Pakeha - do you like this name?

[Mikkel]

I am proud to be a New Zealander; its a cool little country, warts 'n all.

Nothing wrong with the country. But in which way does your being born here infer any credit upon your person?

I've spent years practicing to be a New Zealander, 28.8 years in total! My mate down the road at the fish and chip shop has been a New Zealander for 34 years (he's from china originally - and still doesn't get the slang) and he's proud too.

Considering that, how does the fact that racism is alive and well in NZ make you feel?

Arrogance only comes when its at other people's expense or when your pride is totally ignorant of the other options.

How can pride ever come at the expense of others? It's a mental state - how you come about it is irrelevant in regards to what pride is.

Why is it bad to be proud of something you are part of?

I didn't say bad - I merely said I don't understand why people would ever feel proud of something they haven't done anything for. For the majority of the NZ-born population of NZ, being a Kiwi is not even something they have chosen for themselves.

You're looking at it all wrong! You're proud of a nice painting you made, you can also be proud of something you're a part of; like, sayyyyyyy little ol' New Zealand for instance...

I didn't say you couldn't be proud of it - I just said it makes no sense to be(to me anyway). At least not unless you go above and beyond the call of duty and actively choose to work for the cause of being part of New Zealand.

If you look at the definitions of pride and proud there are definitely some negative overtones.

[Grahameeboy]

... but you're doing your best to make up for that?

You what?......................

[mister.koz]

Nothing wrong with the country. But in which way does your being born here infer any credit upon your person?

I don't want credit, i am just proud to be a new zealander.

Considering that, how does the fact that racism is alive and well in NZ make you feel?

Racism is crap regardless of country, although blood/heritage contributes allot to your upbringing it doesn't make you who you are.

How can pride ever come at the expense of others? It's a mental state - how you come about it is irrelevant in regards to what pride is.

Pride becomes arrogance when people use it to project themselves as something better than everyone else - i.e. i am proud to be -whatever- and your not so your crap.

I didn't say bad - I merely said I don't understand why people would ever feel proud of something they haven't done anything for. For the majority of the NZ-born population of NZ, being a Kiwi is not even something they have chosen for themselves.

You can be proud to be part of something, you don't have to contribute allot or even choose to be part of it.

I didn't say you couldn't be proud of it - I just said it makes no sense to be(to me anyway). At least not unless you go above and beyond the call of duty and actively choose to work for the cause of being part of New Zealand.

Define the cause of new zealand?

If you look at the definitions of pride and proud there are definitely some negative overtones.

There's negative undertones to everything, you have proven that you can extract negative and complicated undertones out of very simple things. Have a gold star and be smug.

[wbks]

I didn't say you couldn't be proud of it - I just said it makes no sense to be(to me anyway). At least not unless you go above and beyond the call of duty and actively choose to work for the cause of being part of New Zealand.

If you look at the definitions of pride and proud there are definitely some negative overtones.

So you contribute to NZ? Everyone who has lived in NZ has contributed in some way. Is it really so hard to see why someone would be proud that they are part of a group of people that have accomplished some great things
. What is "the cause", specifically? It is kind of a nice thought that everyone who hasn't contributed, or has a negative balance in contribution be considered not a kiwi, and shipped out of the country... Maybe everyone who doesn't contribute a quarter of their produce they grow to the govt should be jailed, starting monday...

[idleidolidyll]

Ya know what, I don't care what Maori claim; I am Tangata Whenua. I was born here and have no other place that I call home. Call me Pakeha if you wish but never deny that I originate from this land and never claim that I am less than another or should have less rights just because they have a few more generations than me. BTW: Maori immigration to NZ didn't start and end 1500 or 1000 years ago; it was a constant and there may even be Maori who have less generations in NZ than Pakeha.

So, Maori didn't originate here and neither did my people; the only difference is the number of generations.

I don't buy into the apartheid wording often used and I reject all rights that are assigned to only one group of people.

If Maori claim that they can take, for instance, extra food from the sea because they are having a meeting or celebration, then ALL Kiwis should be given the same right.

That said, I DO support all genuine Maori land claims (if their land was stolen, they should be compensated or have the land returned) and as mentioned, I expect that the direct beneficiaries should pay the money or land back not all taxpayers equally. That might mean I do pay a little in taxes but it also means that some of the original Pakeha families should pay a lot more. As for claims that the land is worth more now than when they sold it (if legitimately); Nah! I can't go get extra money on my old house because it has since risen in value under new ownership and I reject the idea that a single ethnic group can do so.

[Grahameeboy]

Ya know what, I don't care what Maori claim; I am Tangata Whenua. I was born here and have no other place that I call home. Call me Pakeha if you wish but never deny that I originate from this land and never claim that I am less than another or should have less rights just because they have a few more generations than me. BTW: Maori immigration to NZ didn't start and end 1500 or 1000 years ago; it was a constant and there may even be Maori who have less generations in NZ than Pakeha.

So, Maori didn't originate here and neither did my people; the only difference is the number of generations.

I don't buy into the apartheid wording often used and I reject all rights that are assigned to only one group of people.

If Maori claim that they can take, for instance, extra food from the sea because they are having a meeting or celebration, then ALL Kiwis should be given the same right.

That said, I DO support all genuine Maori land claims (if their land was stolen, they should be compensated or have the land returned) and as mentioned, I expect that the direct beneficiaries should pay the money or land back not all taxpayers equally. That might mean I do pay a little in taxes but it also means that some of the original Pakeha families should pay a lot more. As for claims that the land is worth more now than when they sold it (if legitimately); Nah! I can't go get extra money on my old house because it has since risen in value under new ownership and I reject the idea that a single ethnic group can do so.

+1 Sir

Do you consider that the land that was part of the treaty was stolen or that it was purchased, swapped or whatever..just the meaning of the agreement is an issue..if that makes sense.

[idleidolidyll]

+1 Sir

Do you consider that the land that was part of the treaty was stolen or that it was purchased, swapped or whatever..just the meaning of the agreement is an issue..if that makes sense.

You can't even begin to go down that road until you clarify the treaty itself.

There are 2 main versions and I hold that some Maori did not understand the English translation. However, I also hold that some did given that Maori had already been travelling to Western nations for decades before it was signed (many Maori Chiefs sent emissaries to find out all about the outside world) and some understood the western concept of ownership.

So what does that mean? It means that there are some truly genuine claims and some that may not be. It means that there were probably rip offs on both sides and crooks on both sides.

Chuck the whole thing out the window and start again: all people are equal BUT any land claims are still arguable in a court of law

[Grahameeboy]

Chuck the whole thing out the window and start again: all people are equal BUT any land claims are still arguable in a court of law

Great idea.............hardest thing though is to let go which I suspect is an issue....