link This is a link to an online test that assesses implicit associations between black/white people and the good/bad judgment. It is quite fun, takes about 5 min and can be a real eye opener. There are lots of other implicit association test there too - but my challenge to you is to assess your own degree of "racism" to the extent that this test is able to reveal it. (It is reasonably robust according to psychological research criteria - run by Harvard, and some of the accompanying information is interesting too).
81st column: yes to gap filling and constructive memory. I also have a problem with conflation - remembering one or two parts of something and that becoming"the whole thing".
So the Urewera 17 - gets conflated with Tuhoe, and suddenly Tame Iti, JL and Save Our Snails are treated as a unified group which is somehow misinterpretted as Tuhoe. I realise I am as at fault here as others - given my connections to the particular part of Tuhoe that Iti, Kruger et al represent and my long involvement with their objectives, I am inflamed by the accusations when they are mistakenly made against Tuhoe rather than individuals. Then I write a defense of this conflated group rather than for the particular members of Tuhoe that I have an association with.
The antidote to escalation is, perhaps, clarity, which is so easy to overlook in the heat of the moment.
Russell - I had the exact same misgivings re LN to start with - still do to some extent, but I guess given my "superstitious" approach (ie seen it before so bound to be true) to sexual abuse my feeling/belief was that she was bone fide. Like David Bain - my experience is of nutty fathers, therefore I'm inclined to believe Robin did it. All with the proviso that I don't really know. On the other hand I'm inclined to think Michael Jackson innocent. BUT WE CAN'T REALLY KNOW.
Are you prepared to acknowledge yet that the police action was not without foundation?
I don't think I have ever said that ANY police action was unfounded under the circumstances - I certainly believe some police action was necessary - but not this.
And that maybe the community should also be prepared to blame some of its own for bringing this down?
This isn't clear enough for me to be able to answer... What community? Blame who?
My point really is we don't know, we can't know, we could all do with being a bit more circumspect about our judgments of people and events - especially media events, which is what these are, mostly, to the public. Yes I'm talking about me too. But as a third generation anti-racism proponent I am not really willing to rebalance the beneifit of the doubt I tend to give Maori and other indigeneity in favour of the state.
Good points all round - still agreeing with everything being said.
Fletcher B - do you have other possibilities to throw in - I actually think it is not only interesting but important. Always interested in social psychology...
So from these responses so far my sense is that now that the immediate "crisis" regarding "terrorism" has subsided in people's minds abit, you are considering the possibility that the police action was a bit excessive and that there might be valid complaints. So maybe the vehemence against at that stage was a product of feeling threatened?
do you think that if anyone in Ruatoki wants to lay a complaint with the IPCA, they can do so with a certain degree of confidence?
Yes I do, and I think it is in process.
I think any final wash-up is going to show that the scale and nature of the police action on October 15 was excessive given the evidence to hand (which was still not trivial), and perhaps find some examples of unacceptable conduct towards individuals.
This is genuinely heartening to me. The vehemence of your discussion on the other thread seemed to be precluding these possibilities.
The comparison with whatever happened on the morning of October 15 is insane.
Russell, I really don't know what exactly it is I'm triggering in your past, but your projections of me as hysterical and now insane are - well, just a little bit insensitive.
Your comparison is based upon the test of 'proven in court
No, my comparison is intended to demonstrate that there is a real difference between "proven in court" and "proven in public opinion" with a view to working out how we come to the latter.
Are you seriously comparing the degree of abuse in the two cases?
No. I am not intending to compare degree at all. I am intending to draw people's attention to the fallacy of assuming nothing has happened when there is so little yet to go on - a bit like what the public would have thought about LN's complaints if they were reported in the 70's.
Don't you think there's anything positive to take out of all that?t
Not sure what you mean by this.
Sorry - knock at the door - continue in a min
Let me be clear up front - I don't disagree with the sentiments of the seemingly unanimous posts here re the relative merits of CR and LN's claims. I think she is extraordinarily brave and he is a walking disaster, (but I'm well aware that I don't REALLY know what happened, that I am hazarding an opinion)
AND, I think that mostly the police do a hard job well
Complaints about misconduct associated with extreme police action
Basis of EXTREME police action not sustained
Complaints not yet tested in court
Several of you believe that the police action was justified and that the complaints are fabrications.
complaints not upheld when tested in court
Seemingly the same several believe that the police misconduct and LN's complaints were proven.
This seems so contradictory to me.
I imagine many of you will say "but Rickards admitted it." My understanding is that Rickards has admitted to group sex etc, but has specifically denied all claims made by LN.
There is argument and counter-argument available throughout both cases based on the vagaries of evidence, methods, motives etc. I don't think the basis of this seeming inconsistency of approach by the "several" lies in the details of the cases. So what is it? That LN and CR are real people in our minds rather than anonymous police and complainants? Because we are more sympathetic to the idea that women may be abused by police than that Maori may be? Or is it the completely unsubstantiated assertion that thars terrorists in them hills?
I wonder if, when real people appear in front of us on TV we project our own experience on to them in making our judgements about their guilt or innocence. And so, because we are more familiar with the idea of a man sexually abusing a woman than we are of the idea of a more generalised abuse of police power( ie a few cops loose the plot during a highly charged operation and start behaving like baboons) we just project "likely" on the first and "unlikely" on the second.
Well, I'd just like to point out that this kind of judgment has far more in common with superstition than rationality (see higher superstition by someone or other Easton I think - I'll look for the citation in a bit). A reasoned approach would require a bit more consistency of judgment, even if that judgment is "can't know on both counts."
Clare needs to be a bit more luscious,
Than Rachel McAdams?
Than Edward Norton!
I still think Depp and Blanchett have it. But as a friend has been arguing today, Depp actually isn't the perfect Lin Baba! He's supposed to be tall, skinny, sinfully ugly, warm with sinister undertones, droll but capable of Bollywood romance. Hmmm. I know! John Campbel! l
So how about some creative egg-horning or will that make you all apocalyptic?
Is it an urban myth, or was it true, that once upon a time comparative census statistics showed that NZ had the highest proportion of one-person religions in the world? Who cares, never let the truth get in the way of a good story. My bet (again) is that we are just really creative (i.e. bad) spellers.