The ‘Pakeha Party’ has the most Facebook followers of any New Zealand political movement (excepting John Key’s page) That’s in one day of publicity. They’re seriously talking about forming an actual political party. Should we be worried about this apparent reactionary force? Nah. The creation of a ‘Pakeha Party’ would be good news.
Usually, when we look at political activism – petitions, protests etc – we see the numbers involved and extrapolate on the basis that only a very small portion of people who care about an issue will publicly display that. But it would be a mistake to look at the 34,000+ Facebook likes that the Pakeha Party garnered in 24 hours and conclude that they represent the tip of an iceberg. They’re reactionaries, by definition because the idea of a Pakeha Party is an inherently reactionary one, and they’re doing something that with extremely low entry costs in a forum that is tailor-made for the reactionary way of thinking (ditto-headism, angry symbols in place of action, no deep thought).
Let’s look at another recent example of reactionarism – the petition against marriage equality. 72,000 people signed that online petition but the reactionary movement, Family First, had nearly no impact on the debate. Reactionaries make a lot of noise per person but they have little depth as a movement – they require too much energy, too much hate.
So, don’t worry, our little proto-fascists aren’t going to morph into a serious political force. Successful fascism was a product of a time and a place, and the skillful use of new propaganda technology by some exceptional politicians. A look at the Pakeha Party’s Facebook page and their media appearances reassures me they’ve got no propaganda geniuses, no cleverness or cunning.
They’re just nobs that a bunch of nobs like. And, while there are plenty of reactionary nobs, in this country, that’s not enough to be a successful political force – you have to be able to control and manipulate the media. These guys have had one day of publicity and they’ve managed to alienate mediaworks – basically, half the media – in that time.
And that’s not all you need. You need people with political nous and experience at running a political organisation. They don’t have that. They’re just a bunch of munters.
If these guys form a real party, they will be riven by internal problems, their policies will be incoherent, and the media will give them no air time, except to expose their failures. It would be like if Cameron Slater, Larry Williams, and that racist cartoonist formed a party (in fact, I think that’ll be the limit of sympathetic media – and remember that Slater came in the bottom 10% of Auckland Council candidates)
All that will happen is that it will take a few percent of the vote, which will be wasted. Where are reactionary Pakeha votes going to come from? National and New Zealand First. That’s great news for the Left because it means a higher percentage of the Rightwing vote wasted – it might even see NZF fail to get back into Parliament. It might even make those parties less reactionary if they lose those people at the margin.
Don’t get me wrong – if there was a fascist movement forming in New Zealand that had the potential to radicalise a large element of the population and gain real political image, it would be something to fight. But if some of the Right’s moron vote wants to waste its vote, well, that’s all to the good.
Might form me a Mad Coconuts party 🙂
pollywog
Sounds like a good band to have at a great party!
Yes made me think of Pauline Hanson – didn’t manage to amount to anything. But she gets a moment of fame and keeps turning up in Oz politics. To people who don’t know anything about society, the way that everyday economics and power work, well they go after someone with the most confidence, the loudest voice, unrestrained speech – They’re daring to say what we’re all thinking’ stuff.
Kyle Chapman must be feeling quite envious right about now.
IT’S NOT ABOUT MEMBERSHIP!!! THE MEDIA IS OBSESSED WITH NUMBERS!
Haha! Blubba Oil is keen to run as a candidate & Matthew Hooten as campaign Manager! This is from reliable sauces in the “P” party’s caucus and who’ll remain anonymous. (K. Chup, W. Heinz).
The Pākehā Party should do something about political correctness too!
Wouldn’t it be great though: almost worth forming another couple of right wing parties for eh.
How about a No Bludgers party?
I bet the Hard Labour party could get more friends than the Sensible Sentencing Trust.
Hard Labour would possibly strike a chord in the NZ psyche. I have noticed the word grinder recently. It is used by the yachting fraternity to name part of their crew, and it appears on the back of people with black t-shirts, relating to coffee. So acceptance of being connected with the idea of being ground down, or being in a grind etc. may give insight into the deep NZ unconscious.
If you consider what the “grinder” app is on your cell phone I think that would be a very appropriate description of the current Labour Party, considering the number of openly gay members in the Parliamentary ranks.
On second thoughts I doubt you would have it, or know what it is.
I constantly wonder why people accidentally “notice” or “remark” that the Labour Party or Green Party have a decent proportion of gay MPs and members. That’s not a bad thing, it just means they’re a wide collection of individuals that don’t consider being a priveleged elite to be a qualification to represent your country.
That is in every way a good thing. It’s like if someone tells you, “you’re so gay!” The correct reply is “Thank you very much for saying so!”
Alwyn I watch Top Gear, of course I know what it is. I also know bigotry when I see it. Get lost, loser.
How about an “Electric Chair Party” to really split the reactionary vote.
I think it is a dim distraction from the real threats of those like 1law4all.
“You see the people that are racist feel persecuted and through disjointed logic they reframe their problem and make it someone else’s. So don’t get worked up about this – just enjoy the laughs and also enjoy the very dim joining up on facebook and then keep working for equality and keep fighting the real dirty racists – those like 1law4all and their moneyed mates – that is where the real battle is.”
http://mars2earth.blogspot.co.nz/2013/07/dim-distraction.html
interesting link.
excellent cartoon and the clip about Illinois nazis 🙂
It’s not the facebook group or any potential party formed that’s the problem for the left.
It’s the sentiment, the same sentiment that damn near elected Don Brash less than a decade ago. Only a fool would laugh that off as a freak occurrence.
It’s a festering consciousness, a dark and selfish ignorance that still holds sway over much of this country, which holds us back as a nation, and which should never be underestimated.
The danger is not that it’s a political force of its own but that the sentiment becomes fuel for someone else’s political vehicle.
It’s a festering consciousness, a dark and selfish ignorance that still holds sway over much of this country, which holds us back as a nation, and which should never be underestimated.
Yes, it is disturbing that there is so much ignorance about the history of Aotearoa/NZ and the nature of oppression, injustice and inequality.
🙁
Worse yet it’s a real bastard to dislodge.
And it’s scary how it is so easily brought forth.
…but so easy to create, then locked in by generations. Ruth Richardson and the 1990s.
Subliminal racism.
People who honestly proclaim – “I’m not racist” – because they don’t don white hoods and they do feel uncomfortable witnessing overtly racist behaviours.
In their uncharted guts’ though they have no concern to identify and condemn the many, many economic manifestations of racism. Indeed many of them actively support measures and positions which in their inevitable impact are racist.
An articulated – “there is no alternative….” – in respect of measures and positions having racist impact too frequently reflects an unarticulated “I’m better than you” attitude – It’s OK that it be happening to ‘them’ because (unarticulated)…….”better than……”.
Subliminal racism. In the guts of people who’ve never walked in the mocassins.
It’s a festering consciousness, a dark and selfish ignorance that still holds sway over much of this country, which holds us back as a nation, and which should never be underestimated.
Are you fighting evolution? Couldn’t you argue that bigotry is really just tribalism, which has been strongly favoured, genetically speaking?
So, either you believe that people are fucked and bigots will always be bigots and therefore you just try and avoid the hideous people as much as possible and mind your own business.
Or you believe that people’s heads are merely vessels that get filled up with propaganda and so your goal is to try and fill them up with yours rather than your opponents.
It would be nice to believe that inside each and every one of us lies the potential for enlightenment, but in my experience, this point of view does not correspond with reality.
As a friend of mine once said: line the entire population up, in order, according to any kind of measure you can conceive, pick the person in the middle and it won’t be an impressive sight…
@ Arthur
That was an astonishing display of “dark and selfish ignorance”.
“It would be nice to believe that inside each and every one of us lies the potential for enlightenment, but in my experience, this point of view does not correspond with reality.”
Why should we pay any heed to one who is so utterly unenlightened themself? This, on top of your blatant incomprehension of terms such as; “evolution”, “tribalism”, “genetically” (hint; human evolution has occurred more in a social context [eg development of writing] since the agricultural revolution, while genetically mediated evolution has been minimal over the ten[-ish] millenia since then [eg Australian hunter-gatherers could interbreed with European pasturalists]).
“As a friend of mine once said: line the entire population up, in order, according to any kind of measure you can conceive, pick the person in the middle and it won’t be an impressive sight…”
And doesn’t that just put the diarrhoea icing on your festering shit-cake!
Yes I totally agree with you, Someone else’s political vehicle??? Like snakes hovering in the background waiting to pounce and ride on the backs of the ignoramuses.
Yeah, the analysis from the perspective you are choosing is right enough. But the very fact there is so much racism being expressed on so much misunderstanding of recent ‘Maori specific’ policies surely ought to be a cause for concern, no?
You think it’s okay to discount and dismiss this on the grounds that some guy, who I think genuinely believed himself to be taking an inconsequential jibe at the Mana and Maori Parties, lacks the political or media savvy to make things run?
Seems to me there is quite a deep vein of discontent out here. And, like you acknowledge, it takes one smart operator to feed into and exploit all that racist sentiment…
NZ needs a debate on racism – a proper one. Now, while I don’t expect that to happen, I think the left could do worse than acknowledge the seriousness of the situation for many poorer pakeha and insist that a class analysis is injected into any future discourse about Maori and the widespread economic plight within Maoridom.
Otherwise a fuck of a lot of people in lower economic quintiles are going to continue being angry. And that anger will increase as they get to feel more put upon, shut out and shat upon. And so more fingers of blame are going to be pointed at the wrong people on the back of wrong reasoning until, at some point, the lid won’t be successfully ‘put back on’.
Interesting though, that the Pakeha Party is in part a response to a Mana Party policy: and the Mana Party DOES have a class analysis and incorporates policies targeting low income Maori and Pākehā.
But if we look at how the Mana Party is generally portrayed/demonised in the msm….Hone Harawira’s nephew to take just one example?
And the passing sound bite/headline is what forms the political opinion of many people. Meanwhile, it’s a fact that lower quintile pakeha were ‘dismissed’ during the Clark years due to class being exorcised from the political discourse by the over-riding focus on identity.
So now, many piss poor pakeha, many of whom have no real grasp on politics, have been denied even a rudimentary understanding of class that might have informed their opinions. ‘All’ they’ve had and continue to have is a steady diet of negative dogwhistle headlines and urban myths pertaining to Maori, one strong thread of which is to do with supposed favouritism towards Maori.
But Mana IS doing what you asked for above:
I think the left could do worse than acknowledge the seriousness of the situation for many poorer pakeha and insist that a class analysis is injected into any future discourse about Maori and the widespread economic plight within Maoridom.
So surely we should be talking up their initiatives, rather than just moaning about the neglect of low income white people by too many left wing politicians?
And, there is an issue that the likes of the Pakeha Party supporters willfully ignore any political initiatives that embrace ethnic diversity amongst those on the lowest incomes: initiatives that also acknowledge the impact of colonisation and racism.
“But Mana IS doing what you asked for above:”
That’s why they announced a policy for poor Maori to buy houses at government lending rates? Then hurriedly followed up by saying “actually, any low income NZers, not just Maori”.
Incorrect imo – the policy was always two-pronged based around the by-election and the mayoralty race.
edit: this was the statement, “We know that housing is not just an issue that affects Maori; it affects every family on a low income. That’s why John Minto, will be announcing MANA’s wider housing policy on 23 July as a part of our MINTO FOR MAYOR Campaign.”
http://mana.net.nz/2013/06/mana-housing-policy-announcement-for-maori-te-hamua-nikora-ikaroa-rawhiti-mana-candidate/
So why only announce one prong first? That makes no political sense if you are a mixed-membership party.
Each prong was designed for maximum effect in the two places they were announced. Maybe that was a mistake, maybe not but imo it was a good move for maximum effect for the maximum time these things get airtime for.
The Mana party housing policy is on the website for those that bothered to look at it. Inclusive of all NZers like their other policies.
One soundbite comment from a fairly recent addition to politics should have sent those interested to their party website as the course of first response.
Quality reporting in the media would prevent a lot of erroneous assumptions and misinformation from gaining traction.
Yes, but that’s sorta like saying proper application of skepticism might prevent belief in unicorns. Eminently practical but unlikely to happen. 🙂
Apart from the fact I was meaning to refer to the full broad spectrum of the left (parliamentary and non-parliamentary) rather than just a single parliamentary representation of the left – this housng policy? I dunno. Didn’t hear it and so will defer to Lanth’s comment below on the assumption it’s accurate.
Anyway, that aside, I’m questioning the biased msm messaging around Mana (and the housing ppolicy might be a part of that) as well as the fact they (msm),along with the major left political parties, have expunged class from any political or economic analysis/understanding..
Meanwhile, the reason I’m hesitant to talk up the Mana Party (as opposed to their policies) is that they are underpinned by the remnants of the authoritarian left. But that’s an entirely different matter….
“Meanwhile, it’s a fact that lower quintile pakeha were ‘dismissed’ during the Clark years due to class being exorcised from the political discourse by the over-riding focus on identity.”
“by the over-riding focus on other identity”
fify
I agree with the general idea here Bill, but I’m still not sure what you mean by over-riding focus on identity (by Clark/Labour). Can you please clairify with some examples.
I can’t give you a single example where class was a part of the equation. It’s as though somebody decided it didn’t exist. And so the outcome was a pile of policies focussing on gender or culture/ethnicity etc that, de-facto assumed everything else to be equal.
And everything else isn’t equal. So yes, Maori, women and other identifiable groups suffer double and triple whammy discriminations or disadvantages. And that should be addressed. But so, similtaneously, should the dynamics of class.
Otherwise you wind up with the unacceptable, yet understandable shit that’s all over that fb page.
“And so the outcome was a pile of policies focussing on gender or culture/ethnicity etc that, de-facto assumed everything else to be equal.”
I’m asking for some examples of that from past governments. I guess the gay marriage bill would be one example, but I’m still not getting the over-ridingness you refer to.
I don’t know what you’re not getting. Class has been a necessary ingredient that has been systematically left out of every single policy designed to bring some affirmative action to bear on some or any disadvantaged or discriminated sector/section of society or citizenry.
And that, inevitably leads to understandable levels of resentment building among those who are ‘merely’ subjected to the dynamics of class in a market economy…they and their deteriorating situation ‘doesn’t exist’. And with class analysis being expunged, there are fewer ways for those people to get a handle on the why’s and wherefores’ of what has been happening to them these past 20 odd years. And then in steps racism to fill the void of comprehension.
It happens every single time the economic chips are down where class has been removed from the political discourse.
“I don’t know what you’re not getting.”
Yes, it’s like you are talking about something I just don’t see yet.
“Class has been a necessary ingredient that has been systematically left out of every single policy designed to bring some affirmative action to bear on some or any disadvantaged or discriminated sector/section of society or citizenry.”
Yes.
“And that, inevitably leads to understandable levels of resentment building among those who are ‘merely’ subjected to the dynamics of class in a market economy…they and their deteriorating situation ‘doesn’t exist’. And with class analysis being expunged, there are fewer ways for those people to get a handle on the why’s and wherefores’ of what has been happening to them these past 20 odd years. And then in steps racism to fill the void of comprehension.”
Yes.
“It happens every single time the economic chips are down where class has been removed from the political discourse.”
Yes.
I follow all that (might not agree completely, but generally I get it).
What I don’t get is when you say that there have instead been lots of policies based on identity politics. I just don’t know what *you* mean by that. I’m asking for examples because that will tell me what you mean.
Maybe if the ‘Closing the Gaps’ policies were kept in mind while reading through that fb page, you’d see what I mean. eg – while attempts were made to address Maori educational needs or outcomes, with the absence of class from the analysis or from the proposed solutions, many lower quintile Pakeha felt (rightly or wrongly) that they were left ‘twisting in the breeze’ while Maori were receiving special attention.
The problem doesn’t arise because of attempts to address Maori educational needs or whatever. That would generally be viewed as laudable if recognition had been made of the fact that those who are generally economically disadvantaged also deserve special attention – and within a social democratic context, they do.
But what we have is a legacy in the social conciousness that insists Maori remain favoured – and all the while those who are ‘simply’ economically disadvantaged get stigmatised…the unemployed, IB claimants, those on the DPB.
And the many workers who simply can’t stack up enough hours/earnings in a low wage economy where the gap between rich and poor is widening quite fast, definitely have a residual memory of all the ‘Closing the Gaps’ talk of the fifth Labour government. As I said in another comment, the urban myths around ‘the Maori family down the street’ getting *this* or *that*…where *this* and *that* are things pakeha in poverty can’t access – are as common as and it doesn’t matter if it’s not the reality. What matters is that it all feeds into this Pakeha Party nonsense. And what matters is that the fuel was provided by Social Democratic liberals creating policies to deal with what were, in part economic disadvantages while refusing to take the main root cause of economic disadvantage into account.
Best the Left take steps to reverse the trend too.
We have a European party/parties. Where the prime interest is that of Europeans, with some attempt at understanding Maori aspirations. Now Maori have set up their own party/parties with the same approach, but in reverse, and with a lot more understanding of European aspirations than they show for Maori ones.
Depression (I’m not using the bullshit PC word recession) tends to lead to conservatism in politics. Its not surprising that racially motivated parties are springing up. Just look at the Nazi’s in the 1930’s.
To be fair however, we do have a Maori party so why not a European party or an Asian party? Indeed, why is it when a white person makes a move of this kind they are labelled racist and when its another ethnicity, its expressing their cultural values?
Food for thought.
what ethnicity is ‘white’? what cultural values are ‘white’?
Since you are asking what’s “Maori” if we apply your yardstick?
That is based on whakapapa but please answer – it’s okay if you can’t because it is a trick question – you see there is no ‘white’ – it is bullshit, made up mainly for the maintenance of privileges over others who aren’t in the wee group.
i think youve missed the point there
is being maori having brown skin? or something else?
so – what ethnicity is “white”. can you point to the ethnic homeland of white people?
pakeha is an ethnicity.
although some will deny pakeha that becuase it does not suit those some.
you do not understand what the term means vto and looks like you are back pushing your little barrow of woe
“we do have a Maori party so why not a European party”
We already have a bunch of European parties. Starting with the Nats.
So the “Pakeha Party” is racist but the “Maori Party” is not. How does that logic work?
*sigh* do you really need to ask?
OK, then.
Because Maori are disadvantaged in ways that Pakeha aren’t (see the post that began this discussion). There is a strong need to redress the balance.
Because we do not live in a meritocracy with a level playing field.
Because we already have political parties that prioritise Pakeha interests: the National Party, ACT.
Because the Pakeha Party is as opposed to the Mana Party as thte Maori Party – clarely failing to understand the connection between class disadvantage and disadvantages arising from the legacy of European colonisation.
Because you don’t seem to understand what racism is: prejudice + power.
*clearly*
“Because you don’t seem to understand what racism is: prejudice + power.”
Because I don’t understand what racism is!
from Wikipedia
“Racism is usually defined as views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races and that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior, or superior.
The exact definition of racism is controversial both because there is little scholarly agreement about the meaning of the concept “race”, and because there is also little agreement about what does and doesn’t constitute discrimination.”
Don’t see either of those two words here.
So again answer the question.
“So the “Pakeha Party” is racist but the “Maori Party” is not. How does that logic work?”
Because the ‘Pakeha party’ seems to think that Maori, by virtue of being Maori, are not entitled to the limited compensation they are getting for passed and ongoing injustices.
ie, that it’s some sort of outrage that Maori are getting partial compensation for things that were done to them becuase they were Maori.
I don’t think that quite gets the full picture P’s b. Imo most people are more than happy for measures to be put in place that compensate and put right injustices that have occured. This is happening in various forms and they are generally supported.
Where it goes wrong is when these measures push outside of that parameter. In their view, some measures go beyond that and create this “special” position. A position that comes from privilege of birth and race. Privileges that are not accepted for very good reason.
As John Minto explained “the TOTAL amount spent by the government on ALL treaty settlements so far is still less than the amount John Key’s cabinet spent bailing out the wealthy investors in South Canterbury Finance.”
The indigenous people of this land are the most patient, tolerant people around – pity more don’t realise this.
snap
Sure. Folks are fine with the fact that compensation is due, but they are pissed off that the teeny slice we are paying is too high.
The idea that ‘we are going to put right the injustices’ is kind of part of the problem. We are negotiating the size of the small token effort that iwi will accept. There is massive goodwill on the part of iwi and hapu in all of this that is met with howls of outrage.
It’s ridiculous.
But what are these special privileges?
Honouring the Treaty? That’s not a special privilege, it’s the deal.
You miss my point p’s b. Maybe it’s intentional. I have give one example of privilege below in Christchurch. And I have commented endlessly on the treaty, it’s honouring, and its value as a structure in today’s world. It needs honouring and then it needs heavy remediation.
Not sure how you can say we need to honour the Treaty in the same breath that you say it’s terms are unacceptable.
You will have no luck renegotiating the Treaty when talking like that.
Come on p’s b, I don’t believe you believe what you are writing there…
Why on earth can’t one party to an agreement say to the other that they are not happy with the terms, state that they will honour them nonetheless, and also state that at some point renegotiation will be required?
This happens all of the time across the whole of the world every single day.
You know this to be a reality I’m sure. There is a even an entire area of law around entering into contracts that are wrong in some way, and legislation called the Contractual Mistakes Act. While not applicable to contracts such as the treaty, the very existence of this law indicates the reality of these situation.
The Treaty is between the Crown and Iwi. I don’t believe the Crown is saying that they’re unhappy with the terms. Mostly they’ve said ‘what terms?’, and then when Maori have pushed, they’ve said, ok those terms but our way.
Why on earth can’t one party to an agreement say to the other that they are not happy with the terms, state that they will honour them nonetheless, and also state that at some point renegotiation will be required?
I’m not saying you can’t say it. Say whatever you like.
I’m saying you won’t have any luck without actually getting on with honouring part without having a big old cry about how ‘unjust’ it is every time something pops up.
You sound totally unconvincing about whatever it is you are saying
nah. You’re just not hearing what I’m saying.
Iwi and hapu don’t owe the Crown anything. There is no moral, legal, or anything other than good will on their part that says they have to accept anything less than 100% compensation.
While pakeha whinge and cry about how much ‘special’ treatment Iwi and Hapu are getting, (when the fact is they are being generous to a fault), then there is no way in hell they should listen to ideas about renegotiation.
Pakeha can be as sad and angry as they like, but it won’t get them anywhere. they need to try actual good will.
you’re talking about the righting of the past wrong and I’m pretty sure you can see that i’m talking about the prevention of the future wrong
Honouring the treaty doesn’t just mean (making a largely symblic token gesture towards) righting the previous breaches.
It means abiding by it today as well. You seem to be saying that you think abiding by it today is wrong. That’s where I think your position comes into conflict with ‘honouring the treaty’.
I’m aware that honouring the treaty involves righting past wrongs and abiding by it today. But herein lies the problem with it imo, as you intimate.
As per many previous posts, imo the provisions of the treaty create structures in society which are not sustainable (e.g. the governance pieces). Assuming (for the sake of argument) that is correct and that it does create unsustainable structures, then yes there is a real problem in honouring those parts of the treaty today. These are the parts that require renegotiation, and that needs to start now. No point in putting in place structures that are unsustainable – in fact worse than ‘no point’, it would potentially be dangerous and destablising to do so.
Other parts of the treaty clearly would pose no problem with honouring as they create no such difficulty into the future.
However, as to your actual point, I don’t see any problem with going about te tiriti along these lines. It can be honoured and renegotiated at the same time – non problema. It is open, honest and upfront. It can be debated and thrashed back and forth. We are all grown adults.
Out of this, as a tangent, two things have surprised me. One, that people cannot see these flaws in what the treaty provides for when it comes to a sustainable stable equal society and its necessary structures. Two, that people seem to think that the world’s finest minds were applied to the drafting of the treaty. It was bashed together in a hurry in a volatile time around 1840. It should be expected that the creation of a perfect document to last into the future for these purposes would be near impossible to achieve in those circumstances.
your whole argument is flawed because YOU say it is unsustainable. It is sustainable but first it would have to be enacted which it hasn’t been thus we have great inequality for Māori. If you ever tried arguing from the position that it is sustainable – you might get a pleasant surprise.
In simple terms, racism = Mark Fletcher.
Racism = prejudice plus power is pretty much explained on the wiki page you refer to, especially under the sociological definition of racism:
It’s partly there in your quote, especially in relation to the mention of “practices and actions”, that make ” that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior, or superior.”
For that to be wide spread, it requires that one group is designated as “superior”, and for that to happen throughout society, it requires that the “superior” group holds the balance of power. So, merely being critical of, or taking action against the privilege of the “superior” group, does not amount to racism. It’s an attempt to challenge racism.
The sociological definition:
Again, this is more than just prejudice against one group by those of another group. It amounts to a whole system of privilege, giving one group more power than another.
Try thinking about the explanations and understanding them, rather than just trying to find some key words.
Hone Harawira is a lot more powerful than David Ruck. If racism=prejudice+power, does that make Harawira racist and Ruck not racist?
Racism is about the relative power of sections of society – groups of people and their place within a wider system that gives more privileges to selected categories of people, rather than to individuals.
On an individual basis, in some situations, Harwira does have more power than Ruck. But we are also talking about parties that represent groups of people. And Harawira’s position in attempting to represent Maori and others on low incomes, he gets demonised by the MSM and other more dominant MPs and parties. His power is thus fairly limited.
So you’re saying it isn’t
racism=prejudice+power
rather it’s
racism=prejudice+having the same skin colour as people with power,
right?
It doesn’t matter how much you try, Tas. No-one is going to agree with your personal little definition of how racism equals being a cry-baby about Hone Harawira, or pretending that there’s no white privilege in New Zealand, or any other version of twisted half-bright bigotry.
Okay?
@ tas
Not even wrong; simply incoherent.
You don’t have a counter point do you?
Saying racism=prejudice+power doesn’t make sense if you don’t define what you mean by power.
I already wrote about it as a “system” of privilege. You are deliberately trying to skew things to make it seem as if it’s all a level laying field, or even that Maori as a group are more privileged than Pakeha.
You talk about a system of privilege as if it is uniform across all Pakeha. There is a difference between averages and individuals: On average Pakeha are better-off than Maori. But there are plenty of individuals that buck the trend.
There are lots of disadvantaged Pakeha in this country who are left behind when welfare and educational opportunities are offered to Maori only.
Judging by the poor english on the Pakeha Party page, these people are hardly the educated, well-off, white people you seem to imagine.
Who’s imagining? Your comment is very much in line with what Bill has been saying, that this issue is not just about identity politics, but has to be analysed along class lines too.
Counterpoint nothing Tas but if you’re mad keen on it…….having a Maori All Blacks team is racist, yes ?
It’s just that your words so far are in the same vein as that rubbishy old claim the delight of arsehole racists who saw the rubbishy old claim as a knockout blow in the debate over apartheid in sport.
Warning: backing the rubbishy old claim is essential if you want to maintain much of the nonsense you’ve given above. Withdraw now Tas……..
I don’t understand your comment. Having a racially-restricted sports team is racist. My position is that any racial discrimination is racist and wrong. (And generally conflating averages with individuals is wrong.)
And maybe, tas, in the light of Zetetic’s list, you could provide a list of all the ways Pākehā are disadvantaged?
I fully support measures to improve social, economic, and health outcomes for Maori. However, the democratic process in NZ is being perverted to give Maori undue political influence. For example, we have
Maori electorates,
Maori Statutory Board on the Auckland council, and
lots of provisions in the RMA requiring primacy of Maori interests.
These measures are entirely orthogonal to the goal of improving outcomes for Maori. So how do you justify them?
Fundamentally, I object to the culture we have in NZ where introducing racist laws is tolerated and applauded, as long as the right racial group is being favoured.
Racism is wrong; it divides society. And it sickens me to see people argue that restricting something to one racial group is not racist as long as that racial group is Maori.
How can there be a counter-point to an incoherent non-point?
pretty sure Karol did define what she meant there
Skin colour is a matter of perception. But perceptions about skin colour fuel racism. “race” is in the mind of the beholder. Racism has an impact on people’s lives. Maori ethnicity is not a matter of skin colour. It’s about culture and lineage.
But, also, if someone publicly identifies as Maori, racist stereotypes get applied to them.
Yeah, so it’s not straight forward.
But look back again at the original post at the top of the page. these are the real impacts on people’s lives.
People laugh at this at their peril. What’s that saying about first they try to laugh at you, then they threaten you, then they listen to you? Something like that….
What is it that they are saying? Why are they saying it? Methinks it requires some thinking..
It doesn’t surprise me. I have been saying for a long while now that race relations in this country are all fouled up and tangled in an untangleable mess. I have suggested that people resent there being two sets of rules for two sets of people in one place (and yes yes sure thats what the last wave of immigration and colonialism did too – two wrongs don’t make a right). Making tangata whenua “special”, making anyone “special”, does not go down well, does not get accepted, does not get respected. It leads to exactly this. Told you so.
People would do well to remember where the pakeha came from, the times and wrongs of the places they came from, the hardships and oppression they suffered themselves too and sought to escape. Many of them see similar structures being recreated around them again. This is resisted by them. They don’t like it. People would do well to think through this from the perspective of te ao pakeha and try to understand how they come to this view. Simply crying like a simpleton “you dumb racists” indicates the tide is out..
it is of course a big subject which the above touches only lightly on, but rather than regurgitate anythign and everything pakeha and maori in thes isles, how about answering perhaps a more important question, namely “what is to be done about it?”
isnt that misunderstanding what is meant by “special” though?
i was always taught that tangata whenua were special for the simple reason that this was their birth place (putting historical, pre-‘maori’ migration aside) and existed as a historical and present day culture no where else on the earth.
not special as in “better than you or i” – but special as in “unique to our country”
It seems the term “special” in this circumstance refers to more than that however, judging by the way it has been described in these pages at times in the past. For example, it is extended to include privileges such as separate governance, which have arguably arisen from the current understanding of the treaty as well. This is more than just “being unique”, it is reality on the ground. It is happening in the central city rebuild in Christchurch at the moment where Ngai Tahu gets to govern over all residents by way of its RMA decision-making position. This particular example has been commented on by many people in Christchurch. It is an example of that resentment of a “special” position.
Of course, there is substantial argument that this “special” position has been conferred by te tiriti, and that may well be the case. However, that does not make it acceptable to people. It is at this point that the problems intimated by these pakeha party people arise. It is also why I have long suggested that te tiriti has heavy flaws.
After reading your previous comments, I don’t even know whether to bother, but I’ll take a deep breath … and here goes…
Resource consents are issued after consideration of the following four RMA criteria: environmental, economic, social and cultural.
For environment – they will get a report from an environmental officer, economic will be drawn up (if necessary) by a financial authority, social ( will be input from the community, or a report on the effect of the local community).
Now we come to cultural. Local government around NZ has not been completely on the ball by recording sites or areas of cultural significance, and around most of the country they acknowledge this by contacting local iwi whenever resource consents are required. In this way they achieve two outcomes: they ensure that the resource consent will not increase the negative impact on local Māori, and consent by consent they piece together a more detailed cultural map than has ever existed.
Who else would you go to in Christchurch to do this, but Ngai Tāhu? Are you seriously saying the same about contacting environmental officers regarding their expertise on environment? OR do you think there is a better source for information regarding culture down in Christchurch?
You call it privilege, but only because you think Ngai Tāhu “gain” by this process. All they achieve is (perhaps) a reduction in future losses of heritage and cultural sites or features of significance.
We have groups in Auckland with substantial voice too, who protect their idea of heritage, with great support from council and media. Very little nitpicking and dislikes, visit the Save the Masonic Tavern to see a list.
Then tell me again, why your criticism of cultural advice from Ngai Tāhu is valid, and yet you have not chosen to give voice to similar concerns for heritage groups that often only consider pākehā history and sites of significance.
you have missed the point
Which was?
to explain is surely too late but ngai tahu have not just a consultation role which is fine and good and there was never any comment passed on that but they have a decision making position i.e. law-making position. you should do rma101 and find out about it.
You mean that the council is actually trying to follow the intent of the treaty – rather than paying lip service to it. For shame! No wonder you are concerned. That decision making obviously belongs only to the crown.
it’s got nothing to do with the Christchurch City Council.
good night useless
…at the moment, Christchurch City Council at the moment has little to do with Christchurch City Council…
As for the RMA process, you may be right about how it has been handled in terms of relaying the WHY behind Ngai Tahu having that role.
I have no problem with that being the case, but you obviously do – OR – alternatively, have a problem with the decision to do so not being transparent.
It would just be good to see a valid example of “privilege” being identified. IMO you have not done so yet. But too late to continue, GN vto – sure there will be something else tomorrow to debate.
Molly, that decision-making position within the Christchurch central city rebuild that Ngai Tahu has is exactly an example of that privilege. That is the whole point. It is relatively small and subtle. So small and subtle that most everybody, including yourself clearly, doesn’t know the reality of that position. But the principle is significant and important.
But don’t worry, it has flown over the heads of most others too.
I’ll be back in the future when something crops up about this sort of governance-over-others position and say I told you so.
Well we have bandied that around before – for me it is simple – pākehā have to trust Māori, enact the equality guaranteed in the treaty and get over themselves – lose the attitude that says ‘I’m better’, eat some humble pie and realise that the world doesn’t revolve around their privileges – a lot of pākehā have to grow up and discard their antiquated notions of superiority. But they won’t imo they will keep holding on to all last vestiges of privilege until their stupid fingers are pried off the throat of the world.
“So, don’t worry, our little proto-fascists aren’t going to morph into a serious political force. ”
I have an anecdote that sums this up perfectly. I had an acquaintance back in 2008 who said he walked in one of the protests against the “attack on democracy” fervor that the right whipped up about Labour’s political campaigning legislation. I hadn’t realised the guy was particularly interested in politics so thought that was interesting.
Next time I saw him was on election day 2008, at about 4-5pm. I asked who he voted for. He didn’t vote because he “didn’t care” because it “didn’t affect him”.
To me they seem just a bunch of bored white middle age well-off males who are for some unbeknown reason feeling discriminated and diminished by the ‘Maoris’ and the ‘wimmens ‘and who have discovered the Internet as a vehicle for their daily whinges. For instance, they ‘want what Maori already get.” I don’t think they’d mean they’d like to share in more unemployment, discrimination, poverty, high crime statistics.
Unfortunately from time to time they’re able to stir up that hidden racist, bigoted underbelly that is always present in NZ society and get them mobilised, even if for a short while.
As for the number of Likes, the Chocolate chip cookies’ FB page has double more likes than God’s page. 🙂
What makes you think they are well-off?
Yeah because bored white middle age well-off males spend all their time on book face.
Facts are there’s some serious hostility from Non Maori in regards to Maori.
Reason:
All people ever see or hear of Maori is when they’re whinging about what cunts paheka are( looking at you Hone),stealing shit and committing crime(police 10-7) or been given vast sums of money in treaty settlements while everyone else is struggling to pay the bills and still complaining.
There’s the answer to why the paheka party has so many likes.
So you’re saying the problem is pervasive dishonesty – selective reporting, etc. about Māori.
A big part of the problem these days is Maori have decided to pull away from main stream NZ and just stick to themselves.
A lot of peoples perceptions of Maori are only what they see and hear in the media and let’s be honest, it’s not particularly positive.
“A lot of people perceptions of Maori are only what they see and hear in the media”
well whose fault is that?
perhaps if people pulled their heads in and actually listened to the people involved instead of the media they might learn something.
for example – your second sentence proves that your first is based on a false presumption
Do you think Maori are a lot more insular than compared to 30 years ago?
I think they are.
Depends on your special personal definition of insular, but again, you’ve failed to establish this.
You’ve hit the nub there bm – you see it doesn’t matter what Māori do, it will never be good enough for some. So Māori may as well, and imo should, just get on with the job of looking after themselves and their loved ones and from that everyone will benefit – and the actual reason that some don’t like that is because they are protecting the tiny little bit they think they have – sadly those people would actually benefit from greater equality for Māori but they don’t get it – apparently for some it is sort of comforting to know there are worse off people around.
the answer to your question resides in your previous comments
So the media tells lies, the “mainstream” gives Māori the hairy eyeball, and that means Māori are to blame for all the keeping to themselves that you have failed to establish they do?
“All people ever see or hear of Maori is when they’re whinging about what cunts paheka are( looking at you Hone),stealing shit and committing crime(police 10-7) or been given vast sums of money in treaty settlements while everyone else is struggling to pay the bills and still complaining.”
I’m sorry to hear you don’t have any maori friends, BM.
Especially considering that most racists claim to have heaps of them.
I am part Maori cuz, does that count?
No.
Agree with you Felix – it doesn’t matter a shit.
It only matters to the likes of BM, Bennett, Bridges who don the korowai and claim whakapapa from time to time solely to conceal that they are dismissive and disrespectful of Maori. – in glibly doing so actually underlining that they are dismissive and disrespectful of Maori.
Great comment Marty Mars @ 12.2.2.1.2
And to Populuxe in response to Marty: if Maori definitively subscribe to homogeniety at all (that they do is bullshit anyway in my experience) – that is as a result of “all Maori this” and “all Maori that” FIRST emerging from the mouths of essentially racist or racist-inclined pigs pissed off when Maori figure particularly in any positive way – settlements etc.
Better that all those “Meearies” just stop their whining and accept the graciousness of “our” kindly invitation to join this “everyone equal” (LOL) “NZ One Nation NZ” (LOL) –
“Come on in bro’…….you’re in the cheap seats tho’…….there’s a good fulla”.
+1
do you mean you whakapapa back, whether you know the details or not or what? If you do then your comments above are directed at yourself – colonisation is a fucken shitpile because it attempts and sometimes succeeds in cutting off connection and I know this because some of my cousins who look Māori (as in brown) and some who don’t, spend a bit of time bemoaning other Māori. They have fallen into the trap, they think they are kiwis but they aren’t really – they are just tolerated and sneered at behind their backs, which anyone who is Māori but doesn’t look it will testify to.
I don’t understand why you insist on presenting Maori as some undifferentaited mass who all think identically and want the same things. That’s clearly not true of any demographic and just heps foster racist stereotypes – “all Maori this” and “all Maori that”.
ummm check my comment pops I didn’t do that in fact i did the opposite of that. Or do you mean the bit about colonisation and or the bit about those that are Māori but don’t look it getting special insights into the unguarded moments of some people.
When I say part Maori it’s more just in the genetic sense than the cultural sense.
My father has a lot of Maori on his side, he’s descended from Ngāti Huarere but never had a lot to do with the Maori culture side of things.
He was invited to a few of the tribal meetings but never took up the offer.
Mate you have a lot more than a lot of people in knowing where your lines come from, good luck in connecting up if you choose to go that way.
Honest acknowlegment there BM – my lumping you in with Bennett and Bridges and others was spot on then, you Bullshit Meearie.
Perhaps I’m too charitable. Maybe honesty’s got nought to do with it. Maybe the thought that people might actually identify you as one of “those useless horis” was too much aye ?
Hope it’s not absolutely churlish but maybe if pater had been more interested in his whakapapa you wouldn’t be quite like you are. Imagine…….you coulda beaten Hekia to Education.
Maybe even married a dame/knight. Not asserting then apologising.
I wonder if we’re related, would that bother you uncle North?
Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew! Uncle North’s nephew!
amirite
Sweet.
The Pakeha Party has exposed the racial bias of NZ media. They never criticise the maori party for being inherently racist. The rule seems to be:
maori only = “progressive”
pakeha only = racist!!
I doubt the Pakeha Party will make an electoral splash, but it shows that many NZers don’t like the way we approach race relations.
you didnt read any of the discussion here did you?
I did.
You didn’t establish that the Māori Party is inherently racist. That’s your main handicap, although there are no doubt others.
so why are you making a mirror copy of a previous comment that has been substantially responded to?
Well if you did read Tas…….you didn’t comprehend.
Common in those afflicted with subliminal racism on the rumble. When it rumbles loud enough to have its owner click on there’s something amiss it’s marked by behaviours placed somewhere in the spectrum from nausea at one end to violence at the other.
To your credit you’ve only reached the point of looking fu’k’n’ idiotic.
@ tas
Wrong, but at least coherent this time. Though, indeed; “many NZers don’t like the way we approach race relations”. However we may understand different things from that statement.
Amended racism rule:
Racial group(s) included = Progressive
Racial group(s) excluded = Racist
That’s a silly distinction. So Whites only = Racial group included = Progressive?
That’s either a demonstration of complete idiocy or bad faith. I’m picking bad faith, the sort of bad faith that only bigoted trash would exhibit.
Does this low-life garbage really expect people to believe that “whites only” can be misinterpreted as inclusive?
Still, the government promotes its MPs on the basis of their ethnicity and gender, the likes of Tas are simply aping them.
I think all racial discrimination is bad. I’m trying to understand why you think discrimination against Pakeha is good, but discrimination against Maori is bad. My point is that distinguishing based on inclusion/exclusion is silly. Obviously “whites only” is racist, but it’s an inclusive rule, so by Pasupial’s silly rule it’s progressive.
I’m trying to understand why you think you can casually misrepresent my opinions (not to mention Pasupial’s) and I’m picking it’s another demonstration of low ethical standards.
How am I misrepresenting you and pasupial? I’m asking you to clarify when you think racial discrimination is OK and when it isn’t. Answer the question, rather than attacking me for not understanding your non-answers.
It’s never justifiable (do not take this as a tacit admission of any individual example you concoct in some self-serving display of bad faith) and neither is your notion of what the word inclusive means.
PS: I didn’t attack you, I attacked your low ethical standards, which you are at liberty to change.
If racial discrimination is never justifiable, does that mean you consider Maori seats to be unjustifiable?
🙄
No, it means you have to demonstrate that the Māori seats meet the test of racial discrimination. Saying “it’s self-evident” won’t cut it.
Knucklehead: Maori seats are by definition racially discriminatory. Maybe you like to move the goalposts by redefining racial discrimination to exclude discrimination against non-maori. But I’m not playing that game. Humour me: let’s just say “racial discrimination” refers to all discrimination based on race or ethnicity, regardless of which race is being discriminated against.
I want you to answer the question: When do you think racial discrimination is acceptable? I say the answer is never.
@ tas
Your inability to understand; how societal groups and racial identification intersect, says far more about your ability to understand than it does about the reality of concepts which have rushed so far over your head.
As for your attempt at muddying the waters by claiming exclusion = inclusion: “Whites only = Racial group included = Progressive?”. That’s some spectacular idiocy you’re parading there!
Paupial: You aren’t answering my question. You seem to be claiming that I don’t understand my own question. Please enlighten me then!
When do you think it is OK to discriminate based on race?
Maori seats discriminate based on race. If you are debating this fact, you are being stupid (and disingenuous). The electoral act uses the term ‘race’ and restricts the Maori roll to the Maori race.
You are taking my comment out of context. I presented it as an example of silliness. So of course it’s idiotic! Stop misrepresenting me and answer my question.
tas, you seem to be a bit confused by the word ‘discriminate’.
Seeing as how actual people haven’t been able to get this through to you, let’s try the dictionary.
discriminate
1 recognize a distinction; differentiate : babies can discriminate between different facial expressions of emotion. See note at distinguish .
• [ trans. ] perceive or constitute the difference in or between : bats can discriminate a difference in echo delay of between 69 and 98 millionths of a second | features that discriminate this species from other gastropods.
2 make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, sex, or age : existing employment policies discriminate against women.
For the Maori seats you need to apply definition 1. There is a distinction between Maori and non-Maori (hence the seats), but it’s not a prejudicial one. No-one is saying that Maori get seats because they are better than Pakeha. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging difference.
For the Pakeha Party, eg making statements that Maori apply for benefits and white people have jobs is discriminatory according to definition 2, because (a) the distinction being claimed is false, and (b) claiming the false distinction makes out that one group is better than the other, thus supporting one group while undermining the other group.
weka: Really?! Are you going down the route of arguing that Maori seats are not racially discriminatory?
I am clearly using definition 2. The Maori roll is discriminatory because the majority of the population is *not allowed* to join it. Definition 1 does not cover actions, only perceptions.
You are not answering my question. You are redefining my question to suit you – shifting the goalposts if you will. This is ridiculous. I’m asking a simple question and you just keep redefining the question, calling me stupid, and avoid answering it.
You know exactly what I’m asking. Answer my question.
When do you think it is OK to treat people differently based on their race?
Because of cultural considerations. Like I wouldn’t offer my Muslim neighbour pork, or leave you alone with my children.
tas, you’re still failing to understand the word discriminate in all its meanings.
However, let’s try another tack.
“When do you think it is OK to treat people differently based on their race?”
Leaving aside that there is no such thing as race, I think it is ok to treat people differently based on ethnicity when there is clear evidence of that group of people being subjected to institutional and structural racism.
But you will note that I’m not saying prejudically. There is a difference between understanding the Maori stats in welfare and employment are worse than Pakeha (perceiving difference isn’t wrong or bad, it’s just acknowledging fact), and saying that Maori are bludgers/lazy whereas Pakeha aren’t (because that’s patently untrue).
So, again, there is nothing wrong with difference, or differentiating. It’s when you add in bigotry (derogatory belief not based on fact) that you are engaged in prejudice.
Honestly, I don’t know where this idea that racism is merely seeing and acting on difference comes from.
Edit: plus what OAK said.
dave ruck is a conman with a string of failed businesses. as someone who is so unfortunate as to have met him in person he certainly seemed to fit the stereotype of a white guy from Christchurch. He is also a terrible DJ. people like him make me seem racist for believing in stereotypes.
Personal attack…
lol the Pakeha Party is already looking like a left wing fringe and with more oxygen you are giving it the more fringe it looks.
Fringe = left
man you guys really need to look at who you give oxygen too! I can hear it now – ‘Yes” we give you too much oxygen – but I am good for business on here.
its a dumb party – which will fall over
“already looking like a left wing fringe”
why? how?
while i agree its a dumb party i dont see how fringe = left. Fringe = fringe, end of story
unless you think kyle chapman is mainstream
Yes is just pushing the new framing. John Key is doing it too.
The idea is that there’s a “centre- right” but no “centre-left, so “left” now means anything outside the centre.
It’s stupid, illogical, and dishonest, but that’s what we get for engaging with these fucks as if there were good faith involved, when we should have just taken them all out behind the barn a long time ago.
+ 1 they don’t have ‘good faith’ it’s not in their bones and we belittle ourselves by engaging with them as if they do
+1 – its either duplicity or stupidity with some
but i always end up asking myself “are they really evil or just really really stupid?”
“dick cheney or ideological zoolander” if you will
evil or stupid – both I think but I’m not sure which causes which – probably doesn’t matter
+1 Felix.
I start from the assumption that any given right winger is still upset that their side lost WWII.
lol
lol but true!
“I start from the assumption that any given right winger is still upset that their side lost WWII.”
Yeah, but I bet some of your best friends are conservatives.
Exactly. This means my assumption is entirely justified.
Like the left are bitter at losing the Cold War?
its a silly stupid fringe party – dont give it a life on here – that is what I am saying
Yes, but racist parties will always take votes from National and Winston First, so no wonder you’d rather they went away. Diddums.
its not all your saying sunshine. And considering your past behaviour i would caution any one to not take you claims of concern seriously
Well, the expectation is that if it doesn’t fall over it will take votes off the National Party and Winston First, while failing to meet the 5% threshold.
I’m sure you can argue against that analysis but sincerity might be a bit of a struggle.
You give oxygen to most on TS Yes, yes ?
Leaving less for you hence your screechy choking.
they’re about as left as can be, a bunch of dumb national voters of the camp “we vote national because they are good and i also love the colour blue”. btw do you know which way is up or down?
The Pakeha party is composed of piffleheads with too tight elastic in their underpants and socks cutting off the blood supply from their vital organs.
They are the same people that think they can just fuck with anyone if they dont like them.
i.e. kiwi knuckledraggers.
Yeah, nah. The number of likes the Pakeha Party has is completely meaningless. Due to th enature of Facebook, it’s impossible to say what some of those likes represent. It’s quite likely that several thousand of the people who liked the page come from the left and just want to keep an eye on how it develops or even for trolling purposes.
the party itself is meaningless since the guy that runs it has 0 idea about politics. although he does have the typical ill informed racist opinions some people from the south island have. hes a known con artist who knows a thing or two about the internet and marketing. he’s simply whipping up controversy to boost his facebook page likes so he can somehow make money off it. oh how i wish it were true and they were stealing the dumbest of the dumb from nationals voter base
The South Island isn’t any more racist than the north Island and people who perpetuate this myth are showing their provincial ignorance
By my count, Pakeha have… 6 parties representing them in Parliament: National, Act, United Future, NZ First, Labour AND the Greens (yes, just because Labour and Greens are to the left doesn’t mean they don’t cater to Pakeha interests as well… especially when polls make Labour wobbly)
Also, I’m honestly quite surprised that this new entity is… progressive enough to even use the term “Pakeha”. It’s not an insult, I’ve never used it as one but I know enough Pakeha complain about the word that I throw my hands up and call them whatever they want to be called.
Which is kind of weird because Winston is Ngati Wai and I can’t think of an MP more likely to put off racists than Asenati Lole-Taylor.
That just shows how inclusive Ngati Wai are, or they would have kicked him out.
Or maybe they just recognise Maori as being a group of diverse viewpoints and not some sort of romantic cardboard cutouts for the benefit of making certain bleeding hearts of the left feel good about themselves.
Rather good cartoon says it all
I just don’t get this whole white privilege thing.
if we lived in the USA, yeah sure, but NZ, nah it just doesn’t fly.
Tough titty.
Believe it or not, we aren’t all here to explain the bleeding obvious to idiots.
I don’t think there’s anything to explain, it’s all a figment of your imagination, you’ve transposed an American issue regarding Negros and their struggle for equality onto the Maori.
There’s just no comparison.
Try looking at it from the indigenous perspective – think about the native americans and other indigenous peoples around the world – the similarities in experience are obvious and glaring – most if not all colonised peoples have ended up on the bottom of the heap and that is not coincidence and it was not by accident either.
That cartoon is correct and good and shows the utter bullshit of the so called Māori privileges that some get worked up about.
Yeah, a lot of what I know regarding Maori issues comes from my Missus who spent a few years studying the treaty, different indigenous treaties, early NZ history etc at Uni.
Maori did get a rough deal on a few things, but of all the colonized indigenous people the Maori were by far the best treated and most respected.
In was actually the height of sophistication to invite a Maori chief back to England and have him stay as a guest on your estate.
The British had great respect for the Maori.
yeah nah sorry mate that just is not true – doesn’t matter if they strangle you or stab you, they’re still trying to kill you, no matter which way they do it and if they succeed you are just as dead as the next guy.
Neither of your narratives are entirely accurate
they are true though but don’t worry they are MY narratives I’m not speaking for all the people lol
I was talking about you and BM – you don’t have more than one narrative.
thank you.
Very good felix.
Heh
Pretty much all over rover
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10896079
lolz. Who woulda thunk it came from Christchurch, eh?
Also, from the article:
Yeah, that’s probably why.
yea that or that he plays shit music. which he does
BM. Sounds to me like you are a part maori trying so hard to be pakeha, hmmmmm
Lol, I’m a real absolute bitzer.
Irish,Maori,Portuguese, the list goes on.
Why are you giving this pakeha party air….you have just given it more life.
yes and more power to it. i hope the idiots turn out in droves for this one. another positive aspect is it raises the average IQ of nationals voter base ever so slightly
Its what I would do if I was advising the left, keep it going as long as you can and try to link it to the National government.
No need to link it, just watch with glee as they drag Winston First under 5% and tale votes off Slippery.
I think, perhaps, you neglect to ponder the question of exactly how attractive the ideas of the Pakeha Party are to those who are not well off. It’s one thing to be wealthy and find their ideas attractive, but it’s quite another to sit at home and think, “I’m poor too, where is my help”. And right now? That help, that representation isn’t coming from the Left, who are, instead, much more interested in what has been called “identity” politics. If you are poor, you’re probably better off being brown in terms of assistance… It doesn’t matter what your ethnicity is, a lower socio-economic standing is going to impact you the same way and it is not good.
The Left should be all about money and it isn’t, remember that.
That explains why inequality fell under the fifth Labour government. No, wait…
“If you are poor, you’re probably better off being brown in terms of assistance…”
Probably? If there was ever a citation needed it’s that statement. Or even just give us some concrete examples, say five of them.
“It doesn’t matter what your ethnicity is, a lower socio-economic standing is going to impact you the same way and it is not good.”
So being poor is the same as being poor and continually exposed to racism?
I completely agree that low income and poor people in NZ are getting shafted. But poor white men are picking the wrong target if they think that Maori (or beneficiaries) are to blame.
“The Left should be all about money and it isn’t, remember that.”
Since when?
btw class politics are identity politics too.
As someone who tends to lean to the right, I am extremely embarrassed that I know any idiot that likes this party.
This party just makes white people who have some discontent for race based policies seem like complete bigots.
I sincerely hope these guys do not form a party. I can only imagine the shitfight between a flailing ACT Party, Conservative Party and these fucking morons for that radical right vote.
I think the Pakeha Party would be good news for John Key because it would take votes from NZ First and Labour but not get to 5%. See http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/pakeha-party-good-news-john-key-142817
“Anyone who wonders what to make of Matthew Hooton’s public contributions to New Zealand politics really should read what he writes in private. ”
Nicky Hagar.