What, like racism and intolerance?
Printable View
If you feel the Govt is doing things you didn't expect them to and not doing things you expected, I can understand why you feel betrayed and outraged. I expected pretty much what they have delivered or tried to deliver, so I am philosophical rather than angry.
Here's where our own particular experiences lead us to different conclusions. For a little more than fifty years, I worked with a very large number of people who did not experience NZ as a fair and equal society.
I certainly interacted with some people who had no interest in helping themselves (except to other people's property), and who devoted a substantial amount of their energy to ripping off the system. Some of them were so badly damaged as people that they needed to be locked up for everyone's protection.
But the overwhelming majority of people on the bottom of the heap are doing their best with the resources and skills they have and the limitations and barriers they experience. I have met very very very few people who don't want to work, to enjoy a loving relationship with family anf friends, and give their kids (if they have any) a better start in life than they themselves had.
I have to wonder whether you actually know any people who have no interest in helping themselves, or whether that is a label you put on people who are different enough to make you uncomfortable. I have often caught myself judging and labelling other people when I haven't understood where they were coming from and why they were behaving the way they were.
I have judged you as racist and ignorant on the basis of some of the things you have posted (for example) - and that is relevant to the next bit about colonisation. You call it a "cop out". It certainly can be. But colonisation did happen, and recognising the legacy it has left and the social conditions it has produced is (IMO - and with multiple examples from all round the world) an important step in designing policies and programs to improve matters.
I have never met anyone working on a policy level who has a "victim mentality", and many of those on the bottom would struggle to spell "colonisation", let alone understand its effects in any way other than as "lived experience" devoid of any analysis.
There are some Maori activists who use "Colonisation" as a club to beat "Pakeha" - and some of the people on the bottom of the heap parrot the word as an excuse with little understanding and not much good faith. I can understand you being resentful about that. I share your piss off - because in that context it isn't helpful.
NZ is certainly an English speaking country, but it is also officially multilingual, with English, Maori, and NZ Sign recognised as official languages for forty years. That ship has sailed. Te Tiriti is legally recognised, and what that means in practice is (and will likely remain for our lifetimes) a site of legal, social, and political contest.
You are quite right. You should be able to say "I don't see any benefit to myself from Maori culture, or religion" without being labelled "racist", or "hater".
But when you say that Maori have nothing to contribute to a modern society because they and their culture are "primitive" you can expect that will be called racist. Because it is.
I think most people want NZ to be a "modern, forward thinking, inclusive country", and recognise that demands "education, skills, good paying jobs, heathcare and a clean heathy environment". It is good that we can agree on that as a goal, but we clearly differ on how to get there.
I don't think we are stuck in a racist hole, and I think you are very wrong in your belief that it has got worse ove the last 40 years. In my view, it has got better.
As far as I can tell from your postings, you want to return to a mythical monocultural past where Pakeha were in posession and control of resources, models of education, employment pathways, the Health and Justice systems, and Local Govt was run on a Pakeha model.
That started to become demographically unsustainable forty years ago and will become increasingly so in the future.
As a Pastafarian (Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster), I attended scores of hui with my Public Servant's hat on. Sure, they opened with a prayer, but it was a cultural rather than religious observance. Parliament does likewise - and yes, you are expected to sit quietly - you don't even have to murmur "Amine" - though it would be appreciated as polite.
Mere kirihimete me te tau hou
And since the Kahawai I caught and ate on Xmas Eve was the best Sashimi I have had in my entire life (even better than fresh bluefin ), I am now off to see if I can catch another!
The thing is colonialisation was a blessing to most Maori. They welcomed it by signing over Sovereignty at the Treaty of Waitaingi. (Not sure if a partnership was every involved, that seems to be a modern construct) The Maori that would otherwise have been eaten or taken into slavery thank the colonialists. I guess it just advanced the evolution of things. Not sure how long the Maori (I am using it as a collective for the tribes that lived in NZ post colonialisation although they did not see themselves as Maori) would have taken to get to a place where slavery and eating of each other was outlawed.
@davflaws: well spoken. Some of my concerns though with the Jacinda governance is IMO, rather radical and unproven. Coming from a Canadian, I am uncomfortable of what Jacinda has done to NZ.
I agree that pretty much all classes of society, they "only want what's best for themselves and their family". Those 'on the bottom of the heap' do want to work and provide for their family but what i've seen in NZ, there's a culture of "let the gov't decide" for their outcome for as long as they are on the benefit, they could not care for anything else. This is an important distinction because there are those who are clearly 'able' to work, simply prefer the easier path. It's systemic, I see that kind of mentality thinking throughout primary school. The children coming from low income families don't have that drive as those from wealthier families. Let me elaborate below in regards to NZ's cultural divide.
“The world is not driven by greed. It’s driven by envy,” Charlie Munger
I had this discussion with my father this morning about NZ's problem of elitism. A lot of that stems from the houses or specifically, 'what' house they live in. A fine example is the street we live on (subdivision built in 2010) I saw most of the houses have changed hands in this period. The parents I speak to at the primary school I volunteer at the PTA. The motives? It' s not because of greed. It's because of envy. They hold education in NZ so much that they are willing to move to a different place just so their children can be zoned to go to that school. They're not viewing the house as a home but rather, a tool to get to a belief that if their children goes to that school, they feel it's their best chance in moving up the ladder or how the UN says, "social mobility". The UN has told the NZ gov't many times how our standard of houses (or old housing stock) are unhealthy and lag far behind the standards of the OECD. If people viewed houses as their very own and kept a LONG TERM view that warm, efficient, home matters more than trying to change houses all the time for a different sake (education?), then our houses would not be in such a mess. Now let's get back to the original reply.
The 2 official languages 'English' & 'Maori' are not implemented in NZ in a way that would be recognised internationally. When you see children at school, who already have a difficult time gasping the basics of English grammar, endure Te Reo (the mixing of Maori into the English literature), then the outcomes are going to be very poor. Let me speak from how Canada addresses their official languages. In Quebec, they have laws that prevent the use of English (in retail advertising, street signage, etc.) and the motive is very clear. The Francophones (those pro French living in Quebec) view the English language as inferior and it taints their culture. As I experienced it growing up in Canada, they say "There's no Canada but a French Canada". But in NZ, we see the mixing of Maori words in the news broadcasts, Maori speeches prior to board commencing room meetings, rename of public places (all that are very unproductive to society). I knew some friends where I lived (in BC) where their parents chose their children to attend "French Immersion" schooling. Where is this "Maori Immersion" schooling? For a population of 5 million, no chance of such a model system happening in NZ. So instead, Jacinda simply imposed Maori into the English language. Keep in mind, in Canada citizens there have the right to choose their language... (you want broadcast media in French? Just tune into CBC Radio (French) or CBC TV (French) where everything including the ads are in French) But not in NZ, we're dumbing the English language and it's apparent at university level entrants that can't form proper essay writing.Quote:
NZ is certainly an English speaking country, but it is also officially multilingual, with English, Maori, and NZ Sign recognised as official languages for forty years. That ship has sailed. Te Tiriti is legally recognised, and what that means in practice is (and will likely remain for our lifetimes) a site of legal, social, and political contest.
But we're not forward thinking on the global front. We're individualistic thinking towards elitism. We have the highest # of charity organisations / capita in the world but almost all of them don't serve their real purpose other than to benefit for their own. We've fallen off at the bottom of the OECD in so many parts ; education, health, pay, or on most part, the erosion of our standard of living.Quote:
I think most people want NZ to be a "modern, forward thinking, inclusive country", and recognise that demands "education, skills, good paying jobs, heathcare and a clean heathy environment". It is good that we can agree on that as a goal, but we clearly differ on how to get there.
Have a look what Canada has done. They've maintained clear separation in culture in language between the English and French and the 1st Nations. They don't elevate a public good asset (like 3 Waters) and have a minority represent the majority. I grew up with many 1st Nation friends in Canada. They don't want any part of gov't pandering to their benefit ; they want to be 'part of Canada' and society on equal merit. This IMO is a sustainable model long term. No gov't interference of transferring public good assets but instead, raise the standards to the minority for the benefit to all. The university I went to had special 1st Nations services for those in need to help out in their studies (financial help, essay writing, etc.) and the university profs support that. Not the otherway around that we're doing in NZ by mixing Maori words with well established latin words in the Biology text books. I could go on and on but I think you get the picture.Quote:
As far as I can tell from your postings, you want to return to a mythical monocultural past where Pakeha were in posession and control of resources, models of education, employment pathways, the Health and Justice systems, and Local Govt was run on a Pakeha model.
That started to become demographically unsustainable forty years ago and will become increasingly so in the future.
Here's our catch of Kahawai 2 days ago: 7 large and 4 smallerQuote:
And since the Kahawai I caught and ate on Xmas Eve was the best Sashimi I have had in my entire life (even better than fresh bluefin ), I am now off to see if I can catch another!
https://i.imgur.com/PcJkUER.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/dXGOhoY.mp4
https://i.imgur.com/Z6tNof1.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/bTzsMxK.jpg
I'm cherishing it now because 1 day, we might not be able to do that as what i've seen in the water shores of Lake Taupo (local Iwi ownership).
That's based on a misunderstanding of the situation at the signing of the treaty, which is not surprising the way NZ history was taught in schools the 1960's.
In 1840 the English settlers were heavily outnumbered by Māori.
Secondly have you ever wondered why the English signed a treaty with Māori when in other countries they colonised they just conquered & subjugated the indigenous populations?
What made NZ different ?
The English who at that time were one of the worlds great military powers, saw that Māori like themselves, were also formidable military strategists well versed in the art of warfare.
The English needed a treaty as much if not more than Māori at that time.
Regarding slavery, remember England only legally abolished slavery ( excluding territories in possession of the East India Company) in 1833 & same with Child Labour prohibiting exploitation of children under 9 years.
And in the America it was much later, December 1865 - 25 years after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi officially outlawed it here.
However, early settlers to NZ speculated that slavery must be extremely rare or non existent by the time they arrived as there was no evidence of it.
England & America are still dealing with their own histories of slavery.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...C5MSZXH5PSYFU/
Richard Prebble: Shuffling the deck chairs but ministers responsible for worst problems likely to stay put
What talent and where ? ;)Quote:
Trailing in the polls, Jacinda Ardern has announced six retirements. She announced that early in the New Year there will be a reshuffle to demonstrate “the excellent talent” in the Labour caucus.
[QUOTE=davflaws;987070]
As far as I can tell from your postings, you want to return to a mythical monocultural past where Pakeha were in posession and control of resources, models of education, employment pathways, the Health and Justice systems, and Local Govt was run on a Pakeha model.
I think it is telling that you conclude this is what I want.
I want the opposite of that, all people in NZ to be treated fairly, one law for all.
Alluding to Maori having "special" rights over everyone else living here, is plain wrong and not a recipe for a harmonious, prosperous future, hence why I say NZ has gone backwards in world rankings the last 40 years as racism is our focus.
GT maybe a minor but she had the ear of many politicians and other bigwigs. I applaud a child or adult, with courage to be insolent, rather than cowed by leaders such as Trump, Johnson and Putin. Do we ever know who someone else really is? They are all widely known, even Jacinda Ardern, so they are famous (or infamous depending on your political standpoint or whether you agree with them.)
The "Notorious RBG" was a Supreme Court Justice who was internationally recognisable, whether or not she was universally liked. The process of her replacement courted international attention as Trump rushed through a conservative replacement, within 45 days of the presidential election. Sure enough this now highly conservative Supreme Court has made strides in repealing Women's rights in the USA, by overturning Roe Vs. Wade.
That is the rub - what was actually "signed over" bearing in mind the doctrine of interpretation contra proferentem.
Perhaps the Maori who ended up with homes confiscated, dead from alcoholism or introduced disease or pestilence may have wished a rewrite of the Treaty too? Sadly too slavery persisted in many parts of the world long after Britain's abolition. And Britain compensated slave owners but not the slaves themselves.