Posts by jh
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Michael King on Pakeha identity and culture :
http://www.sof.org.nz/origins.htm
What a shame he died in a car crash -brake failure. -
Hard News: Diverse Auckland: are we…, in reply to Sacha,
and how does that notion relate to the Treaty of Waitangi, for you?
The Treaty of Waitangi and immigration
In 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi acknowledged that British subjects were already in New Zealand. Implicit in Māori agreement to the treaty was that more immigrants would come from the United Kingdom, Europe and Australia. Some Māori have argued that their ancestors agreed to allow immigration only from the countries named in the preamble to the treaty, and that regulation of immigration from other places is a matter that should be discussed with them as a treaty partner.
-
Hard News: Diverse Auckland: are we…, in reply to Sacha,
so you’re saying that *some notion* of “European” NZ is legitimate?
Yes.
-
monoculture is a loaded word implying monotony.
Seinfield demonstrates diversity isn't a prerequisite of a successful comedy.
http://nypost.com/2014/02/05/seinfeld-defends-nearly-all-white-shows-comedian-interviews/ -
Hard News: Diverse Auckland: are we…, in reply to ,
When somebody uses the phase “the left” in a blog dissucion, It indicates to me that the author will more than likely dismiss anything I have to say, simply because I wear a different colored tee shirt.
that sounds like a claim of closed mindedness. Left is just a generalisation in absence of a map to wade through different clusters of argument, However you hear things like Veronica Medusa on Asian Report (retorting to some comment unfavourable to Asian immigration): “they didn’t do what was done to the Maoris!!?
-
Hard News: Diverse Auckland: are we…, in reply to Sacha,
please explain how that refers to your original comment.
It is a metaphor.
Maori /colonisation is another (convoluted) topic but it has been used by the left to delegitimize European NZ ("whose country is it anyway"). -
Hard News: Diverse Auckland: are we…, in reply to Sacha,
Maori were right to be upset over colonisation (in some ways but not in others)
Ooh, do tell.
Consider Samoa where (I think) the Chinese built an Olympic sized swimming pool and want to set up casinos. Imagine that the Samoans gain economically but society becomes structured with Porsche driving foreigners at the top. People would rather be poorer but top dog with a sense of territorial ownership and identity.
-
Hard News: Diverse Auckland: are we…, in reply to Sacha,
people will help each other out because they share values. In a highly diverse society this sense of community – so necessary for the consent the welfare state requires – is undermined
Only if you believe different cultures don’t share similar human values. How come you seem so invested in wanting monoculturalism?
people value their own self preservation, well being and sense of identity over universal values. people are in competition with people.
-
Hard News: Diverse Auckland: are we…, in reply to Sacha,
As oxytocin comes into sharper focus, its social radius of action turns out to have definite limits. The love and trust it promotes are not toward the world in general, just toward a person’s in-group. Oxytocin turns out to be the hormone of the clan, not of universal brotherhood. Psychologists trying to specify its role have now concluded it is the agent of ethnocentrism.
//
Despite the limitation on oxytocin’s social reach, its effect seems to be achieved more through inducing feelings of loyalty to the in-group than by fomenting hatred of the out-group. The Dutch researchers found some evidence that it enhances negative feelings, but this was not conclusive. “Oxytocin creates intergroup bias primarily because it motivates in-group favoritism and because it motivates out-group derogation,” they write.
//
What does it mean that a chemical basis for ethnocentrism is embedded in the human brain? “In the ancestral environment it was very important for people to detect in others whether they had a long-term commitment to the group,” Dr. De Dreu said. “Ethnocentrism is a very basic part of humans, and it’s not something we can change by education. That doesn’t mean that the negative aspects of it should be taken for granted.”Bruno B. Averbeck, an expert on the brain’s emotional processes at the National Institute of Mental Health, said that the effects of oxytocin described in Dr. De Dreu’s report were interesting but not necessarily dominant. The brain weighs emotional attitudes like those prompted by oxytocin against information available to the conscious mind. If there is no cognitive information in a situation in which a decision has to be made, like whether to trust a stranger about whom nothing is known, the brain will go with the emotional advice from its oxytocin system, but otherwise rational data will be weighed against the influence from oxytocin and may well override it, Dr. Averbeck said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/science/11hormone.html
Substitute trust for the perceived cost/ benefits of mass migration and it explains the “racism” of people opposed to immigration from Asia rather than the U.K. In the case of people from the U.K it is population pressure related issues but not ethnicity (so much). However it cuts both ways as Asians are just as ethno focused as whites and the more different they are the more other they are and while immigration is spun officially (per business interests and the left), as beneficial to the receiving country the receiving population may see them mainly as competition for resources and as a threat to their identity as the group belonging to a particular place.
As someone yelled at a rezoning for density meeting recently: "this talk about population growth being beneficial is bullshit! Immigration is occuring for the benefit of property developers and investors" -
Hard News: Diverse Auckland: are we…, in reply to Sacha,
The UK is vastly less diverse than NZ. Not sure what case it is you believe you’re making.
The article reviews The British Dream by David Goodhart and The Diversity Illusion by Ed West.
Only in the last two or three years has it become possible to discuss immigration in a sensible way. Part of the reason for this change is the courageous stand taken by David Goodhart. In 2004, Goodhart wrote an article in Prospect, the Blairite magazine he founded, that challenged the assumption that immigration is always a good thing.
Goodhart posed a troubling question: does immigration threaten the social solidarity that Left-wingers claim to cherish? In a relatively homogenous society, as Britain was during and after the Second World War, people will help each other out because they share values. In a highly diverse society this sense of community – so necessary for the consent the welfare state requires – is undermined. There is therefore (so Goodhart argued) a contradiction between the progressive support for both “diversity” and “community”.
When the article appeared Goodhart was, needless to say, accused of being a racist. But his argument (inspired by the Conservative MP David Willetts) has been impossible to ignore. It has forced the Labour Party to think again about immigration.
It applies also to New Zealand as NZ has undergone a similar process:
The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".
As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.