Hard News: What to Do?
315 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 13 Newer→ Last
-
On that definition I find it very hard to place myself in a seperate 'box' to my friends and family with Maori ancestry, whilst acknowledging that that will not be the case for everyone.
I would also acknowledge that there was strong championing of the 'New Zealander' issue by red-neck elements. I would resent them hijacking the term New Zealander.
-
do they have an 'unknown' or N/A or 'raceless' category on those lists yet?
-
I would also acknowledge that there was strong championing of the 'New Zealander' issue by red-neck elements. I would resent them hijacking the term New Zealander.
And I personally resent being called a redneck, Carlos. Sorry if this offends some people (and there's certainly room for argument), but I don't think the Government has any more of a legitimate interest in compelling me to disclose my ethnicity, than it has in collecting information on the gender of who I go down on or where I worship.
Doesn't mean I don't know who I am -- or insensible to the very complex stew of cultural, historical and social influence that make me the person I am. I just don't think ticking a box is a meaningful exercise.
-
11. Which ethnic group do you belong to?
mark the space or spaces that apply to youNew Zealand European
Māori
Samoan
Cook Island Maori
Tongan
Niuean
Chinese
Indian
other ( such as DUTCH, JAPANESE, TOKELAUAN ). Please state:I'm sorry, but is it people who respond "New Zealander" who are getting confused with nationality, or is the people who wrote the question?
Ultimately the responses are collated at a number of levels. First the responses to this question around ethnicity are grouped into:
European
Mäori
Pacific Peoples
Asian
Middle Eastern/Latin American/African*
Other Ethnicity
Not Elsewhere IncludedThe responses are then grouped in the following categories:
European nfd*
New Zealand European
Other European
Mäori
Pacific Peoples nfd*
Samoan
Cook Islands Maori
Tongan
Niuean
Tokelauan
Fijian
Other Pacific Peoples
Asian nfd*
Southeast Asian
Chinese
Indian
Other Asian
Middle Eastern
Latin American
African
Other Ethnicity
Not Elsewhere Included* not further defined
And then into these still more specific categories:
European nfd*
New Zealand European
Other European nfd*
British and Irish
Dutch
Greek
Polish
South Slav
Italian
German
Australian
Other European
Mäori
Pacific Peoples nfd*
Samoan
Cook Islands Maori
Tongan
Niuean
Tokelauan
Fijian
Other Pacific Peoples
Asian nfd*
Southeast Asian nfd*
Filipino
Cambodian
Vietnamese
Other Southeast Asian
Chinese
Indian
Sri Lankan
Japanese
Korean
Other Asian
Middle Eastern
Latin American
African
Other Ethnicity
Not Elsewhere Included* not further defined
Finally, any other response that garnered 1000 or more mentions get listed in the results as well.
If Statistics New Zealand thinks Australian is an ethnicity, I'm having a hard time figuring why they've a problem with considering New Zealand as an ethnicity.
-
EDIT: I should add my reference. People may wish to look at all the different codes that are used in the fourth-level classification (in appendix 1) - a clear majority are nationalities, but man are there a lot :-)
-
Well, no, a clear majority are nationalities that are also ethnicities. (Thank Mazzini et al for that one.)
Being Chinese is an ethnicity and a nationality (or possibly two if you ask the ROC), but you could be ethnically Chinese without having Chinese nationality.
I really don't see the problem with Australian as an ethnicity outside Australia; the problem with `New Zealander' is that denying the use of the term `New Zealander' to people in New Zealand with full citizenship is pretty dodgy.
-
Being Chinese is an ethnicity and a nationality (or possibly two if you ask the ROC), but you could be ethnically Chinese without having Chinese nationality.
Han, or Han Chinese, is an ethncity. You can be ethnically Han without having Chinese nationality.
By using Chinese as synonymous with Han, wouldn't we be denying the use of the term 'Chinese' to Uyghurs and others with full citizenship? Pretty dodgy.
Something is either an ethnicity or not. If Australian is an ethnicity, it's an ethnicity everywhere. If people whom you would consider ethnically New Zealand in Australia move to New Zealand they shouldn't be stripped of their ethnicity.
For me, the problem with "New Zealander" is grammatical. New Zealander isn't an adjective.
-
"I'm sorry, but is it people who respond "New Zealander" who are getting confused with nationality, or is the people who wrote the question?"
Indeed, I was always raised to think of myself as a Cantabrian.
-
By using Chinese as synonymous with Han, wouldn't we be denying the use of the term 'Chinese' to Uyghurs and others with full citizenship? Pretty dodgy.
It is possible to be non-Han ethnically Chinese (see Singapore etc). Which also points out the flaw in your argument --- Uyghurs would put Uyghur down, not Chinese (if that's how they identify), because the Census people aren't asking for nationality, but ethnicity. Hong Kong folks didn't change what they should put down on in 1999.
-
Also ethnicity as depending on circumstance, which isn't exactly a radical idea.
-
It is my understanding that the one child policy only applies to the Han.
-
Which also points out the flaw in your argument --- Uyghurs would put Uyghur down, not Chinese (if that's how they identify), because the Census people aren't asking for nationality, but ethnicity.
That's not a flaw in my point, that was my point. In New Zealand (and China) Uyghurs would put down Uyghur as their ethnicity. But the majority Han Chinese might put down Chinese as their ethnicity and deny the use of the term “Chinese” to people in China with full citizenship.
You said:
the problem with `New Zealander' is that denying the use of the term `New Zealander’ to people in New Zealand with full citizenship is pretty dodgy.
If someone is ethnically Uyghur, but nationally Chinese, doesn’t classifying Han people as Chinese deny the use of the term ‘Chinese’ to people with full Chinese citizenship? If you think that “Uyghurs would put Uyghur down, not Chinese (if that's how they identify), because the Census people aren't asking for nationality, but ethnicity” is the answer to the concern I assert you should have (to be consistent) with Chinese Uyghurs, then why isn’t “Māori would put Māori down, not New Zealand (if that's how they identify), because the Census people aren't asking for nationality, but ethnicity” the answer to your concern in relation to New Zealand(er)?
-
"Pakeha" might nowadays mean an NZ-born person, or whatever, but it can't have done originally. It (presumably) was coined in the late 18th century when Māori needed a word for those funny looking people that kept appearing on local beaches.
Also, ethnicity implies a group with an established common heritage. I don't believe that any post-1600 colonial people have had long enough to really reach that. Maybe Hispanic people, though that gets disputed.
So New Zealander (or indeed Pakeha) isn't an ethnicity now, but probably will be in about 2200. By which time, incidentally, they'll nearly all also be Māori.
But the census should probably let people self-designate their ethnicity (like the US does) and then ask for other data (mothers surname, parents and grandparents place of birth). Using those, it's possible to predict "real" ethnicity with more accuracy than asking people.
-
"I'm sorry, but is it people who respond "New Zealander" who are getting confused with nationality, or is the people who wrote the question?"
I think you mean people who classified the answers, but yes, interesting question once you get down the levels.
I presume it relates to 'you have to report the answers that the people put in'. If people put a nationality down, rather than an ethnicity, you report that and do what you can with it.
-
But I'm concerned that even so the yes-votes will be so outweighed by the no-votes that it'll be ineffective, and all you will have done is lend credence to the process. Hope I'm wrong.
I hope you are wrong too, but you are more likely to be right if too many ballots are thrown away or spolied...
<quoteAt the risk of sounding like an effete snob, there are some people in this world whose inperpretations of my actions aren't worth a tuppence toss. :)</quote>
In that case don't bother spoiling the ballot either.. ;-)
-
In that case don't bother spoiling the ballot either.. ;-)
heh... But seriously, if you want to restore Section 59 of the Crimes Act you've got to pass legislation. That's not happening, and I actually take the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition at face value that that's not on their agenda. And if various people want to take bullshit opinion polls seriously, I can't do a damn thing to stop them.
But while there's honest and honourable differences of opinion being voiced here, I don't want to be apathetic. But while I've got to accept the reality of the CIR Act, I don't want to dignify faux democracy with a positive vote either way. I'd rather focus my time and energy on the real thing that has tangible outcomes.
-
And, FWIW, I'm being perfectly sincere in saying that I've got differences with honest and honourable people on this point. Like so much else, there's not a simple answer here.
-
But while there's honest and honourable differences of opinion being voiced here, I don't want to be apathetic. But while I've got to accept the reality of the CIR Act, I don't want to dignify faux democracy with a positive vote either way. I'd rather focus my time and energy on the real thing that has tangible outcomes.
Out of curiosity Craig... would you be taking a CIR a lot more seriously if the government indicated that they would be using it for a guideline on an issue, with future legislation to be written by the end of the parliamentary term?
Are you fundamentally opposed to all CIR, or just the stupid ones?
-
Out of curiosity Craig... would you be taking a CIR a lot more seriously if the government indicated that they would be using it for a guideline on an issue, with future legislation to be written by the end of the parliamentary term?
Are you fundamentally opposed to all CIR, or just the stupid ones?
Fair questions. And I'll take them in order.
1) Possibly, but I'd definitely have a lot less respect for the Government. But even then, the actual legislation has to gain the assent of the House and I'd be using every mechanism at my disposal to oppose the restoration of S. 59 of the Crimes Act.
Meanwhile, its not as if its unknown for Governments of all kinds of stripes to pay very close attention to polling, internal focus groups, media monitoring etc. Can't stop them, but I don't see why dodgy polls should have any more weight because they're conducted under the auspices of our electoral agencies.
2) I could snark that they've all been stupid, but the former. "CIR - (ugh! Good God, y'all.) What are they good for? Absolutely NUTTING!" :)
-
I hope you are wrong too, but you are more likely to be right if too many ballots are thrown away or spolied...
I'm worried there might be more CIRs if people are seen to support the process.
-
I'm worried there might be more CIRs if people are seen to support the process.
But without someone running a proper campaign that has a significant number spoil their ballots - at least 6 figures. A few thousand more or less writing "this is stupid" on their ballots isn't going to raise an eyebrow, let alone affect the world.
-
I'm slightly appalled that no-one has mentioned the moral obligation to vote.
Voting is a big deal to me - it's a precious right of citizenship. I grew up knowing that it was one of the key things that made New Zealand different - women got the vote here first*. To this day many people around the world haven't been able to vote at all, or haven't had their votes counted fairly.
The fact Phil Goff and John Key legitimised people ignoring a chance to vote seemed abhorrent to me.
In New Zealand (unlike Iran) we have a great Electoral Administration where every vote counts, and is counted fairly (to the point of Judicial recounts if necessary). With MMP now every vote also actually counts, regardless of the electoral boundaries, and the same thing is true of CIRs - every vote actually counts in the final tally.
Yes, it's a CIR, not a general election, and the question is crappy and begs the question, but I think the least anyone can do is actually fill out their ballot paper.
Spoiled papers are counted (although what is written on them isn't recorded). I say either vote "Yes" (to counterbalance the "nos") or return a ballot saying "deliberately spoiled". Only the counter will read what's on it (and I think they're probably bound to secrecy).
I'm a believer in the mantras:
"Decisions are made by those who show up"
"If you don't vote, you're saying that either outcome is OK with you"
"If you don't vote, don't complain about the outcome."
"If you don't like the options, spoil your ballot, (or in a General Election, stand for election yourself)"Yes, it is only a CIR, but it's one of the few chances you get to show that you're a citizen and not a passive consumer.
-
Rachel, I agree with you. But in this case it's not so much a matter of not liking the options as the entire premise being dodgy. A bit like the firefighters' CIR, in which case the dodgy premise manifested itself in a very low turnout.
-
I would agree with you on *real* votes Rachel. However CIRs are just a sop to moronic populism, and I don't regard them as an important part of our democracy. I don't see any more of an obligation to vote in them than to click on the Dumb Post's poll of the day.
However, I guess spoiling the ballot is better than not voting. The less "No" votes this referendum gets, the easier it will be to ignore.
-
Back to informal votes in the CIR, I've just received this email:
The number of informals will be reported at the CIR.
yours sincerely
Robert PedenRobert Peden
Chief Electoral Officer
Post your response…
This topic is closed.