, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/09/06/explaining-house-nigger/

« Older Posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 74 other followers