OnPoint: Dear Peter Brown: *Hug*
100 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Y'all know about that mathematical model? The one that says if we all want to live in a community that's more than half like us (perhaps less) you eventually end up with rigid segregation? So a) there's nothing sinister if it happens and b) any ethnic diversity is a sign of notable ethnic tolerance on somebody's part.
I'm also recalling Bill Bryson in Made in America talking about the USA's misty-eyed fondness for immigration provided it happened in the past. He argued all the evidence shows they do learn English and integrate and their children disappear into the general population.
how long do you smash your head into a brick wall, wipe the blood from your eyes and repeat before you say 'shit,I'm getting woozy' and give up?
I think it was Aristotle, w/r/t people who actually won't listen to actualy logic, asked a similar rhetoric question: "If water chokes, what do you wash it down with?"
Yours is perhaps more vivid.
-
How do you define merit ?
Educational attainment. Whether their skills match an identified area of shortage or whether they already have a job offer. Whether they're shacked up with a kiwi they met overseas (something that our immigration system has got a lot tougher on, but which ought to be recognised as part of our basic right to family life). And all of this should be assessed in a completely colourblind manner
One other thing I want to end is the present lazy equation of merit with wealth.
Do we need mechanisms to moderate immigration into targeted parts of the country ?
How? We have a right to freedom of movement in this country (affirmed in the BORA's right to liberty of the person and in numerous international instruments to which we are a party). Unless you're in prison, on parole, or have a seriously contagious disease, the government can't tell you where to live and stop you from moving elsewhere.
If we want to shift immigration away from Auckland, then we need to shift economic opportunity. And that's a rather more difficult proposition.
-
Angus - I've actually tended to say something along the line of being delighted to see all the "different food and different faces" we now have here in NZ. But honestly what's wrong with "cultural diversity" - it means, well, a diversity of cultures - it's not a hard concept - it means everyone doesn't have to come through the arrivals gate in Auckland and become pakeha - it means bollywood posters at the corner store and those yummy Korean bean-curd fish icecreams, people speaking interesting sounding languages on the bus, it means more than F&C or bangers&mash, it means interesting beer and fresh pasta, Gung Hay Fat Choy in the Octagon, better fireworks at GF than we had when I was a kid, a mosque on one side of the uni and a synagogue on the other and chances for my kids to learn something other than french or latin in high school
to me at least it adds to the richness of my daily life, it's what I loved when I moved to the US and something I'm glad has come to NZ
-
Paul C - just to be devils advocate for a second - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/5012478.stm
People mostly like being around people like them, it seems. -
But they all have American flags outside their stores.
Yeah well, that's part of American culture we could skip. And it's not unique to recent immigrants over there as well.
-
...in my mind the "real grievances" are only real in the sense that they are genuinely felt. Otherwise, they seem to me to be proxies for economic anxiety.
I agree. Although there is the in-group/out-group dynamic going on which humans are just so good at.
-
Yeah well, that's part of American culture we could skip.
Whether it needs to be skipped or not depends on what's actually happening...
Feeling obliged to express solidarity and show you are not a terrorist.... bad.
Feeling proud of and grateful to a nation that has genuinely accepted you into it... not so bad, surely?
-
In mid-March the House of Lords published a report that found immigration to UK had no impact on GDP per capita.
The economic beneficiaries of immigration are the immigrants, those who own property and high wage earners. The government also gets a nett GDP growth it can boast about and more taxes to spend. Since "a party of those who own property" and "a party of those who want more taxes" are the two main streams of Western politics, all mainstream politicians favor immigration. Any criticism of immigration is deflected with attacks on the character of the critic.
The losers of the immigration equation are low wage natives who do not own property. They get the a*se end of increasing income disparity and see property prices & rents climb out of their reach. And for the purposes of this discussion we will call them close-minded racists who are insufficiently culturally sensitive, but in a nice way like Obama does.
-
But for some, skin colour (or to be precise, language and cultural practices) does matter. It's a truth that needs to be acknowledged.
Sure - just as I acknowledge there are some damn weird people out there who have an unhealthy interest in what I do with my penis, in private with a consenting adult of the same gender. I just don't think they've much useful input to make to any reality-based social policy debate, that doesn't degenerate into X-rated fretting about polygamous harems of farm animals and kiddie-fidding.
Unlike Mr. Brown, I don't see apocalyptic visions of New Zealand as the Balkans of the South Pacific at the sight of a couple of South African matrons gossiping in Afrikaans down the supermarket, or shops signs in Korean. It's not only insulting to my intelligence, but people who talk up illusory ethnic conflicts for a poll point better be damn careful they don't get what they wish for.
-
How do you define merit ? I'm sure Brown would include metrics around how closely the applicant's originating culture matches our own. This would, of course, favour Europeans.
And which might explain why the English, French and Germans have historically had such an untroubled relationship over the centuries. I'd also love to see someone walk into a pub in Cardiff, Glasgow or Belfast and say at the top your voice, "You Brits all look the same to me." :)
-
Paul,
I also like that cultural diversity, but go over to NZConservative and you'll find that examples of negative cultural diversity take precedence. No one knows us from "Zentiger" and most people do not want to say something that'll set off an argument.
-
Feeling proud of and grateful to a nation that has genuinely accepted you into it... not so bad, surely?
Oh I don't think it's bad, and if it's what people want to do, up to them.
But I've always thought that if people spent more time making America 'great' (again?), and less time raising a flag and just saying it is, that'd be nice. Immigrants of the recent, and less recent, variety included.
-
Any criticism of immigration is deflected with attacks on the character of the critic
No, any criticism that targets the ethnicity of the immigrants is.
A debate about numbers and economics is legitimate. Anti-immigration rhetoric rarely aims that high.
-
Very nice post, Keith, you are so much kinder and more generous with your hugs than me. Given that I don't engage in hugging rituals even with my closest relatives, the chances of anything going to Peter Brown are exactly zero.
Angus Robertson wrote:
The losers of the immigration equation are low wage natives who do not own property. They get the a*se end of increasing income disparity and see property prices & rents climb out of their reach. And for the purposes of this discussion we will call them close-minded racists who are insufficiently culturally sensitive, but in a nice way like Obama does.
I've received a couple of emails along these lines today. Let's not forget that Mr Brown (an immigrant himself) isn't opposed to immigration per se -- only the immigrants he doesn't like. Oh, and the children of some of the immigrants already here.
I don't have any problem with a discussion on immigration -- I don't think either Keith or myself are trying to 'shut down debate' on the subject. But I do object to politicians who make massive and unsubstantiated generalizations about groups of people (and their descendants) in order whip up division, friction and resentment and thereby win themselves a few lousy votes.
Fair enough to talk about immigrant numbers (even including the number zero). It's even been suggested to me that we should accept the fact that a significant proportion of New Zealanders are xenophobic, and devise a pragmatic immigration policy that will frighten the xenophobes as little as possible. I don't personally agree with that, but it's a valid point to raise for discussion.
But let's not just make up shit in the manner of Mr Brown...
**ADDENDUM:** oops I see that Mr Simon G has already made my point while I was typing. Apologies for that.
-
How? We have a right to freedom of movement in this country ...the government can't tell you where to live and stop you from moving elsewhere.
What I think happens at the moment is that there is a regional shortage list and if you have a job offer as a flange turner in Taranaki, that gets you more points than the same job in Auckland. Nothing stops you leaving immediately your residence is approved and becoming a real estate agent in Auckland, but the assumption is that there is some degree of stickiness.
-
But for some, skin colour (or to be precise, language and cultural practices) does matter.
Big deal. The fact that they care about it doesn't mean their interest is acceptable or legitimate. We don't "acknowledge" and accept the legitimacy of Ian Wishart's panty-sniffing obsession with what other people do with their wobbly bits; we don't "acknowledge" and accept the legitimacy of Pope Tamaki's interest in whether we go to (his) church; and we don't "acknowledge" and accept the legitimacy of Trevor Loudon's witchhunt against people with different political beliefs from himself. So why the hell would we accept it for skin colour?
Living in a liberal and tolerant society means accepting that some things are just NOYFB and not a subject of public policy. We do this because it stops us from killing one another or otherwise making life unbearable. I'll happily accept that Encoch Brown is an illiberal, intolerant bigot; but that doesn't mean I'm going to give him the time of day, or regard him as anything more than a relic who will soon be drooling to himself in a retirement home.
-
I was unhappy to hear the people bashing Peter Brown for saying what he said. Instead, they should have asked why he felt the need to say it. The comment that caught my ear from Brown was the speculation that most of the Asians coming into New Zealand won't speak English. The reality is that as of 2 years ago, the English language requirements for immigration to New Zealand are of a sufficiently high standard that many if not most native born Kiwis would be seriously challenged trying to achieve it. The real concern under all this may well be related to some adherents of Islam who do refus to integrate. The "Caliphate" in Germany is one example. The followers of that group treat their enclosure as though it were a separate jurisdiction. But that is the exception and not the rule. There is no comparable group in New Zealand and no real prospect of any, either. The argument that immigration should be thought out isn't without merit. Where Mr. Brown goes off the rails is in assuming that immigration to NZ has not been thought out. It has. As you say, we shouldn't kick him for being ignorant. We should instead dadress the ignorance, point by point, fact by fact. Patiently. Until he and others who just don't know catch on. Rinse and repeat for any other issue where beliefs and attitudes are at odds with the verifiable facts.The truth will set them free.
-
New York benefits greatly from having a Little Italy and a Chinatown etc. Is not being completely integrated always so bad?
Well, it is when poor integration in Little Italy and Irish communities fed into the importation and development of the Mafia in the case of Little Italy, and gave rise to Irish gangs, the attempted Fenian invasions of Canada, and the like. So I would suggest that's about the worst throwaway example you could have come up with.
NZ had changed, a lot, even white-bread Dunedin
You know, if I was one of the numerous Chinese descended Kiwis whose families have live around Otago and Southland for around 150 years, I'd be getting pretty fucking tired of people pretending me and mine didn't exist and using my hometown as an example of "where there are no non-whites."
Neil: in my mind the "real grievances" are only real in the sense that they are genuinely felt. Otherwise, they seem to me to be proxies for economic anxiety.
You reckon Native Americans in the US who are pissed off at the way they can't get any traction on their greivances because Black and, to a lesser extent, Hispanic immigrants on what was once their land seem to have captured all the available political capital on matters of race and wrongdoing are operating purely from economic concerns?
Similarly, people who used to only having to think in terms of their own Christian faith having pre-eminence in a society can get quite snakey about being asked to accept that Muslims or Hindus may have quite a different view about which rituals can be utilised in the public sphere as being universal. Again, hardly an economic concern.
Nor, I think, do you need to be especially hysterical to be, say, a gay Kiwi who's a bit disturbed by how many Polynesian immigrants (or kids thereof) to New Zealand turned up to Parliament with Mr Tamaki a few years back. I was there and while the speakers at that event may have confined themselves to demanding recriminalistation, more than a few of people in the crowd weren't shy about screaming "We're going to fucking kill you!" and similarly delightful sentiments.
I could go on (FGM clashes in countries with greater immigration from countries where it's practised than ours, arranged marriages, honour killings, et al), but I don't think the point needs belabouring.I don't think the answer to any of those concerns is "close the gates", not least because so many of the problems one can identify are a minority within the minority, if you will, and the last two are, strictly speaking, independant of race. But there's scope for concern well beyond the economic.
-
Using "acknowledge" like a swear word misses the point. Ever heard of "feel, felt, found"? First you tell the person you hear what they are saying. You can plac what they said in a wider context by saying that you know of many others who felt that way, too. Then you move on to say that hen you looked at the facts, you found that the feeling wasn't valid. They may refuse to accept that. But if they do choose to deny what is verifiably true (assuming it is) then their integrity is on the line. They may be cynical and not care. But people looking on usually see that cynicism for what it is.
-
Steve: By doing that, you are accepting the legitmacy of their interest, and turning it into an empirical debate rather than a moral one. And that is a mistake which gives ground to the racists and the bigots.
If Brown was right and ethnic diversity was causing serious social conflict in New Zealand, would his proposed solution of state racism be acceptable? No, it would not. Discrimination on the basis of race is always wrong, no matter what lofty aim you claim it is directed at.
Turning it into an empirical matter also invites similar empirical arguments on other private issues, such as religion, political belief, sexual orientation and family structure. It radically undercuts the very basis of a liberal society: the recognition that, no matter what our differences, at the end of the day we all live together, and so have to lump each other and try to get along.
-
you guys give Brown too much credit. It's election year, he's in NZ first, its the same old dog whistle politics
-
__But they all have American flags outside their stores.__
Yeah well, that's part of American culture we could skip. And it's not unique to recent immigrants over there as well.
There's a school of thought that the American style of integration has been a success compared to those of France or Britain. People retain a distinct ethnic identity -- often down through generations -- but also salute the flag.
-
you are accepting the legitmacy of their interest, and turning it into an empirical debate rather than a moral one
No. He isn't. What he's doing is listening to what they say and then telling them why it is, objectively, wrong: you can get into the moral and ethical issues later. I thought one of the many points of the Obama speech was that the reflexive distancing, and the finger-pointing, and the yelling 'you're a racist! you're a racist!' doesn't actually seem to be working all that well. Why not work on these people with, like, facts?
Just as people in the US tend to be more pro-gay-marriage if they actually *know* some gay people, the likelihood of being anti-immigration is probably lessened by learning actual real things about immigrants. Knowledge creates understanding and eventually tolerance.
</hippy>
-
Steve Withers wrote:
The comment that caught my ear from Brown was the speculation that most of the Asians coming into New Zealand won't speak English. The reality is that as of 2 years ago, the English language requirements for immigration to New Zealand are of a sufficiently high standard that many if not most native born Kiwis would be seriously challenged trying to achieve it...
... we shouldn't kick [Peter Brown] for being ignorant. We should instead address the ignorance, point by point, fact by fact. Patiently. Until he and others who just don't know catch on. Rinse and repeat for any other issue where beliefs and attitudes are at odds with the verifiable facts.The truth will set them free.
I see where you're coming from, Steve, and this approach would be all well and good for the doofus you work with or play football with.
But the fact is that Peter Brown is a Member of Parliament. He serves on a select committee, and could have a real influence over the running of this country. And he is the Associate-Spokesman for Immigration for his party, for crying out loud.
It is inexcusable that he -- allegedly -- isn't aware of rudimentary facts like the English language requirements for immigrants. It is inexcusable that he describes the prospect of an increased Asian population (many of them New Zealand born) as "horrible".
I expect my elected representatives to be a bit better than that... and I sure as hell refuse to feel sorry for this idiot.
-
By the way, to address a comment from another thread...
RE: Russell Brown shaving off his beard so as to be more presentable on the telly.
Russell, have you thought of going to a tidy moustache like the other Mr [Peter] Brown? I understand the ladies go wild for a nice pencil 'tachie.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.