Posts by dc_red
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
If I were writing in "New Zealander" I would be assuming that the culture and heritage that I share with a lot of other people can sensibly be referred to by a name that makes it sound like it's the culture and heritage of the whole country. It either ignores any other cultures in/of the country - and they are there - or downgrades them.
I don't know - to me "New Zealander" suggests a culture and heritage that is (relatively) unique to this country, but does not imply superiority over, or exclusion of, other cultures, including hybrids. In any case, the introduction of something called "culture" further muddies the waters: culture/ethnicity/national-identity/citizenship.
Of course, "New Zealander" also messes up the statistics - if everyone who felt that the mere desrciptor "New Zealander" applied to them actually wrote that in, we wouldn't have any more ethnicity information than we did before asking the question.
Methinks the statistics are already a mess, but if people write in New Zealander then we do learn something - lots of people feel that they are New Zealanders, and not some other ethnicity/nationality/citizenship/culture or whatever.
-
Yamis - thank you for the analysis of definitions of ethnicity. Clearly, "New Zealander" does meet both the Stats NZ and the M Brown tests. Easily.
Sonal - I think I know what you're getting at with the distinction between ethnic and national identity, but again, look at the Census form. Most of the "example" ethnicities given in the tick-boxes are also national identities and citizenships: Samoan, Tongan, Dutch, etc. In fact some (Che?) might say they are purely national identities/citizenships.
In light of these examples, the NZ European category makes even less sense. If one is descended only from white Dutch immigrants to NZ, is one always "Dutch" or at some point does one become a "NZ European", and when can one tell? Is it possible to be "New Zealand-Dutch"? And how would such an answer be recorded by data entry drones (my hunch: as "New Zealander" and "Dutch")? Honestly, it does my head in.
-
Che said:
i am in no way asserting that your preference for the term is wrong. rather, i wanted to point out that the kinds of people we're targeting for criticism are highly likely to be disparaging of any person they consider outside their racial preference group.
Like who exactly? Gerry Brownlee? Talk-back callers? :)
Are you disparaging a whole group (of 429,000 - most but not all of whom are likely to be white/ish) because you feel/suspect that some/most are "highly likely" to be disparaging of others? I dare say there's "plenty" of people who ticked "Maori" or one of the Asian ethnicities/citizenships who are disparaging of those they consider outside their racial preference group too. So I'm not entirely sure what the point is here.
Yamis was alarmed that 192 poor bastards don't know their ethnicities, but what about the 5070 whose response was unidentifiable? Did they just put a squiggle in there? That's equivalent to more than 10% of those who managed to write in "New Zealander", drunken or otherwise.
On another note I was suprised to see no "French Canadians" in the list of all responses. I know tons of Canadians in NZ (official count 8835) who actually identify as French Canadian. I know at least one who wrote "French Canadian" in the form. Did the data entry morons classify them as "French" and "Canadian"? I checked and there's no Quebecois either (not that all French Canadians are Quebecois .. and some Quebecois completely disown the Canadian label). But that's a story for another day.
I still think our census does a crap job of distinguishing categories we might agree are meaningful ethnicities from citizenships (specifically Tongan, Samoan, Tokelauan, etc).
Lies. Damn Lies. Statistics.
-
Tse Ming Mok said:
But the Census does not ask you to fill in your citizenship in the ethnicity question. It's quite heartwarming to see all the Pakeha here on this thread describing and affirming their national identity, but national identity is not actually ethnicity, and Pakeha ethnicity is not 'New Zealand' national identity.
Err ... let's look at what the Census actually says, by way of tick boxes under the Ethnicity Question (Q11).
Samoan, Tongan, Niuean are all listed as ethnicities. Tokeleauan is provided as an example of an "other" ethnicity. Aren't these actually just citizenships? The ethnicity would be "Polynesian" (also encompassing Maori and Cook Isl. Maori) or "Pacific Peoples" (as eventually reported by Stats NZ). Yet their separation in the question implies they are separate ethnicities.
Members of this group, I suspect, would have as much, or more, in common in terms of "a combination of language, religion, laws and custom" - to quote ME Brown - as people with ancestors from one of the 30-odd(?) countries which make up Europe?
And before someone leaps in to point out the simply massive differences between, say, Samoa and Tonga ... let it be emphasized that Europe is a pretty diverse place too. By way of example, I don't understand the French language, or the French civil code, or the French attitude to food, or French foreign policy. I don't emphathize or associate with the French any more than any other subset of the human species. I suspect the same is true for 99% of "white/ish" NZers. And yet ... we're supposed to associate with this large, diverse, foreign continent?
I can't think of a better term than "New Zealander" to describe myself.
-
Lest we become too misty-eyed about Ol' Southland Bill, the link provided by RB's reader reminds us that he is a preachy moral conservative and fairly crap amateur sociologist to boot.
Some of the rank BS that stood out for me:
Being married with kids is just out of fashion.
Funny, could have sworn I've been to lots of weddings lately, and seen numerous children born to married couples (not literally being born, though ... you know what I mean). Maybe I'm unfashionable?
The best way for a child to be brought up is by married parents, a mother and a father.
Well, know we know. There is one best way. Talk about extrapolating from (un-named) studies which link family structure to life outcomes ... studies which always struggle with confounding variables one imagines.
But hey, if you're married with kids, sit back and relax, they'll be fine. If you're unmarried with kids, sit back and relax because they'll turn into maladjusted underachievers anyway.
-
4. Would you rather spend this weekend in Suva or Newmarket?
I recently visited Newmarket for the first time in many years and was struck by how ... well, boring, shabby and a bit crap it was really. On the other hand, I have never been to Suva and I hear it is warm there. Plus it wouldn't be a good look for a soldier to use his automatic weapon on a skinny sunburnt tourist. So I go with Suva.
-
I guess the challenge now is to think of which of Auckland's half-arsed stadiums is going to be used and upgraded for le grande event.
I'm guessing Graham you'd favour North Harbour?
But yeah, everyone has more or less run out of puff on the issue, as you suggest, meaning Mt Eden/Sandringham will probably get stuck with a big rugby-only stadium, ACC ratepayers will probably get stuck with the bill, and Auckland cricket will probably get stuck with a "find a new place to play your game during the 6 weeks of the year when we're not obsessing about rugby" order.
So, yea, roll on Christmas.
-
Rob said:
You do though need to set a tone, with vision statements and the like. Any new leader of any organisaiton needs to do this sort of thing.
Clark did NOT do this when she took over Labour in 1993, and it was a huge mistake. Back then she scorned this sort of thing. She really did need to do that, as she'd just knifed Mike Moore and was seen as this humourless party apparatchik with a suspiciously deep voice.
Her first few years as Labour leader were pretty hellish - despite the unpopularity of the Bolger govt.
The comparison with Clark is an interesting one: I recall (admittedly a distant memory) her being harrangued by the media over the leadership coup, and subject to intensive questioing about what made her think she was suitable for the job, and what she would do differently from Mike Moore. As you suggest, she didn't do a particularly good job of answering these questions, and the reception for her was indeed "pretty hellish." No honeymoon.
But Key should have learnt from this ... he's had a long time to think about why he wants to be leader, and what he'd do differently, and it's not too much for the public to expect him to tell us these things.
Of course we don't want to read too much into one speech, but someone should be asking the guy serious questions, because we know next to nothing about him. He could be an "empty suit" - who knows?
-
More of an issue with how we get letters in the mail from the government saying that because we are low wage earners we are entitled to a community services card. This after several years at university working in a 'valued', and 'important' position where we are expected to act like professionals, guidance councellors, social welfare officers, cricket coaches, data entry drones before we even get to teaching.
You forgot prison warden. :)
More seriously, I'm surprised to hear that f/t teachers are considered low wage earners. I wonder what the cut off is for that? The average f/t salary in NZ pre-tax is (or was recently) $45,000. It's hard to see why any qualified teacher should start under that.
Perhaps write to your local MP and ask him what he's going to do about it now he's so important! :)
-
Yamis, rest assured that teachers will be among those lucky wage-and-salary earners allowed to take home more of their earnings each fortnight/month, once tax brackets are shifted and the middle rate cut. :)
Of course this won't help you with the class size and non-contact time issues though, but it might help you feel a bit better nonetheless. ;)