by frog
According to the Dominion Post, ‘Springboks coach Peter de Villiers has questioned whether former All Blacks’ prop Craig Dowd is racist and says racism is rife in New Zealand’. I don’t know Craig Dowd, and don’t read rugby commentary the same way I do political analysis so I can’t comment on the specific accusations against him by the South African rugby coach, but I reckon de Villiers may have hit a nerve with the rest of his statement:
“In South Africa it’s a big thing, racism, but in other countries, especially here and Australia, it’s big too, really big, you know,”
You only need to spend a quick moment looking at what being Maori, Pacific Islander, or indeed most other ethnicities than of Pakeha/European descent, means for your education, health, earning potential, housing, diet, deprivation and opportunities and it becomes fairly hard to defend the belief that racism exists only in South Africa.
It would be nice if the election this year spent some time highlighting what needs to be done to improve the equity of all those health and well being indicators. But somehow I suspect not. Race will probably be an election issue again this year but I doubt it will be for the reasons de Villiers has highlighted.
Published in Society & Culture by frog on Sat, July 12th, 2008
Tags: , craig dowd, peter de villiers, racism, Rugby
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Unlike in South Africa, racism is not so heavily entrenched in New Zealand. A South African business, when employing people must follow a list when filling positions that ranks people on the basis of colour, age and gender. Blacks are at the top, Coloureds in the middle, and Whites at the bottom; their affirmative action policy has gotten so ridiculous that the Chinese have officially been classified as Black in South Africa; that would be similar to the ‘honourary whites’ of the old days.
Of course, the racism in South Africa has simply enabled their economy to perform much worse than it might have otherwise done.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes well thats because affirmative action doesn’t work.
You choose people based on ability end of story.
Racism is alive and well in New Zealand and will be for along time.
Governments shouldn’t see race and should base policy on need not race.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I disagree, turnip28, but not entirely. Yes, things should be alotted based on need. Unfortunately, needs can often have a racial basis. The affirmative action as described by john-ston is totally over the top and ridiculous. But it is equally ridiculous to say that everything should be based on meritocracy alone, as you have stated. Somewhere in the middle lies a balance that neither the South African government or turnip28′s absolutism seems to be able to fathom.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Race itself is an outdated concept, to assume that just because someone is of a certain ethnicity they hold certain traits is one of the greatist forms of bigotry there is.
At any rate the reasons that the statistics unequally represent those identifying as Maori and Pacific Islanders is most likley more due to social and economic conditions than any form of racisim. The worst form of institutional racisim we have here is the ‘positive’ discrimination, though i suppose the lack of ‘class’ fluidity could also be construed as a form of racism.
It is understandable from an economic stand point that in a society with relativly low upwards ‘class’ fluidity from the lowist echelons that those entering society from the lowest levels (such as those from the pacific islands or the mass movement of maori from the country side to the cities) would take a long time to, as a group, obtain the same standards of living as the average member of that society. Though that been said, this movement has been slower than would be expected for maori, though that could be due to the increase of the median levels aswel.
The social forces that come about from poverty dont really help the climbing of the social ladder eaither, nor does the blatent racism and discrimination of many individuals which acheives only the victimisation of an ethnic grouping.
I found it quite amussing when mr Key was first brought foward, with his ‘i was in a state home and i managed to climb up’ bull, when his progress was due mostly to social and economic opportunities that he and his party have, post-muldoon, consistantly stripped away at. though admitidly they has little left to do after Douglas had his way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Can someone please explain how a persons need has a race base. Either you need something or you don’t.
The biggest problem with say getting a Maori child to achieve in education is not the child but its the peer group and the parent.
If the parent didn’t do well at school or the parent had a negative feeling to school then they will imprint that onto their children. If the child lives within a community that is full of people with similar negative feelings this will all be imprinted on them. A 1 day old child is a canvas waiting to be filled with information. This usually appears in poor communities. Which is why you try and restrict poor communities from being created, South Auckland, South Bronx, etc should never have been able to be created. Regardless of all this negativty some children will excel anyway due to them being smarter.
My experience is one that neither my parents went past 5th form, my brother only made it to 6th form and my sister took 5th form 3 times and finally got past it and then eventually went onto study Teaching.
I however found school boring class was not interesting but when it came time to pass an exam I could learn everything the night before, walk into the test and walk out with an A, I found i could do this even at uni so never really felt challenged by education in NZ.
The major difference in my education between my brother and sister was in third form i was placed in the top third form class and my brother and sister were placed in an average class. The top class was full of students that wanted to learn the lower classes involved the teachers spending all their time getting the kids to behave.
The thing I think to understand about education is all children probably learn in a different way and maybe we need to be looking at an education system that supports these different ways of learning.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As just about all people who are Maori are of mixed race I think that perhaps we should think of Maori more as a culture than a race, perhaps to go on the Maori roll people should state that they identify as Maori, rather than have to prove a (1/128th?) blood line.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The land wars were a straight forward battle for for control of New Zealand between communism and capitalism. Todays racial divide is simply the result of the continuation of that cultural divide. The two cultures have completely different attitudes towards “getting ahead”. It should come as no surprise that a culture that discourages getting ahead should have fallen behind a culture that does encourages getting ahead. Equally it should comes as no surprise that a culture focused on getting ahead will be too busy looking ahead to notice what they are leaving behind, especially the damage and mayhem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Andrew W is 100% correct their is no Maori Race, just as their is no european race and certainly no Asian race.
at your birth you are a human being and their is no difference between a child born with some distant relation who was a member of an iwi and a child who was not. You do not inherit Maori culture while you are growing in your mothers womb.
So since you are born with a clean slate it is the culture you absorb that is stopping you from achieving in education. What would happen if we taught children to not identify with a culture but rather to absorb all cultures.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
we would have people who were much more creative and had a much better perspective of the functionings and possibilities of society, we would likley have less crime due to lower levels of anomie and we would have less need for the creation of in and out groups such as those that so dominate tribalism and other such structures. All in all, its not what is in the best interests of any self-interested ruler, the ignorant are more easy to manipulate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree racism is used in New Zealand by ALL the parties to divide people
Does the green party want intelligent people in New Zealand because if it does then it needs to drop its relation with the Maori party, the Maori party does not promote the Maori culture they promote the Maori Race!!!
Why does the green party behave like this because they are trying to buy votes from people who identify themselves as a Maori Race. Give your party vote to the green’s and your electorate vote to the Maori Party.
We can add this behaviour to the greens list of reasons why it can’t get to 30%.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh, turnip28! That sort of monoculture is my idea of hell on earth. Besides, It is only in variety, (and that includes culture), that our species will survive. Without the laboratory of cultures and yes, genetic traits that inform ‘race’, humanity will go the way of the dinosaur.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
> ‘race’
geez, ethnicity is the genetic, historical and cultural basis. Race is a divisive concept designed to separate different groups to better allow subjication and exploitation of the other ‘race’. used, such as in the case of the cathloc church, to justify slavery and theft and, in the case of germany and much of europe for afew hundred years preceding present, to build strong ingroup ties and externalise the blame for current situations, much like how national blames labour for the results of their failed policies and the failed policies of Douglas.
It wouldint be a monoculture as every individual would be able to choose the cultural traits and beleifs that they themselves liked the most. if anything it would enrich diversity and decrease inter-group conflict.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How can there be monoculture when each individual is free to choose his/her own culture free of people like you telling them how they should conform to your way of thinking. I know you want everyone to think like you so you can save the world but you can’t force anyone to do anything, you don’t get the dairy farmer to stop polluting by invading his land and staging a protest or by passing laws, you must convince them that it is in their self interest.
The individual culture concept is the ultimate concept of a laboratory of culture and as for genetic traits, its very difficult for a mutation in the human genome to take effect in modern society, isolation would be required for the trait to take root within the group. How do you propose that in a group sample size of over 4 million and counting are you going to control who mates with who now???
Frog we are at the stage now where we could insert genetic traits if we wanted to so how you can even assert that is absurd. We can propagate what nature considers good genes and remove what natures considers bad genes.
Of course I see no reason to play around with the human DNA but our biggest threat to our survival is ourselves and more to the point its your refusal to lay down race and group cultural identity. It is you Frog who will cause the human race to go the way of the dinosaur.
Note Frog no one is asking you to become a clone just have your own identity that is independent of the tribe, if their is a tribe then that tribe will always end up fighting some other tribe. Look at history a long running example of tribes killing tribes, hell you don’t even need to look at history look around the world, look in NZ it happens everyday when some gang fights some other gang and no amount of re-education camps will make it go away.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Now you guys are asserting absolute individualism and calling that culture! Just what have you been smoking? And where did i say that I wanted everyone to think the way I do? Just where? I am supporting a diversity of language, choices, and yes, a diversity of tribes. No man or woman is an island. To fantasise that people can just divest themselves of their cultural upbringing is madness. Not that they cannot make choices. But you guys are contradicting yourselves and trying to have it both ways. You say you want monoculture so that people are free to choose their own culture? WTF?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog how to you intend to stop the tribes from killing each other.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog, If I understand Turnip’s argument correctily you are just two letters away from getting. Not MONOculture – just plain NOculture.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No Frog a man or woman can not exist without their own identity which includes their own culture(language, ideas, etc). Without a strong identity you are swallowed in the world by the tribe or by anyone else.
You didn’t say you wanted people to think the same as you but the end result for your tribes is that one will gain the upper hand and spread its culture until it dominates. Tribalism always ends in group thinking which is never good for anyone.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Also Frog Language is just a medium for conveying information, I mean everyone in your society should speak at least one Language and your society should define 1 language just for the purpose of allowing everyone to understand each other.
After that you should probably go out there and learn as many languages as you like or none at all. What right Frog do you have to decide to say teach spanish to your son. Isn’t it your sons right to decide that. Really the only thing you should teach your child is to seek knowledge(science) then expose them to as much knowledge as possible if they seem to enjoy something ecourage it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As for me i’d love to get rid of english its a horrible language, I wouldn’t miss it either. What new language shall we use in NZ instead.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>To fantasise that people can just divest themselves of their cultural upbringing is madness.
I am not suggesting in anyway that people divest themselves of their cultural upbringing, I am suggesting that culture is one of the things which makes people who they are and visa versa and that instead of everyone being indoctrinated in to culture 1, 2 or 3 that they instead be exposed to a number of different cultures and in doing so that they are able to shape their own identity and opinions rather than have it dictated to them by a society of ‘us’ and ‘them’.
Take for example sexuality; males are expected to act in masculine ways and females in feminine ways, both are expected to be attracted to the other sex only. And yet there are people who arnt just attracted to the opposite sex but sometimes to members of the same sex aswel or exclusivly and anything inbetween. Within those members which are not attracted to the sex that society tells them they should be attracted to there is often alot of internal conflict between who they are and what society tells them they should be. ultimatly some accept themselves as not conforming to the templates that society lays down and accept themselves for who they are and among these people you often find other traits not accepted readily by society, such as the steriotyped feminate male or any number of other occurances which are able to happen because the individual has in the first instance stepped outside the mould that society made and allowed themselves to be open to more options. of course then there is the resistant communities that develop which then make their own moulds with which to conform, such as the dominant dismissiveness of bisexual and polyamourous individuals within the queer community.
Just because people arnt divided into castes and other such groups it does not mean that they are all the same.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s all tribalism, I’d go as far as to claim that tribalism is the worlds greatest evil.
Further, religion (as in group belief rather than individual belief) is righteous tribalism which puts it at the top of the evil heap.
Racial tribalism comes a close second.
Individual respect (both of oneself and of others) is the only sustainable future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Heaps of great posts here, especially from turnip28 – I agree with the vast majority of what you are saying.
Frog:
“Yes, things should be alotted based on need. Unfortunately, needs can often have a racial basis.”
It makes no difference if there is a racial basis or not. If you have a policy designed to help poor people (for example) and more Maori (for example) happen to be poor, then more Maori will be eligible for and benefit from said policy. On the other hand, if the situation changes a couple of years later and more Asians (for example) now happen to be poor, they will now benefit. Also, the odd person in other cultures that also happens to be poor will receive the same assistance as any other poor person.
If however you attack the above problem by aiming a policy at Maori because more Maori happen to be poor, this is a very blunt way of approaching it that will ultimately be unfair. Firstly, you are labelling Maori as in need of assistance, which is derogatory and may exacerbate the problem. Then, you are providing benefits to one group of poor people which others who are equally poor, but happen to be a different race, cannot receive. Finally, you may end up subsidising Maori who happen not to be poor, while many non-Maori are still struggling.
Aim a policy at people who need it, and it might work. Institutionalised racism will not work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Racism is alive and well in New Zealand. It manifests itself daily in small things such as shop assistants preferentially helping palangi customers, extra (unjustified) attention from police etc. Nasty racist attitudes and comments are widespread. Maybe the posters to this blog come from more educated and enlightened sectors of society, and are unaware of how widespread racism is in day-to-day life?
Having said that, I don’t think racism is the cause of poor education, health statistics etc amongst certain groups of people. I think poverty is a much better explanation for these, as pointed out by several previous posters.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
in my experiance, having worked as a shop assistant for several years, one accually gives more preferance to helping non ‘palangi’/pakeha customers as it is more likley that if you are rude to them you will be accused of being racist whereas being rude to another person of your own skin colour cant be construed as racism so easily. Though it is certainly true that their is a degree of racial profiling involved in looking for shoplifters, but for the most part it is they way people dress and act that is used as cues.
I am perfictly aware of the racism in this country, my father for example for most of my life was extremly racist, talking about how lazy, etc the non-whites are, though he did make afew exceptions to people he had worked with, taking them to be exceptions. it was interesting when he got a job as a sub-contracter installing pre-pay meters and accually interacted with these people, it totaly changed his veiwpoint.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“You only need to spend a quick moment looking at what being Maori, Pacific Islander, or indeed most other ethnicities than of Pakeha/European descent, means for your education, health, earning potential, housing, diet, deprivation and opportunities and it becomes fairly hard to defend the belief that racism exists only in South Africa.”
So much for the hypothesis now for the interesting part…….. ??????????????????
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The greens are woolly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The description “Racist” is now the most used term to shout down anyone who has a different perspective to how New Zealand should function.
As is impossible to defend against being called a racist, it is the easiest strategy to shout anyone down (eg Brash’s Orewa speech).
Never mind the message being conveyed.
And when you create the position where Maori cannot by definition be racist (Hone Harawira), anything that anyone says who is not Moari, can automatically be called racist.
Thsi scoop article sums up my feelings pretty well.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0804/S00304.htm
and the dangerous we can get into if the racist tag is used to often to limit free speech.
Newver mind that it is not. Nor can the person making any statemetn defend themselfs.
It is the ultimate censorship to call someone a racist. Easily manipulated and used to silence any critic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“As such it has won more race-based seats than it would be entitled to on a party vote basis, so it is disproportionately represented in Parliament compared to every other party which has representation broadly according to party vote.”
Scrap the Maori seats. It is a travesty that we have both MMP and specific Maori seats.
MMP proportional? Yeah, right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I had an ineresting chat with a guy the other day. He said a fellow at work said there was a bit of “reverse” racism going on.
After enquiring on what he meant it turned out a maori fellow was being a tad intolerant to pakeha.
When it was sugested that it is not “reverse racism” but the guy was infact simply being racist his work mate was dumb founded.
This is quite concerning when the more extreme elements of the left manage to hijack the english language so well that the very definition of words becomes lost.
If you happen to disagree with a homosexual you will be called homophobic and bigoted. When homosexual people are attacking some ones beliefs it is called “confronting intollerance”.
Prehaps if people had a look at the definition of bigot they would find they are in fact harboring bigoted attitudes themselves.
I think its time we all grew up and learnt how to debate issues without calling people names just cause you happen to disagree with them .
These magic buzz words have got to go.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OMG. I can hardly believe what I am reading!!! How the hell can you suggest that racism is the cause of those problems??
If that sort of crap is what the Green party believes then you deserve to really get your butts kicked.
Maybe you need to have a close look at the overall wealth and health of Indians and Asians (among others) in NZ. They do pretty well thank you very much.
The problems you have highlighted are caused by cultural effects, not racism.
The only racism I have ever seen in NZ has been directed at myself and my kids (yes we are white).
We are poor, and struggling, so don’t fit whatever stereotype you want to chuck at us.
Any ‘ethnic’ minority that wants to work hard and earn more has exactly the same education and opportunities as me and my kids (usually far more!!)
As my wife (a secondary school teacher) says; every Maori and Pacific Islander who leaves school to enter university does it with a scholarship. (A scholarship that is based on race, not academic achievement)
So where is the racism??? My kids are not eligible to apply for those scholarships.
She also says that the bilingual class (which is only open to Maori) has a required maximum teaching ratio of only 1 to 20 (ie much higher opprtunity for quality teaching) whereas my daughters classes have 34 students.
Grow a brain and get into the real world! Stop dreaming.
You do immense harm by suggesting to young impressionable minds that ethnic minorities are discriminated against in NZ. It is exactly that message which generates the LA style streetgang mentality in South Auckland.
Maybe you and Willie Jackson should get together on this…you both seem to push the same misguided message.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# samiuela Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
> Having said that, I don’t think racism is the cause of poor education, health statistics etc amongst certain groups of people. I think poverty is a much better explanation for these, as pointed out by several previous posters.
I agree that these problems are not caused by racism, but I think cultural differences do play a part. Of all the doctors I have been treated by, most of the ones I have felt I had the best communication with were pakeha, and most of the ones I found hardest to understand and communicate with were Indian. It could be that Indian doctors tend to be worse communicators, but I suspect it’s more likely that it was cultural differences (different ideas of what needs to be said or can be left unsaid, different assumptions, different euphamisms etc.) that led to the confusion. If so, then I would expect Pacific Island patients would find they got better doctor-patient communication if their doctors are also pacific islanders. But hardly any doctors are pacific islanders, so they hardly ever get that.
I think it is worth having positive discrimination to get more pacific islanders through medical school, not because being ‘the best person for the job’ is not what matters, but because an understanding of pacific island culture may be part of what makes someone the best person for the job of treating pacific island patients.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Turnip28 – unlike another blogger, I find a lot of your opinions rather dangerous.
e.g.
Your implication that any green affiliation with the maori party is based on racism. No it is based on commonality of ‘culture’ and principles regarding the environment and social issues.
Your suggestion that genetic ‘culture design’ would be a good idea – genetic profiling and eugenics by another name. Bad idea !!
Your belief in ‘we are all born as a clean slate’. No I think that Prof Pinker, in his book, How the Mind Works, really puts paid to this idea.
Both tribalism and race identity are built in to the human condition, because we ALL belong to a particular ‘race’ or ‘tribe’. It’s the way it works. Any attempt to eliminate either will necessitate totalitarian rule and conformity by decree. This is a state of affairs all who blog here would want to avoid – in my opinion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greengeek,
Your wife claims that every Maori and Pacific Islander who leaves school to enter university does it with a scholarship”.
This is totally untrue. There are a few scholarships targetted for Pacifc Island and Maori students (many less scholarships than the total number of Pacific Island and Maori students). Many of these are from private organisations who have chosen for whatever reasons to target scholarships this way. This is not racism anymore than if I personally funded a scholarship for people from, for example, Tonga.
In fact, your post raises what I believe is one of the major causes of racism, namely economic hardship. When people are struggling economically (as you claim your family is), it is very tempting to blame their problems on a convenient scapegoat, rather and address the much more complex and difficult underlying issues.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bigblukiwi I don’t agree with anything you are saying
Where do I define that the the green affliliation is racist.
I define the Maori party as racist not the green party.
Where do i support genetic culture design, please define genetic culture design. You can’t program culture through genetics.
I my god you think I support eugenics do you even know what eugenics is??
So you are once again argueing that culture is inherited at the genetic level. You will need to provide scientific evidence for such a claim.
Totalitarian rule comes about because of Tribalism. The Nazi germans created them selfs as a group that was superior to another group the Jews. I can’t believe you don’t see the evil that is tribalism, A human being must have a strong individual identity with out it they will be swallowed by the group.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Let us for second move away from Tribalism by Race and towards Real estate. To show an example
Lets call this group the Real Estate Tribe. This group gets everyone to believe that real estate is a good investment and then makes everyone buy real estate. I have been living in New york for the last 5 years and at every party I went to the Real Estate tribe would be there trying to get me to join the tribe and buy real estate, I would tell these people that their models were wrong that the price was too high and didn’t match peoples incomes. I was called a fool and a naysayer I am sure some of these people would have loved to burn me at the stake.
Then the market crashed, it crashed because people couldn’t afford the houses they had bought, Now when i go to parties all I hear is how much money people have lost and when will the government do something.
Group thinking is what caused this mess in the US and in New Zealand where the same people believe and are swallowed by the group, only those who can resist the group will not be caught in the mess.
The only problem for the individual who didn;t join the group is we still suffer. We suffer because we live in a democracy and under a democracy the real estate group who are now suffering can vote people in if they make up a large enough percentage of the voters. They can then pass bail out laws that help them and hurt me, I have to pay for these bail outs with my taxes.
A Democracy can only work if the individual is strong enough to resist the group think of those around them. You must be able to critically analyse every peice of information and decide if it is true or not. Tribalism will beat you to conform this was helpful in the past but less so now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is way of topic but as the current most popular post, I would like to ask Frog
What happened to your post on the Greens No 11 man, Gareth?
First the comments were sanitised, now the entire post has gone!
Censorship or has Gareth pulled the plug?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry frog… I can’t follow you there. It isn’t racism when other cultures do not perform equally well at the tasks that are valued highly by the dominant culture.
There’s an enormous linguistic loading on this, and people who do not learn and aspire to learn to speak the language of business, commerce and science fluently, but instead hew to their own are simply failing to adapt. Pinker is very very relevant.
The dominant culture will, and rightly, make judgments quite quickly based on the language being used, about the usefulness of the person using it as an employee or worker in business and science.
You are not going to replace English with Maori or Samoan in those arenas. The rest of the world will grind us into the dirt for attempting such a thing. If you want to create second class citizens, give them a separate language.
Make them easily recognized as different the instant they open their mouths and cripple the language by making it next to useless for the purposes of business and science. It can work only if the second language is as useful as the first in that culture. Chinese and English in Taiwan, French and English in Canada.
As far as gaining literacy is concerned…
Consider just how hard it is to create a “spy” to enter another country undetected without that person learning the language so perfectly as to pass as a native speaker. This is not trivial, and the emphasis on separating cultures and preserving them is one of the problems.
Either we are all New Zealanders or we aren’t. The thing that binds us is a common language and if we fail to ensure that we have one then we fail to be a nation and are instead a collection of “tribes”.
It is good that my son and daughter learns Maori words and understands some of that culture. It is IMPERATIVE that a son or daughter of Maori or Pacific or Asian parents learns english and understands this culture.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I should have clarified it further…: She has been teaching at a large decile 6 secondary school for almost 20 years and in that time every Maori/Pasifika student who left school planning to go to university qualified for, and received all the funding they required.
By contrast, Non-Maori and Non-Pasifika students did not have anywhere as many options available to them, and any scholarships they could apply for were pretty much all based on levels of achievement rather than on hardship.
In other words, funding WAS available based on race, rather than on measurement of hardship.
I do understand the concept of “affirmative action” but I dont accept it as being a reason for locking certain races out of educational opportunities.
Our tertiary educational resources should (by law in my opinion) change to being targeted based on prowess and achievement, and never on race.
Do you think it is racist of me to prefer to stay away from a Pasifika doctor, when I know they did not have to achieve to the same standards as other medical students??
I understand why it is imperative to encourage medical trainees of specific races, due to the need for cultural empathy, but nobody should be given their final medical tertiary qualification unless they meet the same academic standards.
The changing racial mix at Auckland university over the last 15 years is interesting. How long will it be before we see ‘race-based’ funding for white people to matriculate.
I won’t hold my breath.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>First the comments were sanitised, now the entire post has gone!
What’s up, Frog? It’s an admission of something, eh.
Local caches are wonderful things…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Do the greens support freedom of speech?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The transparency claim is sounding a little…”hollow man”, too….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bjchip and others
Linguists would NOT agree with your take on the “advantages” of a basically monolingual society.
1. The young human brain is “wired” to pick up and cope with language at a at a very early age. This “window of opportunity” does not last.
My son (with a mother who spoke to him in English and a father who spoke to him in German) launched forth in both languages at a preciously early age. He never confused the two.
This bilingual experience was beneficial, not detrimental, to his English language skills. (When he started school he was way ahead of his peers on the standardized tests of English competence, and this advantage has remained.)
2. I once boarded with a couple who worked for the UN in New York. She was a Scandinavian and he a Cuban. Their very young children spoke FOUR languages fluently “without accent” and understood at least two more… They too have done well at school.
3. Two facts about the place of the Maori language in our society:
Firstly it is one of the TWO Official Languages of AotearoaNZ.
Secondly, it is one version of a language that is spoken throughout Polynesia.
Unfortunately the regional differences of this Polynesian language have been magnified by the different ways in which Europeans wrote these “native languages” down, but basically Polynesians can understand each other better than Europeans can across Europe (for example).
Aotearoa NZ was lucky in that Maori was recorded by a Cambridge University trained linguist, rather than by some unskilled missionary or other, as was often the case elsewhere in the Pacific.
(It has always amused me that when we laud European explorers (Captain James Cook and others) who “discovered” various parts of Polynesia, we tend to overlook the Polynesian(s) they brought with them on their voyages to help navigate, and to TRANSLATE.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Woops, I left out the bit about …
It is important that a small children learn to speak FLUENTLY in the first language they learn.
Thus the first language that parents speak with their baby should be a language in which they themselves are the most fluent.
English will be better handled by a child who is already fluent in another language, than it will be if it is taught as a “first” language in a less than fluent form.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Turnip28′s points on scholarships are 100% correct. One of the most frustrating things for me entering university was the scholarships book. It listed pages and pages of scholarships available only to Maori people. There were a few more available only for females. If you were a Maori male you could apply for nearly any scholarship in the book, a female Maori had access to the whole thing. A non-Maori male had very few scholarships available by comparison, and you were competing with the females and Maori for them. There were none for only males or non-Maori. This was incredibly racist in my mind.
I have often thought if I can ever afford to offer a scholarship and feel like giving back to the community, I would offer one only for non-Maori males and see how much I get called racist and sexist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Woops! Correction: Aotearoa has THREE official languages (not two)
They are Maori, English AND “New Zealand Sign Language (for the hearing impaired)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis, If you widen your view a little, you may see beyond your own “want”s.
Any scholarship can be called something that ends with an … “ist”.
for example:
Surely most scholarships are “eletist”, in that they go to the people with the highest marks.
Also, they may be “sexist”, or “ageist”, or “racist” etc … but it is important to look at the reasons why this is so.
Some scholarships or bursaries may be there to try to redress a balance:
1. Scholarships for women (or men) to try to gain a gender balance in (learning or later professional) areas that are dominated by the other sex.
2. Scholarships for ethnicities that are underrepresented.
(This may be for the university’s sake, or for the professions sake, or for the needs of the future clients of these future graduates … or for the future
“health” of our society.)
Excuse me for saying so … but the current availability of training institutions and the availability of student allowances and student loans etc, and the proliferation and flexibility of courses available, both full and part time, makes access to tertiary education accessible and affordable to many more people than was ever the case previously.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen:
To a certain degree you are correct in that if someone chooses to offer a scholarship of their own money it is entirely their choice who they offer it to, and they might choose to offer it to a particular social group if they see a need there. However the proliferation of Maori scholarships I found at university had to my mind gone beyond this, into racism.
There is a big difference between awarding a scholarship because of skin colour (which you cannot change), and awarding it for high marks, which anyone can work for and achieve.
The point of offering scholarships based on achievement is not to be “eletist”, but to encourage all people to work towards achievement. It is not to help high-achieving people as such – you could argue high achievers need less help. It is an incentive to study and achieve.
Offering a scholarship based in race gives no incentive to anyone, unless it gives an incentive to claim to be a Maori because you think one of your great-great-grandparents might have been one. Each time the electoral roll forms come round I am highly tempted to go on the Maori one for pragmatic reasons, in the hope of getting some special consideration in various areas. It is only a moral objection to racism that keeps me from doing so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredwen
Firstly:
This isn’t about the undeniable linguistic advantages of learning more than one language. This is about the undeniable socio-economic DIS-advantages of not knowing how to properly read, speak and write in the dominant language of a society.
Secondly:
At no time did I say anything about monolingualism. I am quite happy to have a bilingual, multilingual society. The point is not to deny anyone the right to learn other languages but to insist that they learn the language they MUST HAVE if they are to be employable and responsible members of the society.
Those linquistic skills are getting lost, being allowed to lapse. Kids who can’t spell and can’t form complete sentences in English and who can’t understand half the words I say are NOT going to successfully graduate from an engineering school or go on to get a degree in computer science.
They aren’t going to be employable except for scut work and there are a lot of them, not dumb, but rendered dumb (in the sense of being unable to speak).
We have to do better than that.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s called MIXED MEMBER proportional because it’s only proportional so long as each party wins electoral seats equal to or lower than its entitlement from its share of the party vote. If you want a truly proportional system, you ideally have to do away with electorates altogether.
Yet strangely Maori don’t seem to have a larger University attendance rate than Pakeha. Remind me how it can be racist if the end result is still that Maori are disadvantaged in this area?
Even worse- try putting on a “funny accent”- regardless of where or how it originates- and for a given job and you’ll suddenly get paid 5-10% less.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ari:
“Yet strangely Maori don’t seem to have a larger University attendance rate than Pakeha. Remind me how it can be racist if the end result is still that Maori are disadvantaged in this area?”
Simply because, as I pointed out, a scholarship based on race does not encourage achievement (like a scholarship based on excellence does). It just means that if you are intending to go to university anyway, and happen to be Maori, there is some extra money available to reduce the amount of debt you get into (or pay for more booze).
Scholarships for high-achievers are more likely to encourage achievement and be spent on education. Scholarships for anyone from a particular demographic are more likely to just provide a bit more cash for that demographic to spend how they would have anyway.
To get more Maori into university you would have to break the welfare-dependency culture in a portion of that population, and encourage personal achievement rather than dependency (whether on the state or a tribe).
But having said that, why would you want to push more Maori (or women, asians, white men etc) into university? Isn’t it better to provide the resources for people who are really keen to go to university (and study, get good grades) to go whatever their skin colour or sex, and let people who are more interested in trades go into that whatever their skin colour? Who are you to decide we need more Maori in university? Do the Maori teens you want in university want that for themselves? Or would they prefer to get a job and start earning money from day one rather than getting a big loan?
Isn’t it racist to even have desired racial quotas you would like to fill in the first place?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Firstly Dennis, you completely dodged my question. How is the policy racist if it does not actually result in a proportional advantage for Maori?
OK, let me address your points one by one.
You say scholarship based on race doesn’t encourage achievement. I think it does. It just encourages achievement among a subgroup rather than the whole population- there are plenty of smart kids who otherwise couldn’t afford to study who just need to know there’s programs out there where they don’t have to compete with rich, upperclass pakeha kids. If your aim is addressing the level of deviation from the wider group for that subgroup, then targeted, standards-based assistance is by far the most effective method. While I’d prefer something that can just be given to anyone who’s disadvantaged and proves themselves, in practice that means addressing the problem much less effectively.
In my experience, all scholarships are based on achievement, even when they restrict themselves to certain demographics. I have a relative who received a scholarship that was only for women, and there was a presentation involved- and all the people who had received scholarships were incredibly bright and amazingly interesting to talk to- these were people who obviously merited a hand up in their studies, even though one of the qualifiers had been their demographic. Why do we have scholarships like that? So that lots of different types of people can participate in the education system, and then go out and be role models for our kids. So our kids know that people like them can have flash jobs, too. So that they’re inspired to do their best and achieve themselves, and so that one day demographics won’t matter so much to your success in life.
You say welfare dependency stops Maori from seeking out higher education- I say lack of involvement in the education system is one of the prime causes of welfare dependency. Ultimately, very few people want to be dependent in the first place, and where they do it’s usually because they can’t see a better alternative for themselves- where they’ve disengaged from wider society. By opening up alternatives we create opportunities, we get Maori qualified, which gets them into the workplace, which acclimatises employers and employees to working with Maori, which in turn creates more opportunities for Maori. But we can’t do that if they don’t get the chance to get qualifications in the first place.
I don’t want to “push” anyone where they don’t want to be. But I do want anyone to have equal access to institutions that give you the opportunity to live a successful life- like education, healthcare, social support, etc… (As for other groups- women, asians, etc… are all generally well represented, although some targeted scholarships for women in science and technology, asian students in humanities, men in languages and education, and so on could be very useful in offering a broader perspective to those fields)
When did I discuss quotas? I disagree with admissions quotas for universities, in any sense, and am quite happy with the fact that virtually anyone can be admitted to New Zealand universities, so long as they pass some basic secondary school courses, or come back as an adult student. If you’re discussing limited-entry courses, then yes, I think sometimes setting aside a few places with quotas allows able students to progress even if they came from a more challenging background or suffer institutional discrimination. But students should only be let into a limited admission course if it’s clear they can handle it, regardless of whether they’re on a quota or whether they have ridiculously high marks in previous courses.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ari:
“Firstly Dennis, you completely dodged my question. How is the policy racist if it does not actually result in a proportional advantage for Maori?”
Racism is by definition discrimination on the base of race. If it is allocating funds based on race, this is racist. Whether the policy actually works (results in a proportional advantage for Maori) is completely irrelevant. If it doesn’t result in an advantage for Maori, what is the point of having it in the first place?
You are right that most scholarships have some element of achievement in them, I just feel it would be fairer to offer them to all students on the basis of achievement rather than discriminating racially as the most important part of the selection process. I have said that I don’t have a problem with private people offering scholarships to whoever they like, but it is just the current proliferation of racist scholarships I disagree with.
Yes, dependency and lack of education is a cycle, each causes the other. But what is more important that education is a strong work ethic. It is much better to leave work at 15 and get a job than to get a massive student loan studying something you realise half-way through you weren’t actually as interested in as you thought you were. After seven years of university I realise that even though I am interested in what I do, it will take me many years of work to bring me back to the financial situation I would be in if I had left school at 15 – I would have been working for 9 years and if I had gone down the dairy line would probably be a sharemilker with a few hundred cows of my own, already considering buying my own farm. Pushing education isn’t the solution to welfare dependency, pushing work of any description is, and that will mean university for some but not for most. In general I believe we have a greater shortage of tradespeople than academics. This whole “knowledge economy” thing is a wonderful wishy-washy idea that ignores the fact that most work actually needs to be done physically by someone.
That is well off the topic of racism sorry. Summary: If something uses race as a deciding factor, it is racist. Pure and simple.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
correction: “But what is more important THAN education…”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greengeek,
You ask the question “Do you think it is racist of me to prefer to stay away from a Pasifika doctor, when I know they did not have to achieve to the same standards as other medical students??”.
This question is based on a false premise, namely that the standards required by medical students to complete their training is lower for PI students than for other students. I ask you to show me a single example of a tertiary education course where completion or graduation requirements are lower for one group of people than for others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj,
Part of what you are talking about is the “fault” of the school for not having the extra resources (or for not having the vision or the flexibility) to help students through the disadvantages that they bring with them.
Some “low decile” schools are managing to do a good job, others a “not-as-good” job.
Good volunteer systems can make a difference … often for the volunteer parents as well as the kids.
I have taught primary and secondary, but most of my career was in the tertiary system.
During that time I witnessed the growth of “return to learning” and saw some spectacular examples of “second chance education”, especially among women.
(The old saying: “If you educate a girl, you educate the next generation” is particularly so for “second chance education” mothers!)
Migrant groups with less education may need some help for a couple of generations, but they will get there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredwen
I am one of the first in line to push for schools to be a safe and interesting place for the students, with funding arrangements that help lower decile students match the training of their upper decile cousins. This is the place, particularly in the elementary levels, where society has the ability to make the largest difference.
Which is a long way of saying that I agree with you. The schools should have enough resources to help students overcome the disadvantages they bring to the classroom.
The problem is with the priorities when the resources aren’t quite there. If a boy is failing to learn proper English because his parents speak Maori at home you won’t get a chance to teach English later. That is particularly true if the money and time and effort to keep things even-handed isn’t there. The assertion that it is more effective to learn the milk-language first rings true with me, but if he does not stay in school because he’s already started to be socialized as a second-class citizen then the ESL program doesn’t reach him.
There’s more going on than just language training at school and the language of the mainly technical course content… science and math… is not Maori. By the time the student has reached 5th year there’s enough difference that he has had to overcome that… taking it from the student’s point of view… he’s doomed to be perpetually catching up. There’s no reward for studying, he’s ALWAYS behind… can’t compete and “I must be stupid” will surface in his thoughts. . the drugs, hopelessness and gangs follow behind that thought.
That’s my way of understanding how the emphasis is wrong. The priorities have to be to bring the children into the mainstream at the earliest possible point and to work extremely hard to make their ability to communicate in English sufficient that they can participate in their classes as equals.
Consider that Asian kids may speak Mandarin, Thai or Vietnamese at home but they get hammered to learn English and they outperform when it comes to science and maths. I don’t think the differences are attributable to raw abilities but that the current system is giving Maori and Pacific Island kids permission to do poorly. It is giving them their culture as an excuse and letting them play that card inappropriately.
There are other cultural differences at play to be sure. There are other societal differences, particularly in parental income which have to be accounted for and some effort made to give the kids equivalent resources WITHOUT simply handing the parents money (which might instead get spent at a bottle shop).
The schools are the door to the future… but language is the key that unlocks the door. Giving kids that key early is the best gift I can think of… but this is merely tactics… we both I think agree, that the schools are where the emphasis needs to be and that education isn’t the place to cut corners or budgets.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj says:
“If a boy is failing to learn proper English because his parents speak Maori at home you won’t get a chance to teach proper English later.”
I suggest that you’d be pretty hard pressed to find a kid in NZ that is not affected by the influence of various forms of American English (for some of which, to call it “English” is a bit of a stretch !!) [special joke for bj]
Also:
Once the kid hits school, the peer group has a VERY powerful influence. Young brains still have the capacity to absorb language like a sponge.
(I’d hazard a guess that bj’s kids will speak Kiwi English (if not at home, as soon as they get out the door!)
This sponge-like ability starts to decrease at about 12 years of age (yet in our “wisdom” we STILL tend to “follow the Brits” and don’t teach “foreign languages” until Secondary School!)
Also … the literature finds that, for later success, it is very important for a child to become fluent in their first language. Thus, parents/caregivers would be doing the child a disservice to make English the first language of the home if it is not a language that they are the most fluent in.
On this whole topic we’d do better to learn from the Scandinavians (who are, of necessity, successfully multilingual), than from any English speaking countries.
Last post from eredwen on this topic !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
… except that I’d like to say to Ari :
Good posts ! I agree !
As a Study Skills / Learning Assistance tutor, I have been involved in setting up, and teaching on, various courses preparing students for tertiary education (Polytechnic and University) and offering support when they were there.
(and yes! many of these students were those looked-down-upon “solo parents” (Pakeha, Maori, Pacifica) … living in their “state houses” and “bludging on the tax payers” and …
In some cases the results have been spectacular!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen:
“I suggest that you’d be pretty hard pressed to find a kid in NZ that is not affected by the influence of various forms of American English”
This is so true, and very difficult to counter especially as people use more computers. Most programs have spellcheckers set automatically to the rubbishy US form of English, and it sometimes takes a certain degree of technical knowledge to change them. Most people don’t bother, and just type in American English as whenever they spell something correctly the computer says it is wrong. Schools need to drill in correct spelling to kids, and show them how to change the options on computers.
Unfortunately spelling and maths seem to take a back seat to political propaganda these days…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis:
I fundamentally disagree. Racism is by definition harmful discrimination based on race. There are valid reasons to discriminate by race- and giving people more equal opportunities is one of those. Another is protecting cultures that are being marginalised, and so on. Discrimination in a scientific sense means “a decision based on a certain factor”. Negative, undesirable descrimination therefore should be a decision that is based on an irrelevant factor, or disproportionately based on a relevant factor, or some combination of the two.
Well, if I thought society were equitable as it is, I’d agree with you that any targetted programs are racist. However society is far from giving Maori the same opportunities, respect, and confidence afforded to Pakeha. However, starting from the premise that Maori are currently disadvantaged by many factors, it actually makes sense to do some positive discrimination in favour of Maori to try and fight those factors in the next generation. I’d say the policy is actually working as long as there’s no resulting advantage for Maori, and as long as the participation of Maori in higher education continues to climb, because it’s not about creating an advantage for Maori- it’s about evening the odds on advantages that Pakeha already have.
Once you realise that we live in a society that is domination by European cultural norms with some slight mutation, it begins to make sense that discrimination can have a positive role in making our society more accepting of its very real multiculturalism.
Well, I’d say lack of education results in low incomes which result in lack of education for the next generation. I would call dependent behaviour a symptom of that cycle rather than a step in it.
I agree with you that work ethic is one of the most important qualities, and it’s something that can’t be taught through book learning. But experience and mindset can definitely help.
Physical work is certainly important, but I think so is the “knowledge economy” you talk about. I think there’s a balance to be struck between the two where we don’t try to export all of our industrial work overseas to countries with cheaper labour, and where New Zealanders value working with their hands and legs.
But an education is still very useful, even on a construction site or a road crew. And beyond that, if someone is an excellent academic or analyst, that doesn’t make mean they’re out to scab off the people who do physical labour. It’s hard enough to be good at those things that we should give people who are the opportunity to study, no matter what background they’re from, and no matter whether they’re already self-sufficient or they need a hand up to make it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
you are saying one side wanted to take the land from the other side purely because they philosophically disapproved of their method of managing it, & not for desire of gain?
many maori tribes, despite their collective management of their lands, were getting ahead quite nicely until the land wars, & with a will. tribes could be quite effective capitalists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ari:
Definitions of racism:
Compact Oxford Dictionary:
“discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.”
Merriam-Webster:
“racial prejudice or discrimination”
Nothing in there about “harmful” discrimination, just discrimination. Whether something is harmful or not is debatable so not part of any definition of racism. And don’t get too hung up on the word “against” in the Oxford definition – to discriminate for one race is to discriminate against others and vice versa.
To discriminate based on race is racism. To try to change the definition to say that your particular form of discrimination is not racist is dishonest.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Are we still trying to solve the lack of good education for children in NZ by arguing its a race issue.
Look we need to look at the child who is failing in school at an individual level, right now there is a child who is failing they are going to end up leaving school with no hope for the future probably end up joining a gang and finally end up in jail. Target the individual not the group, target all the individual’s not place them into groups each child may have different needs that may need to be addressed instead we lump them into a group and try and fix them all under a great big umbrella
Education is the NUMBER ONE thing in society for breaking the chains of poverty which is the single biggest trap that is holding groups like Maori down in society. How do we get the parents actively pushing their child in education.
Education is also important for a democratic society to function, If more New Zealanders were educated then we would have a lot better governments and a lot better government policy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
interestingly it seems to be a new word, prior to that the word “racialism” was used, which in turn appears to be only about a hundred years old.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
All university students have to sit and pass the same papers – it is only getting in that there is a hand-up for some.
No culture? It is a very Pakeha dominant culture that sees individual ‘getting ahead’ (whatever that means) as the thing that everyone must strive for. Individually. Sometimes the community (not tribe) has a greater need than your individual desire – cultures that know and respect this have something to contribute to our collective future (hence the Green empathy with much Maori Party philosophy).
Re language, I agree with Eredwen – do you remember some years ago there was a series run by Lesley Max and Gordon Dryden on the pre-school years which looked at the best pre- and post-natal child-rearing practices around the world and the current findings on language and social development? One of the main points was that whatever the first language was, it was vital that it be fluent and that parents could connect with their children – and that children with this solid foundation could easily learn other languages very quickly.
There are now children who have come through Kohanga REo, kura kaupapa Maori and even wananga who are fluent in Maori, English and, frequently, Japanese as well. A third language is much easier to add when you have already mastered two. I personally know some of these people.
It is also (generally) true that these graduates are confident, outgoing and successful in their own terms which may include professional education – they know who they are and don’t have to feel inferior.
There is not just one way to have a successful society – we need all our cultural strengths, only one of which is the individual success model.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
With regard to the medical course, the ‘PolyPref’ system permitted unqualified Maori/Pasifika students to gain entry to medical school. It also allowed them to progress to later stages of the course when they did not in fact meet the standard applied to other students.
When other students must achieve a “C” pass to move on to the next level, but PolyPref students can achieve a “D” (fail) yet still be given a “discretionary” pass, then there is racism involved.
This effect means that PolyPref students have less of a background of achievement, and can continue on at a lower level of achievement throughout the course, on the basis that there is some perceived benefit in guaranteeing that a higher percentage of “ethnic” students graduate, than would otherwise have been the case if this “affirmative action” had not occurred.
In my opinion it is impossible to apply this degraded method of assessment without guaranteeing that PolyPref graduates have a lower standard of ability.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In terms of language, Ireland has a far better model than here. Irish Gaelic is heavily promoted by the government, with areas of the country officially designated “gaeltacht” (Irish speaking), where even the road signs are in Irish (instead of “Slow” being written on the road suddenly it becomes “Go Mall” – you need your wits about you a little!). The most popular schools are the Gael schools – which teach the entire curriculum in Irish, with English as a second language. Students at these schools end up fluent in both languages, as most speak English primarily at home and Irish at school. Most Irish can speak Irish far better than most NZers can speak Maori. English is still dominant out of necessity – it is the current international language of commerce and science. But you can get round Ireland speaking just Irish if you have to.
This is certainly better than the little bit of Maori I learnt at primary school – I can count to ten! And know a few colours! And even the days of the week – oh no, some PC meddler went and changed the days of the week to sound less English, now I don’t know them anymore.
I thought hard to find the key reason for the success of promoting the indigenous language in Ireland but the failure here, and realised that it was this:
All Irish, whatever their ancestry, regard the Irish language as their heritage, even though it is actually just the language of one old group of immigrants to the island. In NZ, Maori is considered the language of Maori people, not all people.
That is all. Once we can accept that we are all interbred and both Maori and English culture and language are our collective heritage, we will be able to preserve both cultures well. As long as we retain racial divides (which are more artificial with each generation of interbreeding) we will never make progress, as non-Maori will resent being forced to learn Maori and some Maori will resent being forced to use English.
And if PC people meddle in the Maori language and change it for their own purposes rather than letting it evolve over time by adopting phrases from other languages for things there is not a Maori word for (all languages naturally adapt in this way) they simply discredit the language.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is a great topic. Ari, I am so glad that you have come out and clarified this.
This explains why some Maori just keep on hating modern white man when they have no justification to do so.
Sure, harbour all the hatred you want for the historical damage done to Maori, but dont let it make you believe that anti-white racism is justified in the modern world.
99% of us are innocent.
Just remember that your racism is being visited upon our kids. Do you intend to hurt children? Or do you simply not care about white ones?
You may be happy to redefine “racism” as being anything that is “harmful” to yourself, but it is a one-eyed definition that guarantees a future of conflict.
The real definition of racism has never been Minority-centric. As others have explained above, racism against whites is still racism.
It is just sad that too many people in NZ define racism as anything that doesnt give minorities everything they want, or everything they think they deserve.
I take heart from the many New Zealanders who have shaken the minority chip off their shoulders, and decided to make the most of their opportunities without damanding special treatment they don’t deserve.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr. Dennis:
Main Entry:
dis·crim·i·na·tion
Pronunciation:
\dis-ˌkri-mə-ˈn?-shən\
…
a: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment
Note that when referring to racial discrimination, the dictionary gives it a loaded, negative meaning- prejudicial discrimination. Come back to me when you’ve looked up prejudice, and then tell me how that differs from a judgement based on irrelevant factors or exaggerations.
I’ll also add that referring to the dictionary is like having spilled blood in debating- you’re no longer discussing the idea, you’re discussing conventional wisdom and semantics. Does it matter if Websters or Oxford or Collins think that discrimination is something different than what I do? No, it matters whether my ideas about discrimination describe the ethics of racism and counter-racism faithfully. There are better ways to discuss that than throwing dictionaries at each other.
Greengeek:
I’m no fan of antagonism from anyone. I was discussing affirmative action in education with Mr. Dennis. Supporting affirmative action policies under certain circumstances as “positive discrimination” is very different to advocating hatred of all Pakeha as harmful oppressors.
I think Maori distrusting Pakeha and Pakeha resenting Maori is both unfair and counterproductive until an individual actually supports something racist. Does that clear some things up for you?
I’m a Pakeha middle-class man. (queue whining about bleeding-heart liberals here, however inappropriate it may be) Don’t try this “us vs them” crap on me.
I support affirmative action policies so that we can undo the damage of hundreds of years of colonial and implicitly racist policies to our nation. I support giving anyone’s kids equal opportunities. Because we’re desperately kids from several key demographics, initiatives tailored to them are definitely called for. That is the price of supporting the idea that all people are created equal, and deserve equal opportunities: you have to strive to keep education accessible and relevant to everyone.
Affirmative action is a blunt tool- and it needs to be cut off before it gives any proportional advantage. But that’s not the same thing as saying it’s never practical at all- it can be a good first step in remedying gross inequalities. And the state of the nation is one of gross inequality. You can’t even find somewhere to live in my neighborhood if you’re Maori- even if you have an excellent record.
Being treated like you’re Pakeha isn’t the same thing as being treated normally. And I certainly don’t support “giving minorities everything they want”- I think claiming direct ownership to the foreshore and seabed and lakes are all quite ridiculous ideas, for instance. I think that there are activists who take the concept of Tino Rangatiratanga too far. And I feel there are limits on how far we can accommodate more orthodox beliefs, like Islam, into our society.
But I’m under no illusions that I live in a society that attempts to perpetuate unfair advantages for people like me. And that’s not okay- because I care about other people too, and I want them to have a chance to succeed. And I don’t think it should hurt my kids if their neighbors have a chance at a good job too. Especially as I’m still open to the possibility that my kids, should I choose to have them, might not call themselves Pakeha.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
MR Dennis:
“That is all. Once we can accept that we are all interbred and both Maori and English culture and language are our collective heritage, we will be able to preserve both cultures well. As long as we retain racial divides (which are more artificial with each generation of interbreeding) we will never make progress, as non-Maori will resent being forced to learn Maori and some Maori will resent being forced to use English.”
We are not all interbred. I’m no more Maori than I am Kenyan or Inuit/Eskimo. I’ve traced my family tree back to my ancestors who emigrated from Scotland to NZ via Oz in the 1840′s. Before that, there is also plenty of French and Swedish in my family tree. I don’t identify with any of these CULTURES, while I do accept that this is my ETHNIC heritage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greengeek,
I had not heard of “PolyPref” before today (evidently it is not a common term, because I can’t find it with Google either).
In any case, you didn’t answer my question: show me a degree where completion of the course has different required levels of achievement for different races. When I go to the doctor, I don’t care too much how they got into the course, what I care about is the level of skill they came out with.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree; I also care about the level of skill they come out with.
This level of skill is the sum total of everything they learned from day 1. Lower levels of achievement from day 1 result in lower total cumulative knowledge/skill at the end.
I did answer your question: in the medical course different students ‘pass’ the exams with different grades. Students who enter the course with lower academic abilities (ie chosen for race-based reasons) generally fall into the group of students who achieve the lower grades consistently from day 1.
Give such students “discretionary passes” (when they actually got a ‘D’) and you cement the effect I am describing.
If the medical course included an extra year or two training for these lower-grade students this would not be so much of a problem (although it would still be rascist, but at least you could make a case for it being necessary).
When doctors graduate there is a huge range of knowledge/skill from the highest achievers to those who scraped through.
“Poly Pref” was simply the label given to students who were there on race-based selection rather than academic merit. I’m not surprised you can’t find it on google, I probably spelt it wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t mind you supporting such policies, as long as it is your own money you use to do so. If you want to label a helping hand for ethnic minorities as ‘charity’ then I will agree with you that it is a valuable thing.
If you want to label such policies as ‘necessary racism’ then I no longer agree with you.
Undo the last 150 years however you want, but don’t selectively do it at the expense of non-Maori children or you will set the foundation for an unpleasant next 150 years.
Don’t make innocent kids responsible for someone elses past, by making them the butt of racist policy. Treat all kids the same, and give assistance on the basis of financial need , not racism.
Why on earth would Maori not be able to live in your neighbourhood? Do you have ‘racist patrols’ keeping them out?? No. Maori could live in your neighbourhood if they had the income to do so and chose to do so. Same requirements as the rest of us.
There are plenty of Maori earning way more than I do, and living in lovely suburbs. Good on them. I hope that is the future that everyone aspires to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
stretch:
“We are not all interbred. I’m no more Maori than I am Kenyan or Inuit/Eskimo. I’ve traced my family tree back to my ancestors who emigrated from Scotland to NZ via Oz in the 1840’s. Before that, there is also plenty of French and Swedish in my family tree. I don’t identify with any of these CULTURES, while I do accept that this is my ETHNIC heritage.”
That is exactly the attitude that is the problem with NZ. If each of us has to trace our family tree to figure out whether or not we can relate to Maori culture, we will never move forward. Sure, in Ireland there are plenty of people who aren’t actually related to the original Gaelic speakers at all – it doesn’t matter. Everyone accepts this as the collective heritage of their country.
If we can accept that New Zealand has a rich Maori and a rich European heritage, and this is OUR heritage, and collectively teach and promote both cultures regardless of the actual skin colour of the student, we will have gone a long way to conquering racism and will preserve both cultures. As long as we feel we have to study our family trees (not everyone knows theirs anyway) we will be stuck in the past.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greengeek:
“I don’t mind you supporting such policies, as long as it is your own money you use to do so. If you want to label a helping hand for ethnic minorities as ‘charity’ then I will agree with you that it is a valuable thing.”
Well said.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t think “positive discrimination” is necessary, I think it’s fair. We can choose to have a society in which we perpetuate the problems that occured in the past- but to me that choice is unacceptable.
I’m not proposing to do anything at the expense of children or young adults who aren’t Maori. I’m proposing we invest enough so that all members of our society can expect roughly equal results from the education, health, and civil protections of our society- the things a person needs to have equal opportunity.
That last paragraph is really telling- the old “sins of our fathers” argument. I don’t propose we should be held accountable for what our ancestors do- that’s the height of unfairness. However, we should be responsible for perpetuating the wrongs that were caused by our ancestors, and I think one of the useful ways of dealing with that responsibility is affirmative action.
As for only using my own money- well, sure, if I had the cash to fund every kind of social change I wanted to I would already be doing so, but why is it not the state’s job to ensure that education is equally effective for all citizens? There are plenty of systemic reforms that don’t require positive discrimination at all that we can start with, and in fact already have, such as integrating value for Maori culture into the general school curriculum, but why should there not be a few state scholarships that make sure that some Maori are awarded for academic performance too?
Nice to see that white privilege is well and alive…
Essentially, because landlords won’t rent even when they’re the best tenants- I know of a few Maori living nearby, but there also seems to be the good old subtle bias alive and well discouraging the “wrong kind of people” from moving in. I live in a very snobby area, sadly, and that translates into lots of different types of discrimination. You don’t need “racist patrols” to do racism when ordinary people are happy to volunteer, and probably don’t even realise they’re doing it.
And yeah, I agree with your last comment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
latin went through something like this when the romans began to absorb greek learning & a flood of greek words came into the language.
latin experienced something of a revival when cicero began to coin new latin words from latin roots for the imported concepts in philosophy, mathematics etc.
apparently many words in the latin preserved by the church for centuries owe their provenance to cicero.
mind you, unlike maori, latin-speakers ruled an empire that dominated most of the known world
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
andrew:
Interesting to hear the history of Latin. In terms of Maori though, the PC changes that occurred after I left school mean that now I only know half the Maori I learnt at school, half has been changed (days of the week, quite a few nouns etc) – I wasn’t taught much Maori at school so losing any of it is a big blow. I have been too disillusioned by the whole PC episode to bother learning any more Maori since as I don’t know whether someone will just go and change it on me again. I would love to see the language preserved accurately, it is an important part of our national heritage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
i can see two sides to the argument. on the one hand i’m sympathetic to what you are saying. if you have taken pride in knowing a few words of maori to do your part in preserving that heritage, it is a bit deflating to find that it isn’t valued any more.
but realistically was there ever a great value in learning “maori” words which were really just foreign words for foreign concepts, just pronounced in a kind of maori way?
did maori even divide time into 7 days? strange co-incidence if they did, but if so they must have had words of their own.
i’d be far more interested in learning how they did measure time than in simply plastering one culture over the other.
anyway if you didn’t know much maori, it’s not too much trouble to replace that knowledge perhaps?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That is the whole point Andrew. Maori did not divide time into seven days, as I understand. So when the week was introduced they just used a Maori variant of the English words – why invent a whole new set of words when there are perfectly serviceable ones already? When something existed here that didn’t have a name in English, often the Maori word was just incorporated into the English language – for example the names of birds like the kiwi. When something new was introduced by the English the Maori used a variant of the English word – eg. pen became pene.
But then, over a century later, someone feels that those words aren’t Maori-sounding enough, so lets invent a whole new set of words that sound more “authentic”. Huh? Pointless. If people are going to treat Maori with that much disrespect, as if they can just invent new words because they don’t like the sound of the old ones, I don’t see much point in learning the language. And this is a great shame, because I feel strongly that the language should be preserved accurately.
Hopefully at some stage I will have the time to actually learn the language, but it would have been much simpler to learn had it been taught to me effectively in primary school (and not changed afterwards). I can’t see how I could justify taking the time to learn it now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# andrew Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
> mind you, unlike maori, latin-speakers ruled an empire that dominated most of the known world
There was a time when Maori-speakers dominated most of the known world. Admittedly it was only most of the world known to Maori, but Latin speakers only ever dominated most of the world known to Latin speakers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How many indigenous languages in new Guinea…. 137?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
trivial point kahikatea – at the time latin began to absorb greek words they ruled an empire that dominated most of the known world, as they did at the time they began to replace those with words based on latin roots.
when maori began to absorb english words, & later when maori words were constructed from maori roots to replace those words, maori did not rule an empire that dominated most of the known world.
what i’m saying is that the romans were able to get away with it.
as for words like “pene” & days of the week, my point is why pretend they’re maori at all? why not just put the words “pen” & “wednesday” into otherwise maori speech where necessary? just as english speakers often include a word from other languages without feeling any need to change it (not to say they always get the pronunciation right, but an error is a different thing than declaring that some near miss is in fact the proper english word for the foreign word they’re actually trying to say)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Great debate and If I could read anything out of it all is for The Greens to do the properly PC thing and stay as far away from any racist policies as it can. Green policies not brown, yellow or white. Green and green only please, leave the racism to others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well said samiam.
Frog: take note. This is the reason your electoral share is not as great as it could be/should be.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Greens have only a few acts that get cheers.
The rest are jeers.
I wanted to say “boos”, not “jeers”,
but “boos” doesn’t rhyme with “cheers”
…………………….??
Cheers Frog
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh I know!:
you need to be careful who “steers”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)