I'm going to chime in since this issue grinds my gears...
I believe the term is "positive discrimination". Which is an oxymoron, since all discrimination is inherently negative.
I'll give just one example of this that I've encountered: My cousin, born and raised in America, has gained a scholarship to study in any University of his choice because of his "Pacific Ancestry". He has maybe 1/16th Maori ancestry... Okay, it's nice that he has his pick of Colleges to study in (shouldn't everyone?), and he actually has some respect for his ancestry, though he does have "redneck" values. Yet he gets an advantage over his peers because his mum's father is part Maori. Seems fair and equal? Nope.
I sure didn't get the same advantage, yet I was born in and live in New Zealand. Obviously I don't like it...
Stats don't justify preferential treatment to anyone or any group of people.
NZtechfreak: It seems you guys are under the impression the these scholarships are offered exclusively for Maori? There are scholarships for Pacific Islanders, women, disabled people, for financial hardship, and if I looked I'm sure we'd see many other groups specifically represented by scholarships. These are aren't been offered to the exclusion of catering to other groups who suffer inequality or hardship in society.
I'm arguing that scholarships based on race are racist and therefore wrong. Scholarships based on disability of financial hardship are fine. Scholarships for females only are wrong in my mind too.
one last time
look at it as not by race but by a sector of our society that needs additional assistance to correct a very very real problem. Is that really that hard to grasp?
But why can it not be based purely on financial aspects? why does it matter what race the person is who is struggling?
NZtechfreak: It seems you guys are under the impression the these scholarships are offered exclusively for Maori? There are scholarships for Pacific Islanders, women, disabled people, for financial hardship, and if I looked I'm sure we'd see many other groups specifically represented by scholarships. These are aren't been offered to the exclusion of catering to other groups who suffer inequality or hardship in society.
I'm arguing that scholarships based on race are racist and therefore wrong. Scholarships based on disability of financial hardship are fine. Scholarships for females only are wrong in my mind too.
one last time
look at it as not by race but by a sector of our society that needs additional assistance to correct a very very real problem. Is that really that hard to grasp?
But why can it not be based purely on financial aspects? why does it matter what race the person is who is struggling?
Ah good point! (sorry I didn't read all 10 pages of replies in this thread...)
I would amend my previous post to say preferential treatment for those in financial hardship is okay, but not race, I totally agree.
KiwiNZ: Targeted assistance is a process by which special funding or resources are provided under special rules to address an imbalance or to remedy a particular set of circumstances. It is used in numerous circumstances, for example a Blind person in receipt of an Invalids Benefit has a higher income exemption that other disabled, this is targeted assistance to address unique issues with regards to obtaining or retaining employment for the Blind, it is not discriminatory against other disabled it is targeted assistance.
Agreed. Targeting assistance to blind people is not discriminatory. There are genuine hardships around employment that no other group experience. What if i were to offer targeted assistance to blind Maori? That would be discriminatory because I am arbitrarily assisting a particular race for no other reason than their race.
clearly you have no desire to understand, I will leave with your blinkers on.
I actually have a voracious desire to understand. All I am being given for an explanation is that for various foggily described socio-economic reasons which are in no way associated with education (and, coincidentally, apply to people of all races) particular ethnic groups deserve targeted financial assistance and that is in no way racially discriminatory and is actually a good thing.
I really hope you can see how messed up a point of view that is. An attitude like that helps no one in the end. Sure, discrimination of particular groups has occurred in the past but I think enough time has passed that everyone in this country can look themselves in the mirror and say with certainty that racial discrimination is something that no longer has a place anywhere in law or social policy and that has been the case for a good period of time.
If particular groups tend toward lower socio-economic status then I would argue that there are reasons other than access to education that cause them and further supporting this type of behaviour is nothing more than enabling the problem to continue by disguising it through 'assistance' in areas that do not need it.
The truth of the matter is that everyone - regardless of race - has a different experience of life. Some people have a much greater set of challenges to overcome but the education system in New Zealand does not discriminate based on race and neither should scholarships.
There it is. I'm disappointed I need to spell out something so basic to the rights New Zealand guarantees to every person who lives here but apparently certain types of racism are more OK than others.
The difference between blind people and Maoris is that all blind people can't see but not all Maoris are from rotten families. Giving extra bonus loot to part-Maoris who get to be dux and have a nice family albeit on the dpb is no help to Maoris at the bottom of the heap.
KiwiNZ: Targeted assistance is a process by which special funding or resources are provided under special rules to address an imbalance or to remedy a particular set of circumstances. It is used in numerous circumstances, for example a Blind person in receipt of an Invalids Benefit has a higher income exemption that other disabled, this is targeted assistance to address unique issues with regards to obtaining or retaining employment for the Blind, it is not discriminatory against other disabled it is targeted assistance.
To labour the point a targeted payment to blind people is for all of them whether they are Maori or not, though I can imagine blind Maoris get extra loot because they get bonus points because of "disadvantaged race" even if they individually are not disadvantaged.
On the other hand, a payment targeted to a Maori for education leaves lots of Maoris out and discriminates against non-Maoris who other than their race have identical characteristics to the favoured recipient. In fact, since many "Maoris" have only 1/8th Maori ancestry, the difference between the "Maori" lucky recipient of loot and the "non-Maori" who is discriminated against is so trivial as to be irrelevant.
Being blind is a distinct disadvantage. Being Maori is not in itself a disadvantage [unless one is racist and believes that each Maori is defective in a universal way]. On the contrary, being Maori in NZ is a very distinct advantage because of racial favouritism.
It's plain racism to target special government funds to Maoris for the mere fact of being Maori.
If the money comes from somebody who earned it themselves, that's okay to make it a racist payment. The Ngapuhi Trust can't be expected to be non racist and provide funding to people from tribes who the Ngapuhi used to murder en masse [speaking of colonial outrages]. Of course Ngapuhi Trust will make racist payments to their preferred people. Same as I spend more effort on my grand children than other people's grand children. Mothers tend to favour their own children for similar racist reasons. But when the government makes racist payments and establishes apartheid, we are all in trouble. But we are already in so much trouble from government wastrelism and bludging that a bit more just adds colour to the mess. Helen Clark is certainly doing well [check the UN salary - tax free and her NZ pension when she calls it a day] from the payments targeted to her.
It's hypocritical that apartheid in South Africa was so heavily opposed in NZ but now apartheid is well under development in Aotearoa.
Having had to work part time and all "holidays" to pay for my living expenses while studying for BE Civil it's easy to see how it would have been much easier to be the recipient of a specially targeted payment of loot for Maoris. There were no student loans back in the day.
KiwiNZ: No doubt some here would have argued against the need for affirmative action( targeted assistance) to correct employment inequality for women.
I would have argued against the need for affirmative action for gender equality. I would have also argued against discrimination based on sex in employment.
KiwiNZ: No doubt some here would have argued against the need for affirmative action( targeted assistance) to correct employment inequality for women.
I would have argued against the need for affirmative action for gender equality. I would have also argued against discrimination based on sex in employment.
Can you see the difference?
thankyou for proving a theory for me. An FYI affirmative action as I mentioned was very successful but I know you are not interested in that.
KiwiNZ: No doubt some here would have argued against the need for affirmative action( targeted assistance) to correct employment inequality for women.
I would have argued against the need for affirmative action for gender equality. I would have also argued against discrimination based on sex in employment.
Can you see the difference?
Absolutely! As would I.
I also argue against "affirmative action" (which is just a euphemism for discrimination) on the basis of race, just as vehemently as I argued against apartheid.
You can't be simultaneously both in favour of and against race/gender discrimination. Either you are against it, or you aren't.
KiwiNZ: No doubt some here would have argued against the need for affirmative action( targeted assistance) to correct employment inequality for women.
I would have argued against the need for affirmative action for gender equality. I would have also argued against discrimination based on sex in employment.
Can you see the difference?
Absolutely! As would I.
I also argue against "affirmative action" (which is just a euphemism for discrimination) on the basis of race, just as vehemently as I argued against apartheid.
You can't be simultaneously both in favour of and against race/gender discrimination. Either you are against it, or you aren't.
mate while i understand that some people do not support the concept of affirmative action - personally i do (please refer to my earlier post as a recipient of targeted support 2 decades ago)
however, to put affirmative action in the same space as apartheid is just ridiculous
one seeks to rectify imbalances in education, outcomes, employment etc (note: affirmative action as used in my case also had requirements around ongoing academic performance, commitment to community and tribe and proven financial need)
the latter sought to subjugate and treat a group of people as inferior and subhuman through massive oppression and deprivation
yes both linked to race - but completely different in their goals
so if you are choosing to ignore this SIGNIFICANT difference in terms of intent and outcomes - we will just have to agree to disagree as we will NEVER see eye to eye on this.
my final comment - to those who don't support affirmative action - that's fine, it is of course your right - the reasons have been put in front of you - you don't have to accept or agree with them - however, in cases like this, arguing on and on is usually pointless as for some there is no acceptable middle-ground and the decision is a effectively a binary one - so it's just easier to agree to disagree and move on
KiwiNZ: No doubt some here would have argued against the need for affirmative action( targeted assistance) to correct employment inequality for women.
I would have argued against the need for affirmative action for gender equality. I would have also argued against discrimination based on sex in employment.
Can you see the difference?
Absolutely! As would I.
I also argue against "affirmative action" (which is just a euphemism for discrimination) on the basis of race, just as vehemently as I argued against apartheid.
You can't be simultaneously both in favour of and against race/gender discrimination. Either you are against it, or you aren't.
mate while i understand that some people do not support the concept of affirmative action - personally i do (please refer to my earlier post as a recipient of targeted support 2 decades ago)
however, to put affirmative action in the same space as apartheid is just ridiculous
one seeks to rectify imbalances in education, outcomes, employment etc (note: affirmative action as used in my case also had requirements around ongoing academic performance, commitment to community and tribe and proven financial need)
the latter sought to subjugate and treat a group of people as inferior and subhuman through massive oppression and deprivation
yes both linked to race - but completely different in their goals
so if you are choosing to ignore this SIGNIFICANT difference in terms of intent and outcomes - we will just have to agree to disagree as we will NEVER see eye to eye on this.
my final comment - to those who don't support affirmative action - that's fine, it is of course your right - the reasons have been put in front of you - you don't have to accept or agree with them - however, in cases like this, arguing on and on is usually pointless as for some there is no acceptable middle-ground and the decision is a effectively a binary one - so it's just easier to agree to disagree and move on
There is a solution to every problem. Surely eliminating the cause of imbalances in education/employment is far better than rectifying the problem after the fact? As in, which is better: a cure for cancer or a band-aid? That's how I see it at least.
And while I do agree with your description of the differences between apartheid and affirmative action (one is negative discrimination, the other is positive), they are both still discrimination. One party loses in some way from either case. Obviously apartheid was much much worse!
gurthang117: There is a solution to every problem. Surely eliminating the cause of imbalances in education/employment is far better than rectifying the problem after the fact?
The cause starts before a child turns 5.
The cure is more than people could stomach. The welfare state is the issue.
Children are meal tickets to sky tv, booze and drugs. Poverty of spirit rather than poverty of money.
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
Trusted
