The haka does make me cringe, every time. But then I'm a first generation kiwi, and Maoritanga was pretty much invisible in my education (I think we learned to count to five maybe?) I've never had any desire to learn about it, I think I managed one anthropology paper at university, and that may have been one of the exams I accidentally on purpose didn't bother to sit. But I don't feel any particular affinity for Pakeha/NZ culture either, church services make me cringe (and don't get me started on that coronation), not particularly interested in farming, rugby, drinking beer, hunting and fishing, yachting, never had a buzzy bee etc etc. Fred Dagg was funny at the time, though. Is being a-cultural a thing?
Anyway, for the above reason I don't really follow what's happening with the Treaty particularly closely, but hasn't it been chugging along in the background quite happily for a few decades now? Is there some crisis looming there that I'm not aware of?
I suspect reading this that for some reason your family ended up in the wrong country. I sympathise and suggest you make the best of it.
Seymore is a racist maori basher. Defining the treaty limits as he wishes to do is simply the first step toward denying the rights inherent to the treaty.
Once you manage that we become Australia who never acknowledged the indigenous people formally. And to this day keep them in position as
second class citizens. Seymore would be right at home in Australia.
As a fifth generation NZ'er I have no problem admitting Maori to positions of responsibility. Or the existence of support agencies for their use.
Even a cursory look at the health and crime statistics will show these agencies are needed.
As a fifth generation NZ'er I have no problem admitting Maori to positions of responsibility. Or the existence of support agencies for their use.
Even a cursory look at the health and crime statistics will show these agencies are needed.
I suspect reading this that for some reason your family ended up in the wrong country. I sympathise and suggest you make the best of it.
Seymore is a racist maori basher. Defining the treaty limits as he wishes to do is simply the first step toward denying the rights inherent to the treaty.
Once you manage that we become Australia who never acknowledged the indigenous people formally. And to this day keep them in position as
second class citizens. Seymore would be right at home in Australia.
As a fifth generation NZ'er I have no problem admitting Maori to positions of responsibility. Or the existence of support agencies for their use.
Even a cursory look at the health and crime statistics will show these agencies are needed.
I note you use the word racist and then you demonstrate you too are racist Greg. Bear with me. I hate people using that word for so many things and I believe it is not a bad thing to be racist when the word is used correctly.
If you stick a light skinned person, a dark skinned person and a midway coloured person out in the same sun for two hurs and expect the same result then you are a fool. There are many different things about different races simply.
Discriminating against someone for a feature or trait etc is racial prejudism, and that is wrong,
People say we are the same but we are not, you don't have to dig far in our health stats to find that some races are stronger in some areas, and some have weak spots.
Some dictionaries will define racism as how i explained, some not
Seymore is a racist maori basher. Defining the treaty limits as he wishes to do is simply the first step toward denying the rights inherent to the treaty.
Okay - Just one question: Which Principle does this? Becuase Principle two seems to explicitly guarantee the rights inherent in the treaty.
Originally Posted by Grumph
Once you manage that we become Australia who never acknowledged the indigenous people formally. And to this day keep them in position as
second class citizens. Seymore would be right at home in Australia.
When the Indigenous people of Australia engageed in Tribal warfare within each other - Have they formally acknowledged any of this? Of course not.
For the entirety of Human history, Every single culture on earth operated in this manner, that the spoils of war were the right of the victor by conquest. Maori, Aborignal included
Until the British thought that maybe this was a little unsporting and decided that Treaties were a better way.
Originally Posted by Grumph
As a fifth generation NZ'er I have no problem admitting Maori to positions of responsibility.
Neither, so long as those positions are earned on the basis of Merit, as opposed to the basis of Genetics.
Originally Posted by Grumph
Or the existence of support agencies for their use.
Even a cursory look at the health and crime statistics will show these agencies are needed.
The last part, is perhaps where I take the biggest umbrage:
The notion that the Maori are so dissimilar to people like me as to need special agencies to decrease their participation in crime statistics is the most fundamentally Racist idea.
It is to justify, under the law, different treatment - based on Race.
I do not believe Maori are so dissimilar to people like me as to need special government agencies.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
MMP gives us MPs that better represent the population than did the FPTP system. Accordingly, just as there are imbeciles in the general population, we now have imbeciles in Parliament. I have no problem with that haka. Any significant moment can be an occasion for a haka and that surely was one such. My objection relates to the fact that one of the Maori MPs, from his hat to his sneakers, was dressed like a total clown. Alas the photo doesn't show his jersey or the items he had around his neck.
Presumably he feels the rules of Parliament don't apply to him. He should be given a copy of the dress code and if he turns up not in compliance he should be told to fuck off. If he complains that his constituents are being denied representation he should be told his constituents need to elect somebody who can dress themselves.
There is a grey blur, and a green blur. I try to stay on the grey one. - Joey Dunlop
The haka does make me cringe, every time. But then I'm a first generation kiwi, and Maoritanga was pretty much invisible in my education (I think we learned to count to five maybe?) I've never had any desire to learn about it, I think I managed one anthropology paper at university, and that may have been one of the exams I accidentally on purpose didn't bother to sit. But I don't feel any particular affinity for Pakeha/NZ culture either, church services make me cringe (and don't get me started on that coronation), not particularly interested in farming, rugby, drinking beer, hunting and fishing, yachting, never had a buzzy bee etc etc. Fred Dagg was funny at the time, though. Is being a-cultural a thing?
Anyway, for the above reason I don't really follow what's happening with the Treaty particularly closely, but hasn't it been chugging along in the background quite happily for a few decades now? Is there some crisis looming there that I'm not aware of?
I like the Haka, but in Parliment, it was innappropriate. So far I have listened to the former director of the Waitangi Tribunal, A leader of the Hokoi, Read the Greens submission to stop the bill, Read the template forms for automated submissions (which I trust will be summarily ignored and counted as a single submission - in the same way that happened for the Firearms law changes...)
The arguments against the bill are:
- It will strip Maori of Rights... But when asked what part will do this or how it will do this, the only answer they are able to give is that David Seymour is racist.
- It is bad because the Government departments were reverted back to their english names.
- ???
Considering the level of opposition to this Bill, the lack of well-reasoned debate is shocking and disapointing.
To answer the last question is the interesting part.
First - we need to look here: Decolonization. If you take a look a cursory look through the Wikipedia article (which has a soft-left bias) - you will notice my favorite bugbear: Marxism.
Te Pati Maori believe in Decolonization.
There are two sides to this - and to be fair to them, it is important to express both.
There is the version of Decolonization that is the 'nice' version and what is widely pushed out: That we should embrace Maori culture and right the wrongs of the past.
And for the most part, there is little in that version of Decolonization that the average person can disagree with.
But the problem is that there is another version of Decolonzation - the one whose entire goal is to tear down the western patriachial colonial structure and usher in a Glorious Revolution.
There is a video from the Kiri Tamihere-Waititi - where she talks about this - talks about how thoroughly colonized they are and how they need to use force without permission to overthrow the Government.
And this second version of Decolonization is important.
They (the academic Marxists and activists who want Communism in NZ) have interpreted the Treaty as a partnership with Separate but Equal institutions just for Maori - the goal being to setup a legitimate parallel series of institutions, that eventually grow and replace the current institutions.
By submitting this Bill and defining the Treaty not as a Partnership, it prevents this from happening.
Hence all the pushback and hence why the level of debate is to call David Seymour a racist - because if they said the quiet part out loud, there would be even less support for it.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
I like the Haka, but in Parliment, it was innappropriate. So far I have listened to the former director of the Waitangi Tribunal, A leader of the Hokoi, Read the Greens submission to stop the bill, Read the template forms for automated submissions (which I trust will be summarily ignored and counted as a single submission - in the same way that happened for the Firearms law changes...)
The arguments against the bill are:...
...Hence all the pushback and hence why the level of debate is to call David Seymour a racist - because if they said the quiet part out loud, there would be even less support for it.
Thanks for that, I guess my observations would be:
Parliament is mostly a sham as legislation is rarely considered on merit, members are forced to toe the party line – my side good, your side bad. I guess in that sense, breaking into a haka in the middle of a session is hardly lowering the general level of discussion.
The rest of it seems to me to be pure political theatre on both sides (full of sound and fury, signifying nothing). David Seymour's bill goes nowhere, the Maori Party keep trolling everybody, the various media platforms gorge themselves on the manufactured outrage to keep the 'news' cycle going.
Meanwhile (hopefully) the reasonable people carry on negotiating treaty settlements in the background.
Moe: Well, I'm better than dirt. Well, most kinds of dirt. I mean not that fancy store bought dirt. That stuffs loaded with nutrients. I...I can't compete with that stuff.
Thanks for that, I guess my observations would be:
Parliament is mostly a sham as legislation is rarely considered on merit, members are forced to toe the party line – my side good, your side bad. I guess in that sense, breaking into a haka in the middle of a session is hardly lowering the general level of discussion.
I would agree with a lot of that sentiment.
Originally Posted by nerrrd
The rest of it seems to me to be pure political theatre on both sides (full of sound and fury, signifying nothing). David Seymour's bill goes nowhere, the Maori Party keep trolling everybody, the various media platforms gorge themselves on the manufactured outrage to keep the 'news' cycle going.
I think the Bill will get refined and will eventually become law.
Either you subscribe to the English Liberal worldview that we are all equal before the law (Essentially what the Bill espouses)
Or you subscribe to a separatist world view (Maori services for Maori, Pakeha services for Pakeha).
And I do not see that ending well.
There are plenty of people who aren't specifically Racist, but they will get really viscious really quickly against what they see as ungrateful entitlement.
Originally Posted by nerrrd
Meanwhile (hopefully) the reasonable people carry on negotiating treaty settlements in the background.
Which, is the biggest Irony here, the Bill explicitly protects and provides for the settlement of Treaty grievances.
There are some Treaty settlements that I disagree with philosophically (for example the EM Spectrum being considered a Taonga - and especially when we are told that Western Science is a Capitalist patriarchal blah blah blah scam and we should use Maori knowing - but I digress).
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
I note you use the word racist and then you demonstrate you too are racist Greg. Bear with me. I hate people using that word for so many things and I believe it is not a bad thing to be racist when the word is used correctly.
If you stick a light skinned person, a dark skinned person and a midway coloured person out in the same sun for two hurs and expect the same result then you are a fool. There are many different things about different races simply.
Discriminating against someone for a feature or trait etc is racial prejudism, and that is wrong,
People say we are the same but we are not, you don't have to dig far in our health stats to find that some races are stronger in some areas, and some have weak spots.
Some dictionaries will define racism as how i explained, some not
Eugenics? Really?
Also being racist is about how YOU perceive and treat people, not about them. You are pretending to objectivity when in fact this spiel is the opposite of that.
I thought elections were decided by angry posts on social media. - F5 Dave
Also being racist is about how YOU perceive and treat people, not about them. You are pretending to objectivity when in fact this spiel is the opposite of that.
Well... Hold up a second...
Like it or not, the concept of race is a loose approximation for different and distinct genetic groups. The Arabs are different from the Pacific Island peoples, who are different from the Scandinavians.
And yes - there are different genetic markers that are more prevalent in some groups than others.
Why do you think all the world record sprinters of the last 50 years, despite being from different countries, have been from the same broad racial group? Why do you think all the world record Strongmen have been from Nordic or Slavic stock?
Why does a tiny island in the middle of bum-fuck nowhere have, statistically, the most dominant International sports team in history?
Why do Genetic groups that come from regions where Malaria is common, have a much higher rate of Sickle Cell Anemia.
Now - to be crystal clear - Differences in genetics does not mean we should not be treated equally under the law, Nor does it mean that we should not have equal access to education, public services etc.
There are some interesting Medical questions where priority for certain conditions that have a prevailance or predisposition within certain genetic groups, which we then abstract into racial groups (for the ease of administration at the population level) - I think this is acceptable - because it is a service based on a higher need.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
The one where I am in charge of everything is the best one but only theoretically at this point. That will change. I am bringing back the Roman empire, baby. Nero, not Augustus or Marcus.
Hmm. What if you got all Constantine on us. Don't need that shit happening again.
Unless I can be God this time. (A living one, not some corpse).
Let me know if we can work an accord.
Don't you look at my accountant.
He's the only one I've got.
Originally Posted by nerrrd
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks