How immigrant am I?

Picking up on comments made yesterday…

I grew up very Kiwi, or at least a variety of one. I was born and grew up in rural South island, not far from a small town. My view of the world was enclosed by mountain ranges with occasional glimpses beyond, but mostly not far beyond. I saw the wider world via books and Movietone News (that dude had a very strange accent).

I was born in New Zealand so I’m 0% immigrant.

My parents were born in New Zealand (Dunedin and Queenstown) so I’m 0% immigrant.

Three of my grandparents came from the other side of the world in the 1920s so I’m 75% immigrant.

Seven of my great grandparents came from the other side of the world so I’m 87.5% immigrant.

100% of my 16 great great grandparents were immigrants – one of my great great grandmothers immigrated to Canterbury when she was 13 with her parents in 1852.

New Zealand as it is today is based on immigrants. The immigrants over the past 200 years have also to a significant degree integrated and merged with the indigenous immigrants.

There are a wide variety of cultural practices in New Zealand.

Accents have changed significantly in my lifetime. Newer immigrants may be more noticeable, but each generation of immigrants has brought changes on the various Kiwi accents in use today.

I’m 100% Kiwi/New Zealander and I’m 100% immigrant, merged into an ever evolving mix of cultures.

Leave a comment

75 Comments

  1. Joe Bloggs

     /  15th September 2016

    Tau toko, Pete. Well put. Scratch our skin and we all bleed red eh.

    I’ve been thinking recently about ‘migrant men’ because the very term “migrant men” is a particularly political classification.

    The figure of the migrant man is really interesting: in Aotearoa NZ, the figure’s predominantly European, but that’s not the image of the migrant man that’s pulled up. European men have been here long enough to be able to define the idea of the white man here as taken-for-granted. So it’s not the taken-for-granted that appears, it’s the Other that appears.

    Reply
  2. This is retrogressive thinking which raises the spectre of anachronistic moralising.

    As sociologist Frank Furedi in a recent Spiked podcast put it, “What has changed in the recent period is that open borders have acquired a very new meaning. Migration is seen as not just an attitude of the movement of people to improve themselves, but as a means of bringing about change through SOCIAL ENGINEERING. People in the economic culture of the political elites regard migrants as an instrument of bringing change about, as a way of shaping their society and being less accountable to the people that already live there. In numerous instances immigration is being seen as a way of altering the social and cultural dynamic of society. That creates a situation where migrants become a medium through which accountability and national sovereignty, and the idea of sovereignty, becomes undermined.”

    One has to look beyond one’s own self-referential world-view to realise what is going on today. The worst part of having an understanding of the deeper political processes at work is that those who manage and control discourse find it so easy to manipulate the nation’s projection of its world –view. It’s only when people vote that these elites realise just how out of touch they are with the nation they ostensibly control. Thus we have Brexit, Trump, Le Pen, Wilders, Petry, etc.

    Right-wing populism is perhaps the easiest of political trends to manage since it is non-ideological and wants nothing more than a continuation of present processes, with perhaps an incremental improvement in living conditions. The failure of modern states to manage this is a hideous indictment on the current ideologies infecting the civilised world, which is heading for a state of perpetual decline like never before.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  15th September 2016

      so you believe that the ‘illuminati(for want of better word),run the world then?

      Reply
      • Oh dear. The world is so much bigger and deeper than you, clearly, and by your own account, are aware of.

        I’m talking of Weltanschauungen and the processes by which these can be changed. You have to consider the Frankfurt School and Gramsci’s concept of neo-Marxist education management, what Dutschke called ‘the long march through the institutions’. This process is secular, however, as Susan George points out when she refers to neo-liberal economics in her November 2015 LSE lecture Shadow Sovereigns: how global corporations are seizing power.

        This isn’t a discussion about beliefs, of which I have none. It’s about the effects of ideological change, observable through empirical evidence. Thinking deeper comes easier as one gets older, Blazer.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  15th September 2016

          ‘Thinking deeper comes easier as one gets older’….don’t kid yourself old chap…there is no excuse for academic wankery,ever….’ Ockham’s razor
          the principle (attributed to William of Occam) that in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary. The principle is often invoked to defend reductionism or nominalism.’

          Reply
      • Bill

         /  15th September 2016

        @Blazer and do you not? Hell I’m a Structural engineer and am still trying to come to grips with the fact that two planes, brought down three of the largest buildings in New York. Not only bringing them down, but within their own building imprints.Believe me this defies all known logic, a David Copperfield moment.

        I think Edward Bernays, would be very proud of his legacy.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  15th September 2016

          I’ll take Bernays over Gramsci any day!

          Reply
          • Bill

             /  15th September 2016

            Both tools of the ruling elite, just as Darwinism gave birth to Eugenics. Ideology is just a word,when there’s no power to implement.

            Reply
    • Corky

       /  15th September 2016

      “This is retrogressive thinking which raises the spectre of anachronistic moralising.”

      I had to tap out after reading the above. I have no chance.

      Reply
      • Sorry. It’s hard to put concepts into words.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  15th September 2016

          The problem is it often takes longer to find the words to put into the concepts to then understand the concepts.

          Reply
        • Corky

           /  15th September 2016

          The problem is with me…not you.

          Reply
          • “The problem is with me…not you.”
            No, your original comment was valid. Rereading myself I would have reworded it or better still left it out.

            Reply
      • Blazer

         /  15th September 2016

        once you get past that you run into…’I’m talking of Weltanschauungen and the processes by which these can be changed. You have to consider the Frankfurt School and Gramsci’s concept of neo-Marxist education management, what Dutschke called ‘the long march through the institutions’. ‘……easily digestable!A smoke screen to give a sense of gravitas to….complete wankery.

        Reply
        • If you do not understand the effect Gramsci’s writings have had on the education system you will not comprehend the modern world. Most of your comments indicate that this is the case.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  15th September 2016

            modern world!!You were quoting a treaty from the 17th century earlier.Gramsci is one of many theorists.I think you’re over rating him to bolster your own tenuous position.

            Reply
  3. Gezza

     /  15th September 2016

    National identity has been the defining factor in the struggles for independence from Empires & development of countries as nations, and has mostly been based around shared characteristics such as ethnicity, language, history & culture. It is too early to tell whether nations which are now made up of many cultures & ethnicities & languages will eventually face similar demands for independence from their component groups, but there’s evidence assimilation and common language helps to forge a continuing sense of national identity.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  15th September 2016

      ‘ It is too early to tell whether nations which are now made up of many cultures & ethnicities & ……..’….how long will it take then?…case study..the Lebanese have been in Sydney since the 1950’s,the younger generations born there have real aussie accents,and on the surface are typical australians.Scratch that surface and you find a fierce tribal pride that over rides ‘nationalism’.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  15th September 2016

        How long will it take? Well there’s no set time. Look at any, or several, of the Empires, how they formed, and how they broke up. Look at Yugoslavia. It can take centuries, or decades.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  15th September 2016

          Don’t really understand why my comment & subsequent answer to Blazer’s query deserved a downtick. They’re just facts. I’d be interested to know what’s wrong with them?

          Reply
          • Not me, Gezza, indeed you raise an unaddressed issue – that fragmentation and consolidation of societies may in fact be an interminably irresolvable cyclical process.

            Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  15th September 2016

            It just means you’ve annoyed at least four idiots, Gezza. Think of them as notches on your belt.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  15th September 2016

              Hard to say Al. I might just have annoyed 1 idiot who wants to revisit their annoyance a few times.

            • Nick Ellis

               /  15th September 2016

              I didn’t do it either but maybe it’s because Nations aren’t ALL built around “shared characteristics such as ethnicity, language, history & culture”, a lot are arbitrary borders drawn by the victors of warfare.

            • Gezza

               /  15th September 2016

              True. Empires tend to do that especially. That’s why eventually a lot of them have broken up into separate countries/nations once the Empire lets them or they’ve fought & won wars to create separate states for themselves based on their shared language & customs or whatever else they feel makes them separate from the country or state they’re part of. It’s still happpening today in Sudan, for example, and with the Kurds in Iraq, Syria & Turkey. In the end I reckon the Kurds will finally get their own state, but they’ll have to fight for it.

            • Nick Ellis

               /  15th September 2016

              If Sykes and Picot had spent some effort dividing up the Ottoman Empire then the Kurds would have been living in Kurdville since 1916, and the Sunni in Sunniville etc etc, and there’d be no refugee problems.

            • Gezza

               /  15th September 2016

              I don’t know if the Sunnis would all end up living in Sunniville. 80% of Muslims are Sunni worldwide and many seem to be quite happy living in their separate states as not all Sunnis are the same race, ethnicity, culture etc.

            • Nick Ellis

               /  15th September 2016

              Wordlwide is a strawman. We’re only talking about where their strongholds were in the Ottoman Empire. I’m going to take a punt and say those territories wouldn’t overlap with the sunni and the kurds.

            • Gezza

               /  15th September 2016

              Wasn’t meant as a strawman. I can’t remember how extensive the Ottoman Empire was. But if you are talking about just the areas divied up by Sykes & Picot, the people living there, given the choice, probably would have created states based on Sectarian and/or Ethnic boundaries. I’m not sure how the map would look now though because even in those territories back then there was probably a mix of sects, tribes, and languages/or dialects. The region will continue to try & sort itself into more logically organised states and/ or autonomous regions for some time into the future I suspect.

            • Nick Ellis

               /  15th September 2016

            • Nick Ellis

               /  15th September 2016

              Sorry that’s an older map. The darker red on this one is the Empire at 1914.

            • Gezza

               /  15th September 2016

              The one I’d like to see is one that showed how the religions & ethicities or larger tribal affiliations were spread in the region.

      • traveller

         /  15th September 2016

        Likewise the men boy “Turkish” immigrants in the Netherlands claiming themselves to be “Erdogan’s” Warriors. It is very hard to shake that you will always primarily identify with wherever you were born and the culture within which you were raised. In many cases the societies an immigrant comes differ greatly with the host country they find themselves in. It is accepted that adult immigrants will always feel the homeland pull, but problems for the host society and immigrants alike, are caused when, for whatever reason, the children born to these immigrants fail to integrate, assimilate and see themselves as apart. A host country can, and does, alter as other cultures enter their sphere, but it can only be superficial until numbers of new entrants are such that their cultural mores impose themselves through numbers, or are perceived as better and embraced by the hosts.

        http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/710204/Migrant-youths-stigmatised-terrorise-local-community-shocking-footage

        As for Pete expressing his immigrantness and of the land concurrently I thought of this and this is how Insee myself.

        1). A New Zealander
        2) A member of an extended family who, while expressing itself primarily as New Zealanders, regards itself as having a unique and particular character and values. At the core of these are:

        *The supporting of all free speech and association.
        *The supporting of a democratic and secular state where any and all religious/secular/humanist expression is respected equally, and no religious or ethnic group should perceive themselves as a higher societal value.

        I believe many Kiwis hold fast to these tenets, and I also believe people should be excluded should they not be able to subjugate their religious or ideological beliefs to meet them.

        Reply
    • Indeed, just as the Westphalian Peace Treaty ended thirty years of religious war by establishing nations based on the very principles you mention. Now we go backwards, disestablishing nations and their borders at the same time that religious tensions are increasing. Too few are paying attention to the lessons of history.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  15th September 2016

        the agenda of the ‘few’ is globalisation ,sovereigntry is not a concern.

        Reply
        • Certainly true of the economic neo-liberals, which takes care of the political Right. The Left is a different issue and complicated by the extreme Left actively wanting revolution. Since to their great disappointment the working class turned out to be not revolutionary at all once they got improved working conditions, heterogeneous immigration was found to work quite well as substitute, as you note in your reference to Australian Lebanese.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  15th September 2016

            if you mean by a ‘revolution’ the extreme left want to reform the present private banking monopoly,you have a point.

            Reply
            • “if you mean by a ‘revolution’ the extreme left want to reform the present private banking monopoly,you have a point.”

              The extreme Left wants to reform the entire capitalist system via revolution, not just banking. This is where sharia finance comes in, for the extreme Left, as a tactic to disrupt the present system. But the long term goal is to destroy it.

      • In having “advanced” to a secular, largely godless state, I find immigration that threatens this advancement to be regressive. I will not accept that people can come to any developed Western country and isolate themselves and their children under the cloak of religious separation and a sense of superiority. I cannot countenance that any non-believer will be preached about and regarded as heathen/infidel and inferior. This circumstance, one that is developing very quickly in Europe, is so retrograde that It is an insult to medievalism to call it medieval.

        I will tolerate any elf or goblin worshipper as long as they give my atheism the same status and respect they do their own ethereal creatures, and that they accord the same tolerance and respect to Christopher Hitchens and Dawkins as they give weight to their “holy” scriptures.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  15th September 2016

          so how well do you think european settlers have assimilated with the tangata whenua?

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  15th September 2016

            From my perspective, not very well. Eventually they were able to immigrate in such overwhelming numbers their culture effectively supplanted that of the original inhabitants. That’s usually what happens historically speaking.

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  15th September 2016

              what traveller describes as …’the cloak of religious separation and a sense of superiority.’….oh the irony…the sun must have been hot in….Bali!

            • Gezza

               /  15th September 2016

              Exactly, well, more or less. The lesson of history is if you don’t want that to happen, and you can prevent it, you should.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  15th September 2016

              Unless you wanted to remain in the Stone Age why on earth do you regret that the advanced culture overtook the primitive one?

              You don’t really of course.

            • “New Zealand’s Parliament follows centuries-old traditions from Westminster in Britain — the ‘mother’ of parliaments in the Commonwealth.” Really … the ‘mother’ of parliaments?

              When did this begin? It is difficult to ascertain an exact date. ” … in 1264, Montfort summoned the first parliament in English history without any prior royal authorisation. The archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls and barons were summoned, as were two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough.”

              However the true foundation of the modern Westminster system appears to come much later, subsequent to The Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and “After the restoration of the monarchy under Charles II, and the subsequent Glorious Revolution of 1688, the supremacy of Parliament was a settled principle and all future English and later British sovereigns were restricted to the role of constitutional monarchs with limited executive authority.”

              What were Maori doing around the time of these important pakeha ‘dates’? Well, apparently, being accomplished navigators and astronomers – a long time before Europeans – they were travelling vast distances by sea, purposefully and at will, and, around 1280CE they initially settled Aotearoa.

              It seems at least possible, if not highly likely, that the Polynesian antecedents of Maori already had a marae ‘forum’ system by then – the 13th century – effectively a ‘parliament’ – since the entymology of the word “marae” traces back “to Eastern Oceanic *malaqe with the meaning “open, cleared space used as meeting-place or ceremonial place”. [And please don’t tell me there is no ceremony in New Zealand’s present-day Westminster Parliament!]

              Even at its very latest, disregarding reputable entymology [and probably archeology], the marae in Aotearoa will have developed during the 15th Century when “East Polynesian” style culture changed “to one more recognisably “classical” Māori”

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81ori_culture

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marae

              https://www.parliament.nz/en/get-involved/features-pre-2016/document/00NZPHomeNews201410131/roles-and-regalia-at-the-opening-of-parliament

              IMHO this is a combination of Christian Church and Masonic Lodge, so
              perhaps Westminster is the “Mother” of all parliaments after all?

      • Blazer

         /  15th September 2016

        I can simplify things for you Kit,re the ‘lessons of history’…..forget it,human nature never changes.

        Reply
        • “human nature never changes.” Very true, but the mistake that’s being made is that the West’s world view is that it can be changed, or at least ignored. This is perhaps the biggest lesson of history unlearned.

          Reply
      • Nick Ellis

         /  15th September 2016

        ” …by establishing nations based on the very principles you mention. Now we go backwards, disestablishing nations and their borders…”
        Aren’t the Migrants that are “disestablishing nations and their borders” fleeing shitstorms that were created by the arbitrary division of conquered Empires into nation states?

        Reply
        • That’s certainly how Islamic State, al Qaeda and many other extremist Muslims see it. You too, huh?

          Reply
          • Nick Ellis

             /  15th September 2016

            Are you trying to imply something there?

            Is it just a coincidence that so many conflicts have erupted in the nations carved out at the ends of the two world wars? Nations that cut through religious and tribal zones. Nations that have forced groups that have ancient rivalries together under a flag and a government.
            Yugoslavia, Iran , Iraq, Syria, Israel, Palestine…..
            You don’t have to be an Islamic Radical to see that.

            Reply
            • And your solution to establishing order after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire would be what?

            • Nick Ellis

               /  15th September 2016

              Not drawing the borders with a ruler for a start.

              “For the period from the end of the Crusades up until the arrival of the European powers in the 19th Century, and despite the region’s vibrant trading culture, the different sects effectively lived separately from each other.
              But the thinking behind Sykes-Picot did not translate into practice. That meant the newly created borders did not correspond to the actual sectarian, tribal, or ethnic distinctions on the ground.”

              http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25299553

              If the borders gave these sects, tribes and ethnicities their natural lands, and honoured the promises made to ” the Arabs in the 1910s – that if they rebelled against the Ottomans, the fall of that empire would bring them independence.”

            • “Not drawing the borders with a ruler for a start.”

              Not the answer I was after. What were the competing options? I suspect this was the best available solution to a critical need, based on the manifest success of the European nation state model. It has worked in the Arab peninsula, including Jordan, to this day with little conflict, pace Yemen. But the likelihood is that Syria and Iraq were too fragmented to manage in any other coherent way, given the need for a government that the rest of the world could deal with. The biggest bugbear is the uncompromising nature of Islam and the region’s inability to overcome its tribalism. It seems likely to me that at the time that these would not have been seen as major objections since an autonomous state would have managed these issues in the same way European states had solved their own problems. Little did they know, but for myself I wouldn’t blame them. I would blame the necessity and consequence of tyranny to rule Islamic lands. If you have an absolutist religion that insists on the rule of Allah over men the result will be unending revolt as modernism challenges fundamentalism.

              Thanks for the link.

            • Nick Ellis

               /  15th September 2016

              Jordan is a monarchy, which makes it a little different. Yemen is in the middle of a civil war and you talk of Syria and Iraq as if they existed before Sykes-Picot. As I said above somewhere, if the lines where drawn with more care the Sunni, Shite and Kurds would have had their own fiefdoms and not have been thrown together piecemeal.

  4. Zedd

     /  15th September 2016

    I’m a immigrant (from UK) BUT, I do also hold a NZ passport. I do agree, there is really only ‘one race.. the HUMAN race’ BUT i do not support:

    1) NWO, run by ‘shape-shifting Lizards’ (a few powerful families) 😀
    2) one world Govt. controlled from the Vatican ?!
    3) mass surveillance.. in the guise of protecting us all from ongoing ‘Terrorism’ (real or imagined)
    4) WARS.. run purely for financial gain ! 😦

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  15th September 2016

      Then you’re not the type of immigrant we want….go home. Leave your NZ passport and eye patches at the counter on your way out. Haere Ra.

      Reply
    • Were I to sit on an immigration application board ( would that there were such an instrument), I’d enquire carefully into a person’s proclivity towards paranoia.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  15th September 2016

        Alas, that isn’t possible. Zedd is no more extreme than many people, like those who believe that barcodes are the mark of the beast and that the time is near when it will be impossible to do financial transactions unless one has a card with a little piece of one’s flesh embedded in it-but as the people who say the second is imminent have been saying it for as long as I can remember hearing such things (they have probably been saying it since money cards were invented in ? ) I am not worried that it will happen.

        Then there are the faceless controllers of world finance….the Vatican is given credit for much more power than it could possibly have, and even I, brought up as an Ulster Protestant and racially Jewish can’t believe all that I read about that.

        The conspiracy theories are the real shape-changing lizards. (admires this spontaneous witticism)

        Reply
  5. Alan Wilkinson

     /  15th September 2016

    I am not an immigrant. I was born here and my parents were born here. I was for a couple of years an immigrant to Canada. Although my daughter was born there she is not an immigrant to NZ either.

    Children of immigrants born here are not immigrants. It is up to our society and educational systems to ensure that the values they are taught are consistent with our laws and constitutional principles.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  15th September 2016

      I understand if you do not want to answer Al…but…why did Canada …deport you?

      Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  15th September 2016

      They didn’t but my father was ill and I was able to get a good job in the first wave of big computers to hit NZ universities so we came home.

      Reply
      • Bill

         /  15th September 2016

        So you understand well the reasons for immigration Al, Canada obviously was a move to achieve an end at the time. Nz has a long history of isolating immigrants well before super cities ,as the Chinese of the Otago gold fields soon discovered, looking different wasn’t a big plus to living here. Still isn’t.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  15th September 2016

          I am an immgrants’ child and an immigrant’s widow.

          Immigrants tend to be isolated everywhere if they’re unlucky; I certainly was made to feel like an outsider when I lived in Belgium. Not by everyone, of course, but by many. There wasn’t any sense of goodwill much of the time. I am not alone in being maddened by the pretended incomprehension when I spoke French to a native speaker. ‘Ou est la gare, s’il vous plait ?’ It’s all but impossible to mispronounce that so that it’s unintelligible. And one can tell that the person does understand, they’re just being bloody-minded.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  15th September 2016

            And no, Blazer, we were not deported.

            Reply
          • Blazer

             /  15th September 2016

            probably of Dutch extraction,who spoke a flemish dialect.

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  15th September 2016

              Mais non. These were French people or Walloons who spoke French in that part of Belgium. We were in Flanders, where Flemish IS spoken, of course, but travelled out of it.

              It was mainly the French speakers who were so rude-and I have heard this from many other people & read it many times. Les grenouilles sont tres nationalistic. Yes, that is a sweeping generalisation. But look at the burkini persecution.

              That Gallic shrug is the most contemptuous gesture in the world.

            • Gezza

               /  15th September 2016

              “That Gallic shrug is the most contemptuous gesture in the world.”

              You must have lived a sheltered life if you truly think that.

  6. Jeeves

     /  15th September 2016

    The flip side of immigration is emigration.

    I’m 100% emigrant, because I left everything behind, never to see it again, and the sorrow of separation within me is strong and ever-present.
    But not quite 100% immigrant, because I came here with a Kiwi, have lived within Kiwi family and tangata whenua, have produced Kiwi children, will die here, and future generations of my bloodline (if they come to be, of course) will refer to me as the first in a line of kiwis.

    I know many emigrants, who are definitely immigrants also -but they come with their own, settle among their own, and we are different to each other. Same value, I hope, but different.

    Reply
  7. Jeeves

     /  15th September 2016

    And conversely, I guess… my sons are automatically citizens of my mother country( at least that’s what my government told me). By birthright, no less. And it turns out too, that their mother is also, through their birth.

    So as half Irish/Kiwi (actually even their kiwi side is a bit Irish), were they to arrive back (emigrate?) to the mother country as full citizens, with full rights to be there as bona fide sons of Eire… with their secular, egalitarian, south Pacific/Samoan/Kiwi/Maori attitude and cultural influences – should there be any responsibility to suppress those attributes in favour of the more ‘authentic’ homogenous cultural norms within Eire- or in fact as bona fide Irishmen- would they have a responsibility to make sure that they use their differences to improve/enhance the society they move to??

    In other words- do my sons have any responsibility to ASSIMILATE into Irish life?
    And what if they were… wait for it…… very brown, and very Muslim?
    Would this make it more so, or no different?

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  15th September 2016

      As I am a pink person and have an English name, I would not look like an immigrant, whereas a brown or black Muslim would, even though there’s a chance that their forebears were here long before mine were. As an immigrants’ child, one tends to be a betwixt and between. My maiden name was an Irish one, common enough there but not here. I swore that I’d marry the first man who asked me, as long as he had an ordinary name. I didn’t, my ex-partner had a name as common as Johnson,but we weren’t married- my late husband had a name that sounds common but has six possible spellings. Sigh. Still having to spell it.

      My bridesmaids were a Maori and a Kiwi Chinese who looks unmistakably Chinese. Her family has been here for generations, yet she is ‘Chinese’ and I am not referred to as an Ulsterwoman.

      I don’t know how common the word Chiwi is-I saw it on an estate agent’s notice board and thought it very funny. We could have Somiwis, Indiwis, Musiwis, Vietniwis…..Ulstiwi sounds a bit odd.

      Reply
  8. Zedd

     /  15th September 2016

    @corky

    you remind me of the ‘old school narrow minded kiwis’ I remembered when I arrived from 1950-70s.. “If you dont like it here, well go back where you came from !”

    That really means : If your not like us narrow minded sods, we dont want to know you. maybe you should pull you head out ? 😀

    btw; I think ALL people in Aotearoa/NZ are ‘immigrants’ if you look back far enough.. “WAKE UP”

    Reply
  9. Zedd

     /  15th September 2016

    heres another old fav: ‘The Immigrant’ by Neil Sedaka

    Harbours open their arms to the young searching foreigners..
    come to live in the light of the beacon of Liberty.. (USA)

    .. to find they’ve closed the door, they dont want you anymore..’ :/ 😦

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s