Who is sick of all the Waitangi bullshit?

[R-Soul]

Sorry guys- hijacking the thread a bit (athough its relevant by comparison with the NZ situation).

[RDJ]

I am saying that for a long time, one particular class was oppressed to the extent that as an entire class they were left pretty much destitute. Thier entire futures and lives were cut down by having pretty much no tax spent on them at all, and the majority of it spent on the whites.

<>

It will take decades to redress. Although Apartheid itself was only about 30 years officially, and teh new government has been in since 1992.

Yes, all of the oppression during the apartheid years stipulated. I was waiting for a cogent argument for oppressing the next generation for the sins of (some of) their fathers and mothers...

[R-Soul]

Yes, all of the oppression during the apartheid years stipulated. I was waiting for a cogent argument for oppressing the next generation for the sins of (some of) their fathers and mothers...

Seriously? You want logic in politics?

Which part of "irate voters" didn't you get?

TBH if I was a black person and I had seen my family left destitute due to damn nasty practices by a previous government, I would probably be on the frontline chucking stones if the past was not addressed to give us as much of a chance as the whites had before. I get it.

There has to be preferential opportunituies afforded to the previously disadvantaged to build the black middle class, and make SA stronger economically. Money must be spent on electrical and sewage and schooling and roads where there was none before because the slum townships were "unofficial" and "not permanent" (Tui anybody?) and they were all expected to be "repatriated" back to their designated "homelands". Already as it is, there is massive unrest about "lack of service delivery" - riots breaking out, etc. Its a timebomb.

Fact is that SA whites can expect to fend for themselves for a decade or three (maybe longer, maybe forever a la Zimbabwe) while that happens. End of. If they choose to hang around while they and their kids dont get the same opptunities as the black one. I can see arguments from both sides right now. I chose not to hang around. Luckily my previously advantage background allowed me the skills to be marketable internationally.

[RDJ]

Seriously? You want logic in politics?

No, I was seeking logic in your argument...

[BoristheBiter]

NZ Maori rugby team have beaten all above mentioned as well as Ireland, Barbarians, Tonga, Samoa, Scotland, Wales except South Africa.

Not to mention NZ Maori in league tied with England recently, when the majority of Maori were playing in the Kiwis squad

*Some names from Kiwis Squad for 4nations plus train on, many were also still present when we won the world cup against Aussie.
Adam Blair - Maori
Greg Eastwood Maori
Lance Hohaia Maori
Lewis Brown Maori
Issac Luke Maori
Shaun Kenny Dowell Maori
Warea Haragreaves Maori
Frank Pritchard Cook Is Maori
Benji Marshall Maori
Jason Nightingale Maori
Sam Perret Maori
And then there's the islanders like the Beast Vatuvei and Junior Sau.


I'm not saying you can only win games if you're Maori but that the perfect combination of Maori, Polynesian, Pakeha makes us as a nation so successful at sport. And that we do make a big contribution to NZ's sporting industry. A country of only a few million ahead of the world in Netball, Rugby, Rugby League and many others its something special.

Peace, love.

So what is your point?
It is a race based team so under the UN human rights agreement it should be stopped, whether it is the best team or not, and whether a white only team was good or not it would never get off the ground as it would be labeled racist.
Again not that i care as i like to see a good game of rugby no matter who's playing.

All this talk of we, us, them just divides all of us up even further and should stop. yes there are dickheads on both sides of the camp but most of us just get along with life and not really care what some stupid radicals (on either side) are ranting about today.
The problem is these wankers get air time.

[BoristheBiter]

Seriously? You want logic in politics?

Which part of "irate voters" didn't you get?

TBH if I was a black person and I had seen my family left destitute due to damn nasty practices by a previous government, I would probably be on the frontline chucking stones if the past was not addressed to give us as much of a chance as the whites had before. I get it.

There has to be preferential opportunituies afforded to the previously disadvantaged to build the black middle class, and make SA stronger economically. Money must be spent on electrical and sewage and schooling and roads where there was none before because the slum townships were "unofficial" and "not permanent" (Tui anybody?) and they were all expected to be "repatriated" back to their designated "homelands". Already as it is, there is massive unrest about "lack of service delivery" - riots breaking out, etc. Its a timebomb.

Fact is that SA whites can expect to fend for themselves for a decade or three (maybe longer, maybe forever a la Zimbabwe) while that happens. End of. If they choose to hang around while they and their kids dont get the same opptunities as the black one. I can see arguments from both sides right now. I chose not to hang around. Luckily my previously advantage background allowed me the skills to be marketable internationally.

Isn't there also discrimination between the blacks and coloured's?

[avgas]

Hmmmmm....in what way do you mean that...............

Araldite and stop feeding them.......
Only shit comes out of them anyway

[R-Soul]

No, I was seeking logic in your argument...

I guess its the same logic that says that todays NZ taxpayers should pay for sins of their fathers visited on the Maoris of the 1800's? A sense of general fairness that past practices have resulted in hardships on entire peoples?

[R-Soul]

Isn't there also discrimination between the blacks and coloured's?

The poor coloureds- they have strong Afrikaner roots (being direct descendants from the San peoples and the Dutch from the earliest settlers at the Cape in the 1600's). at teh time, they were being gradually squeezed off their lands towards Cape Town by stronger bigger Nguni black tribes moving southwardly from the Equator, and were in conflict with them. Then the Dutch settlers arrived and intermarried etc, and started expanding northwards, shooting it out with the Nguni tribes as the moved inland.

But the Apartheid government didn't give them "white" status (despite them having such strong roots). They had always regarded themselves as being Afrikaans, this being their language, etc. But due to their skin colour, they got it in the neck from the Apartheid government.

Now the ANC is in, their policies related to all "previously disadvantaged" people, including Indians and Coloureds, although it appears that it is a bit grudgingly. At least in rugby, the ANC has stated that it wants to see more "ethnic" blacks in top positions in the adminstrations and teams. So the Coloureds just cant seem to win.

The Coloureds have shown open resistance to ethnic black rule, trusting them (and their perceived corruption) even less than the liberal whites. Cape Town and surrounds is the one province out of 9 where the opposition parties govern.

This all seems a bit stupid, since there are no really clear lines between the races, since coloureds, blacks, and Indians (and whites to a lesser extent) had been intermarrying and blurring most distinctions over the centuries anyway. Hell, even some dark Italians, Greeks and Portuguese were regarded by Cape Coloureds by the Apartheid government. As I say, there is no absolute scientific test that can clearly demarcate one group from the other.

[admenk]

The thing is, these issues are faced and have been faced by most countries at some stage or other. Most groups/countries/races - call them what you will, have at times been the oppressed and at other times were the oppressor. The sad truth about people is that usually the strongest group win and get to write their version of history about it. It may not be just or fair but I suspect it's human nature. No wonder we all disagree, just look at all the possible causes for disagreement:

1/ firstly you have to decide whether or not there has actually been an injustice done. Your opinion will depend greatly on all sorts of things, like your upbringing, your beliefs of what's right and wrong, whether you are directly connected to the events....and a shed load of other influences. And of course, can we apply our 21st century values to people who thought very differently to us.

2/ Assuming you can agree that something wrong was done, the next question is should you seek to redress that injustice now? As for the first question, there's a million and one differing opinions, ranging from "it happened years ago so let's forget it and move on", to "the injustices are still affecting people now so let's sort them out"

3/ Once again, assuming you can reach any agreement on that, then what do you actually do about it? Is there a time after which injustices can be written off, or are they always relevant? And how do you seek to redress the balance towards one group, without taking from another? Is it right that people who weren't born when these problems happened, have to pay for them - or on the other side of the coin, have to live with the consequences of past wrongs.

As this thread shows, everyone has a different take on the whole issue. There are always some extremists at each end of the scale, but most people will fall somewhere between the two.

At least those people actively involved on all sides in the whole Maori / Pakeha / Treaty debate are saying their piece, for their own cause without violence, and whilst many of them may talk twaddle a lot of the time, at least they're having a go.

I for one, wouldn't claim to know the answers. All I can say is that as I get older, I realise that some of the things that I once thought were black and white (and I'm not talking skin colour here), turn out to be not that simple!

Feel free to tell me I'm talking crap, it's just my opinion

[SMOKEU]

The poor coloureds- they have strong Afrikaner roots (being direct descendants from the San peoples and the Dutch from the earliest settlers at the Cape in the 1600's). at teh time, they were being gradually squeezed off their lands towards Cape Town by stronger bigger Nguni black tribes moving southwardly from the Equator, and were in conflict with them. Then the Dutch settlers arrived and intermarried etc, and started expanding northwards, shooting it out with the Nguni tribes as the moved inland.

But the Apartheid government didn't give them "white" status (despite them having such strong roots). They had always regarded themselves as being Afrikaans, this being their language, etc. But due to their skin colour, they got it in the neck from the Apartheid government.

Now the ANC is in, their policies related to all "previously disadvantaged" people, including Indians and Coloureds, although it appears that it is a bit grudgingly. At least in rugby, the ANC has stated that it wants to see more "ethnic" blacks in top positions in the adminstrations and teams. So the Coloureds just cant seem to win.

The Coloureds have shown open resistance to ethnic black rule, trusting them (and their perceived corruption) even less than the liberal whites. Cape Town and surrounds is the one province out of 9 where the opposition parties govern.

This all seems a bit stupid, since there are no really clear lines between the races, since coloureds, blacks, and Indians (and whites to a lesser extent) had been intermarrying and blurring most distinctions over the centuries anyway. Hell, even some dark Italians, Greeks and Portuguese were regarded by Cape Coloureds by the Apartheid government. As I say, there is no absolute scientific test that can clearly demarcate one group from the other.

Once you give blacks power over a country, then they WILL phuck it up. Look what happened when the blacks came to power in South Africa.

[Hans]

Once you give blacks power over a country, then they WILL phuck it up. Look what happened when the blacks came to power in South Africa.

They haven't "phucked" it... They're just redressing past injustices

In Zimbabwe they are just redressing these issues more thoroughly with the aid of famine, tyres, petrol and rubber hoses.

And yes, R-soul, I can see how New Zealand would be the promised land. With the opinions you hold there will be career opportunities aplenty. Especiall with the govt. Nothing like toeing the Party line, a?

[Hans]

Incidentally Rob Mugabe and Tame Iti are both proponents of Maoism (China's version of Stalinism). Mugabe has massive support from China and Iti spent time in China as a member of the Communist Party during the cultural revolution.

Both lovely people no doubt.

[admenk]

Once you give blacks power over a country, then they WILL phuck it up.

I hate to shatter your illusions, but you don't need to be black to do that..

[Hans]

I hate to shatter your illusions, but you don't need to be black to do that..

Aaah. But it is the blacks doing it. Which makes your assertion irrelevant.