Posts by Finn Higgins
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
David, my issue is that what you're discussing is not a full spectrum of "racism". People don't use the words "positive racism" just like they don't use the words "positive terrorism". If somebody is on your side they're not a terrorist, and if you don't think a racially-directed action is negative then it's invariably not something you'd describe as racism reflexively.
In other words, if somebody describes something as "racist" or "racism" they are saying two things.
The first is your definition above: the thing they are describing is motivated mainly by racial differences.
But the second is the implied negative subtext: Not only is the thing described motivated by racial differences, it is a negative thing.
So, in other words, when somebody uses the word "racism" or "racist" they are by implication criticising the thing they are describing. Given all the dictionary definitions of the word I don't think that's an unreasonable position. I don't use that word positively, and I wouldn't react positively to somebody applying it to me.
-
Let me see: The NZ Herald designs a system which allows somebody to repeatedly send a well-formed HTTP POST to their server and logs the results as a vote in a poll. Somebody votes multiples times, and this is "hacking"? Why, it's positively a design feature...
Of course, deliberately slanting a poll isn't a very nice thing to do. But seriously, trying to describe something like this as "hacking" is ludicrous. It's a bit like claiming somebody "hacked" your raffle because you let them have any number of tickets they liked for $2 and they took the lot...
-
'grenade launcher capable of firing flares - which sounds a bit like a flare gun and doesn't sound very scary at all.
Aren't they essentially the same thing, differentiated mainly by the ammunition used?
-
I believe racism is commonly defined as 'treating someone differently solely on the basis of race'.
You see, there we run into problems. Because, for example, it would flag things like targeted health spending or the Maori seats in Parliament as racism.
"Racism" is a word that, generally speaking, has strong negative connotations. Few people want to be described as racist. This is a good thing, because it means that there is some consensus in existence to tackle negative actions made on the basis of race. I don't see that trying to broaden it to all distinctions in behavior towards people made on the basis of race is either semantically or politically useful.
Plus, where did you gain that belief about common definitions? I had a look at a few dictionary definitions and they all seem to include prejudice, animosity, belief in your own superiority etc as parts of their definition, which fits more happily with the way I'd use the word.
-
'Racism' is not something that can be identified in a narrative of 'facts' (the playthings of lawyers), but is a visceral experience of being that includes the sanctioned messages of popular culture, the commodification of indigeneity, the attitude of a gaze, the eloqent tightness of a smile, or the self-conscious, ham-fisted friendliness of a liberal.
So hang on, you're even classing people being awkward in their attempts to be culturally sensitive as racism? Or the "commodification of indigeneity", which I assume means something like "people thinking stuff is hip because it comes from an indigenous culture"? If so then you're right, the word "racism" probably is irrelevant and useless. Once you're using it to describe everything from KKK lynchings to people who buy Zap Mama albums then you might as well just apply it to everybody and stop talking about whether anybody is racist at all. That would, however, seem pretty stupid given than there's actual damaging, specific racial discrimination that does exist in the world and it's nice to have a word for it that isn't so generalized as to be effectively meaningless.
As an aside, if you consider facts to be the "plaything of lawyers" and an irrelevance to discussion then you're going to be hard pressed to ever build bridges with people who don't share your subjective perceptions, because all they can ever do is disagree with you. Facts are useful, because they are at their heart points of agreement, the seeds of a shared understanding.
-
I think if the police thought there was an armed offender on one of Wellington's main streets they would shut it down in a second. It'd be screw the traffic, rush hour, pedestrians etc, there's a guy with a gun running around everybody get back a couple of hundred metres.
Right, easily done, regularly done and specifically addressed in my post. What they don't do is attempt to stop and search everybody passing by, which is much harder, and requires much more planning so the people you're after can't just turn around and walk away when they see the cops. Directing people around an area is much easier than stopping and searching everybody passing through one.
And again, even if they did this it would still be different tactics from those used in Ruatoki and you could still accuse them of racism, if a different tactic is a measure of racism.
-
Their failure to lock down Abel Smith St supports this explanation.
Seriously folks, every time I hear this my mind boggles. Do we really need to go into the huge list of reasons why locking down this part of Wellington would be very difficult, expensive and futile? Let's try a few samplers:
* There was a fatal crash there at few weeks ago after midnight on a Tuesday. I got stuck in the resulting traffic jam even when the police were just trying to redirect people, forget searching them.
* Coupled to the above, the intersection has a lot of visibility from a number of roads, each of which has turn-offs and alternate routes available which a person carrying weapons would be able to take. To effectively lock down and search everybody these would all need to be blocked also, which would require essentially locking down an entire end of Wellington city.
* It's one of only two or three on-ramps for SH1 in central Wellington, as well as the main road into town for anybody coming in from Brooklyn or the Aro Valley.
* In an urban area like Wellington the relationships between people living in the same immediate area are much less tight. Cities have distributed communities (and, correspondingly, less strong local communities) in a way that somewhere like Ruatoki doesn't, so the proportion of people stopped who would have any connection to the activities that interest you would be far, far lower.
* The odds of catching any one person with weapons in Wellington moving through any one block at one particular time of day is much smaller than it would be in a small town with a single main access road.
* When the police do lock down blocks in Auckland or Wellington for AOS call-outs they're doing it to keep the public out, not to search every individual passing through.
* And lastly, Ruatoki and its surroundings were where all the gun-related activity were supposedly believed to have taken place.
That's just a taster. Quite simply, even if the police wanted to execute similar operations in all locations a number of them would be downright logistically impossible. Trying to argue that the police are racist purely because they didn't conduct operations in an identical manner in a small rural town and on a major intersection on SH1 in the capital is downright insane.
-
Hey Finn was it you who was going to get back to us with details about when the police last locked down a township? I would still like to know that.
Kowhai, it was. I'll need to have a conversation to get you some background there, and the person I need to have it with is a colleague who isn't around much at present.
Sara - that's a very difficult post to respond to, because quite simply I don't think you're allowing for the possibility of a moderate reasoned response. The language of your post is highly emotional, yet the facts of what you're saying seem rather insubstantial.
You cited two historical wrongs without any context (i.e: they're no longer ongoing, and substantial resources have been directed towards attempting to resolve those very legitimate complaints) and a third (the police stop-and-photograph activity) that has been used against both Maori and Pakeha groups on different occasions. Not only that, my family is from Northern Ireland and I really don't want to get into some kind of stupid emotive pissing contest over whose "people" has been treated the worst.
Suffice to say that bit of background might explain my underlying distrust of armed political groups for you. Regardless of the legitimacy of their cause, there are some people who are not going to do your side any damn good, and trying to make martyrs of them just damages the ability of genuinely well-intentioned people to make positive progress. Stewing in anger is never a way forwards.
-
Finn you picked the weakest part of Moana Jackson’s argument to criticise out of the context of the rest of the discussion. This is exactly the way evidence gets misconstrued!
I posted the point where it became clear that unsupported assertions were being made at a faster rate than he appeared to be attempting to provide support for them. That claim of racism is stunningly badly supported, yet stated with crystal clear certainty, and in the current environment is far from helpful.
That's the second piece of Jackson's that I've read that appeared to be either deliberately spinning or being at best logically dubious, so forgive me if I don't appear to be affording the proper respect or something. Quite simply, his arguments aren't compelling and the fact that he's constantly on the attack bugs me. There's no concession to the fact that some people may have been arrested in connection with things they've actually done, and all possibility of wrongdoing by anybody other than the police is utterly ignored in his writing.
There may be a world of difference between terrorism and "disturbing activities", but personally I don't want to be allied with either in pursuit of my political goals. If the TSA is bad law then I'd rather see it taken on as bad law, not as bad law that saw some people arrested for things that nobody really wants to talk about, but which they're obviously innocent of, dahling. If their degree of involvement in "disturbing activities" is as yet undecided then let's neither damn them or deify them just yet eh?
-
Shep - qualified maybe, arguing convincingly? No. As for appealing to the authority of positions Moana Jackson has held, that doesn't do it for me. We're not accepting the Solicitor General or Prime Minister's pronouncements on the topic as authoritatively describing the whole truth of the matter; why should patronage of the Police College be different?