Posts by Deborah
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Did pakeha get aggregated into New Zealander rather than New Zealand/European?
I don't know what happened to it.
I do know that even if I am mistaken about what I am claiming about myself, what I was trying to claim was that my ethnicity was formed here, and that it is distinct from people who claim Maori ethnicity. I most certainly don't want to make some sort of statement about us all being exactly the same, or all being indigenous now.
So I am disappointed that there hasn't been any discussion or reporting of people who are making the 'Pakeha' claim.
-
Che said:
and finally debs. you've clearly demonstrated the problem with introducing rationality to identity politics. the externalities you indicate need to exist separate from the two participants, but also be shared by them. two people don't make an identity group, but a large number of persons sharing a 'imagined community' do.
Yes. That's exactly why we feel as though there is a 'fact of the matter' - there does seem to be some intersubjective understanding of who is, and who isn't a member of the community. And it seems to have some basis in fact... and that's exactly why we think someone can be mistaken about what they call themselves.
There's a great piece in Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Ivison, Patton and Sanders (eds), Cambridge University Press, by Audra Simpson. She's a member of a First Nation, and the piece is all about the day-to-day understandings, and rules, of the Nation about who is in and who is out.
Fascinating stuff - maybe I should toss in my job and go back to the less lucrative, but much more interesting work of doing political theory....
BTW, am I the only 'Pakeha' who is offended about being lumped in with all the 'New Zealanders'?
-
Hey, Che
Do you remember I said that I was writing a long screed on identity that I never actually got around to sending to you.
Said much the same thing.
Roughly, there's an internal account of identity, and an external account. If I claim to be x, but I don't feel x, then there's a problem. But if I claim to be y, and there's no external indicators that I am y, then I'm living in some fantasy world.
So what do I mean by external identity? You should probably have some of a number of indicators of what it is you claim to be e.g. language, cuisine, familial relationships, place of birth, religion, skin, hair and eye colour, whatever. Anyone else care to name some indicators of ethnicity?
This is why we might feel entitled to criticise someone who claims to be Maori, but has no external indicators of it (language, familial relationships, cuisine, religion, skin colour etc).
Equally, we could say of someone who had all these markers, but denied the identity, that they were deluded.
Trouble is... I think I trashed the rather more detailed account of identity I wrote when you shifted employers. Oh well.
-
Manakura said:
Its not that science or positivism doesn't impress me, often it does, such as right now: I am posting this from the top of an Auckland mountain surrounded by bush with not a telephone jack in sight!
You might be confusing science and technology here, 'though the crossover point is very grey.
Manakura said:I just think the way scientific discourse is structured needs to be altered so that it harnessed more for the needs of specific communties. There is far too much science and technology that facilitates the ruthless exploitation and degradation of people and places.
Especially technology. But this might be a political problem, rather than a problem with science. It's quite important not to blame science per se for the outrageous uses to which technology is put.
Don Christie said:Actually, in light of your previous comments regarding "stolen land" and an unequal distribution of resources I think Pakeha and other non-Maori connections to the land might be less morally valid.
Yes... interesting point. However I think I would want to spend some more time thinking about the extent to which individuals are culpable for systemic problems today, and for historical problems (of course, the word 'problem' is a wimpy word to use in this context). I think my connection to this land is individual and familial, but I have neither raped, billaged, burned nor stolen anything myself. On the other hand, I live on land that was at least 'sold' or possibly 'confiscated' or maybe outright stolen - I don't know its legal history.
Getting back to the discussion of 'indigenous' - I think that I would want to say that Pakeha culture is indigenous, but I think that it would be wrong to describe myself as indigenous. I suspect, 'thought I don't know, and it would be interesting to hear what other people think, that the word 'indigenous' when applied to people, has changed meaning, and it now implies an element of being a member of what in the USA would be called a First Nation. This could explain why it is appropriate to use the word 'indigenous' with respect to both Maori and Pakeha culture, and correct to apply it to Maori people, but incorrect to apply it to Pakeha people.
Anyway, what are all you people doing posting on a Saturday night? Don't you have anything better to do?
-
No comment on you, Deborah, and I know you didn't do this, but something I hear way too often is disparagement of Maori sensibilities as stoneage or animist or whatever, from people who would never dream of disrespecting mainstream Christian practises which are equally irrational.
Well, I wouldn't do that, because I don't see how Christian ghosties have any more claim to truth than Maori ones, or Jainist ones, or Hindu ones, or Pastafarian ones, or whatever.
Here's the rub. If someone wants to believe in Tane or Krishna or Jesus Christ, that's just fine. But they can't then use that belief to justify political claims, like who belongs in this country. Equally, I could say that I believe that Santa Claus gave this country to me, so I can say who is allowed to belong here.
Let's be quite clear about this. I think that there were massive injustices done to Maori, starting with the theft of Maori land, and continuing with the inequal distribution of resources today (for anyone who wants to claim that Maori get 'special treatment', that's demonstrably false: as a group, Maori get less resources than Pakeha, and it shows in all the social statistics, such as Maori dying on average 8 years younger than Pakeha). And that's without getting into the vexed question of sovereignty.
I'm quite happy to run with the idea that Maori have a particular type of connection with this land, but actually, so do I. It's just different from the Maori connection, but no less morally valid.
-
You should have a fairly comprehensive knowledge of thses things before you call them 'nonsense'. To do this is perceived as disrespectful, especially as the 'nonsense' you refer to was integral to the greatest naval exploration in the history of the world. People who believed the natural world is their ancestor(s) sailed across the largest body of water on Earth and lived with a breathtaking range of environments
Sure. The acheivements of the Polynesian navigators were astounding, and it would be absurd to think otherwise.
What I object to is a literal claim that a mountain is your ancestor. I have never seen mountain DNA. And don't get me wrong here, Manakura (sorry - I mispelt your name first time round) - I also object to claims about the existence of gods, fairies, and teapots orbiting Jupiter. Show me the proof if you want to assert such beliefs - scientific studies, double blind peer review etc would do. That's exactly why I have such respect for the Polynesian navigators; their acheivements are well attested.
I also object to 'respecting' anyone else's spiritual beliefs. I will respect your right to hold them, just so long as they don't interfere with my own personal (and the word 'personal' is deliberate c/f 'political' or 'social') freedoms, but I do not respect the belief itself.
BTW I'm quite happy to buy into the idea that Maori may (and I'm only saying 'may' because I'm reluctant to make a blanket claim about a diverse group of people) structure social reality in different ways from Pakeha - that seems both plausible, and, well attested with scientific peer reviewed studies. But it's a different sort of claim from the one that you were making, that a mountain is your ancestor.
-
Finally, back to good old Deborah...
Statistics NZ projections put the Asian population at 860,000 in 20 years, just 10,000 fewer than Maori. Is this what the tangata whenua envisage?
Took me a moment to realise you weren't referring to me, Don, but to Deborah Coddington.
I rather deliberately haven't posted on this thread - I can see some of what Manukura is saying, but I do feel at least a bit uptight when I am told how I must identify myself, and even more uptight when I am referred to as a 'guest' or 'stranger' when I was born and bred here, as were my parents, and my parents' parents, and my parents' parents' parents.
And that's before I even start worrying about how it is that someone can justify their claim by reference to ghosties. Claiming that you are descended from a mountain is just a nonsense, and nodding your head in agreement when someone makes the claim is just a cultural cringe. If on the other hand, Manukura, you are making a metaphorical claim about spiritual connection, that's fine. You are welcome to your sense of spirituality. I just don't see how you can use it to justify excluding me from belonging here in a way that I can belong to no other place on this planet. I may not belong here in the same way that you do, but I really do belong here, and nowhere else.
And that's why I claimed to be Pakeha in the census. I am not European - far too distant and far too mixed in any case. I am someone whose ethnicity was formed here.
Hmmm... rant over, and back to work.
BTW, I opposed the foreshore legislation, I support the use of Te Reo, I want Maori culture to be recognised, respected and loved, I want Maori and Pakeha to be genuine partners.
-
A friend sent me this:
"A late bid to have the 2011 Rugby World Cup final played at the newly developed Karori Park was launched today by the Friends of Karori Park (FOKP).
“We are confident the park will be ready in time,” spokesman Big Al Graham said today. “We have just had a major upgrade of the park so the drainage, superb ambiance and everything else about the playing field is already in place.”
Graham agreed that the current seating available in the park – 22 at a pinch – is a little short of the 60,000 required by the IRB.
However, he was confident the shortfall could be fixed by the provision of bleachers on the playing field and the erection of grandstands all over the south-west Karori hills. Spectators in the hills would be given free use of binoculars except for those on Makara Peak who could rent telescopes.
Graham also noted that the public transport to Karori Park, currently 35 old and barely running trolley buses per day, would struggle to cope with a rugby crowd.
This would be solved by a temporary railway line along the top of the city’s green belt, linking with the Johnsonville line at Ngaio, and by the importing of 40,000 used bicycles from Xian, Wellington’s sister city in China. This latter move has just been given the Heart Foundation tick.
A trailer park would be established at Makara School to house the campervans used by visiting rugby fanatics.
FOKP envisaged that the All Black players would be housed on stretchers in the Karori Community Hall while the visiting team would be accommodated in the Karori West Scout Hall in Sunshine Ave.
IRB dignitaries would be billeted in the Outer Mongolian Embassy which has lots of spare flats now that it is among the good guys and doesn’t need to have 37 spies disguised as “trade envoys” living on its complex.
The international rugby field on Karori Park would be slightly smaller than usual so that it would fit between cricket pitches. Any cricket blocks which would be covered by temporary stands during the rugby would be equipped with grass growing equipment seized from local pot producers.
Graham added: “The total cost all up is estimated to be about $10,000 which will be recouped by selling the aluminium soccer goalposts previously used at the park.
“The only foreseen problem is that the City Council may close the ground on the day of the final if it rains on the Friday. Rugby fans should listen to 2ZB for cancellations.”
-
A case of pompous and crcumstances, then?
Lyndon wins!
-
I just heard the Primie Minister on National Radio, talking about New Zealanders in Fiji, who she thought wouldn't be in any immediate danger, because for the most part they woudl not be in the capital, but in tourist hotels and condominia.
Yeeuuch!
Referring to stadia is bad enough, but at least stadium / stadia was a proper word and plural form in Latin. 'Condominia' seems a bit damn precious to me.