NZ | Politics Thread

[puketotara]

Originally Posted by jarbury

one must ask "why wouldn't you get that anyway?" Do Maori people just inherently not want to become doctors? Do we assume they're too bloody stupid to become doctors without assistance? No (well at least I hope not)... it's because (generally) their socio-economic situation makes it difficult for them to compete against someone from a much higher socio-economic situation.

However, this doesn't get past the question of why not provide assistance based on socio-economic status rather than on ethnicity? I guess it might be harder to promote "a poor people assistance class" than a "Maori and PI assistance class", but in the end neither is really more offensive than the other.

In the end it comes down to the question of who is more worthy for assistance out of a rich Maori/PI student living in Parnell, and some poor white person from Otara?

But in the end, the manifestation of their previous disadvantage is only really experienced by a portion of the population (even if it is a fairly significant portion) today. Once again it comes back to socio-economic situations, which are clearly a much fairer way to decide who needs and doesn't need help. If language is an issue, then clearly it might be necessary to provide assistance there too..... although one would think that would be a more significant issue for all the Asian students we have.

when you say 'do we assume' do you mean Pakeha NZers? It isn't just socio-economic status that prevents people from achieving. there are a huge number of isssues including ethnicity, religion, gender etc

many NZers think of our country as being very open and inclusive but in reality, a poor white male probably still has a better chance of becoming educated and wealthy, than a poor Maori or PI female, it's just that no one wants to admit that our system is designed for certain people to succeed.

I'm not excluding asians or africans or arabic people (or whoever) from this discussion, they are also at risk for the same reasons, but we have large populations of Maori and PIs

I would like to see how many Pakeha NZers would be successful living in a society with values based on kaupapa Maori

[jarbury]

You do make a valid point there puketotara. I guess that cultural difference is potentially a disadvantage that makes it harder for one to succeed. There do seem to be a LOT of Asian around universities though, which makes me think that socio-economics is more significant.

[whizz_pat]

Originally Posted by puketotara

when you say 'do we assume' do you mean Pakeha NZers? It isn't just socio-economic status that prevents people from achieving. there are a huge number of isssues including ethnicity, religion, gender etc

many NZers think of our country as being very open and inclusive but in reality, a poor white male probably still has a better chance of becoming educated and wealthy, than a poor Maori or PI female, it's just that no one wants to admit that our system is designed for certain people to succeed.

I'm not excluding asians or africans or arabic people (or whoever) from this discussion, they are also at risk for the same reasons, but we have large populations of Maori and PIs

I would like to see how many Pakeha NZers would be successful living in a society with values based on kaupapa Maori

Can you please explain to me, how is it harder for a Maori of equal socioeconomic status as a Pakeha to become educated and wealthy?

Some weird studies are suggesting that brown people are "dumber" than white people genetically. ie a pakeha brain is better than a maori brain because pakeha have genetics that code for a better brain. This is the only situation in NZ that I can think of which would prevent Maoris becoming educated. These studies are not proven, and even if they are, I would imagine that the genetic differences are so minute that it is only apparent when you are competing for the Maths World Olympiad, and not in first year biomedical science/law.

[DML2]

Originally Posted by puketotara

most? how do you know that? Most british didn't sign it either... so the point is irrelevant

Give Maori a bit more credit - fooled into it? I don't think so, maybe lied to, Maori were in the dominant position in 1840, uniting with Pakeha had advantages for them, which they had already been getting since the first arrival of Europeans

The UN also had the position that the indigenous language version of any treaty is the correct version - it's only our ignorant govt that ignores this, and makes us work with two versions...

What do you mean most British didn't sign it? By fooled into it I meant there was a misrepresentation. Anyway, the Treaty is still a joke.

[deepred]

Originally Posted by whizz_pat

Some weird studies are suggesting that brown people are "dumber" than white people genetically. ie a pakeha brain is better than a maori brain because pakeha have genetics that code for a better brain. This is the only situation in NZ that I can think of which would prevent Maoris becoming educated. These studies are not proven, and even if they are, I would imagine that the genetic differences are so minute that it is only apparent when you are competing for the Maths World Olympiad, and not in first year biomedical science/law.

It all seems to come down to nature vs nurture. Scientists are still debating as to whether people are born dumb or made dumb, although a number of the "nature" proponents (such as Charles Murray in The Bell Curve) have since been exposed as peddlers of scientific racism. Further research has controversially suggested the theory of "voluntary" and "involuntary" minorities.

Originally Posted by jarbury

You do make a valid point there puketotara. I guess that cultural difference is potentially a disadvantage that makes it harder for one to succeed. There do seem to be a LOT of Asian around universities though, which makes me think that socio-economics is more significant.

And the "model minority" myth has been busted open for a while now - being of Chinese descent myself, it's complete bollocks as far as my own experiences are concerned. Asian migrants to the West are typically filtered thru points systems in one form or another, so a more plausible explanation would be that most of the poorest Asians are in Asia.

Originally Posted by jarbury

Regarding Pacific Islanders, in a way they could be considered to have a grievance against the government in a similar, though obviously not as significant, sense to Maori. Most Pacific Islanders in NZ immigrated (or are the children of immigrants) in the 1950s-1970s to work in the factories of NZ when we had a labour shortage, they were bunged together in pretty poor quality housing in places like Otara & Mangere and then pretty much given no rights. I'm sure we all know about the dawn raids as a pretty disgraceful chapter of the country's history.

According to the history books, Samoa was originally governed by Germany, but as punishment for its role in WWI, Germany had to give up its overseas territories. The British, with their hands full maintaining the Empire, asked NZ to take direct charge of Samoa and a couple of other Pacific territories. After its independence, Samoans had certain NZ citizenship rights as a former colonial territory of NZ.

Muldoon's dawn raids were an attempt to de-naturalise the Islanders, and as a result the issue went all the way to the London Privy Council, which ruled in favour of the Islanders in the early 1980s. In response, Muldoon blunted the ruling by passing the Western Samoa Citizenship Act 1982.

[Richard7666]

The Privy Council told the NZ Government to do something? How brazen. I'm glad we got rid of that thing (even if I do agree with the decision in this case)

[ZEALand]

Originally Posted by Richard7666

The Privy Council told the NZ Government to do something? How brazen. I'm glad we got rid of that thing (even if I do agree with the decision in this case)

Yeah I'm glad we stopped using The Privy Council as our highest court. How can people on the other side of the world decide things related to the present NZ. I don't believe we have come far enough yet. I would like to see NZ adopt a written constitution with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi included in some way. I don't believe Parliament should have the last say on laws either, NZ should have a constitutional court to decide whether new laws would fit with the constitution.

[jarbury]

Agreed Zealand. And I don't just say that because I'm not a fan of the current government.

The fact that any government can continue to pass a law which contravenes the Bill of Rights Act (the closest thing we do have to a constitution) seems totally stupid. Having no constitution AND no upper house means that the government does have an extraordinary amount of power.

[ZEALand]

Originally Posted by jarbury

Agreed Zealand. And I don't just say that because I'm not a fan of the current government.

The fact that any government can continue to pass a law which contravenes the Bill of Rights Act (the closest thing we do have to a constitution) seems totally stupid. Having no constitution AND no upper house means that the government does have an extraordinary amount of power.

Yup, yup. It is interesting the amount of controversial legislation that pushes the boundaries in terms of the Bill of Rights Act that has been passed; in the Labour governments last term and the National governments first term!

[cambennett]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10563615

This is giving me a very strong case of de ja vu. Does anyone out there still believe this lot are any different from when they were chucked out 10 years ago? I guess this is what happens when tax cuts are pretty much your sole policy.

Roger Douglas will be over the moon.

[puketotara]

perhaps I don't do a very good job of explaining myself...

Maori are not any 'dumber' than anyone else, social darwinism is ridiculous and went out of fashion with the Nazis

There is such a thing as cultural difference - New Zealand's education system is based on british model, Maori (whose culture is nothing like that of the british) will always have difficulty succeeding because their cultural foundation is different, many Maori succeed despite this, which would make me think they are smarter than the Pakeha that don't succeed,

anyone who has any understanding of different cultures should be able to see how it is difficult for some people (based on race which happens to coincide with culture in this case) to succeed in the system of another culture

and the treaty is not a joke, unless you also categorise the American declaration of independence or the Magna Carta as jokes, they are pretty old documents as well...

[KLK]

Originally Posted by puketotara

There is such a thing as cultural difference - New Zealand's education system is based on british model, Maori (whose culture is nothing like that of the british) will always have difficulty succeeding because their cultural foundation is different, many Maori succeed despite this, which would make me think they are smarter than the Pakeha that don't succeed,

anyone who has any understanding of different cultures should be able to see how it is difficult for some people (based on race which happens to coincide with culture in this case) to succeed in the system of another culture

And yet young immigrants of other cultures that are also nothing like the British/NZ model (most notably, Asian), do remarkably well under such a foreign (to them) system, outperforming Maori and Pacific Island ethnic groups (as well as Pakeha), on the whole.

On one hand it rebuffs the theory that the British model will not work on those from a non-British culture, but it also further highlights that Maori and the Pacific Island groups are a unique case, which require a unique approach.

[whizz_pat]

I do NOT mean to be racist, and I have many Maori and PI friends who are great people.

However, KLK says that Maoris/Islanders are a unique case. I find that their case is unique in that their culture is not geared for ACADEMIC achievement. ie academic achievement is not a priority. Priority goes to other things such as family and sports, which is great, but why does the government give scholarships and quotas especially for these people, when it is not a priority anyway.

My views are based only on my personal experience with Maoris/Pacific Islanders.

Originally Posted by puketotara

anyone who has any understanding of different cultures should be able to see how it is difficult for some people (based on race which happens to coincide with culture in this case) to succeed in the system of another culture

I disagree 100%, comming from a culture other than the NZ/British culture. Maoris have been living with Europeans since 1840, while Asians have been here mostly since the mid 1990s.

[puketotara]

your views are based on personal experience, which is not necessarily representative of the whole population...

Maori have not been 'living' with europeans since 1840, the major urban migration didn't occur until after the second world war, before that things were quite separate,

yes most asians are new migrants, but asia is connected to europe, and there has been contact for much longer

I don't think that's important anyway, I just don't understand why people are so against these quota, is it just because they are missing out? all the explanations are racially focussed or poverty focussed, but those aren't good reasons not to have quota.

[KLK]

Originally Posted by puketotara

your views are based on personal experience, which is not necessarily representative of the whole population...

Maori have not been 'living' with europeans since 1840, the major urban migration didn't occur until after the second world war, before that things were quite separate,

yes most asians are new migrants, but asia is connected to europe, and there has been contact for much longer

I don't think that's important anyway, I just don't understand why people are so against these quota, is it just because they are missing out? all the explanations are racially focussed or poverty focussed, but those aren't good reasons not to have quota.

I'm not against quotas personally, I think they play an important role provided they are being applied correctly, and in the areas of the greatest need. Incidentally, Malaysia has quotas on purely ethnic (and therefore, in this country, religious) grounds, and from what I can see, the results are mixed. But its probably not a good study-case.

I must admit, I lean towards poverty/economic based quotas and by virtue of this I would expect the recipients to be heavily Maori and Pacific Island based. It seems, to me, to kill two birds with one stone. Simplifying it, I know...

[DML2]

Originally Posted by puketotara

I just don't understand why people are so against these quota

Because it's racist. Like the Maori Party. If there were quotas for white New Zealanders or a White Party there'd be outrage

[whizz_pat]

Yeap. Pakeha are underrepresented in the All Blacks, but having a Pakeha quota system for the All Blacks would be ridiculous. All the All Black selectors are interested in is "who can play the best rugby?" Therefore, race is irrelevent to selection. (ie, it doesn't matter if you are European or PI or Maori, you are chosen based on your sporting ability).

Similarly, it is ridiculous having a quota system for entry into courses. I'll take medicine as an example. When being selected into medicine, selectors are looking for who will be the best at being a doctor. If a certain Maori can be a better doctor than a cerain Pakeha or Asian, then so be it, they should be given priority for selection. If this Pakeha or Asian has achieved a higher entry score than this Maori, it is ridiculous to decline this Pakeha or Asian, and accept the Maori, just because his grandfather happens to be 1/2 Maori.

puketotara, I do not understand. I said that I find that Maoris generally do not place as emphasis on academic achievement as an "average kiwi" would. You said that this view is not necessarily representative of the Maori poplulation (which is true).
Let us assume that Maoris are as focused as 'kiwis' on education. In this case, I do not see any cultural barriers to achievement.
On the other hand, if Maori culture does not focus on education as much as 'kiwi' culture does, then so be it. Maoris (like everyone in NZ) are free to choose what they consider are priorities in life.

[whizz_pat]

Can someone explain to me, what is John Key's logic in selling the army bases only to lease them back? Other than making a short term profit.

Not only are they vital infrastructure needed for national security, it will be a burden on the NZ taxpayer in the long term.

If you lease the land to a private company, this company has to make a profit. In this case, the company's profit is the government's loss.

[Sukkiri]

Originally Posted by whizz_pat

Can someone explain to me, what is John Key's logic in selling the army bases only to lease them back? Other than making a short term profit.

National loves privatizing in the hopes that people will think that they have full economic and financial hope in their party. Remember when the railways were sold only to be bought back by Labour?

Originally Posted by whizz_pat

Not only are they vital infrastructure needed for national security, it will be a burden on the NZ taxpayer in the long term.

By the time this happens, when people consider it a tax burden rather than cost cutting, a different party will be in power and it will be their mess. Typical political game really. Just as a side note, New Zealand's national security is a joke at the moment, a few warbirds, frigates, etc. The only thing going for it is the SAS. When the British invaded Zanzibar, it was considered one of the quickest defeats in history, around 30 minutes. Who knows if a future invasion of New Zealand will beat this record, but there is still Australia for backup.

[jarbury]

Yes I have never quite understood why neoliberals are so keen on selling stuff all the time, even if it's profitable. Like the OECD report saying we should sell the power companies... I mean wtf? These companies make massive profits each year, why shouldn't the tax-payer benefit from those profits rather than some (inevitably overseas owned) private company? One would think it reduces the need to rely upon higher taxation to provide services.... lower taxes, one would think would be something right-wingers would advocate for.

Doesn't make sense to me.