How much racism is there in New Zealand? Thriving?

“In spite of the image we like to portray to the world, New Zealand is as racist as the South of the United States ever was.”

That’s a highly charged statement. There is likely to be some degree of racism in just about every country, and there is certainly some racism in New Zealand. Is it reasonable to describe racism as ‘thriving’?

Tom O’Connor (Waikato Times) thinks so: Racism thriving in New Zealand

In spite of the image we like to portray to the world, New Zealand is as racist as the South of the United States ever was. Perhaps not as violent as Alabama of the 1960s but, beneath a very thin veneer of civilisation, we denigrate those who are different to the Pākehā majority no matter how familiar and benign those differences might be.

“We denigrate” is a sweeping generalisation, and “the Pākehā majority” is not defined.

Most Pākehā New Zealanders, however, will stoutly declare their belief in and support for racial equality, but nonetheless will refuse to surrender their subtle privileges and all the policies that make them possible. This can be seen as New Age racism, in which the majority Pākehā community have failed to actively address real racial inequality simply to maintain the comfortable racial status quo.

Riddled with questionable statements – “Most Pākehā New Zealanders”, “will stoutly declare their belief”, “will refuse”, “to surrender their subtle privileges”, “the majority Pākehā community have failed”, “to maintain the comfortable racial status quo”.

This is the covert, subtle and damaging racism of underlying prejudice and unspoken patronising assumption that ethnicity on its own dictates the role we allow or tolerate others to play in society.

I think that most of use just chug along in our lives. I could be claimed that we ‘allow and tolerate” many things by not taking an active interest or playing an active part in them.

Every ethnic group in New Zealand, including Pākehā, feels the sting of racism from time to time, but it is minority groups, and anything about them, which are subjected to more than majority groups.

Some degree of racism is probably present anywhere. We have seen it in New Zealand at Government level, for example against Chinese (immigrant tax), Germans and Japanese during the World wars, the dawn raids against Pacific Islanders in the 1970s.

Opponents to the teaching of Māori have suggested in letters to various editors up and down the country that the language of today is nothing like original Māori and that there is no value in teaching a “bastardised” version.

I haven’t seen any of those letters, let alone up and down the country. I have seen people criticising compulsory teaching of the Māori in schools, and I have also seen concerns expressed about teaching a standardised Māori language that doesn’t cater for varying dialects and the evolution of language.

Every language has regional and societal differences, probably none more so than English. I’m not aware of any campaigns to insist that just one ‘pure’ for of English is taught and used. I presume Shakespeare still features in ‘English’ in education, and while his language has had a significant impact on the English language we have moved on from that style of use.

Opponents to the teaching of the Land Wars history have come up with equally vague and illogical reasons. Some have made ill-informed and ridiculous comparisons between the Land Wars of the 1860s and the intertribal Musket Wars 30 years earlier.

I think that New Zealand history was badly neglected in schools, especially prominent events like the various New Zealand wars  – which were complicated, as some Māori tribes sided with the English colonisers, fighting for their own advantage against rival tribes and in some cases used foreign soldiers and arms to settle old scores.

Our land wars not only resulted in the death of many innocent people, the British also destroyed long-established Māori agriculture, almost destroyed an entire culture, including a language, and confiscated millions of acres of land. This was done by the British in breach of British law.

There’s no doubt that Māori suffered the most as a result of the wars here, and they also suffered badly from introduced diseases – but they also eventually benefited to a degree from new tools and technologies.

Nor was cannibalism unique to Māori. The last recorded cannibals in the UK, the clan of Alexander Bean, were executed after a 25-year reign of terror at about the same time that Captain Cook landed in New Zealand.

I’m not sure why that paragraph was popped in.

Lurking behind racism in New Zealand is the clear fact that Pākehā will no longer be the majority here in a few short years and some are hanging on to the old comfortable privilege with desperation. They could save themselves a lot of discomfort by learning the facts of our history, learning to speak Māori and becoming part of the new, inclusive New Zealand which is just around the corner.

That doesdn’t sound inclusive, that sounds like trying to tell everyone how they should change.

To me an “inclusive New Zealand” should accept that those who want to learn and live Māori culture should have that opportunity, and encouraging it to an extent is fine.

But being ‘inclusive’ should not mean the imposition of one culture and the rejection of others. One of the strengths of new Zealand is of the general tolerance of very diverse cultures. We have become a melting pot of many cultures, and ingredients to that pot continue to be added.

Better acceptance of Māori culture is fair enough and is an overdue righting of pas suppression, but that should not be at the exclusion of the other cultural influences we have all had, including those with Māori whakapapa.

Whether racism in New Zealand should be described as thriving or not, it won’t be addressed by introducing different types of racism. An emerging form of racism is the putting down of people who don’t wish to embrace te reo and Māori culture as much as some seem to want and insist.

This includes attempts to shut down speakers and speech deemed by some to be offensive (often no more than having a different opinion) or racist when trying to debate important issues we need to find ways of dealing with.

Racism will thrive if, in attempting to reduce racism, people with different opinions or  cultural preferences are labelled as racist.

104 Comments

  1. chrism56

     /  September 23, 2018

    The article on the Stuff website is not labelled opinion, nor is there any note underneath to give the background of the author. That means they want it taken as “news”. As such, it is a very good example of why newspaper readership is plummeting.

    • PartisanZ

       /  September 23, 2018

      Crikey … I have thought of very little “news” as being anything other than opinion for years!

      I take it as read that it’s opinion …

      These histories of Aotearoa New Zealand, the mainstream academic and the Right Brigade “revisionist” are both ‘opinion’ to a significant degree …

      I imagine there’s probably Maori people in Aotearoa NZ for whom their history is: Pakeha came … They wiped out my kainga … My tupuna was the only survivor …

      • PartisanZ

         /  September 23, 2018

        News as we now know it is almost entirely either ‘media release’ or opinion …

      • Corky

         /  September 23, 2018

        ”I imagine there’s probably Maori people in Aotearoa NZ for whom their history is: Pakeha came … They wiped out my kainga … My tupuna was the only survivor …”

        Also opinion..especially when treaty claims are being filed….and especially when other tribes wiped out numerous hapu up and down the country. I guess genocide doesn’t count..because Maori didn’t know what that word meant.

        • PartisanZ

           /  September 23, 2018

          But isn’t the tribal warfare between them Corky? Their business?

          This whole topic here is about Maori/Pakeha relations, isn’t it?

          Stay on track son …

          • Corky

             /  September 23, 2018

            Well, that’s a fair point..and it isn’t. You are asking us to judge one on certain criteria..but suspend that criteria for the other.

      • Griff.

         /  September 23, 2018

        I imagine there’s probably Maori people in Aotearoa NZ for whom their history is: Pakeha came … They wiped out my kainga … My tupuna was the only survivor …

        You can imagine all you like
        I will give you a fact .
        For many Maori people in Aotearoa NZ their history is: Pakeha Other maori came … They wiped out my kainga … My tupuna was the only survivor .

        Number of Maori who died in intertribal wars 1800 to 1840.
        Between 20,000 and 50,000.
        Total dead both Maori and European in the land wars 1840 to 1900.
        Less than 3,000.

        TE TANGI MO TE IKA-A-BANGA-NUI.

        Tera te marama ka mahuta i te pae,
        E Pewa!1 moe-roa; Kati ra te moe,
        Maranga ki runga,
        Ka tu taua ki runga te parepare
        Kia rokohanga atu Te Kau-whaka-tau,2
        Te nui o ‘Tiwaka.3
        Tenei to pu, ko Wehi-ki-te-rangi4
        Tenei to pu, Te-Ata-o-kaihihi.4
        Kei apo to hoa,
        Ka tau korua, ki whare-kinatu.
        To matua nui ki a Tama-na-tina
        Mana e wliakarewa te kakau o te hoe,
        Ka manu ki te Tapuae-nuku.5
        Ka wara kei muri, tui ana te toto
        Te whana i te rangi,
        Paenga rangatira, ki runga o Kaiwaka.
        Ka whakarauikatia ratou ki reira.

        Tautika te haere,6
        Ki runga ki te kaipuke,
        Mo Koriwhai.
        Mo Moremu-nui,7
        Ka u ra, ka koa ia kei riri poka hou,
        Ho hau tangi kino
        Na Tanm-na-rangi.
        page 347 Ka mate mai te utu,
        Te puke o Ihe,
        E kai ana ahau, te roro o Hongi.
        I haere koutou i te Tane o roto
        I te riri whatiwhati
        I roto Waimako, te moenga o te iwi e.
        http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-SmiMaor-t1-body-d59.html

        I own the site of the kumara cultivations described in the link .

        One of the Maori (Nga-Puhi) accounts of the return of the Hokianga contingent says: “After Te Ika-a-ranga-nui we went to plunder the kumara cultivations of Te Uri-o-Hau, and discovered a wahi-tapu, or burial ground, with a dead body on it. Hupe cut up the body and brought it to our camp, for which he was censured by Patu-one and Nene. It was then cooked by Hupe and eaten, because the body when living had eaten some of his relatives.

        This is a maori account not the white mans.

        • PartisanZ

           /  September 23, 2018

          So … ?

          There were inter-tribal wars prior to Te Tiriti o Waitangi …

          There were wars between Maori and the Crown after Te Tiriti o Waitangi …

          Hardly the same thing, are they?

          • Griff.

             /  September 24, 2018

            Yes one was maori culture in all its glory.
            The other was a series of police actions on those who refused to submit to the laws of this land .
            Many maori have no idea about what happened between 1800 and 1840.
            I have sat here and heard a nga puhi ask where is the local marae ?
            When I said Her ancestors slaughtered every one that called this place home she was shocked and did not believe her tribes history.
            What you did to your self’s is an order of magnitude worse than anything we have done since . You take our culture use it to attack us and want your culture to have more say.
            The best thing that happened to Maori was te treaty and the resulting pax britannica. Modern maori are focused on complaining about the peace actions against those who failed to submit to the rule of law. Before 1840 they had no law the result was inter tribal genocidal warfare on a NZ wide scale.
            You can not have a conversation about the treaty without The preceding 40 years being well known and acknowledged as the reason for the treaty’s existence. Comments such as yours above ignore what Maori culture was and how they resolved disputes a few short years before the British enforced civilized behavour on you.

            • Blazer

               /  September 24, 2018

              makings of a good debate here..you and PZ…getting in the popcorn.

    • sorethumb

       /  September 23, 2018

      It is labelled opinion right at the very top.

  2. PartisanZ

     /  September 23, 2018

    “But being ‘inclusive’ should not mean the imposition of one culture and the rejection of others.”

    Not like it did the imposition of British/Pakeha culture and the rejection of Maori … kore?

    • Gezza

       /  September 23, 2018

      Exactly.

    • sorethumb

       /  September 23, 2018

      Maori culture is beyond critique. As Jan Thomas showed us. It is no match for the arguments derived from the classicists. As they push it on us people will point out it’s flaws.

  3. Corky

     /  September 23, 2018

    ”Lurking behind racism in New Zealand is the clear fact that Pākehā will no longer be the majority here in a few short years and some are hanging on to the old comfortable privilege with desperation. ”

    Two points: It would be news to many Pakeha that they are desperately hanging on to the last remnants of perceived privilege. Maybe they should stop working so hard; sit down and meditate on how lucky they are to be European.

    Not being the majority race in NZ isn’t a European problem….it’s a Maori/ European problem.
    Maori have more to lose. New Zealanders have more to lose. For better of worse Maori and Pakeha have created a collective New Zealand…an understanding. That is under threat from non profiled immigration.

  4. PartisanZ

     /  September 23, 2018

    ” … becoming part of the new, inclusive [Aotearoa] New Zealand which is just around the corner.”

    YES !!!

    • Gerrit

       /  September 23, 2018

      Only if we have social democracy where ones vote weighs the same as another’s. Not one where 15% have the same voting powers, through a document way past it use by date, as the 85%.

      Democracy cannot work if we keep the treaty as writ.

      Somehow a new constitution has to written to replace the treaty. That constitution will need to give the same voting powers to ALL New Zealanders irrespective of race, privilege, or birth advantage.

  5. Gerrit

     /  September 23, 2018

    Problem for Maori is that third wave colonist buy even less into the guilt trips, promoted in regards Maori separatism and privileged pandering, than the second wave colonists.

    This is Maori’s last stand before both the first and second wave colonists are integrated into one multicultural entity where the treaty and Maori guilt trips are consigned to history.

    I would suggest that many second wave colonists would be happy to have this integration with third wave colonists and have once and for all got rid of the guilt trips expounded first wave colonist.

    The future is not the treaty or Maori as a separate entity. It will be a social democrat entity where all votes are equal.

    One cannot have one person one equal vote social democracy, with separatism for 15% of the voters with equal voting rights to the remaining 85% .

  6. robertguyton

     /  September 23, 2018

    Tom O’Connor’s spot on with his article. Your claim that his work is “riddled with questionable statements” is a laugh, Pete, given your post is riddled with questionable statements.

    “Most Pākehā New Zealanders, however, will stoutly declare their belief in and support for racial equality, but nonetheless will refuse to surrender their subtle privileges and all the policies that make them possible.” That’s dead right, Tom. The thing about those “subtle privileges” is that they’re…subtle. And of course, no one likes to give up their privileges. It’s easier to refuse to “see” them. Nothing to give up, then, is there!

    • Corky

       /  September 23, 2018

      Help me out here, Robert. Can you list these subtle privileges?

      • robertguyton

         /  September 23, 2018

        It’s a privilege to be able to drive a car and not be stopped by police. That privilege is enjoyed by pakeha to a greater degree than it is by Maori. That’s the first of a very long series, Corky. Want more?

        • Corky

           /  September 23, 2018

          That’s a fail, Robert. Ever stopped to think police can’t miss pulling a Maori driver up

          Let’s see:

          1- Kids not restrained. Lot’s of tangi testify to that. It’s a problem with one member of my whanau.

          2- No warrant..outstanding warrant..no rego…no license.

          3- Not wearing safety belt.

          4- Worn tyres.

          Why wouldn’t you pull Maori up? It’s not that European aren’t guilty of these offences. It’s just Maori are way more guilty most of the time.

          I also notice another group of citizens police pick on…feral pakeha youth.

          Do I want more? Sure do.

          • robertguyton

             /  September 23, 2018

            You’ve not countered my example in any meaningful way, Corky. How about; if you’re born into a Maori family you are statistically more likely to: suffer health issues such as asthma. A person born into a Pakeha family is less likely to suffer these issues. I expect you’ll do as you’ve done above; miss the point by a mile, but whaddamIgonnado?

            • Corky

               /  September 23, 2018

              The point I perceive you are trying to make is that everyone should be treated equally before the law, and in life, regardless of what any profile says about them as human beings. Regardless of any profile that points to statistically greater odds of a persons race being a factor in crime or whatever.

              Pakeha don’t suffer this supposed subtle profiling therefore in all areas of life they will receive privileges and treatment above what a Maori would.
              After all the system is euro-centric..it advantages Europeans.

              The problem with that – it harks back to the socialist concept of egalitarianism- jack is as good as his master. Not true..life is unfair Robert. Sometimes very unfair.

              I could give you numerous examples where I have and haven’t received these subtle privileges you speak of.

              What you forget to mention is Maori give each other preferential treatment to the disadvantage of pakeha when the occasion permits.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 23, 2018

              So, Corky – racial profiling, unconscious or otherwise, isn’t a thing here in NZ?

        • Pink David

           /  September 23, 2018

          “It’s a privilege to be able to drive a car and not be stopped by police. ”

          • Corky

             /  September 23, 2018

            Common sense for all coloured folk. 😄

            • Pink David

               /  September 23, 2018

              I don’t think common sense is a privilege of only white people. The victim narrative people like Robert love to propagate creates great harm.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 23, 2018

              Individual choice, eh! Use your commonsense. Mind you, if the culture you have been born into has a reputation, you have to use more commonsense, take more care than those whose culture doesn’t carry that same baggage. Therefore, one is privileged, the other disadvantaged. My point.

            • Gezza

               /  September 23, 2018

              The gangs do more than anything else to foster negative perceptions of Maori now, imo.

            • Corky

               /  September 23, 2018

              You are still stuck in that ”fairness” paradigm , Robert.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 23, 2018

              More the “privilege” paradigm, Corky. My point is, some of us are advantaged in significant ways. It’s just a fact, so far as I can see, not a qualitative judgement.

            • Corky

               /  September 23, 2018

              Ok..we are getting nowhere here. Carry on with your list of perceived advantages…I will snooker off that.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 23, 2018

              Why carry on? Nothing was learned from my first two tries.

            • Corky

               /  September 23, 2018

              Apart from your skill at obfuscation. Carry on and allow me to BALANCE your bias.

          • Gezza

             /  September 23, 2018

            I was interested in the Legend at the end, i.e:

            In 1961, Martin Luther King Jr. said in a church in St Louis,
            “Negroes are 10 percent of the city of St. Louis and are responsible for 58 percent of its crimes. We have to face that. And we have to do something about our moral standards. We know there are many things wrong in the white world but there are many things wrong in the black world too. We can’t keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do ourselves.”

            Note, Rev King was a Republican with a different set of morays than the black civil rights activists of today.

            (I think they meant mōrēs – the latin word for customs or norms).

            • Corky

               /  September 23, 2018

              That would go down like a lead balloon with an anvil attached, nowdays.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  September 23, 2018

              I hope that they meant mores and not, er, morays.

              Mos/moris/mores has a number of meanings and shades of meaning.

            • Gezza

               /  September 23, 2018

              Yes, clearly from the context they did mean mores, which was imported into English centuries ago with the meaning above. But whoever wrote that had the Latin pronunciation in their mind.

  7. Griff.

     /  September 23, 2018

    Pākehā
    If I read that I know what follows is racist .
    I am not a Pākehā We are all New Zealanders .
    If you insist on labeling me with a racist term you are the racist.

    • I examined this and decided I have no problem with the Pākehā description.

      https://yournz.org/2014/02/05/the-soft-and-loud-of-pakeha-2/

      • Gerrit

         /  September 23, 2018

        To cover all second and third wave colonists, the more accurate description is Tauiwi.

        Pakeha only cover white second wave European colonist and leaves out the third wave brown indian/asian colonists.

        Tauiwi is the proper “label” for non-Maori New Zealander’s.

        Pakeha is to narrow a “label” in regards the complex ethnic and multicultural 85%.

      • patupaiarehe

         /  September 23, 2018

        There was no ‘white privilege’ where I grew up. We ‘honkeys’ were outnumbered ten to one by the early settlers, and were reminded of this regularly. Sometimes it wasn’t much fun being part of the minority, but one positive aspect was that I became better than most non-maori at speaking Te Reo, and pronouncing it properly.
        My understanding is that Maori didn’t refer to themselves as such before the British arrived. The term ‘Maori’ means ‘usual, normal’, and ‘Pakeha’ means ‘outsider, foreigner’.
        I was born here, so object to being labelled an outsider. Hence the name ‘Patupaiarehe’, which means ‘God like beings who resemble men’. I am Maori, and Patupaiarehe is my iwi. 😛

  8. robertguyton

     /  September 23, 2018

    What does it say on the census papers? Should Māori be used as a label? Which culture should decide labels?

    • artcroft

       /  September 23, 2018

      The majority culture. Because its a democracy Robert.

      • robertguyton

         /  September 23, 2018

        Might is Right?
        Conscious majorities accomodate their minority groups…if they value peace. Foolish majorities say, “democracy – numbers trump all else”. That’s thick.

        • Griff.

           /  September 23, 2018

          ROFL .
          How nice
          Threats of violence if you dont get your way

        • artcroft

           /  September 23, 2018

          No! A small powerful elite (such as the left dreams of being) is not allowed to control every aspect of society i.e North Korea. We all get an equal vote. We have achieved equality. And this equality must be defended against incursions against free speech and special pleading from the left.

          • robertguyton

             /  September 23, 2018

            Oppressed minorities will cause disruption. Managing their needs, especially any feelings of injustice or being marginalised, benefits everyone.

            • Gezza

               /  September 23, 2018

              It depends on the minority. There problems for example now in “managing the needs of Middle Eastern Muslims” because some of their customs, needs or demands for aspects of Sharia to apply to them in preference to local law conflict with those of the resident native Christian and secular populations. And some Muslim countries are firmly against managing the needs of any non-Muslims.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 23, 2018

              Then they’ll foster resentment and that often ends badly. I know that, when I find myself in a minority group being monstered by a majority, I feel honour-bound to right that wrong, or at least restore balance. Don’t you?

            • Gezza

               /  September 23, 2018

              Sure. So you support the US bombing the shit out Muslim countries?

            • Gezza

               /  September 23, 2018

              *of

            • Gezza

               /  September 23, 2018

              when I find myself in a minority group being monstered by a majority, I feel honour-bound to right that wrong, or at least restore balance. Don’t you?
              Mostly I try to see the other’s point of view and understand where the parties differ over a problem that arises. Sometimes that means identifying with & supporting one side or the other; other times it doesn’t matter to me, I’m not vitally affected by the issue, I just see the different perspectives.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 23, 2018

              “Bombing the shit out of ..”‘ are you serious? Have I somehow indicated that I’d support that anywhere, for any reason???

            • robertguyton

               /  September 23, 2018

              I’m thinking less about the issue, more about the balance of power, whether process has been followed, whether all parties have had their say, whether there is bias in the governance, whether there is conflict of interest, that sort of carry on.

            • Gezza

               /  September 23, 2018

              “Bombing the shit out of ..”‘ are you serious?
              No.

            • Gezza

               /  September 23, 2018

              Re your other reply just above, I’m thinking about those things too. That’s all part of seeing the other perspectives. Where it becomes critical is where the issue is one where an important decision must be made. both parties seek opposing outcomes, and compromise is not possible because there are clashes of values, expectations and conflicted interests.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 23, 2018

              “Where it becomes critical is where the issue is one where an important decision must be made. both parties seek opposing outcomes, and compromise is not possible because there are clashes of values, expectations and conflicted interests.”
              Indeed, and I love that stuff. That’s why I enjoy being on the regional council. We do this stuff all of the time, though the dominant party isn’t always aware of the things you describe. I am though. They don’t need to be so nuanced. They are accustomed to getting their way 🙂

    • I object to the label of ‘European’.

      • Griff.

         /  September 23, 2018

        For decades I have crossed out other terms and written in New Zealander on official documents.
        Same term as encompasses any other resident of this land no matter where they or their ancestors come from.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  September 23, 2018

        I dislike Caucasian even more, Pete !!!

      • Corky

         /  September 23, 2018

        Seems like you can’t win. I use European because I have found many find the term pakeha offensive. Bureaucrats find the term New Zealander very offensive.

    • Gerrit

       /  September 23, 2018

      Summon up neatly by one commentator

      “Supporters of social justice politics are in for a very rude awakening if they think the growing non-white population in New Zealand is going to move this country in a direction they like.”

      • Blazer

         /  September 23, 2018

        what crystal ball was this commentator using that gives his comment so much..authority in your eyes?

        • Gerrit

           /  September 23, 2018

          You saying the statement is…wrong?

          • Blazer

             /  September 23, 2018

            I’m saying ..’Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future’..Niels Bohr

            • Gerrit

               /  September 23, 2018

              I can predict that…squirrel sightings are going to be a bigger part of a blazing future.

            • Blazer

               /  September 23, 2018

              you’re on fire today Gerrit…better get someone to…put you…out!

    • sorethumb

       /  September 23, 2018

      Kind of criminal that these opinion pieces are just fired at us and off they go smirking.

  9. Zedd

     /  September 23, 2018

    ‘Te Tiriti o Waitangi’ was supposed to bring Maori & Pakeha together.. but it often sounds like many see it as divisive; ‘giving Maori extra privilege that non-maori, often do not get’ BUT one thing is overlooked.. Maori were in this whenua first & they are the ‘first nation of Aotearoa’ prior to ‘Invasion’

    The interesting issue; there are likely more ‘immigrants’ (Indians, Asians, European & Sth Africans etc.) now in this country than those who identify as ‘Maori’ (15-20% ?).. & yet the talk is still around ‘Maori & Pakeha’.. I doubt most ‘recent arrivals’ identify as Pakeha & have no claim to be Maori.

    There is another word, I recently discovered which I choose to identify as; ‘TauIwi’ (other tribes) 🙂

    So is Aotearoa/NZ a nation, full of racism… “HELL YES !” 😦

    I still remember (1970s) the ‘kiwi catch-cry’.. “If you dont like it here.. then piss off back where you came from !!”

    • Zedd

       /  September 23, 2018

      I remember a TV interview, when I was in Australia.. they asked a Aboriginal man ‘What do you think of all the recent Asian Immigrants ?’
      (that was creating ‘issues’ with many white Aussies)

      He replied ‘Brilliant.. now these white bastards, knows what it feels like to be INVADED !!” 😀

      • Pink David

         /  September 23, 2018

        “He replied ‘Brilliant.. now these white bastards, knows what it feels like to be INVADED”

        Isn’t that just reinforcing the point hat they are being invaded and the outcome will not be good? Given that opinion, those white people are absolutely justified to be fearful of immigration and to act to stop more of that immigration.

        • PartisanZ

           /  September 23, 2018

          Given that opinion, those white people would be absolutely justified to be fearful of immigration if the recent immigrants were the same as they are … and simultaneously morally obliged to act to mitigate the effects of their own immigration on Aboriginal people …

          Stopping the immigration isn’t necessarily justified at all … It’s a choice …

  10. Gezza

     /  September 23, 2018

    I want to see Maori iwi and Maori culture and Te Reo Maori and Maori art & carving and Marae thriving in New Zealand & Maori grievances and land claims resolved to the degree that is possible, with proper redress, return, compensation, and formal apologies that recognise the wrongs and harms caused. This is actually what happens with Treaty Settlements.

    Part of the problem is that there are now two competing notions of fairness. The Treaty of Waitangi and the Tribunal have created the accepted notion of it having created a partnership with non-Maori & that is now common official usage for the relationship.

    Some Maori argue that means Maori should have a 50% say in the governance of the country. Because that is fair, because of how the Treaty should be interpreted.

    However the country is chock full of Pakeha non-Maori of European ancestry such as myself whose ancestors were themselves born here 4 or even more generations ago. We descendants are now natives of this land ourselves. We come from countries where it would be considered absurd for, say, the descendants of the original tribes like the Atrebates. Belgae. Cantiaci .Catuvellauni, Dobunni, Dumnonii, Cornovii, Durotriges, & Regnenses to demand more rights than the Anglo-Saxons and Danes who colonised them.

    The majority of New Zealand’s population is of European descent (74 percent), with the Māori being the largest minority (14.9 percent), followed by Asians (11.8 percent) and non-Māori Pacific Islanders (7.4 percent). With those percentages, what is considered fair by the majority I would think is for everybody to have an equal say in how the country is run.

    This is why this issue is so complicated.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  September 23, 2018

      It’s not complicated. You either have a universal equal franchise called democracy or a racist de facto constitution.

      • Gezza

         /  September 23, 2018

        We need to first redress the many genuine treaty grievances & restore lost lands and mana to Maori in those areas where it was lost, including their culture. When that process is completed a simple universal franchise is what we will ultimately have. Maori language and culture deserve protection and promotion.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  September 23, 2018

          I would leave it to Maori to decide whether their language and culture deserve to survive.

          Unless you want to treat them as museum artifacts?

          • Gezza

             /  September 23, 2018

            You are taking too literal an interpretation. Their position should be such that those who wish to preserve it are constitutionally supported to do so.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  September 24, 2018

              No, those are weasel words. People are constitutionally supported to maintain their language and culture when they are free as individuals to do so but you wish to use the coercive power of the state to force other people to support that and them.

            • Gezza

               /  September 24, 2018

              you wish to use the coercive power of the state to force other people to support that and them

              Absolutely. It’s a question of how minimally & benignly that coercive power should be exercised. The coercive power of the state was previously used to try and suppress & even destroy it. So long as the population in general is supportive of the language and culture being considered too valuable to lose, and something to be cherished as unique to this land, then it is hardly likely to be perceived as coercion.

              I don’t think those were weasel words. I think yours are extravagant and overblown words.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  September 24, 2018

              If other individuals want to support those things they will do so without coercion. Your argument that coercive powers were used wrongly previously is self-defeating. The people who misused them then were as deluded in thinking they were doing good as you are now.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 24, 2018

              Other individuals can call on their Government to support the promotion of the language. That Government might legislate, if they believe that’s they only way to achieve that which their constituents asked them to do.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  September 24, 2018

              That is bizarrely stupid, Robert. You are saying that one constituent is entitled to have the law force another to support the first simply because they’ve asked for it. Welcome to random corruption courtesy of the Greens.

            • Gezza

               /  September 24, 2018

              weasel words
              noun
              words or statements that are intentionally ambiguous or misleading.
              – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
              Weasel words those, Al.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 24, 2018

              You surely know your mustelids, Gezza!

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  September 24, 2018

              Nope, it is corruption just as I described it since it is the unprincipled forced diversion of money and effort to favour a minority.

            • Gezza

               /  September 24, 2018

              Your free market is of course highly coercive.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  September 24, 2018

              Really? The need to eat is coercive. Free markets offer wide choices and opportunities. Alternatives are generally prescriptive.

        • PartisanZ

           /  September 23, 2018

          Why simple universal franchise?

          They say ‘economics’, buying and selling things, supply and demand is the same as “voting with your dollar” … but we don’t all have the same amount of dollars, do we?

          But we could base vote allocations on wealth, couldn’t we? Earned wealth? Inherited wealth? Wealth buys political influence anyhow. We could just make it explicit …

          Maybe Te Tiriti o Waitangi guarantees Maori two votes instead of one? Tino rangatiratanga and “all the rights of British citizens”?

          Maybe we should have one vote for each generation we’ve lived here in Aotearoa Niu Tireni?

          There’s lots of possibilities … How about random allocation of votes via the Lotto computer? Or perhaps random selection of citizen MPs as a proportion of all MPs?

          Simple universal franchise is something that might have to change if we are to progress beyond simple majority rule? [aka, ‘the tyranny of the majority’ dangers inherent in simple majority rule]

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  September 23, 2018

            Most progress beyond simple majority rule has led to catastrophes of various horrific kinds.

            The tyranny of the majority is best mitigated by constitutional protection of individual rights snd freedoms.

            • PartisanZ

               /  September 23, 2018

              … and a lot else besides Alan … notably deliberative lawmaking processes … without which the best protection for individual rights might easily be powerless …

    • sorethumb

       /  September 23, 2018

      Gezza how do you get around the fact that you only need one ancestor to be Maori plus temperament affects expectations?

      • Gezza

         /  September 23, 2018

        Gezza how do you get around the fact that you only need one ancestor to be Maori
        Basically, personally, I don’t give a rat’s arse

        plus temperament affects expectations
        Righto. Thanks for that. Temperament affects all sorts of things.

        • sorethumb

           /  September 23, 2018

          I’ll put you down as Pongolian?

          • Gezza

             /  September 23, 2018

            Don’t even know what that word means.
            Best just not to put me down. I don’t take it well. Few people do.

  11. sorethumb

     /  September 23, 2018

    One thing with all this “NZ is racist as”…a. the Race Relations Office has failed and b. the public do not believe NZ has had “immense benefit ” from diversity as Burke wass certain we would?