Hard News: What to Do?
315 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 Newer→ Last
-
I think you're right to say that there are unattractive aspects to the 'New Zealander' discussion, but it's easy to reduce other people's complex intuitions about identity into straw men. By framing the argument in it's most unattractive form, you're saddling your opponents with a kind of stigma.
While for some the term 'New Zealander' may represent a rejection of particular domestic narratives about indigineity, to others it may represent an affirmative sense of simply belonging to a place. Or something else.
I agree, WH - all sides are complex, and the organised campaign does not represent all the people or motivations involved. Thanks for pulling me up on it.
-
Whilst we are plotting the demise of ACT, I am currently having an interesting conversation with the editor of our local community newspaper, the Hamilton Press. Every week this features an half-page "Advertisement" by the local, loathsome ACT rat Garry Mallett--where rants on about his obsessions. This week it is on "the Maori seats are racist and anyone who supports them is racist etc etc".
I guess the sense that the editor is very uncomfortable with this situation but it brings in (dubious) dollars for the paper. I was wondering whether I could make a formal complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority or the Press Council, as Mallett's columns claim to be an 'advertisement'. It could come under considerations of inflammatory language, unsubstantiated claims, mislerading statements?
I would welcome any advice from legal beagles (Steven Price, where are you?)
-
While I am in favour of the opening up of the waterfront, I'm confused as to why the City Council should be involved with providing the Cruise Ship terminal (or have I got that wrong?).
Because the city council wants the cruise ships to come to their city. Same way city councils get financially involved in airports.
-
Guh, wrong thread.
-
And yet it fits rather easily. :)
-
Craig: Let's get real, they're very expensive non-binding opinion polls. If a pressure group wants to start a petition, or lobby for legislative changes, they're perfectly entitled to. I just don't think given them the spurious authority of being run by an electoral agency means anything much.
I think I am being real. I would rather have this option when raising issues. I think they could be cheaper tied to local and national elections etc, and there should be more oversight over questions, or going further and voting on actually proposed legislation.
-
How is it a straw man?
Because she first defines the thing that she wants to attack, in a way that she can attack, and then attacks it?
None of the reasons *I* want to call myself a New Zealander have anything to do with the cliche that Tze Ming put forward.
Pakeha might be the right word. But the meaning is too uncertain. From that article, this perhaps expresses my perspective better than I have managed:
"Is it not true that we "become indigenous to New Zealand at the point where our focus of identity and commitment shifts to New Zealand, and away from our countries and cultures of origin" (King, 1999, p235)."
Not sure how my comment on rugby is a straw man, or racist. The intent was only to point out that rugby is enjoyed fanatically, to play and watch, across a pretty wide spectrum of NZ society; wherever it might have come from. Maybe someone can enlighten me?
And I apologise for the continuing thread drift. Drawing focus away from this ridiculous referendum was not my intention. I will be voting yes, and unlike certain Act MP, I will actually understand what that means.
-
WH,
I agree, WH - all sides are complex, and the organised campaign does not represent all the people or motivations involved. Thanks for pulling me up on it.
With you being so reasonable I feel uncomfortable about having said anything at all, and I hope I didn't suggest I'm in a position to pull you up on anything.
I must admit the straw man thing has become a bit of an obsession of mine recently. I tend to think that all conversation, whether between individuals or in the media, is enhanced when the best arguments for meet the best arguments against.
-
Not sure how my comment on rugby is a straw man, or racist.
Well, I didn't think so :-) more an observation of fact.
I've just finished a paper in sports history and I'll quote this definition of ethnicity "An ethnic community is a named human population with shared ancestry, myths, histories and cultures, having an association with a specific territory and a sense of solidarity" (Anthony Smith).
This was quoted from an article that goes on to say:
"...the assertion of a pan-racial, pan-ethnic identity in the form of self-identification as 'New Zealanders' or 'Kiwis' ... although sometimes criticised for their imprecision such appellations are compatible with Smith's definition. (What) Smith defines as key components of ethnic identity, participation in sport (whether as a player, spectator or follower) is often embedded within such generic conceptions of New Zealand ethnicity." Quoted from 'Sport and Ethnicity in NZ', by Geoff Watson, 'History Compass' 5/3 (2007). -
A smack probably has no part in good Panteral correction then...
-
A smack probably has no part in good Panteral correction then...
-
Not sure how my comment on rugby is a straw man, or racist.
Well, I didn't think so :-) more an observation of fact.
Kerry, it was an observation of a fact that Tze Ming wouldn’t have disagreed with; it’s just not relevant to the point supposedly being refuted. The point was rugby, along with many other examples of things very important in our conception of ourselves, was not invented here, by Pakeha - it was imported. (And just FTR, I didn't say anything about it being racist, that was another poster.)
-
None of the reasons *I* want to call myself a New Zealander have anything to do with the cliché that Tze Ming put forward.
She didn’t put forward a cliché, she was responding to actual comments sent to her from people explaining why they didn’t want to call themselves Pakeha or NZ European on the census. And it related to your reason as at one point you said: “I'm not keen that any ethnic group should be forced to be indentified by someone else's label.” In response to which James linked to the Tze Ming blog because it deals (partly) with that issue.
Pakeha might be the right word. But the meaning is too uncertain. From that article, this perhaps expresses my perspective better than I have managed:
"Is it not true that we "become indigenous to New Zealand at the point where our focus of identity and commitment shifts to New Zealand, and away from our countries and cultures of origin" (King, 1999, p235)."
The issue isn’t whether we are indigenous or not; and no one is suggesting we describe our ethnicity categorically as “European” (unless maybe you just got here from Europe). NZ European is basically just “New Zealander of European decent”, and points to those of us whose ancestors are of European origin and who brought a lot of that culture with them and used it to establish their society in this country. I find it a crude term, in a way, but does a nice rough & ready job of distinguishing those of that ethnicity from those who are, say, Maori, or Chinese. Alternatively, ‘Pakeha’ is a great word. I don’t quite buy Jodie Ranford’s contention that Pakeha can’t be seen as an ethnicity. Certainly, if you think ‘Pakeha’ is too widely defined to be an ethnicity, then it doesn’t make sense to use ‘New Zealander’ as your ethnicity instead.
-
NZ European is basically just “New Zealander of European decent”
Which is ancestry, not ethnicity. And if that's the data Stats want then that's what they should ask.
Back when Tze Ming made her stand I think my question was whether you could have no ethnicity. I still think that's a valid option.
The problem with Pakeha is that the definitions are contradictory, and only some of them convey the meaning that fits (mentally) for me.
I'm not interested in bagging TM and totally respect her opinions. She comes at this from her own perspective. Perhaps she doesn't/didn't understand why people want to rid themselves of the "European" tag.
-
As I said, she was responding to the reasons people were giving her.
There's more to the European aspects of our culture than just ancestry, and pointing to us ....ummm,,, what do I call us if NZ European or Pakeha is no good?? I'll stick with NZ European for now... pointing to us NZ Europeans as being "New Zealanders of European descent" is, as I said, an inelegant but effective way of distinguishing our ethnicity from Maori, or Chinese, who are also captured by the term "New Zealander".
my question was whether you could have no ethnicity. I still think that's a valid option.
Sure. So tick "other" and put "none". That's the straight forward way to answer to that effect. Also, some people think ethnicity is largely meaningless today. So don't answer the census question on ethnicity, or tick "other" and write in "non applicable" or "not relevant" or "meaningless" etc. Or, as someone said on the Tze Ming thread, write in "human". That would be the logical way to express an objection to the concept (akin to the "there is only one race, the human race" line).
-
Which is ancestry, not ethnicity. And if that's the data Stats want then that's what they should ask.
I still can't perceive the offence. The census is an exercise in gathering data to guide policy, not a statement of feelings. Race and ethnicity have important implications in, to take one example, public health policy.
Back when Tze Ming made her stand I think my question was whether you could have no ethnicity. I still think that's a valid option.
Isn't that a bit like saying "I don't speak with an accent -- everyone else does"?
-
I still can't perceive the offence. The census is an exercise in gathering data to guide policy, not a statement of feelings. Race and ethnicity have important implications in, to take one example, public health policy.
So, could someone enlighten me public policy guidance comes from asking a question about people's religious beliefs? Last time I looked, we don't live in a theocracy.
Meanwhile, the New York Times' 'After Deadline' blog (which focuses on house style, usage and grammar in the paper) has an interesting post about racial/ethnic labels in their reporting of the Sotomayor nomination. "Hispanic" and "Latino" are more complex identifiers than I was previously aware...
-
So, could someone enlighten me public policy guidance comes from asking a question about people's religious beliefs? Last time I looked, we don't live in a theocracy.
I should point out that censuses aren't just used in public policy, they give valuable information about our country.
We would know a lot less about ourselves if (the vast majority of) people didn't tick the boxes in census forms honestly.
How religious do NZers consider themselves to be? Is this more or less than it used to be? Is it more/less in 'name', or in some sort of reality such as attending religious services regularly? What's the ethnic/racial/gender/age makeup of our country? Are we becoming increasingly 'Asian', increasingly 'Pacific Island'? Are we an 'older' country or 'younger' now?
We can't know who we are without asking ourselves questions that provide those answers. If we want to understand ourselves less, everyone should refuse to answer the questions in the census or tick 'other' and then not add anything more.
We are better informed because of censuses that have been done in the past, that will still be true fifty years from now of the censuses still yet to be done.
-
Kerry Weston quoted Anthony Smith thus:
"An ethnic community is a named human population with shared ancestry, myths, histories and cultures, having an association with a specific territory and a sense of solidarity" (Anthony Smith).
What I find interesting about this definition is the use of the word "named". I believe that we are actually looking for the "name" for an emerging ethnicity of a "person whose ancestors arrived in New Zealand a number of generations ago (4+ ?), who no longer associates themselves with their origins, but only with New Zealand".
And the candidates are :
New Zealander - not useful, because it is indistinguishable from nationality
Kiwi - better, but still no good because New Zealanders of other ethnicities (eg Maori) also consider themselves to be Kiwi.
New Zealand European - a bit of a mouthful, and disliked by those who no longer believe that they have any affinity with Europe.
New Zealander of European descent - okay, except for the fact that it is too long, and, arguably, still has too much emphasis on Europe.
Pakeha - this has the problem that in Maori it means non-Maori, and hence equally applies to an American tourist, an Asian New Zealander, and a 5th generation New Zealander.In most English dictionaries there seems to be two meanings given for pakeha (eg the American Heritage dictionary) :
A New Zealander of European descent; a non-Maori New Zealander.
Perhaps we should, by using it as such, try to make the first definition more dominant.
There is also an argument that we shouldn't have to use a Maori word to describe our ethnicity. I would argue that by taking and using a Maori word you are actually showing that you really do associate yourself with New Zealand culture.
To my mind, the only viable alternative to "pakeha", is to make up a new term to describe this ethnicity. I think it would be unlikely to be able to define a term which will gain widespread acceptance. My offering is "kiwitea", meaning "pale Kiwi".
-
I should point out that censuses aren't just used in public policy, they give valuable information about our country.
Up to a point, Kyle -- but I'd suggest that not everything the public is interested in is a matter of public interest. And when you're legally compelling everyone to participate, and disclose some pretty intimate information, then I'd argue the onus on on to make sure there's a water-tight public interest justification for every question.
-
Up to a point, Kyle -- but I'd suggest that not everything the public is interested in is a matter of public interest. And when you're legally compelling everyone to participate, and disclose some pretty intimate information, then I'd argue the onus on on to make sure there's a water-tight public interest justification for every question.
The reason is 100 years from now no one answering the census will be alive and we'll really want to know the answers to these questions.
There are whole libraries full of books which rely in whole or part on various censuses. We would be poorer as a society if they didn't exist. Imagine how our knowledge of the medieval world would be if the doomsday book was never compiled.
-
And the candidates are :
And we think we have an identity crisis...
New Zealand-Aotearoa might have two names, but at least they refer to the same thing. The English live in a country with five accepted, but not interchangeable names: England, Britain, Great Britain, the United Kingdom and the more geographic British Isles. Each of these is problematic for different sets of its inhabitants, with the exception of Britain, which omits the cringing “Great” and remains almost all-inclusive.
-
I agree with Kyle on the value of the national census.
Also, Brent raises some good points. I agree with his concerns with "New Zealander" and "Kiwi".
New Zealand European - a bit of a mouthful, and disliked by those who no longer believe that they have any affinity with Europe.
I grant that this observation is correct, but it still baffles me somewhat why people have such a concern. We (the Ethnic Group Who Cannot Easily Be Named) are so manifestly steeped in European/Anglo-Saxon culture that it just seems an obvious, albeit inelegant, pointer to our ethnicity.
Pakeha - this has the problem that in Maori it means non-Maori, and hence equally applies to an American tourist, an Asian New Zealander, and a 5th generation New Zealander.
I don't agree that it applies to a tourist. As you indicate later, it's the Maori word for a non-Maori (or non-Polynesian) New Zealand citizen.
There is also an argument that we shouldn't have to use a Maori word to describe our ethnicity. I would argue that by taking and using a Maori word you are actually showing that you really do associate yourself with New Zealand culture.
Quite. Isn't that what the anti-NZ European side want? To decrease the emphasis on ‘Europe‘, and increase the association with this country? Logan himself said: “…most of us adopt and try to respect the Maori additions that make a unique New Zealand language.”
What better way to show that you associate with a distinctly New Zealand culture than to use a distinctly New Zealand word to describe your ethnicity?
My offering is "kiwitea", meaning "pale Kiwi".
I have no objection in theory, but I think you and I both know that just ain’t gonna happen.
-
The reason is 100 years from now no one answering the census will be alive and we'll really want to know the answers to these questions.
This is true, but on the other hand historians are going to have a field day with this whole argument in years to come, so watch what you say here as you'll probably end up in a PhD thesis in 2034.
-
Census stats also allow us to link our public policy and investments with overseas research, including the effect of ethnicity and other factors. As a nation, I believe that saves us time, money and suffering.
Isn't that a bit like saying "I don't speak with an accent -- everyone else does"?
Yes, and it's my objection when most who chose "New Zealander" as their ethnicity are Pakeha in the pale sense of the word. Note I said most. Nothing personal.
Can anyone elaborate on how pakeha and tauiwi are distinguished in actual usage? I understand the latter to mean "foreigner" - and I'm wondering about that usage of Pakeha as "born here".
Post your response…
This topic is closed.