Integrating into a foreign society

[James Deuce]

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?

Now you're asking some good questions.

It's really important that we don't "de-camp" into our interest groups and try to keep looking at a broad picture. Asking questions will no doubt raise more questions, but that's a free flowing debate.

I think that Kiwis in general struggle to accept that they have a well defined culture so they shy away from asking questions about the direction their society should take. No one generally sets the direction of anything in New Zealand thanks in part to the cultural cringe (thank goodness Maori are rejecting this approach and developing cultural self-esteem), and from a desire to avoid being labelled a social engineer at a policy setting level.

Kiwis are also politically immature, in a similar fashion to the US, with much of the decision making process "gifted" to members of political parties that are effectively 2 sides of the same coin.

There is always loss in change. Not all change is good, neither is it bad. It's amoral and happens anyway, with or without your permission. What you do with the effects of change is the key to developing a positive culture.

[TwoSeven]

Well personally i'm born and bred british. I have no desire to become a kiwi citizen - but I like living here (have spent most of my life here since I was 4 - about 25 years not including the decade I have been overseas). Hence I have perm residence rather than citizenship - the latter I have no real desire to have.

What really annoys me is people who come to this country and give away their own culture and identity in order to 'become a kiwi'.

My view is that if you are born in a country then thats who you are - you may be raised in another place (as I was raised here) that may give you a different identity but your ethnicity will always be of the place where you were born and I think people should learn to celibrate that rather than try and hide it in order to fit into another society. Changing your passport does not mean you have to change your culteral ethnicity.

Kiwis I find are pretty racist but not of the intentional kind - its more thru ignorance and lack of exposure to the rest of the world - it would be expected of a small secluded country - so is not that great a problem - you do get the same kind of behaviour in many countries. Even us Poms are often at the receiving end of it and I often notice that many kiwis dont realise that the british way of thinking/humor etc is different even if we appear to speak the same language (which in reality we dont).

I especially like the kiwi way of treating people who look different (even tho they are born here) as foreigners - many of whom have probably never been overseas in their life. I see this in the UK with british born indians - and its quite funny when they speak and have a strong british accent. So its not really just a local problem - but its important to be aware of it now - since there will be many foreigners in NZ that are born and raised here.

There is a training thing called '7 habits for highly effective people' done by the covey institute. One of the things they teach is to 'seek to understand before trying to be understood'. What it means is that when talking to another person (in everyday life) , if you adopt their way of thinking, their manerisms, their beliefs and their train of thought - in other words - to try and become that person - then when you try and communicate back - they are much more likely to understand and accept what you are saying. This also applies to dealing with different cultures - if you understand them, then its likely you wont have any problems with them.

So at the end of the day - catering for other nationalities/religions such as providing swimming facilities for people of a different ethnicity/belief is just a matter of good manners and shows that you have respect for other people.

Just my thoughts.

[Stinger]

I'm not allowed to wear my Helmet into a bank or a Gas station (Which I think is fair enough). If these Burqa's are allowed to be freely worn everywhere (along with the baggy clothing, then what's to stop them being used as a criminals uniform.... you can hide a full array of weaponry, the victims can't tell if you're male/female black/white etc.... they certainly can't identify your face.

I'm sure it would be nice to hide behind a veil sometimes... but I think if you come into our country then you should be prepared to fit in - particularly when it comes down to driver licensing, the court, issues of safety. What you do in the privacy of your own house of course is your own business.

[MikeL]

MikeL: on the contrary, it is quite possible.

What we need to do is respect each other's religion and try to get beyond that: relationships between just the human being.

Yes but, Marmoot, it all hinges on what we mean by "respect". I respect any individual's genuine beliefs if they are consistent and based on conscience. But the difficulty arises when those beliefs lead to specific acts with which I disagree.

We can agree to disagree on some of these matters and still maintain mutual respect. But what about cases where religious/cultural belief violates what I or the lawmakers of this country consider to be human rights? There was the example some time ago of female circumcision among African immigrants...

Do you see the problem?

[Ms Piggy]

& bring your bucket.

Wot are you on about???

[sAsLEX]

I am assuming he meant his bucket race bike?

[Artifice]

if somebody wants to keep the tablecloth over thier head all the time i can put up with that. but if they want a drivers liscence then they have to take the cloth off for the picture and when they get stopped by the police. that is my opinion i dont think there should be any exclusion for religion. they have a choice cloth off or no liscence in this country. thier choice they should accept thier civic responcibility or go live in a country that allows religious shenanagins. pity our government is full of fools and horses.

[vifferman]

Who has a real vision for this country?

Good question. Is there a real answer?
I'm sure there are lots who have a vision of some sort, but that raises another question: Is their vision one that the majority can buy into, or is it one that just furthers an individual cause, set of values / beliefs, or whatever?

I'm concerned that for at least 25 years, the overarching 'vision' for the country seems to be one of striving to follow a particular economic philosophy. I dunno about you, but I'd rather have a gubmint that put 'quality of life' before 'appearing to be doing well enough from an economic perspective to ensure being voted in at the next election'.

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?

See above. Depends how each person defines 'quality of life'.
For me, I wonder whether we didn't have a better quality of life when:

• You could forget to lock your house/car and there was no real risk.
• There was virtually zero unemployment, apart from those who deliberately chose not to work, or were physically incapable of working.
• If there was a murder, that was really big news.
• Most of the banks, utilities, big businesses were NZ-owned.
• All land was owned by resident NZers.
• There was no such thing as hospital waiting lists.
• There was no such thing as student debt.
• Research was not driven solely by economic necessity, but had room for curiosity.
• Political correctness was more a matter of being fair and reasonable, than desperately trying to suck up to every weird and wonderful minority group, to the extent one was almost expected to be apologetic for being a light-skinned, heterosexual male.
• The bureaucrats hadn't gone beserk trying to pass as many laws as possible to protect us from our own stupidity and keep us safe from the big, bad, dangerous world.
• etc. etc. etc.....

Obviously, this is unrealistic, but overall, I think we've lost the plot somewhere and started to equate 'quality of life' with 'number of bright, shiny things', when the bottom line has to be the quality of our relationships with one another.

[rodgerd]

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.

Sure, but there are obviously radically different interpretations of that religious injunction to modesty as understood by, say, Iranian Muslims, Saudi Muslims and Malaysian Muslims, and that's where religion vs culture arguments come in. Different people adopt the same faith in different ways.

[rodgerd]

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.

Talk to some younger Samoan and Tongans, though. A lot of them I've run into over the years hate the churches they were raised in, having suffered through working class families doing without so the minister can have a new car.

For that matter, there's a big difference between (say) traditional acceptance of fa'fa'ine (which still occurs in the context of modern Christian Pasifika cultures), and (for example) American-inspired outfits like Destiny.

[rodgerd]

My view is that if you are born in a country then thats who you are - you may be raised in another place (as I was raised here) that may give you a different identity but your ethnicity will always be of the place where you were born and I think people should learn to celibrate that rather than try and hide it in order to fit into another society. Changing your passport does not mean you have to change your culteral ethnicity.

Bollocks. We are who we chose to be. I know more than a few Singaporeans who came to New Zealand to escape their culture, which they felt straightjacketed them. The idea who we are is where we're born is a short path to the "my country right or wrong" and equally crappy (and mindless) nationalism.

There is a training thing called '7 habits for highly effective people' done by the covey institute. One of the things they teach is to 'seek to understand before trying to be understood'.

Kind of amusing given Covey's vigourous homophobia...

[Ms Piggy]

Talk to some younger Samoan and Tongans, though. A lot of them I've run into over the years hate the churches they were raised in, having suffered through working class families doing without so the minister can have a new car.

Yup I agree there a lot of unscrupulous people out there that manipulate via religion. I did a paper this semester on Pasifika people and we had a Contact Course (b/c it was extramural), there was an acknowledgement of financial manipulation by church leaders and other issues pertaining to Pasifika people living in New Zealand. It was really interesering speaking with the Samoan and Tongan guest speakers they had and hearing it from their P.O.V.

But, I was using it as an example of culture and religion being 1 and the same for some people groups.

[James Deuce]

Good question. Is there a real answer?
I'm sure there are lots who have a vision of some sort, but that raises another question: Is their vision one that the majority can buy into, or is it one that just furthers an individual cause, set of values / beliefs, or whatever?

I'm concerned that for at least 25 years, the overarching 'vision' for the country seems to be one of striving to follow a particular economic philosophy. I dunno about you, but I'd rather have a gubmint that put 'quality of life' before 'appearing to be doing well enough from an economic perspective to ensure being voted in at the next election'.
See above. Depends how each person defines 'quality of life'.
For me, I wonder whether we didn't have a better quality of life when:

• You could forget to lock your house/car and there was no real risk.
• There was virtually zero unemployment, apart from those who deliberately chose not to work, or were physically incapable of working.
• If there was a murder, that was really big news.
• Most of the banks, utilities, big businesses were NZ-owned.
• All land was owned by resident NZers.
• There was no such thing as hospital waiting lists.
• There was no such thing as student debt.
• Research was not driven solely by economic necessity, but had room for curiosity.
• Political correctness was more a matter of being fair and reasonable, than desperately trying to suck up to every weird and wonderful minority group, to the extent one was almost expected to be apologetic for being a light-skinned, heterosexual male.
• The bureaucrats hadn't gone beserk trying to pass as many laws as possible to protect us from our own stupidity and keep us safe from the big, bad, dangerous world.
• etc. etc. etc.....

Obviously, this is unrealistic, but overall, I think we've lost the plot somewhere and started to equate 'quality of life' with 'number of bright, shiny things', when the bottom line has to be the quality of our relationships with one another.

Child, spousal, and alchohol abuse were ways of life in NZ. If you've been on the receiving end of the above you wouldn't have a feel good attitude about the post war attitudes of NZ males in particular.

Hospital waiting lists have been generated by changes in technology, and the amount that medical science can do to maintain life in a very battered human body. Bowel resections, heart valve replacements, and kidney transplants are almost routine bordering on cosmetic procedures. 50 years ago you died if any of those organs started performing below par. No waiting list for dying people.

The not locking your house and car thing was BS IMO. My grandmother who was born in 1920, never remembered it that way, and she grew up in a rural part of Hamilton.

PC is merely a temporary reactionary bump on the way to finding a way of relating to things that have never been an issue in the past, and require a huge amount of public information and education to highlight. The "safety" issue is related to nothing more than personal greed. Bureaucrats have no desire to coddle anything or anyone, merely to provide a framework for what society apparently wants either directly or via political policy. I agree that it has become de riguer to pass blame to everything other than personal responsibility. Teach your kids otherwise and the problem goes away with time.

[Ms Piggy]

Good question. Is there a real answer?
I'm sure there are lots who have a vision of some sort, but that raises another question: Is their vision one that the majority can buy into, or is it one that just furthers an individual cause, set of values / beliefs, or whatever?

I'm concerned that for at least 25 years, the overarching 'vision' for the country seems to be one of striving to follow a particular economic philosophy. I dunno about you, but I'd rather have a gubmint that put 'quality of life' before 'appearing to be doing well enough from an economic perspective to ensure being voted in at the next election'.
See above. Depends how each person defines 'quality of life'.
For me, I wonder whether we didn't have a better quality of life when:

• You could forget to lock your house/car and there was no real risk.
• There was virtually zero unemployment, apart from those who deliberately chose not to work, or were physically incapable of working.
• If there was a murder, that was really big news.
• Most of the banks, utilities, big businesses were NZ-owned.
• All land was owned by resident NZers.
• There was no such thing as hospital waiting lists.
• There was no such thing as student debt.
• Research was not driven solely by economic necessity, but had room for curiosity.
• Political correctness was more a matter of being fair and reasonable, than desperately trying to suck up to every weird and wonderful minority group, to the extent one was almost expected to be apologetic for being a light-skinned, heterosexual male.
• The bureaucrats hadn't gone beserk trying to pass as many laws as possible to protect us from our own stupidity and keep us safe from the big, bad, dangerous world.
• etc. etc. etc.....

Obviously, this is unrealistic, but overall, I think we've lost the plot somewhere and started to equate 'quality of life' with 'number of bright, shiny things', when the bottom line has to be the quality of our relationships with one another.

A lot of that stuff left with the global economic down turn of the 90's and the National Government shafting beneficaries through extreme welfare cuts. It's all very open to interpretation though and these are BIG questions that are really, really hard to answer! What is 'quality' if life? For some it might be a roof over your head & 3 square meals a day and enough money to pay the bills. For others it may be being able to go on an overseas trip every year, having a new car every 2yrs, being able to buy whatever they want whenever they want. It's all relative.

But I agree with you about the bottom line FS.

[Marmoot]

1)
MikeL: yes, that's is unfortunately true. Some (a lot of) people interpret their religion in a radical manner and some of their interpreted values contradict the society's norm (and sometimes intrude other people's life). In this case it is true that we need a rule saying "no, that is enough". As I have said, review the issue cae by case.....with the utmost importance on sincerity and staying away from prejudice.
Admitedly, it is hard to say when enough is enough....
Maybe we need to sincerely ask ourselves everytime we just about to criticize someone: what is my motivation? For example in the swimming pool case: do I mind they have separate section because wearing muslim clothes is just wrong, or do I mind because I feel insecure that they are making their own rules in multicultural society (i.e.: envious.....either they conform, or I can make my own rules too)? Or do I feel sorry for them because they need to wear those things (which I should not, because they want to themselves)?

2)

Sure, but there are obviously radically different interpretations of that religious injunction to modesty as understood by, say, Iranian Muslims, Saudi Muslims and Malaysian Muslims, and that's where religion vs culture arguments come in. Different people adopt the same faith in different ways.

As this comment also said, I think sometimes muslims are treated unfairly in so-called democratic country. Why can National Front impose skinhead appearance on their converts but muslims cannot impose burqas on their people? Because National Front conforms with Western Norms?
Or, why can Destiny's Church be allowed to impose 10% donation rule on their people? Because the issue is invisible (i.e. not involving physical appearance)?
Why can National Front and Destiny's Church be radical but Muslims must not? Are we a conformist society? If we are, then that answers the question and this matter need not be discussed any further. But if we say we are not conformist, then maybe we need to define equal treatment? I say ban National Front and Destiny's Church altogether with Muslims, or permit them all be what they want to be.


3) CONCLUSION
Democracy and Freedom that we so worship always come double-edged. Either you be a totally multicultural society and learn to tolerate or ignore each other even sometimes to the extreme, or forego that freedom and become a conformist society (i.e., Communist China circa '66, Saddam's Iraq, or South Africa during Apartheid period).