Integrating into a foreign society

[MikeL]

But, if English was their first language, it would probably come down to the question "Whose country is it anyway?"

(runs and hides)

How the hell did that happen?

Put it down to end-of-term tiredness or just reading too many student essays...

Oh, the shame...

[vifferman]

I'm not sure whether you and Firestormer (see below) are just testing me out or summit...

No.
I just don't buy into the whole "if only we had a higher population things would be so much better (economically)" over-simplistic load of bollix.
It has little to do with my views on immigration, but I must admit I'm more than a bit alarmed that we seem to have made it too easy for various people who see NZ as an easy target for various scams, crimes, etc. to get in and make the country worse, not better. I guess most immigrants don't fall into the 'scumbag' category, but we do have some rules and criteria that were put in place for the right reasons but which are easy to take advantage of.
F'rinstance: apparently, if you live here for two years or more, your kids get free education. Fair enough, but not if it means that some people are coming to live here so their kids can get a cheap education to tertiary level, perhaps keeping some NZ-born person out of a course that has restricted numbers, then having achieved a qualification at the taxpayers' expense, they fuck off back home again. Sure, we get some of their money, some of their culture rubs off, but where's the real benefit to us who live here? Is it more of a cost than a benefit?
You could argue that it's not much different to those NZ students who get a tertiary qualification and piss off overseas to live, because they don't earn enough here, but we've always been a nomadic culture. (And the whole business of student loans etc. etc. is a whole different bucket'o'worms).

On the other side of the coin, there are people who come here who meet all the criteria for coming here to live, then find out after they've landed that they can't get a job, because English isn't their first language, or their qualifications aren't transferrable, or whatever. I met a distressed and disillusioned taxi driver one day, who was from the former Yugoslavia. They met all the criteria, and he'd mistakenly thought this meant he could work here (non-one had disavowed him of this notion before he came). His wife (a paediatric surgeon) was unable to get work, as her qualifications weren't recognised here, and he was unable to find suitable work for himself (he was a lawyer). Fair enough, as the laws of the two countries aren't identical, and we need to be sure medical personnel are good enough. But (BUT!) she was able to practice in Australia. If it had been made clear to them how things worked here before they'd emigrated, they would've changed destinations. The worst thing - which upset him the most - is that they'd gone from being respected people of some standing, to being regarded as dole-bludgers and bottom-dwelling pond scum, through no desire of their own to do anything but work, be part of NZ society, all the good things. Sure, it was ultimately their responsibility to check their facts carefully before embarking on such a life-changing journey, but it's still sad.

What about refugees? I think it's very good that we are compassionate and willing to help out in this regard. Does it then make us a target of clever and unscrupulous people who know how to take advantage of our 'softness'?

I dunno. I think our hospitable and welcoming character is better than saying "We're the bestest, freeeest (enough E's?) country in the world, but you can't come in unless you're very very special." I just hope the fact we're 'nice' doesn't make us an easy target for those who are devious, dishonest and desparate enough to take advantage of the seemingly gaping loopholes in our immigration policy, and that not too many scumbags come surfing in on the wave of immigrants. If we could at least tighten things up in the driving license department, I'd feel a bit happier.

[Marmoot]

for those who talk about muslim-women, please note that cultural issues should be totally separate to religion issues.

For cultural issues, it is possible to talk about assimmilation without actually violating human rights. But religion issues I think is much more sensitive than that because it is very personal between someone and his/her Creator.

Culture is how you were brought up, but religion is what you believe and there is nobody that should try to change that.

[James Deuce]

No.
I just don't buy into the whole "if only we had a higher population things would be so much better (economically)" over-simplistic load of bollix.

Just checking - when did I say that? If I implied that then I wasn;t eant to, however NZ still hasn't hit a population level that will sustain anything other than a primary produce economy. Real economic growth comes from trading in money, not primary produce or commodities.

However real cultural growth comes from responding to challenge and change with a plan and a will to do so.

[Ms Piggy]

Does our society not allow these people to integrate themselves as well as they could because of the differences,or do these people choose not to try for the same reasons,will it be left to the children/grandchildren to change there ways as they grow up in a different homeland and culture than their parents did?

I think it kinda goes both ways. I haven't read any of the posts beyond pg.1 so forgive me if I'm repeating stuff already spoken.

I think part of globalisation is that most societies are now multi-cultural and I think part of being in another culture is acknowledging that in New Zealand we may do things differently from their country of origin. However, I don't believe that it means that either party is right or wrong.

My Uni mates and I have come up with a new catch phrase to stem to catch ourselves when we want to judge or criticise others: "Well thats different from the way I do things." It's not right or wrong, just different and different isn't bad either.

I don't think there is anything wrong with people having their own communities & ways of doing things in order to keep that part of their way of life alive. I think the problem is when any sector of society tries to say that they are better than another or.

I'm a bit hungover so maybe this doesn't make sense.

p.s Kickaha - if you were to come to Wgtn I know we would welcome you with open arms and encourage you and teach you our practices and protocols. Initially we would give you time to learn them and even though you may not practice them we would, possibly, expect you to know them and acknowledge them. I think you should just get your arse up here and find out for yourself...but what would I know.

[MikeL]

for those who talk about muslim-women, please note that cultural issues should be totally separate to religion issues.

For cultural issues, it is possible to talk about assimmilation without actually violating human rights. But religion issues I think is much more sensitive than that because it is very personal between someone and his/her Creator.

Culture is how you were brought up, but religion is what you believe and there is nobody that should try to change that.

Marmoot, I don't think it is possible to make that distinction. Religion is very closely tied up with culture, which I define as the particular ways of living our lives which we inherit from our family and social predecessors. Immigrants can usually fairly easily change their cultural practices to do with food, dress etc. in order to fit in to the new environment, but when the host country's culture (and laws) clash with their religious beliefs there is bound to be argument over whether compromises can be made, and by whom.
I personally have no problem with women wearing the burqa in most circumstances but I would question whether their right to hide their faces is so absolute that it can or should override New Zealand laws and customs, such as ID photos, giving evidence in court etc. I am fairly sure that any serious argument about the right to be veiled in these circumstances would rely on religion rather than simple custom.

[Ms Piggy]

I believe the early foreigner's (pakeha) actually tried to force the natives (Maori) to adopt their culture.

Yes I believe it was called "assimilation" and there was even policy (a lot later) put in place that banned the use of Maori language in schools, corporal punishment was dished out to those pupils who spoke it. I also believe (this is just off the top of my head) that Maori healing practises were outlawed and a few other things that I couldn't recall with out looking in a book or three.

Again sorry if I'm repeating stuff already said. Oooooo, my head hurts, need another coffee.

[F5 Dave]

& bring your bucket.

[Blakamin]

for those who talk about muslim-women, please note that cultural issues should be totally separate to religion issues.

For cultural issues, it is possible to talk about assimmilation without actually violating human rights. But religion issues I think is much more sensitive than that because it is very personal between someone and his/her Creator.

Culture is how you were brought up, but religion is what you believe and there is nobody that should try to change that.

Thats all nice to say... what about muslim countries where there are no other religions??? it then IS the culture as it dictates the way people act

[vifferman]

Just checking - when did I say that?

You didn't. My rant was just a rant. Only the first word was in response to your post, the rest was just a hobbyhorse, first spurred into a gallop by some articles in The Harold a few months ago, that questioned the whole ethos of "what's wrong with NZ is that it doesn't have enough people living in it." [And here we go again - another reply that is tangential to your post]
The comment (which I didn't bring out in my last post) which I thought was somewhat apt, was that if we increase our population to achieve some of the perceived benefits other countries with a higher population have, then we run the risk of losing the very things that give NZ its unique nature and accepting also the disadvantages that come with higher population (i.e., increased crime, urbanisation, personal insularity, etc. etc.) One has only to live in D'Auckland after living elsewhere in NZ to see this at work.

[MikeL]

However real cultural growth comes from responding to challenge and change with a plan and a will to do so.

There is no doubt that NZ is a vastly more interesting place now because of cultural diversity than it was the dreary 50s or 60s with its small, homogeneous population and narrowminded attitudes. However, while much has been gained, much has also been lost. The really important question is where the impetus for change comes from: external or internal pressure? Informed debate, democratic process? Planning, foresight, intelligent leadership? Or short-term reaction? What about the greed of rich people wanting to become richer?

Who has a real vision for this country?

Is NZ a better place because I can buy a cheap Japanese car and get 100 channels of satellite television, but can't afford a seaside bach because all the coastal land is being bought up by wealthy foreigners?

[James Deuce]

Yes I believe it was called "assimilation" and there was even policy (a lot later) put in place that banned the use of Maori language in schools, corporal punishment was dished out to those pupils who spoke it. I also believe (this is just off the top of my head) that Maori healing practises were outlawed and a few other things that I couldn't recall with out looking in a book or three.

Again sorry if I'm repeating stuff already said. Oooooo, my head hurts, need another coffee.

Assimilation is a 20th century concept. The original settlers were too busy digging up giant kauri stumps to worry about esoteric matters of a philosophical nature. The philosophising was done elsewhere by "learned" types and I think he distinction is hugely important. There is a desire to paint all "white" settlers with the same brush, that ignores little matters like survial and subsistence level existence doesn't leave you any time to ponder the fate of the culture you've just bumped into.

[Marmoot]

MikeL: on the contrary, it is quite possible.
When someone cannot do things based on reason of social paradigm (e.g., family tradition, people's perception, acceptance, etc) that is a cultural issue.
Example, if a woman has to wear burqa for fear of being rejected by her family if she does not, then it is clearly cultural issue.

But, (as I came from a dominantly muslim country) for some they wear burqa because their religion said so; if they do not then they risk of seducing other men which will lead to adultery; then this is a religion's teaching and there is no point in proving that their religion is wrong. This is what I meant by religion issue.

In the first case, you can argue that their family is wrong without violating their basic rights. But in the second case if you argue that their religion is wrong it violates their rights. The most basic rights a human being can have is to believe in something, and that is why some people are more than willing to defend their religion to death.

Saying that, we should review issues case by case and question the reasoning behind the action.

As a note, there is little point in debating religions. For a Christian, of course Muslim is totally wrong. Otherwise, why would he be a Christian, right? And the other way is true for a Muslim: of course a Christian is a heretic, and that is why he/she is a Muslim. So, bearing that in mind, I do not think debate on religion will ever get anywhere. What we need to do is respect each other's religion and try to get beyond that: relationships between just the human being.

[Ms Piggy]

for those who talk about muslim-women, please note that cultural issues should be totally separate to religion issues.

For cultural issues, it is possible to talk about assimmilation without actually violating human rights. But religion issues I think is much more sensitive than that because it is very personal between someone and his/her Creator.

Culture is how you were brought up, but religion is what you believe and there is nobody that should try to change that.

Yeah but for some people their religion and culture are one in the same. Take Pasifika people for example, 90% of them (in N.Z) attend church, religion is a HUGE part of their culture. so for some people religion and culture are the same.

[Ms Piggy]

Assimilation is a 20th century concept. The original settlers were too busy digging up giant kauri stumps to worry about esoteric matters of a philosophical nature. The philosophising was done elsewhere by "learned" types and I think he distinction is hugely important. There is a desire to paint all "white" settlers with the same brush, that ignores little matters like survial and subsistence level existence doesn't leave you any time to ponder the fate of the culture you've just bumped into.

I disagree (not on all of what you've said) but too hung over to "argue" constructively!