(if you have to invoke Sweden, you’ve lost the argument.)
Sweden's weird. They're either really right (social services, support for parents and children) or really wrong (drug and prostitution policy, and their disastrous charter schools experiment).
more to do with poverty and racism
Maori were right to be upset over colonisation (in some ways but not in others)
Ooh, do tell.
As clover killed the fern, and the European dog the Maori dog, as the Maori rat was destroyed by the pakeha rat, so our people also will be gradually supplanted and exterminated by the Europeans’.“
duggledog (1,677 comments) says:
January 24th, 2015 at 8:47 am
Was talking to a Maori colleague last week, she’s relatively high up in the aristocracy in her particular tribe and knows a fair bit about what goes on in there. She said the average bro has a really, really bad feeling about all the Chinese that are popping up everywhere. She wouldn’t say exactly why the Chinese specifically, which started me wondering.
fernglas (217 comments) says:
January 24th, 2015 at 9:01 am
Tell them to harden up; the Chinese are here to stay, just like us Pakeha
Vote: 16 1
That’s anecdotal (unlike the gently probing Asia NZ foundation)
“When an Indian Child has been brought up among us, taught our language and habituated to our Customs, yet if he goes to see his relations and make one Indian Ramble with them, there is no perswading him ever to return.”(2) But when European Americans “have been taken prisoners young by the Indians, and lived a while among them, tho’ ransomed by their Friends, and treated with all imaginable tenderness to prevail with them to stay among the English, yet in a Short time they become disgusted with our manner of life … and take the first good Opportunity of escaping again into the Woods, from whence there is no reclaiming them.” In 1785 Hector de Crèvecoeur asked two European refuseniks why they would not come home.
On the plus side: the leather shoe?
it depends on your definition of racism ?
hating butchers, bakers or candle-stick-makers is unlikely to feature
There's a difference between hating people because of their race and objecting to a foreign race reducing your ethnic group to a subaltern status.There is no territorial reciprocity (non wealthy NZr's aren't lining up to go there). The "immense benefits" spoken of in the Burke Review of Immigration (1986) are not evident to the majority (unless you work in construction or the education industry?)
Alright, on the negative side: Because refusing to welcome people just because they are somehow Different or Other is petty and narrow-minded and only serves to perpetuate conflict.
In fact homogeneous societies are more peaceful, give more to charity, spend more on public goods.
How is that even remotely relevant? Are you seriously trying to suggest that it’s Asian immigration that stopped people raising hens or growing veges? There couldn’t possibly be any other explanations for that?
I'm blaming population growth, the cost of infrastructure and a low wage economy which constrains growth outwards.
You can’t claim to be being colonised when you continue to hold all the power and privilege in society and your so-called colonisers are held on the outer.
At The Bananas (?) Diverse Bananas and Global Dragons: "Mai Chen will talk about minority/majority thinking, demographic trend towards a non-white majority". The goal of the Burke Review of Immigration was "population replacement". From the point of view of Europeans/Maori in NZ that's colonisation.
But the numbers you cited are very strongly influenced by historical immigration laws and business conditions that no longer apply. They can’t be used to generalise about current migration rates and they’ll look quite different as the earlier years drop out of the 20-year period.