Pakeha Party launches for 'equal rights'

Forums › Off topic › Pakeha Party launches for 'equal rights'

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 14

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#851356 9-Jul-2013 09:32

NonprayingMantis:
KiwiNZ:
NonprayingMantis:
KiwiNZ:
NonprayingMantis:
KiwiNZ:
spearsniper: ^ ummm. I think you might be missing the point.
The womens teams, age based teams, and physical ability teams are all in place to allow fairness and sportmanship.
Race based teams are not.

you are missing the point, example the Scottish, Welsh have their own teams in the United Kingdom. Teams selected on nationality are present in all sports why should the Maori be singled to have their team being called inappropriate.

Maori is not a nationality.

*sigh*

unbelievable

Maori is not a nationality.
It is an ethnicity or a race. It is not defined by national boundaries.

ETA: But I dont really care if Maori want to have a NZ Maori team. It's hardly worth arguing over. what is important is government special privileges for poor people where the mana party specifically want to exclude poor pakeha from obtaining those privileges by making them only available to Maori.

Race is defined by borders, race is outside borders, race is a nationality and race is not a nationality. Race defines a nationality race defines more than a nationality.

What a meaningless thing to say.

read it again it will come to you ;)

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

macuser

2120 posts

Uber Geek

#851358 9-Jul-2013 09:32

Us white folks are born winners who forced our society on a bunch of people who were pretty happy on their own, living with their own societal ambitions and values. I'm not really being an apologist, just the reality is that white people are far better at succeeding in white people society so we need to help those that aren't so good.

Especially the people who we forced our lifestyle upon a few hundred years ago. You can't really just say 'well you had ages to get used to it, harden up' in some hope to breed out the Maori in them.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#851359 9-Jul-2013 09:37

macuser: Us white folks are born winners who forced our society on a bunch of people who were pretty happy on their own, living with their own societal ambitions and values. I'm not really being an apologist, just the reality is that white people are far better at succeeding in white people society so we need to help those that aren't so good.

Especially the people who we forced our lifestyle upon a few hundred years ago. You can't really just say 'well you had ages to get used to it, harden up' in some hope to breed out the Maori in them.

I did not such thing.
I wasn't even born 200 years ago. Neither were my grandparents. And none of them ever lived in NZ either.

So what on earth does the actions of some people 200 years ago have to do with me?

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#851360 9-Jul-2013 09:38

KiwiNZ:
NonprayingMantis:
KiwiNZ:
NonprayingMantis:
KiwiNZ:
NonprayingMantis:
KiwiNZ:
spearsniper: ^ ummm. I think you might be missing the point.
The womens teams, age based teams, and physical ability teams are all in place to allow fairness and sportmanship.
Race based teams are not.

you are missing the point, example the Scottish, Welsh have their own teams in the United Kingdom. Teams selected on nationality are present in all sports why should the Maori be singled to have their team being called inappropriate.

Maori is not a nationality.

*sigh*

unbelievable

Maori is not a nationality.
It is an ethnicity or a race. It is not defined by national boundaries.

ETA: But I dont really care if Maori want to have a NZ Maori team. It's hardly worth arguing over. what is important is government special privileges for poor people where the mana party specifically want to exclude poor pakeha from obtaining those privileges by making them only available to Maori.

Race is defined by borders, race is outside borders, race is a nationality and race is not a nationality. Race defines a nationality race defines more than a nationality.

What a meaningless thing to say.

read it again it will come to you ;)

It's a trite statement that is utterly devoid of meaning. If anything it removes the notion of what 'race' is by defining it as anything and everything.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#851364 9-Jul-2013 09:56

NonprayingMantis:
KiwiNZ:
NonprayingMantis:
KiwiNZ:
NonprayingMantis:
KiwiNZ:
NonprayingMantis:
KiwiNZ:
spearsniper: ^ ummm. I think you might be missing the point.
The womens teams, age based teams, and physical ability teams are all in place to allow fairness and sportmanship.
Race based teams are not.

you are missing the point, example the Scottish, Welsh have their own teams in the United Kingdom. Teams selected on nationality are present in all sports why should the Maori be singled to have their team being called inappropriate.

Maori is not a nationality.

*sigh*

unbelievable

Maori is not a nationality.
It is an ethnicity or a race. It is not defined by national boundaries.

ETA: But I dont really care if Maori want to have a NZ Maori team. It's hardly worth arguing over. what is important is government special privileges for poor people where the mana party specifically want to exclude poor pakeha from obtaining those privileges by making them only available to Maori.

Race is defined by borders, race is outside borders, race is a nationality and race is not a nationality. Race defines a nationality race defines more than a nationality.

What a meaningless thing to say.

read it again it will come to you ;)

It's a trite statement that is utterly devoid of meaning. If anything it removes the notion of what 'race' is by defining it as anything and everything.

What is says is Race not only defines a person but it can define a Nation, It also says that race is not only defined by borders but can be beyond borders. Therefore Maori is a Nationality.

ubergeeknz

3344 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Vocus

#851366 9-Jul-2013 09:58

NonprayingMantis:
macuser: Us white folks are born winners who forced our society on a bunch of people who were pretty happy on their own, living with their own societal ambitions and values. I'm not really being an apologist, just the reality is that white people are far better at succeeding in white people society so we need to help those that aren't so good.

Especially the people who we forced our lifestyle upon a few hundred years ago. You can't really just say 'well you had ages to get used to it, harden up' in some hope to breed out the Maori in them.

I did not such thing.
I wasn't even born 200 years ago. Neither were my grandparents. And none of them ever lived in NZ either.

So what on earth does the actions of some people 200 years ago have to do with me?

Everything. Because you are living in that legacy and have an automatic leg up for it. That's what privilege is. Giving other people additional benefits to try and level the playing field is not going to take this away.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#851368 9-Jul-2013 10:15

ubergeeknz:
Everything. Because you are living in that legacy and have an automatic leg up for it. That's what privilege is. Giving other people additional benefits to try and level the playing field is not going to take this away.

Please explain this "automatic leg up"? This privilege!

We came to NZ, worked hard to get our Permanent residence. We were not entitled to "free healthcare", our kids were not entitled to "free education". It was expensive until we got our Permanent residence. It cost us lots of money. If we did not make it work we would have had to go back to South Africa. Make it or break it. There was no Winz available to us. No nothing.

In other words we had the "automatic leg down".

I'm living the legacy of our own hard work and determination of a struggle at getting to where I am today.

Nothing was handed to me for free. It was a battle for a long time. With time it paid off. We were not given any additional benefits to get where we are today.

Most immigrants to NZ these days do the same thing.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#851370 9-Jul-2013 10:23

ubergeeknz:
NonprayingMantis:
macuser: Us white folks are born winners who forced our society on a bunch of people who were pretty happy on their own, living with their own societal ambitions and values. I'm not really being an apologist, just the reality is that white people are far better at succeeding in white people society so we need to help those that aren't so good.

Especially the people who we forced our lifestyle upon a few hundred years ago. You can't really just say 'well you had ages to get used to it, harden up' in some hope to breed out the Maori in them.

I did not such thing.
I wasn't even born 200 years ago. Neither were my grandparents. And none of them ever lived in NZ either.

So what on earth does the actions of some people 200 years ago have to do with me?

Everything. Because you are living in that legacy and have an automatic leg up for it. That's what privilege is. Giving other people additional benefits to try and level the playing field is not going to take this away.

Happy to give people who are disadvantaged right now additional benefits to help them out. I don't see why these should be doled out on racial grounds though.

Singling out a particular race has several negative knock on effects
1) you end up giving benefits to people who don't really need it. There are plenty of Maori who are doing very well, yet they still get the same maori privileges
2) you end up not giving benefits to people who do need it, simply because they don't meet the racial definition
3) by stating that race is a real reason for doing badly at life, you re-enforce the notion that the race you are helping is actually inherently inferior. When a maori succeeds because of his own ability, people will write it off as a quota benefit. If Maori are constantly told " you as a race need our help" then that reenforces to them the notion that Maori are inferior, making them feel worthless and even less likely to try hard to succeed. If society tells you that your race sucks, then you are far more likely to give up and turn to crime.

So I ask again. Why single out a particular race? If you want to help under-privileged people, then help those people - no matter what race they are. don't re-enforce the idea that maori are somehow inherently inferior to other people - because they aren't.

If my distant ancestors were slaves in the roman empire, should that entitle me to anything right now? of course not. ancestry is irrelevant. What is important is my situation right now. If I am poor, and disadvantaged by being poor, then I should be helped. Whether my ancestors were slaves, slave owners, maori, or japanese Shoguns is totally utterly irrelevant.

ubergeeknz

3344 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Vocus

#851372 9-Jul-2013 10:27

Klipspringer:
ubergeeknz:
Everything. Because you are living in that legacy and have an automatic leg up for it. That's what privilege is. Giving other people additional benefits to try and level the playing field is not going to take this away.

Please explain this "automatic leg up"? This privilege!

We came to NZ, worked hard to get our Permanent residence. We were not entitled to "free healthcare", our kids were not entitled to "free education". It was expensive until we got our Permanent residence. It cost us lots of money. If we did not make it work we would have had to go back to South Africa. Make it or break it. There was no Winz available to us. No nothing.

In other words we had the "automatic leg down".

I'm living the legacy of our own hard work and determination of a struggle at getting to where I am today.

Nothing was handed to me for free. It was a battle for a long time. With time it paid off. We were not given any additional benefits to get where we are today.

Most immigrants to NZ these days do the same thing.

You're talking here about a choice you made, to move to a different country. Maori were here well before any of us, they didn't choose their circumstances, we foisted ourselves upon them. They are two totally different things.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#851376 9-Jul-2013 10:32

ubergeeknz:

You're talking here about a choice you made, to move to a different country. Maori were here well before any of us, they didn't choose their circumstances, we foisted ourselves upon them. They are two totally different things.

Well your post implied that I have the "automatic leg up"

I'm correcting you. Since we got here we have never been "advantaged" In fact always disadvantaged. To this day (Even though I am now a New Zealand citizen), I am still disadvantaged when compared to Maori. Is it fair for me not to be entitled to a 100% home loan because I'm non Maori? Im a New Zealand citizen.

New Zealand is after all built on immigrants.

Yes we made a choice to move to another country. But at the end of the day we all did. Including the ancestors of Maori.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#851377 9-Jul-2013 10:38

NonprayingMantis:
ubergeeknz:
NonprayingMantis:
macuser: Us white folks are born winners who forced our society on a bunch of people who were pretty happy on their own, living with their own societal ambitions and values. I'm not really being an apologist, just the reality is that white people are far better at succeeding in white people society so we need to help those that aren't so good.

Especially the people who we forced our lifestyle upon a few hundred years ago. You can't really just say 'well you had ages to get used to it, harden up' in some hope to breed out the Maori in them.

I did not such thing.
I wasn't even born 200 years ago. Neither were my grandparents. And none of them ever lived in NZ either.

So what on earth does the actions of some people 200 years ago have to do with me?

Everything. Because you are living in that legacy and have an automatic leg up for it. That's what privilege is. Giving other people additional benefits to try and level the playing field is not going to take this away.

Happy to give people who are disadvantaged right now additional benefits to help them out. I don't see why these should be doled out on racial grounds though.

Singling out a particular race has several negative knock on effects
1) you end up giving benefits to people who don't really need it. There are plenty of Maori who are doing very well, yet they still get the same maori privileges
2) you end up not giving benefits to people who do need it, simply because they don't meet the racial definition
3) by stating that race is a real reason for doing badly at life, you re-enforce the notion that the race you are helping is actually inherently inferior. When a maori succeeds because of his own ability, people will write it off as a quota benefit. If Maori are constantly told " you as a race need our help" then that reenforces to them the notion that Maori are inferior, making them feel worthless and even less likely to try hard to succeed. If society tells you that your race sucks, then you are far more likely to give up and turn to crime.

So I ask again. Why single out a particular race? If you want to help under-privileged people, then help those people - no matter what race they are. don't re-enforce the idea that maori are somehow inherently inferior to other people - because they aren't.

If my distant ancestors were slaves in the roman empire, should that entitle me to anything right now? of course not. ancestry is irrelevant. What is important is my situation right now. If I am poor, and disadvantaged by being poor, then I should be helped. Whether my ancestors were slaves, slave owners, maori, or japanese Shoguns is totally utterly irrelevant.

When a country has limited resources as New Zealand it is prudent fiscal management to target assistance. It would be nice to have universal benefits, the fact is we cannot afford it so targeting those most at risk is appropriate. When one has worked as the Ambulance at the bottom of the cliff one appreciates where that need is greatest.

rossmnz

507 posts

Ultimate Geek

#851379 9-Jul-2013 10:40

i think we are getting a little away from the point.

The point is that we have freedom of speech here and if someone wanted to create an Indian-only, gays-only party or whatever and it got enough votes to register and be a policital entity then fair dues.

I think we are getting overly worked up about something that may garner some media attention and discussion but ultimately will be a political non-entity.

FWIW Don Brash made the point about abolition of race-based initiatives and replacing with need-based initiatives at the Orewa speech.

I personally thought it was bang on however this was shot down in flames as racist as I recall, probably by the people who have made a cottage industry on treaty claims etc.

My personal opinion is that Maori clearly are behind the 8 ball in terms of education, health etc and need some help - but the problem is that many are not, many are as or more successful than their Pakeha counterparts.

The difficult is how do we capture who needs the help and who doesnt? Many Asians, whites and Polynesians are also equally disadvantaged and this is the crux of the matter - they do not qualify under race-based initiatives.

The force is strong with this one!

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#851380 9-Jul-2013 10:43

KiwiNZ:
NonprayingMantis:
ubergeeknz:
NonprayingMantis:
macuser: Us white folks are born winners who forced our society on a bunch of people who were pretty happy on their own, living with their own societal ambitions and values. I'm not really being an apologist, just the reality is that white people are far better at succeeding in white people society so we need to help those that aren't so good.

Especially the people who we forced our lifestyle upon a few hundred years ago. You can't really just say 'well you had ages to get used to it, harden up' in some hope to breed out the Maori in them.

I did not such thing.
I wasn't even born 200 years ago. Neither were my grandparents. And none of them ever lived in NZ either.

So what on earth does the actions of some people 200 years ago have to do with me?

Everything. Because you are living in that legacy and have an automatic leg up for it. That's what privilege is. Giving other people additional benefits to try and level the playing field is not going to take this away.

Happy to give people who are disadvantaged right now additional benefits to help them out. I don't see why these should be doled out on racial grounds though.

Singling out a particular race has several negative knock on effects
1) you end up giving benefits to people who don't really need it. There are plenty of Maori who are doing very well, yet they still get the same maori privileges
2) you end up not giving benefits to people who do need it, simply because they don't meet the racial definition
3) by stating that race is a real reason for doing badly at life, you re-enforce the notion that the race you are helping is actually inherently inferior. When a maori succeeds because of his own ability, people will write it off as a quota benefit. If Maori are constantly told " you as a race need our help" then that reenforces to them the notion that Maori are inferior, making them feel worthless and even less likely to try hard to succeed. If society tells you that your race sucks, then you are far more likely to give up and turn to crime.

So I ask again. Why single out a particular race? If you want to help under-privileged people, then help those people - no matter what race they are. don't re-enforce the idea that maori are somehow inherently inferior to other people - because they aren't.

If my distant ancestors were slaves in the roman empire, should that entitle me to anything right now? of course not. ancestry is irrelevant. What is important is my situation right now. If I am poor, and disadvantaged by being poor, then I should be helped. Whether my ancestors were slaves, slave owners, maori, or japanese Shoguns is totally utterly irrelevant.

When a country has limited resources as New Zealand it is prudent fiscal management to target assistance. It would be nice to have universal benefits, the fact is we cannot afford it so targeting those most at risk is appropriate. When one has worked as the Ambulance at the bottom of the cliff one appreciates where that need is greatest.

that is exactly my point. targeting poor people directly would be MUCH more effective than targeting maori.
1) You would only help people who are badly off, rather than pointlessly giving benefits to people who don't need help right now but qualify because their ancestors got screwed and those ancestors happened to be Maori
2) you wouldn't exclude people from help simply because their ancestors who got screwed happened to be white or asian.

Special assistance for one racial group is a highly inefficient method of assistance.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#851382 9-Jul-2013 10:47

rossmnz: i think we are getting a little away from the point.

The point is that we have freedom of speech here and if someone wanted to create an Indian-only, gays-only party or whatever and it got enough votes to register and be a policital entity then fair dues.

I think we are getting overly worked up about something that may garner some media attention and discussion but ultimately will be a political non-entity.

FWIW Don Brash made the point about abolition of race-based initiatives and replacing with need-based initiatives at the Orewa speech.

I personally thought it was bang on however this was shot down in flames as racist as I recall, probably by the people who have made a cottage industry on treaty claims etc.

My personal opinion is that Maori clearly are behind the 8 ball in terms of education, health etc and need some help - but the problem is that many are not, many are as or more successful than their Pakeha counterparts.

The difficult is how do we capture who needs the help and who doesnt? Many Asians, whites and Polynesians are also equally disadvantaged and this is the crux of the matter - they do not qualify under race-based initiatives.

I too believe in freedom of speech, but with that freedom comes responsibility, that freedom should not be used to denigrate, hurt or alienate others. It should not be used purely to insite a reaction or incite disharmony.

with targeted assistance one targets the most at need group(s) first then move on. Simple

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#851392 9-Jul-2013 10:53

NonprayingMantis:
KiwiNZ:
NonprayingMantis:
ubergeeknz:
NonprayingMantis:
macuser: Us white folks are born winners who forced our society on a bunch of people who were pretty happy on their own, living with their own societal ambitions and values. I'm not really being an apologist, just the reality is that white people are far better at succeeding in white people society so we need to help those that aren't so good.

Especially the people who we forced our lifestyle upon a few hundred years ago. You can't really just say 'well you had ages to get used to it, harden up' in some hope to breed out the Maori in them.

I did not such thing.
I wasn't even born 200 years ago. Neither were my grandparents. And none of them ever lived in NZ either.

So what on earth does the actions of some people 200 years ago have to do with me?

Everything. Because you are living in that legacy and have an automatic leg up for it. That's what privilege is. Giving other people additional benefits to try and level the playing field is not going to take this away.

Happy to give people who are disadvantaged right now additional benefits to help them out. I don't see why these should be doled out on racial grounds though.

Singling out a particular race has several negative knock on effects
1) you end up giving benefits to people who don't really need it. There are plenty of Maori who are doing very well, yet they still get the same maori privileges
2) you end up not giving benefits to people who do need it, simply because they don't meet the racial definition
3) by stating that race is a real reason for doing badly at life, you re-enforce the notion that the race you are helping is actually inherently inferior. When a maori succeeds because of his own ability, people will write it off as a quota benefit. If Maori are constantly told " you as a race need our help" then that reenforces to them the notion that Maori are inferior, making them feel worthless and even less likely to try hard to succeed. If society tells you that your race sucks, then you are far more likely to give up and turn to crime.

So I ask again. Why single out a particular race? If you want to help under-privileged people, then help those people - no matter what race they are. don't re-enforce the idea that maori are somehow inherently inferior to other people - because they aren't.

If my distant ancestors were slaves in the roman empire, should that entitle me to anything right now? of course not. ancestry is irrelevant. What is important is my situation right now. If I am poor, and disadvantaged by being poor, then I should be helped. Whether my ancestors were slaves, slave owners, maori, or japanese Shoguns is totally utterly irrelevant.

When a country has limited resources as New Zealand it is prudent fiscal management to target assistance. It would be nice to have universal benefits, the fact is we cannot afford it so targeting those most at risk is appropriate. When one has worked as the Ambulance at the bottom of the cliff one appreciates where that need is greatest.

that is exactly my point. targeting poor people directly would be MUCH more effective than targeting maori.
1) You would only help people who are badly off, rather than pointlessly giving benefits to people who don't need help right now but qualify because their ancestors got screwed and those ancestors happened to be Maori
2) you wouldn't exclude people from help simply because their ancestors who got screwed happened to be white or asian.

Special assistance for one racial group is a highly inefficient method of assistance.

You are reading it wrong, as a group Maori have been identified as a group most in need therefore targeted packages to address that need is prudent and affective. When adding targeted packages other wider assistance is not affected. After all with say targeted Maori housing assistance social housing provided by central government or local bodies is not affected. When the need has been meet then the packages can be removed. Similar to the assistance packages provided to returning servicemen post WW1 and WW2.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 14