New Zealand tackles growing racism

[SunWuKong]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3192425.stm


NZ tackles growing racism

By the BBC's Angie Knox

Clean, green - and racist? New Zealand's image is taking a beating with new research showing that 70% of its citizens think that Asians face significant discrimination.

The research, by the Human Rights Commission, has prompted an advertising campaign to encourage Kiwis to be kinder to immigrants.

More than 200,000 Asian migrants have arrived in New Zealand in the past 20 years, and it is officially estimated that Asians will make up 13% of New Zealand's population by 2021.

Auckland is New Zealand's largest and most multicultural city.

Yet at the top of Queen Street, which runs through Auckland's central business district, a billboard addresses the ever-controversial issue of immigration.

"Immigration's up, treaty costs up, crime's up... Had enough?", the billboard reads, directing onlookers to the website of New Zealand First, one of the country's smallest opposition parties.

Across town at a migrant centre, groups of students take part in employment training sessions. Overwhelmingly, the faces there are Asian.

That might be because most Asian migrants choose to settle in Auckland - the city is home to an estimated two-thirds of all Asians in New Zealand.

But it is also harder for Asians to get a job - and not necessarily because they do not have the qualifications.

Discrimination

Asoka Basnayake, a settlement coordinator for new migrants, says that finding a job is a huge challenge for migrants.

"That's mainly because New Zealand employers are looking for New Zealand experience," she said.

"Although people's qualifications and experience and skills have been assessed at the time they migrate to New Zealand, when they come here they find their skills, qualifications and experience are not worth anything."

Ms Basnayake should know. When she came to New Zealand eight years ago, she applied for 250 jobs without success, despite having extensive work experience in Europe, Asia and Canada.

New Zealand's Race Relations Commissioner, Joris de Bres, said that discrimination was definitely a problem.

"There has been a disturbing increase in recent times in what I'd call conversational discrimination, and particularly in relation to Asian immigrants," he said.

Media campaign

New Zealand's Human Rights Commission is sponsoring an advertising campaign to nip this trend in the bud.

The NZ$1.5m (US$870,000 ) series of TV, radio, billboard and newspaper advertisements aims to challenge racial stereotypes - and is being paid for by a group of media and advertising companies led by McCann Ericks.

"I'd been living in Asia for just under six years, and whenever people asked me how migrant-friendly New Zealand was as a nation, I said we were very, very migrant friendly," said the company's managing director John Roberts.

"When I arrived back last year and started sifting through some independent research groups that we run, some really quite distasteful racist comments were coming up," he said.

One of the comments was: "You can guarantee if there's an accident, an Asian will be involved."

Another said: "The government should shut the doors. Who wants all these people ruining our good life?"

Mr Roberts believes comments like these are a reaction to how New Zealand has changed - and is still changing.

"Auckland is a great example," he said. "You walk down Queen Street now and to be honest you could be in Hong Kong or Singapore. The look of the place has changed, and I think that's scared people."

Joris de Bres said that the recent rise in the Asian population was a mirror of what happened 30 years ago when large numbers of Pacific Islanders arrived in New Zealand to ease labour shortages.

"In the 1970s there was a similar opposition to Pacific migration," he said.

"In the first years of the 21st century, that opposition has moved - among a percentage of the population - to Asian migration. And at the same time people are saying they are perfectly happy with the numbers of Pacific Islanders here."

But Joris de Bres said he was confident New Zealand would not follow the lead of Australia, where Pauline Hanson's anti-immigration One Nation Party garnered 10% of the popular vote in the mid-1990s.

"There was a lot of concern about discrimination against Asian immigrants when we surveyed people last year," he said. "So I think probably New Zealand will come through this."

[pinkskyes]

i haven't been there myself, but being just next door i hear a lot of reports about new zealand and all have been good...they seem like a very friendly lot..and if u look at their government policies i think a lot of countries (including mine-australia) have a lot to learn.

there are always those who fear change and certainly the composition of a lot of australian cities and auckland have been changing dramatically over the last few years, but the growing pains will ease. i'm glad to say that melbourne has been triving in with asians for a while and life is good here...racism is a very rare occurance.

so i think while that article points out some difficulty asians may face in nz...things will get much better and a benefit of moving to australia or new zealand is the true multiculturalism that exists in these countries (compared to the somewhat segregated communities that seem to exist in the US)

[Faithless]

More disturbing news out of New Zealand. I thought a Kiwi was supposed to be sweet. :frown:

NZ opposition leader defends remarks on racial division (http://www.abc.net.au/ra/newstories/RANewsStories_1033428.htm)
New Zealand's Opposition leader Don Brash has defended his remarks on what he has described as the dangerous drift to racial separatism in the country.

The comments came in Dr Brash's first major address since taking over the National Party leadership two months ago.

Prime Minister, Helen Clark, has condemned the speech, accusing Dr Brash of being in "a tail-spin on the politics of race" and reviving the failed policies of his predecessor.

However, Dr Brash says while there has been a dangerous trend for racial separatism in New Zealand law, intermarriage is increasingly making nonsense of such legislation.

"New Zealand will always have a number of ethnic backgrounds in our population. Some will be primarily Maori, though increasingly few because of the intermarriage which has been going on. Some will be primarily European, and some will be primarily Asian," he said.

"But intermarriage is widespread reality in New Zealand today. Anthropologists tell us that as of 1900, there wasn't a full blooded Maori in the South Island. And as of now, there are none in the North Island either. So we're coming an increasingly mixed race and I think that's great."

[hooligan]

interesting, i don't get it is he against anti-miscegenation (spelling)?

in regards to the legislation, what legislation is he referring too? it doesn't surprise me that NZ would have a race issue, every country does, it's just that you never hear about most of them because the minorities either aren't large enough to raise awareness or just are too scattered/disorganized to do anything about it.

http://maaori.com/people/

^link about maori peoples

[yoMAMA]

I always see new zealand as part of asia, so they better deal with it, cauz the asians will just keep coming (espeically childrens of corrupt chinese officials :rolleyes: ) :biggrin:

[Faithless]

75% white:

New Zealand demographics (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_Zealand#Ethnic_groups_(2001_Ce nsus))

New Zealand European/Pakeha: 75.0% - mostly 3rd+ generation, mainly British ancestry; some Dutch, etc.

Other European: 5.0% - mostly 1st and 2nd generation.
Maori: 14.7%
Asian: 6.6%
Chinese: 2.8%
Indian: 1.7%
Other Asian: 2.1%
Pacific Islander: 6.5%
Samoan: 3.2%
Cook Islander/Rarotongan: 1.5%
Tongan: 1.1%
Other Pacific Islander: 1.8%
Others: 0.8% (Africans, Latin Americans, Middle Easterners, etc.)

[kuilong]

I used to live in New Zealand, and there are certainly a lot of Chinese tourists. I heard it was because in the past Australia and NZ were the only western nations which were nontrivial to visit for the Chinese.

And yeah, there's very few other Asians, though my parents did a good job of seeking out the few that were in Palmerston North. In fact, I believe as recently as the 80's immigration to Australia and New Zealand was limited to only white Europeans and Americans.

What does "I always see new zealand as part of asia" mean? Does it refer to "Asia" as a cultural entity (Asia isn't a cultural entity) or a geographical entity (New Zealand isn't part of the continent of Asia; far from it)? It's vague enough as to be meaningless.

[hooligan]

75% white:

New Zealand demographics (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_Zealand#Ethnic_groups_%282001_ Census%29)

New Zealand European/Pakeha: 75.0% - mostly 3rd+ generation, mainly British ancestry; some Dutch, etc.

Other European: 5.0% - mostly 1st and 2nd generation.
Maori: 14.7%
Asian: 6.6%
Chinese: 2.8%
Indian: 1.7%
Other Asian: 2.1%
Pacific Islander: 6.5%
Samoan: 3.2%
Cook Islander/Rarotongan: 1.5%
Tongan: 1.1%
Other Pacific Islander: 1.8%
Others: 0.8% (Africans, Latin Americans, Middle Easterners, etc.)
can you find statistics on the hapa numbers?

[AliBabaIncorporated]

What does "I always see new zealand as part of asia" mean? Does it refer to "Asia" as a cultural entity (Asia isn't a cultural entity) or a geographical entity (New Zealand isn't part of the continent of Asia; far from it)? It's vague enough as to be meaningless.
don't mind yoMAMA, he just thinks everything should be a Chinese colony, following the example of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.

[Faithless]

can you find statistics on the hapa numbers?
Doesn't appear to be broken down that far except for inclusion in the "Other" category:

Subnational Ethnic Population Projections (http://www.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/web/prod_serv.nsf/htmldocs/Subnational+Ethnic+Population+Projections#ethnicco ncept)
Ethnic concept
The ethnic concept used in these projections is the ethnic group or groups that people identify with or feel they belong to. Ethnicity is self-perceived and people can belong to more than one ethnic group. For example, people may identify with the Mäori ethnicity even though they may not be descended from a Mäori ancestor. Conversely, people may choose to not identify with the Mäori ethnicity even though they are descended from a Mäori ancestor. Ethnicity does not equate to a birthplace description.

The 2001 Census asked people "Which ethnic group do you belong to? Mark the space or spaces which apply to you". The census usually resident population count of 3,737,277 included 2,871,432 people who identified with a European ethnicity, 526,281 who identified with the Maori ethnicity, 238,179 who identified with an Asian ethnicity, 231,798 who identified with a Pacific ethnicity, 24,993 who identified with other ethnicities and 150,546 with no ethnic response.

[moJo]

http://maaori.com/people/

^link about maori peoples
a great movie about the Maori people is Whale Rider. it gives a fascinating glimpse of the people and their culture.

[hooligan]

a great movie about the Maori people is Whale Rider. it gives a fascinating glimpse of the people and their culture.

the girl's pretty cute too.

[yoMAMA]

What does "I always see new zealand as part of asia" mean? Does it refer to "Asia" as a cultural entity (Asia isn't a cultural entity) or a geographical entity (New Zealand isn't part of the continent of Asia; far from it)? It's vague enough as to be meaningless.

I see it as part of the "Asia Pacific" Region.

[yoMAMA]

a great movie about the Maori people is Whale Rider. it gives a fascinating glimpse of the people and their culture.

Whale rider is awesome!

[Faithless]

I see it as part of the "Asia Pacific" Region.
The only thing is that it is dominated by non Asian people.

Is that through migration and breeding or what?

[yoMAMA]

don't mind yoMAMA, he just thinks everything should be a Chinese colony, following the example of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.

Hey, why not? :biggrin: :tongue:

It's all about empire building, man.

[Banana]

"We're losing the country! We're fuckin' losing! We're losing!"

"Shut the fuck up. If you're losing, who's winning?"

[Mr.Lum]

I always see new zealand as part of asia, so they better deal with it, cauz the asians will just keep coming (espeically childrens of corrupt chinese officials :rolleyes: ) :biggrin:

Its not part of Asia. it Oceania. I have relatives who live there, say its not like its described in the immigration book. Asians and whites are historical oppressors of the Pacific. come and expoit.

[Mr.Lum]

"We're losing the country! We're fuckin' losing! We're losing!"

"Shut the fuck up. If you're losing, who's winning?"


haha. the Maori are the ones who are losing. the whites are coming and the Asians too. the more they gain/come the less the Maori will have.

[Blue dice]

haha. the Maori are the ones who are losing. the whites are coming and the Asians too. the more they gain/come the less the Maori will have.
I have to agree here but I think the islanders have pretty much written off their homelands a long time ago. It's too late now unless they start a serious political/social resistance. The islander numbers are still too small and diluted.

It's not surprising to me that New Zealand is seriously racist. A LOT of asians i've talked to who live there or have been there all say the same things. Australia and New Zealand are both way more racist than the rest of the Anglo founded nations.

[Mr.Lum]

I see it as part of the "Asia Pacific" Region.


youre out of date. they separated it (geogaphers) for obvious reasons.

BlueDice, the Islanders (Maoris) have fairly large numbers. 14% is not small thats like the Latinos here. personally, I would not be against stopping Asian immigration (along with white, african etc) to the whole of the Pacific. they come and destroy.

[Mr.Lum]

Hey, why not? :biggrin: :tongue:

It's all about empire building, man.

because the Chinese/Asians would shit on everyone else. like Japan. Asians are like white people in many of their endevours especialy in the Pacific.

[Mr.Lum]

it's just that you never hear about most of them because the minorities either aren't large enough to raise awareness or just are too scattered/disorganized to do anything about it.


my relatives there tell me its not so bad unless you are Chinese. the white people realy only treat asians poorly. as my unlce put it "they think every Polynesian is a Maori, which depending on where you are is a good or bad thing" he said that he hasent heard of Polynesians liek Tongans or Samoans haveing troubles. but "the white people here are like white people anywhere"

[Blue dice]

youre out of date. they separated it (geogaphers) for obvious reasons.

BlueDice, the Islanders (Maoris) have fairly large numbers. 14% is not small thats like the Latinos here. personally, I would not be against stopping Asian immigration (along with white, african etc) to the whole of the Pacific. they come and destroy.
The question is what do you propose the islanders do about this?

[Mr.Lum]

I think Islanders still incontrol of their homes (Fijians, Tongans, Samoans, Ni-Vanuatu, Papuans etc) keep foreigners from coming. in places like NZ there is little hope. in Hawai'i as well. in French Polynesia (which includes Tahiti and the Marquesas) they are moving/pushing toward independance from France. American Samoa could have independance if they wished. restricting immigration is a good measure for Pacific nations, as they are small and resources are as well. they should educated the natives and use foreigners only for trade, diplomatic matters etc. Islanders also should deport foreigners who are just sitting around (unemployed non islanders). these seem racist but are nessicary in places liek the Pacific

a place like West Papua which is a colony of Indonesia, should and is waging independance war against their colonial oppressor. Asians have no place ruleing any part of the Pacific. period. Indonesia is out its place in New Guinea.

[SunWuKong]

a place like West Papua which is a colony of Indonesia, should and is waging independance war against their colonial oppressor. Asians have no place ruleing any part of the Pacific. period. Indonesia is out its place in New Guinea.

what area, geographically, would you consider to be the "Pacific"? i remember reading that you don't consider Filipinos to be PIs.

[Mr.Lum]

^I consider a place where the/a Pacific culture existsts. all of New Guniea which is a Melanesian island/people is Pacific. SolomonIslands near that same island is Pacific. here are Pacific States/places:

:: American Samoa
:: Cook Islands
:: Easter Island
:: Federated States of Micronesia
:: Fiji
:: French Polynesia
:: Guam
:: Hawaii
:: Kiribati
:: Marshall Islands
:: Nauru
:: New Caledonia
:: New Zealand
:: Niue
:: Norfolk Island
:: Northern Marianas
:: Palau
:: Papua New Guinea
:: Pitcairn
:: Samoa
:: Solomon Islands
:: Tokelau
:: Tonga
:: Torres Strait Islands
:: Tuvalu
:: Vanuatu
:: Wallis & Futuna
:: West Papua

the Philipines is not Pacific cultural, geographicaly or racialy. they are Asians. if Filipinos are PI, then so are Japanese, and people from Hainan.

[Blue dice]

I think Islanders still incontrol of their homes (Fijians, Tongans, Samoans, Ni-Vanuatu, Papuans etc) keep foreigners from coming. in places like NZ there is little hope. in Hawai'i as well. in French Polynesia (which includes Tahiti and the Marquesas) they are moving/pushing toward independance from France. American Samoa could have independance if they wished. restricting immigration is a good measure for Pacific nations, as they are small and resources are as well. they should educated the natives and use foreigners only for trade, diplomatic matters etc. Islanders also should deport foreigners who are just sitting around (unemployed non islanders). these seem racist but are nessicary in places liek the Pacific

a place like West Papua which is a colony of Indonesia, should and is waging independance war against their colonial oppressor. Asians have no place ruleing any part of the Pacific. period. Indonesia is out its place in New Guinea.
The problem is if you are going to create these homogenous "racially" segregated homelands then it'll be hypocritical to complain if other nations decide to expel their pacific islanders in retaliation. Don't expect the rest of the world to look kindly on this policy and I seriously doubt pacific islander countries will become more prosperous or well off as a result. Imagine the outcry if a european, asian, or anglo founded nation decided to purge all minorities from its population and set up racially "homogenous" countries. There would be serious complaints raised about it being racist, segregationist, etc.. What you are basically calling for is racial segregation. I don't see that as being a positive step in the long run.

[Mr.Lum]

The problem is if you are going to create these homogenous "racially" segregated homelands then it'll be hypocritical to complain if other nations decide to expel their pacific islanders in retaliation.

its not segragation, and its not homogenous. the foreiners (mostly Chinese and Indians and Japanese in Hawai'i) should be allowed to stay, but not be able to have say in national government, only local. immigration should be restricted to oher island countries.

no one is talking about "purging". deporting people who are useless and mooching is not purging.

also, the Pacific countries are only "developing" now and would be because they are judged by asian and euro/american standards. the people generaly live just fine in terms of standard of living. major problem is the cities. the cities are generally more exposed more to foreigner exploitation.

What you are basically calling for is racial segregation.

no, its not. no one is talking about separate institutions, just keeping the people of the pacific from ending up like American indians.

[SunWuKong]

the Philipines is not Pacific cultural, geographicaly or racialy. they are Asians. if Filipinos are PI, then so are Japanese, and people from Hainan.

is it because they are too close to the continental Asia?
i don't know about Hainan island, but i believe Taiwanese aborigines should probably also be considered PIs. their cultures include tattooing, headhunting, etc etc. however, today they only comprise of about 2% of the Taiwanese population. here is a lengthy write-up (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Taiwanese-aborigine) about them. i thought this part is particularly interesting:

Taiwan is recognized by many linguists and scholars as the original land of the Austronesian language. It is believed the Austronesian language and culture originated on Taiwan roughly 6000 years ago due to a lengthy split from its root in southern Asia. Linguistic evidence shows a greater diversity of language on Taiwan than other Austronesian speaking areas. Linguists note earlier linguistic separations, mark the earliest settlements. According to the R.O.C. government there are 11 tribes on Taiwan which are eligible to receive tribal status, but records indicate there may be as many as 26 linguistic groups and the Babuza, Popora, Hoanya, Siraya, Taokas and Pazeh tribes were included in Japanese field studies through 1945.

also, as far as Filipinos are concerned, aren't they pretty genetically diverse? wouldn't at least some of them really be considered PIs? what about Malays?

[Mr.Lum]

^Malays are Asian. an so are Filipinos. they are not cultural PI either. they are closer to asians than anyone else. I know about the natives to Taiwan, but now, it is Asian because of the Chinese. like America was American Indian but is now "american"/Anglo (predominantly).

it is not just geography, it is culture. the Filipinos, the Malays (who do live in Asia) the Japanese the Indonesians etc are Asians, in race and in culture. there is nothing PI about them outsid of language. that is the one common denominater between SEAsia and the Pacific: Malayo-Polynesian languages. also in Madagascar. the Taiwanese natives are very small in number, and so Taiwan which is now "Chinese" is Asian. Taiwan is not, the natives are.

[SunWuKong]

The problem is if you are going to create these homogenous "racially" segregated homelands then it'll be hypocritical to complain if other nations decide to expel their pacific islanders in retaliation. Don't expect the rest of the world to look kindly on this policy and I seriously doubt pacific islander countries will become more prosperous or well off as a result. Imagine the outcry if a european, asian, or anglo founded nation decided to purge all minorities from its population and set up racially "homogenous" countries. There would be serious complaints raised about it being racist, segregationist, etc.. What you are basically calling for is racial segregation. I don't see that as being a positive step in the long run.

hmm... i don't think he's saying that they kick everybody out who is not PI. i think he's talking about only giving citizenship to PIs, thus limiting national governing privileges to PIs.

it's not an entirely bad idea, but you may end up creating some disenfrenchised rich and powerful Chinese minority and disgruntled poor non-Chinese majority in those island nations like how it is in the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia - and the Chinese are allowed to have citizenship in those countries. whereas in Thailand (and i think also Vietnam), a long-standing assimilation attitude toward the Chinese have made it so that racial friction is minimised.

[Mr.Lum]

^in some places like Fiji, the CHinese are well assimilated (except more stuck up FOB types ie recent arrivals) but the Indians are a problem because they do not keep the good of FIji in mind. they only think about Indians politicaly for the most part and in their communities they act like they are in India. they segragate themselves to whole sides of islands and then try to say they are "Fijian" fact is, they can never be FIjian because that is an ethncity you ahve to be born to. you know? I was born in Connecticut but I am not a Pequat. and in Papua New Guniea, they say that the older gen Chinese that have been there a long time (same thing in Fiji and other placeS) are more willing/were more willing to assimilate than are newer mainland Chiense arivals because the new ones are "blood suckers" as many people describe them ie exploit and do not care baout the country or natives. its messed up because I read in a book my grandma has and they said that the Chinese often look down on the natives and the older gen Chinese because they are usually poorer/lower class. I dont see why they should be allowed to go if they dont like the people. I mean, what is up with people always trying to exploit and hate on people?

[Mr.Lum]

it's not an entirely bad idea, but you may end up creating some disenfrenchised rich and powerful Chinese minority and disgruntled poor non-Chinese majority in those island nations

there are Chinese populations in the whole of the Pacific from colonial times. they are usually already assimilated. the new Chinese are the main problem. the Chinese and the whites mostly. Filipinos and Indonesians in others.

[SunWuKong]

I dont see why they should be allowed to go if they dont like the people. I mean, what is up with people always trying to exploit and hate on people?

sometimes they are allowed by the government because they bring in money and help revitalise the economy. a lot of Overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia are great businessmen with a wide network of contacts.

but i don't know the exact conditions under which they are allowed to go to places like Fiji. if it's not because of direct family relations, their money, or their academic values, then i'd agree with you.

it's a trade-off, i guess.

[Mr.Lum]

I know the Fijian government started having them come to do manual labour a few years ago and after the indians began to leave (after the coup racial tensions between Fijian/Chinese and Indians rose) they need more doctors and shit like that so they began to get CHinese from Malaysia, but the mainland ones are the ones people be complaining about.

[Faithless]

Don Brash tells: Why I played the race card (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?reportID=1162603&storyID=3550537)

21.02.2004

The National Party leader's Orewa speech on race relations and special treatment for Maori has had a seismic impact on the political landscape. The reaction surprised him, he tells Herald political correspondent John Armstrong and political editor Audrey Young in a discussion about his beliefs and plans.
...
Bill English said much the same as you about ending special treatment for Maori when he was leader. Why have you struck a chord where he did not?

I am not quite sure why it created the impact that it did. People have in some cases said they weren't sure whether Bill meant what he said. I don't think that is fair at all. I think Bill did mean what he said but for some reason I don't fully understand, the speech did strike a chord.

Does it worry you that your speech risks polarising, even poisoning, relations between Maori and other New Zealanders? And might even lead to violence?

It certainly does concern me that I have unleashed a lot of emotions that have been building up over a long time. I guess my justification for doing that is that we desperately needed to have an adult discussion on this issue because it seems to me on our present direction, that those emotions were gradually building up and building up.

Okay, some of the people who have said, 'We agree with you', are by definition red-neck. But a great many are people who, on the basis of their comments to me on email, are anything but redneck and, of course, many of them are Maori. I got a very good email yesterday, for example, from a guy who is a student at Otago University flatting with four other friends.

He said: "I have predominantly European ancestry but some Ngai Tahu ancestry. One of the other four people in the flat also has some Maori ancestry". He said: "By chance the two of us come from the wealthiest families in the flat. The other three are pure European". But, he said, "We both have special scholarships to assist Maori". He said: "My European flatmates are angry and resent that fact that they are scrimping and are having difficulty getting by whereas we from quite affluent families get these scholarships".
...


What did Brash say?

x (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/australasia/story.jsp?story=493564)
...
In his speech, Dr Brash vowed to eliminate seats reserved for Maori MPs, to repeal "divisive race-based" legislation, terminate the process of compensation for land confiscated by European settlers and do away with welfare payments and special funding for Maoris. He attacked idealised notions of indigenous culture and said Maoris should forget their historical grievances and stop expecting favouritism.

"There is a limit to how much any generation can apologise for the sins of its great-grandparents," he said, warning of a "dangerous drift towards racial separatism".

The speech was condemned by Dr Brash's own Maori affairs spokeswoman, Georgina Te Heuheu, the Nationals' only indigenous MP. He responded by sacking Ms Te Heuheu, a highly respected lawyer and feminist trailblazer, replacing her with a white male MP who does not speak the Maori language.

The Prime Minister, Helen Clark, accused him of sowing disharmony and sullying New Zealand's international reputation. She also took issue with his central theme. "I look at some of these assertions about Maori being a privileged minority and think 'what planet are people on?'" she said.

Seeds of discord were planted before Dr Brash became opposition leader. White New Zealanders were outraged by a court ruling last June that opened the way for Maoris to seek exclusive ownership of the coastline and seabed. Maoris were equally outraged when Ms Clark hastily announced new legislation to prevent them from lodging such claims.

The fall-out from Dr Brash's speech has been ugly. National Day celebrations this month were marred by violence, and Dr Brash had mud thrown in his face. New Zealanders can expect a lot more mud-slinging between now and the general election.

[Kuchana]

Australia and New Zealand are both way more racist than the rest of the Anglo founded nations.

Really? Why is that I wonder.

I think Islanders still incontrol of their homes (Fijians, Tongans, Samoans, Ni-Vanuatu, Papuans etc) keep foreigners from coming. in places like NZ there is little hope. in Hawai'i as well. in French Polynesia (which includes Tahiti and the Marquesas) they are moving/pushing toward independance from France. American Samoa could have independance if they wished. restricting immigration is a good measure for Pacific nations, as they are small and resources are as well. they should educated the natives and use foreigners only for trade, diplomatic matters etc. Islanders also should deport foreigners who are just sitting around (unemployed non islanders). these seem racist but are nessicary in places liek the Pacific

a place like West Papua which is a colony of Indonesia, should and is waging independance war against their colonial oppressor. Asians have no place ruleing any part of the Pacific. period. Indonesia is out its place in New Guinea.

Yes but what about the factor intermarriage? For example look at Hawaii. The population of the native Hawaiians are falling greatly due to intermarriage with the Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, etc. How is there a definition of what a Hawaiian means if they're not a native? And furthermore, native Hawaiians are trying to gain the same status as the Native Americans have right now but I don't see that happening unfortunately.

American Samoa doesn't want independence simply due to the fact that if they did, they wouldn't have the money given to them by the U.S. government to survive on. Yes they have the choice to be independent if they wish but evidently that desire isn't a fervent one.

The same for Micronesia (FHM??). They depend too much on the U.S. government for money primarily in not being able to govern themselves.

I find your view rather harsh. I don't think foreigners; Asians, should be kicked out entirely just because they're not PI. They could instead contribute greatly to improving the situation.

I don't even think that French Polynesia wants independence from France entirely. To a certain extent they might but last I heard they were seeking autonomy. They may want independence but not to the point of letting go in the end. Again due to money and dependence.

[Mr.Lum]

American Samoa doesn't want independence simply due to the fact that if they did, they wouldn't have the money given to them by the U.S. government to survive on. Yes they have the choice to be independent if they wish but evidently that desire isn't a fervent one.


they asked to be a colony too.

I don't even think that French Polynesia wants independence from France entirely. To a certain extent they might but last I heard they were seeking autonomy. They may want independence but not to the point of letting go in the end. Again due to money and dependence

I know a Tahitian family and they hate France and they say most people there do too. but I do know they are not so hard set on indie. they are working toward gradual independance.

I find your view rather harsh. I don't think foreigners; Asians, should be kicked out entirely just because they're not PI. They could instead contribute greatly to improving the situation

Indonesia does not help the situation whatsoever. also, recent Asian immigrants exploit the natives just as much as do western ones. they just want a buck. they dont care about the islands. its "money money money.....money". Idnonesia is worse than the Dutch British and possibly the French in its policies regurding its "province'. shit, at least the Europeans let them talk.

The same for Micronesia (FHM??). They depend too much on the U.S. government for money primarily in not being able to govern themselves.



they can govern themselves, they depend on US aid for purpses of "modern" use.

Yes but what about the factor intermarriage? For example look at Hawaii. The population of the native Hawaiians are falling greatly due to intermarriage with the Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, etc. How is there a definition of what a Hawaiian means if they're not a native? And furthermore, native Hawaiians are trying to gain the same status as the Native Americans have right now but I don't see that happening unfortunately.


Hawai'ian is an ethnicity. I dont care how you want to break it down into "part" or w/e because Hawai'i is for the most part lost. but I would say some one who is either "full" or signifiacntly "part" and identifies such. you should ask a "full" Hawaiian about that. I think Hawai'i's ID system is differnent then everyone elses because of so many foiengers lving/running things there.

[kimpossible]

Whoah, whoah. I just came back from New Zealand and was there when Don Brash made his speech and followed it pretty closely in the newspapers, along with Georgina te Heuheu's response and ultimate separation from National.

First of all, the point of immigration in New Zealand is not to appease Asians in particular. This is a totally abstracted and strangely skewed way of looking at life and immigration to the country. New Zealand is not just like America or Europe or Canada despite the extremely open immigration policies. New Zealand is a /very/ unique land with an extremely fragile ecosystem and unresolved issues between Pakeha and Maori.

As a visitor who went with the intentions of one day immigrating to New Zealand, I did my best to learn as much as possible about its people and their relationship to the land. Most Asians there are no different from white or Pakeha settlers in their views towards the land and Maori. In fact, one of the largest problems socially with Asian immigrants in particular is even though the government has gladly welcomed almost any Asian immigrant and has set up free programs to help them settle into their new social environment (the programs are open to anyone, even native English speakers need to learn Kiwi English and customs) they almost never take advantages of the programs.

Once upon a time, Pakeha (white European colonists) government did charge a 'Chinese tax' in the 19th century to obviously discourage Chinese immigrants. This is not the doing of the Maori, so please bear that in mind. Today there are asshole Pakeha that want to go back to the colonial days, and the backlash is rising as of this moment starting with Don Brash's speech and the following incidents on Waitangi day (which really weren't all that violent compared to a lot of standards).

Fringe Nationalists are not a great representative of most Pakeha Kiwis. The environment is actually quite tolerant. What they do get is a lot of jerky Asian tourists who can act as badly as jerky American tourists in Asia, and a sizable Asian population that seemingly has no intention of integrating into Kiwi society in the least. I think in America this is fine, but New Zealand isn't America and the Maori are far from extinct. Also keep in mind that the immigration policy for Asians was so ridiculously open, that it actually is possible that the land can not possibly house every Asian that would like to immigrate. It's not necessarily race based, it's also skill based. The economy there is in danger because there are not enough skilled or educated workers to support the infrastructure to serve the people. The tax based needs to be higher, therefore some of the immigration policy changes are leaning towards immigrants with higher education or skills that could benefit the tax base rather than further deplete it.

The Maori presence and culture is tied to the land, and its existence is as tenuous as the endangered ecosystem. Asian problems with the Pakeha government policies don't mean shit to the Maori or the land. And that is the true tragedy because they get lost in discussions like this. Despite what Pakeha colonial dicks like Don Brash may think or act, the Maori are not some extinct savage species from a time long ago. The Maori are alive and regaining their identity, language, customs and land rights back and fighting tooth and nail to ensure their traditions and way of life are secure for future generations.

Asians (or anyone else, especially Pakeha) don't have an imminent right to immigrate to New Zealand. There is much more to the equation, including some serious economical, ecological and infrastructure issues, that are often sidelined when something like this is reduced to nothing more than 'Asian discrimination.' To ignore the impact on the land and Maori is indeed a colonial mentality regardless of race.

My experience in New Zealand was wonderful. There are some serious issues as I mentioned above, most notably right now between the Nationalist party and the shifting political movement against Maori 'special' rights which really aren't special at all. The current climate is indeed racist and New Zealand is not free from racism, but to make it seem like Asians are persecuted or highly discriminated against in general or in particular simply because of their race is a very ignorant and shortsighted view.

[Mr.Lum]

Hello Hapa,
excellent post!

The Maori presence and culture is tied to the land, and its existence is as tenuous as the endangered ecosystem. Asian problems with the Pakeha government policies don't mean shit to the Maori or the land. And that is the true tragedy because they get lost in discussions like this. Despite what Pakeha colonial dicks like Don Brash may think or act, the Maori are not some extinct savage species from a time long ago. The Maori are alive and regaining their identity, language, customs and land rights back and fighting tooth and nail to ensure their traditions and way of life are secure for future generations.

Asians (or anyone else, especially Pakeha) don't have an imminent right to immigrate to New Zealand.

so very very true.

[Faithless]

My experience in New Zealand was wonderful. There are some serious issues as I mentioned above, most notably right now between the Nationalist party and the shifting political movement against Maori 'special' rights which really aren't special at all. The current climate is indeed racist and New Zealand is not free from racism, but to make it seem like Asians are persecuted or highly discriminated against in general or in particular simply because of their race is a very ignorant and shortsighted view.
Thanks for your report.

I'm just concentrating on the situation with the Maori, which I think is a significant enough problem with New Zealand, considering its history. But you never know how much of the racist tension directed toward Maori will include other Asians in New Zealand as well.

Anyway, there is something eerily similar between the Maori situation and that of any native population that { has taken a backseat to / has been minimalized by } its country's European settlers / colonizers.

The Maori presence and culture is tied to the land, and its existence is as tenuous as the endangered ecosystem. Asian problems with the Pakeha government policies don't mean shit to the Maori or the land. And that is the true tragedy because they get lost in discussions like this. Despite what Pakeha colonial dicks like Don Brash may think or act, the Maori are not some extinct savage species from a time long ago. The Maori are alive and regaining their identity, language, customs and land rights back and fighting tooth and nail to ensure their traditions and way of life are secure for future generations.
I hope you are not underestimating the power of a Brash to turn New Zealand's colonial population more against the Maori.

[Mr.Lum]

But you never know how much of the racist tension directed toward Maori will include other Asians in New Zealand as well.

Maori are not Asians. they are Polynesians.

this is an article about the poll tax in NZ. (http://www.goasiapacific.com/focus/pacific/GoAsiaPacificFocusPacific_1048724.htm)



"Families were actually separated for fifty years or more. You can imagine the loneliness of the men, and the women who were like forced widows, the men like enforced batchelors."

Researcher Nigel Murphy was the author of a study into the poll tax's impact on New Zealand's Chinese Community.


In the 1990s, that information was used by community members campaigning for an official apology.


Among them was Wellington-based Steven Young.


"It's a family affair because my grandfather was forced to pay the poll-tax in 1899 and my father paid the poll tax in 1924. I was born after the war," he explains.


"So, the poll tax had the effect of separating families, so that my father was separated from my mother and my grandfather was separated from my grandmother while they were in New Zealand because they really could not afford to pay the poll tax for the women."


Keeping the Chinese out

"The intention was to keep the Chinese out of New Zealand," says Steven Young.


"In fact, they learned it from the Australians who had a similar tax and the Canadians followed suit as well.


"So in those three countries they had a poll tax or a head tax which required an immigrant to firstly pay ten pounds; when that didn't keep them out, to pay 100 pounds.


"And also required that ships carrying Chinese immigrants, they could only carry one person per ten tonnes of cargo, and later on per 100 tonnes of cargo."


Tax gone but pain remains

The poll tax was abolished in 1944, and few of those directly affected by it are still alive today.


But in the 1990s, their descendants decided to discuss how best to deal with what remains a painful chapter of recent history.


They established a committee and funded historical research into the impact of the tax.


In 2002 - ten years after the campaign began - Prime Minister Helen Clark made an apology to the estimated 20 thousand descendants.


That was followed by a promise to start a process of reconciliation.


Now, the Prime Minisiter announced the terms of that process.


"There's been a lot of discussion with the community about how to follow on from the apology of two years ago," she says.


"It's taken time, there's been a lot of hurt which has resurfaced from all those years ago. But everyone's so pleased with the outcome."


The $US3.5 million payment into a community fund is just one part of the compensation deal.


The government has also agreed to the restoration of historical Chinese sites and will fund Cantonese language initiatives.


As former president of the New Zealand Chinese Association, Harvey Wu was at the centre of the campaign for an apology.


"The key aim was to try and get assistance to develop and recover some of the culture that was lost due to the strict immigration practices, which didn't encourage the development of some of the culture in New Zealand," he says.


Mr Wu says the issue of cultural maintenance is an important one for the descendents of those migrants affected by the poll tax.


"I think it's an issue worldwide that ethnic groups generally - although they've integrated and assimilated - they still are interested in their ethnic culture. And we are no different."


New Zealand debates immigration levels

The current debate comes in the wake of a difficult decade for immigration policy in New Zealand.


Concern over Asian immigration has been growing since the late 1980s, when the number of Chinese arrivals began to rise.


Today, the Chinese community makes up just over two percent of the country's total population.


But according to Nigel Murphy, New Zealand's struggle with cultural identity hasn't changed much over the past 130 years.


"Even at government level we really flip-flop a lot; we really don't know what to do with Chinese people in this country and we don't know what to do with the immigration of Chinese in this country.


"One year the door will be open - 'yes come!' - the next it's 'no', and we shut the door again. It's very confusing.


"We haven't resolved this whole thing of 'is it going to be a white New Zealand?' or 'who is a New Zealander?'.


"But, we're looking at the issue and we're making progress. So that's good."

16/02/2004

[Faithless]

Maori are not Asians. they are Polynesians.
By race, I think the Maori are lumped with Asians, especially if they are linked to Polynesians.

At least, the US census would categorize them that way:

http://www.scu.edu/SCU/Programs/Diversity/asdef.html

But I also read some where where the ultimate origin may have been:

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/PNAS_2000_v97_p8225.pdf

[Mr.Lum]

I know all about that. the US census doesnt mean jack in NZ. where the Maori are. further, they are not Asian. they are Polynesian by race. the ultimate origin of the native americans, polynesians, melanesians and malagasy are in Asia. but they are not Asian NOW. it doesnt matter in the past tense. in NZ, Maori/Polynesian and islanders are not the same as Asian. US is the only place where people do that. also youlll notice on that stanford thing, its asians AND pacific islanders. Islanders are separate. different peoples.

[kimpossible]

Maori are Maori. Many have Pakeha ancestry of many races. It doesn't matter to Maori because the identity is culture based as well as race based. This is one of the tactics that Pakeha government officials use to perform what many people would consider cultural genocide: by not understanding the function of culture for indigenous people as a factor in their identity and ultimately proclaiming their existence as null.

If anyone is unclear about the distinction I would *highly* recommend an article written by Georgina te Heuheu in the Dominion Post in response to Don Brash's comment that Maori basically should not factor into the future of Kiwi politics because 'there are no pureblooded Maori left anyhow,' as if they were an extinct race and not a living people. She clearly outlines the faulty assumption that race is the only and primary distinction in identity, particularly for indigenous peoples.

edit: not even into account the existence of disctinctly different iwi (tribes) and subtribes (kapu? I forget).

[yoMAMA]

hopefully more asians immigrate to new zealand, and as they say, eventually, there will be strength in numbers.

[Mr.Lum]

hopefully they wont. if any Polynesian immigrants are of best help to the Maori, such as Samoans and Tongans who do.

[kimpossible]

hopefully more asians immigrate to new zealand, and as they say, eventually, there will be strength in numbers.

to what purpose? asians are not an oppressed people in New Zealand. the indigenous people of the land are gaining strength and that is where the strength should lie. rarely do an indigenous people survive colonialism, and that survival should not be threatened by ANY other people. white, asian or otherwise.

[Mr.Lum]

^right!

[yoMAMA]

to what purpose? asians are not an oppressed people in New Zealand. the indigenous people of the land are gaining strength and that is where the strength should lie. rarely do an indigenous people survive colonialism, and that survival should not be threatened by ANY other people. white, asian or otherwise.

im not really advocating the mass exodus of people from asia to new zealand, im just saying that immigration policies should not be excluded to one corner of the globe only, say, europe, just because the majority of people in NZ are now descendents of europeans.

[kimpossible]

im not really advocating the mass exodus of people from asia to new zealand, im just saying that immigration policies should not be excluded to one corner of the globe only, say, europe, just because the majority of people in NZ are now descendents of europeans.

Look, if you want to assume a lot of things about the political or racial climate of New Zealand without actually reading much about it or going there yourself to learn about the land, its peoples and its history/economy/ecology and so forth, be my guest. It's no skin off my nose.

But quit making Asians out to be some much maligned, oppressed race in New Zealand where every white Kiwi wants them out of the country to make room for other white immigrants. Whether you want to face it or not, the tax base is an issue and if anything, New Zealand had one of the most welcoming, open immigration policy for Asians than many other places that I can think of. But it had kind of a flood gate effect and the tax base and job numbers for barely skilled workers is fucked up. I'd say race is a lot less of a factor than education and nationality is. An immigrant of Asian descent with a decent amount of education or business savvy would be an ideal immigrant whereas an immigrant of Asian descent with little or no applicable skills to add to the economy and tax base might now be hard pressed to find entry.

[yoMAMA]

Look, if you want to assume a lot of things about the political or racial climate of New Zealand without actually reading much about it or going there yourself to learn about the land, its peoples and its history/economy/ecology and so forth, be my guest. It's no skin off my nose.

But quit making Asians out to be some much maligned, oppressed race in New Zealand where every white Kiwi wants them out of the country to make room for other white immigrants. Whether you want to face it or not, the tax base is an issue and if anything, New Zealand had one of the most welcoming, open immigration policy for Asians than many other places that I can think of. But it had kind of a flood gate effect and the tax base and job numbers for barely skilled workers is fucked up. I'd say race is a lot less of a factor than education and nationality is. An immigrant of Asian descent with a decent amount of education or business savvy would be an ideal immigrant whereas an immigrant of Asian descent with little or no applicable skills to add to the economy and tax base might now be hard pressed to find entry.

I never said that new zealand is a racist and bigoted land full of rednecks.

all im saying is that it should have a fair and balanced immigration policy, and so far, i would say it is till heavily favors europeans.

[kimpossible]

Well I'm going to quit here because I'm just getting pissed at this point. I feel I've repeated myself unnecessarily in the last three posts. Your tone, from what I can tell, *was* along the lines of evil whitey is trying to keep the yellow man down again! I thought I could clarify (and I feel I did so) that this was an improper interpretation by providing some background and detail about the current racial tensions and changes in immigration policy.

I had a vested interest in immigration because my trip there was a scouting expedition in consideration of moving there. As my husband is obviously Asian, I observed the Kiwi interaction with him as a gauge as well as reading newspaper articles about immigration patterns. If anything his experience there was better with 'white' people than it was even in the US. He was not asked where he was 'really' from, he was not complemented condescendingly about how well he could speak English, and most people could distinguish Asian cultures from one another; i.e., they had a distinct notion of the true range of Asian nationalities and culture. Chinese New Year was celebrated rather openly and Auckland and Christchurch (the two largest cities) are brimming with Asians.

Oh fuck it. I give up.

[yoMAMA]

Well I'm going to quit here because I'm just getting pissed at this point. I feel I've repeated myself unnecessarily in the last three posts. Your tone, from what I can tell, *was* along the lines of evil whitey is trying to keep the yellow man down again! I thought I could clarify (and I feel I did so) that this was an improper interpretation by providing some background and detail about the current racial tensions and changes in immigration policy.

I had a vested interest in immigration because my trip there was a scouting expedition in consideration of moving there. As my husband is obviously Asian, I observed the Kiwi interaction with him as a gauge as well as reading newspaper articles about immigration patterns. If anything his experience there was better with 'white' people than it was even in the US. He was not asked where he was 'really' from, he was not complemented condescendingly about how well he could speak English, and most people could distinguish Asian cultures from one another; i.e., they had a distinct notion of the true range of Asian nationalities and culture. Chinese New Year was celebrated rather openly and Auckland and Christchurch (the two largest cities) are brimming with Asians.

Oh fuck it. I give up.

"EVIL Whiteys"?


you said that, not me. :rolleyes:

It's you that are trying to RACIALIZE this issue when im talking about rising XENOPHOBIA in new zealand.

There's a difference between me shouting :race! race! all day and talking about Xenophobia which is an extreme form of nationalism, which is a cancer to all societies.

What is so wrong about that?

you can be pissed all you want, and that's none of my business.

but DON'T TELL ME WHAT I CAN OR CAN'T SAY, just because my views are different then yours.

[your arrogance makes me sick]

[Mr.Lum]

some times, people create the feeling that there is a problem on a large scale where there is not. from Hello Hapa's description it does not sound like seem to think it is. reading articles about racism anywhere will make you think there is a huge problem. I thought Fiji was about to have a civil before I went there. all I heard and read was about the racial tensions. but in fact, there really isnt that kind of racial tension as much. sure, its there in some areas but overall no. unless you read papers you wouldnt have know there was a problem. people do hype issues up and rely on not a variety of sources, but just 2 or 3 on a particular even/issue and then judge it. you cant do that you need to look at the whole picture.

[Faithless]

hopefully more asians immigrate to new zealand, and as they say, eventually, there will be strength in numbers.
I see what you are saying there, but are you assuming that the Asian population is at all supportive of the Maori?

Read Mr. Lum's statement.

hopefully they wont. if any Polynesian immigrants are of best help to the Maori, such as Samoans and Tongans who do.

It may be that the Maori don't even want Asians in New Zealand.

[yoMAMA]

actually new zealand is one of my favorite places on the globe, it's just that apparently you can't have a discussion with HH, unless your views are 100% with hers.

[and i can see why a lof of people are fed up with the liberals, with their supposed i know it all attitude.]

Even though i am a "liberal" myself.

[Faithless]

I never said that new zealand is a racist and bigoted land full of rednecks.

all im saying is that it should have a fair and balanced immigration policy, and so far, i would say it is till heavily favors europeans.
It was originally a Dutch settlement then British.

My first thought on Dutch settlement's was "South Africa". But the Maori seem to have more of a political stake than the South Africa blacks.

I also tend to think that the whites in NZ might actually favor Asians, but I'm not so sure, thus giving the feeling that Asians are welcome.

But that's Asians from Asia, which I don't think have the same sensibility of Asians from the US.

[yoMAMA]

I see what you are saying there, but are you assuming that the Asian population is at all supportive of the Maori?

Read Mr. Lum's statement.



It may be that the Maori don't even want Asians in New Zealand.

There is a XENOPHOBIC Maori politician [former rugby player] in the new zealand congress, and he wants to stop asian immigration.

[Mr.Lum]

It was originally a Dutch settlement then British.



not realy. Dutch got there first before the British but the British made the first white settlements.

There is a XENOPHOBIC Maori politician [former rugby player] in the new zealand congress, and he wants to stop asian immigration.

he has every right to be "xenophobic" look at what immigration has done to his people. its their country before it is anyone elses. shit if I were Maori Id be out to stop immigration period.

[Faithless]

There is a XENOPHOBIC Maori politician [former rugby player] in the new zealand congress, and he wants to stop asian immigration.
I won't doubt that. Who is it?

But either way, is that voice a strong one? And also a significant enough voice amongst Maori in general?

[Mr.Lum]

my unlce tells me that Maori not so much conserned with Asians but immigration in general as most immigrants dont help maoris. he said hes met anti-white and anti-everybody Maoris and that they see immigrants as competition mostly.

[Kuchana]

Rising xenophobia in NZ links:

http://www.indiannewslink.co.nz/DECEMBER%20(II)%202003%20WEB%20EDITION/editorial.htm

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2002-10/03d'souza_.cfm

http://www.stevenyoung.co.nz/chinesevoice/participation/manying2001.htm

[yoMAMA]

not realy. Dutch got there first before the British but the British made the first white settlements.



he has every right to be "xenophobic" look at what immigration has done to his people. its their country before it is anyone elses. shit if I were Maori Id be out to stop immigration period.

You have a point.

So STOP ALL immigrations to new zealand...[no ifs, buts, excepts....etc]

[Mr.Lum]

I am not for that personaly, but if I were in their shoes I would be toward that most likely.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

he has every right to be "xenophobic" look at what immigration has done to his people. its their country before it is anyone elses. shit if I were Maori Id be out to stop immigration period.

So does every group who has been oppressed or significantly screwed over in the past also hold this 'right to be xenophobic'?

[Mr.Lum]

I would say yes. if youve got people coming and exploiting you and doing you no good all throught first foreign contact, I would understand being 'xenophobic". those white people, I dont know what their reason is, they realy have little reason to be acting that way. but the Maori have gotten the short end of the stick when it comes to immigrants.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I would say yes. if youve got people coming and exploiting you and doing you no good all throught first foreign contact, I would understand being 'xenophobic". those white people, I dont know what their reason is, they realy have little reason to be acting that way. but the Maori have gotten the short end of the stick when it comes to immigrants.

In that case every non-white in the world arguably has a right to be xenophobic, at the very very least.

Edit: Women would also have a right to embrace sexist beliefs and negative generalizations of men due to centuries of patriarchical oppression.

[Faithless]

not realy. Dutch got there first before the British but the British made the first white settlements.
What is your definition of settlement?

http://www.dutchkiwi.co.nz/
In 1642, Abel Janszoon Tasman was the first European to sight New Zealand. He was the start of the strong bond that has been forged through the centuries between the Netherlands and New Zealand. Even the name of our country reflects this ongoing link.

Today, over 140,000 people of Dutch descent call New Zealand home. Following a surge of immigrants in the 1950’s seeking to build a new life away from their war ravaged homelands, the Dutch have become an important part of New Zealands social, cultural and economic diversity. Interest in escaping the congestion of Europe and taking advantage of the Kiwi lifestyle continues to be a powerful lure for Dutch people even now. The human contribution that the Netherlands and Dutch New Zealanders have made to New Zealand will continue to grow.

Our Dutch settlers and their descendants are just as proud of their heritage as they are of their adopted home. This led to the formation in 1990 of the New Zealand-Netherlands Foundation (Inc) an Incorporated Society with Charitable Trust Status to celebrate and strengthen the ongoing beneficial effects of the relationship between our two countries.
Sounds like the Dutch in NZ think they were settlers in NZ.

[Mr.Lum]

not true. towards immigration not so much. natives in America, Australia NZ especialy have that right as their cultures and way of life were washed away and many have not even been allowed into the "melting pot"s these nations claim to be. sbuse after abuse. there are contries who have been economically screwed over, but few to the point where their culture has nearly been washed from their land.

[kimpossible]

Moved to Rant.

[Mr.Lum]

What is your definition of settlement?

http://www.dutchkiwi.co.nz/

Sounds like the Dutch in NZ think they were settlers in NZ.


you are incorrect. they say he was the first European to sight NZ. they also say this:
Today, over 140,000 people of Dutch descent call New Zealand home. Following a surge of immigrants in the 1950’s seeking to build a new life away from their war ravaged homelands, the Dutch have become an important part of New Zealands social, cultural and economic diversity.

that is not an "origanal' settlement. they may have been the first Europeans to see it but they did not setttle there.

[Faithless]

Rising xenophobia in NZ links:

http://www.indiannewslink.co.nz/DECEMBER%20(II)%202003%20WEB%20EDITION/editorial.htm

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2002-10/03d'souza_.cfm

http://www.stevenyoung.co.nz/chinesevoice/participation/manying2001.htm
...
Again on balance, this is an occasion for Asian migrants to ask themselves a few hard but honest questions. How many make an honest attempt to adapt to the national environment, merge with the national identity and be proud of being called Kiwis? How many of us have conscientiously tried to be good neighbours if living in a cosmopolitan neighbourhood, make friends with people around and try to understand their culture and way of life? How often do we invite people of other communities to our homes, our parties and our gatherings? Have we tried to celebrate our cultural diversity?

The answer to each of the above would be obvious. Indians for the most part confine their friendship to people of their own origin, the Chinese patronise their own social circles and so on. There is little attempt to become a cohesive society of common people. The spirit of oneness is absent.

Immigration has always been a contentious subject but the answer is not to shut the doors to migrants but to work out a smarter system that will allow the new arrivals to integrate better and faster. Immigration minister Lianne Dalziel is reportedly preparing a new scheme that would hopefully shut a few loopholes.

And hopefully a few mouths too.

Ouch!

[Napoleon Chynamite]

^Malays are Asian. an so are Filipinos. they are not cultural PI either. they are closer to asians than anyone else. I know about the natives to Taiwan, but now, it is Asian because of the Chinese. like America was American Indian but is now "american"/Anglo (predominantly).

it is not just geography, it is culture. the Filipinos, the Malays (who do live in Asia) the Japanese the Indonesians etc are Asians, in race and in culture. there is nothing PI about them outsid of language. that is the one common denominater between SEAsia and the Pacific: Malayo-Polynesian languages. also in Madagascar. the Taiwanese natives are very small in number, and so Taiwan which is now "Chinese" is Asian. Taiwan is not, the natives are.

What do Japanese have culturally in common with Malaysians or Indonesians (excluding the Chinese Indonesian population)?

On a side note, I'm interested and curious to learn more about this 'Pacific' culture that you speak of that is inclusive of all these islands you listed on page 2 of this thread (how many, hundreds? I dunno).

Regarding where to draw the boundary between what is 'Asian' and what is 'Pacific Islander', I still believe that you are only as different or as similar as outsiders deem you to be. Or at least, that's all that seems to matter, unfortunately.

[Mr.Lum]

What do Japanese have culturally in common with Malaysians or Indonesians (excluding the Chinese Indonesian population)?

On a side note, I'm interested and curious to learn more about this 'Pacific' culture that you speak of that is inclusive of all these islands you listed on page 2 of this thread (how many, hundreds? I dunno).

Regarding where to draw the boundary between what is 'Asian' and what is 'Pacific Islander', I still believe that you are only as different or as similar as outsiders deem you to be. Or at least, that's all that seems to matter, unfortunately.

this is about the Austronesian languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austronesian)
this is about the Pacific Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Islands)
this is Oceania where Pacific Islanders are from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceania)
Polynesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesia)
Melanesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanesia)
Micronesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronesia)
Pacific Islanders are from Oceania ie the Pacific Islands.

[Faithless]

you are incorrect. they say he was the first European to sight NZ. they also say this:


that is not an "origanal' settlement. they may have been the first Europeans to see it but they did not setttle there.
Alright, I'll concede that. I may have jumped the gun.

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/oceania/nz.htm
The initial 18th century settlers were mostly farmers and whalers from Australia, and many brave souls that journeyed all the way from Britain.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

this is about the Austronesian languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austronesian)
this is about the Pacific Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Islands)
this is Oceania where Pacific Islanders are from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceania)
Polynesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesia)
Melanesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanesia)
Micronesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronesia)
Pacific Islanders are from Oceania ie the Pacific Islands.

So basically you're saying that while Malaysians or Indonesians or various other Southeast Asian peoples may speak a language related to that of say Maoris or Samoans, you still view them as Asian since they are culturally more close to say, Chinese or Japanese (something I still don't see)?

I guess sometimes I get confused at what you are trying to accomplish. You seem very adamant about telling everyone how PI's are completely separate from Asians, yet at the same time you frequently post articles regarding various PI issues on what you regard as a site that is an Asian-only board disguised as one also catering to the interests of PI's as well. Wouldn't your involvement and discussion here further reinforce the generalization that Asians and PI's are all in the same group? Or perhaps by posting more articles here and discussing them will enlighten peopel as to how different they really are from Asians. *shrug* Not meant to be antagonistic here, just trying to gain better understanding regarding where you stand.

[Mr.Lum]

Alright, I'll concede that. I may have jumped the gun.



its all good.

So basically you're saying that while Malaysians or Indonesians or various other Southeast Asian peoples may speak a language related to that of say Maoris or Samoans, you still view them as Asian since they are culturally more close to say, Chinese or Japanese (something I still don't see)?


they have far more influence from Asia and non island places and their culture is not related to the PI as much as it once was.further, theyer not the same "race".

I guess sometimes I get confused at what you are trying to accomplish. You seem very adamant about telling everyone how PI's are completely separate from Asians, yet at the same time you frequently post articles regarding various PI issues on what you regard as a site that is an Asian-only board disguised as one also catering to the interests of PI's as well.

they are there to enlighten. I see people talking about PIs with out knowing about PIs. they should know about who theyer talking about wouldnt you agree?

Or perhaps by posting more articles here and discussing them will enlighten peopel as to how different they really are from Asians.

yes.

Not meant to be antagonistic here, just trying to gain better understanding regarding where you stand.
this is where I stand:
I am am mixed race. I am more Polynesian than I am anything else. I have been around PIs my whole life as well as Asians. I see and know the differance and the differance is like the differance between a truth and a lie.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

they have far more influence from Asia and non island places and their culture is not related to the PI as much as it once was.further, theyer not the same "race".

Okay the last thing I want to do is revive the whole "is race merely a social construct" debate. Nevertheless my opinion is that race IS a social construct, but it does matter because obviously the racial boundaries were drawn by those with the power and intention to use them. Regardless, if you are talking about ethnicities or blood and gene pools, Southeast Asians are quite different from East Asians as well, yet they are still regarded as the same "race" dependent upon the power apparatus in some societies. Likewise, if certain elites see PI's and East Asians and Southeast Asians as part of the same group, they will also become part of the same "race" as well in their eyes. Like I said, it's all about how the people who have the most potential to affect us think, not how we think. Otherwise, the opinions and perspectives necessary to take into consideration would be too many to count. Just ask the Chinese guy who doesn't see himself as in the same group as Korean or Japanese, and vice versa.

this is where I stand:
I am am mixed race. I am more Polynesian than I am anything else. I have been around PIs my whole life as well as Asians. I see and know the differance and the differance is like the differance between a truth and a lie.

Can you perhaps outline some of these blatant cultural, lingual, or ethnic differences that make say...a Malaysian or an Indonesian obviously much much more like a Japanese person than say...a Samoan or Maori? Once again, just curious.

[Mr.Lum]

Okay the last thing I want to do is revive the whole "is race merely a social construct" debate. Nevertheless my opinion is that race IS a social construct, but it does matter because obviously the racial boundaries were drawn by those with the power and intention to use them. Regardless, if you are talking about ethnicities or blood and gene pools, Southeast Asians are quite different from East Asians as well, yet they are still regarded as the same "race" dependent upon the power apparatus in some societies. Likewise, if certain elites see PI's and East Asians and Southeast Asians as part of the same group, they will also become part of the same "race" as well in their eyes. Like I said, it's all about how the people who have the most potential to affect us think, not how we think. Otherwise, the opinions and perspectives necessary to take into consideration would be too many to count. Just ask the Chinese guy who doesn't see himself as in the same group as Korean or Japanese, and vice versa.

geograophy. Malays, Indonesians, Japanese, Viets Koreans etc. all from Asia. Pacific people? Oceania. long long long time ago they set out from SEA to the islands and established them away from Asia as a different people. the islands are not part of asia. the asian cultures that predominate with their infludence the Indian, the CHinese, etc, is absent in the Pacific. saave for FIji where Indians live next to islanders, they are not a cultural force. nor are the Chinese. you take a tour of the Pacific and then of Asia. you will see what I mean.

Can you perhaps outline some of these blatant obvious differences that make say...a Malaysian or an Indonesian obviously much much more like a Japanese person than say...a Samoan or Maori? Once again, just curious.

they have Indian, Arab, Chinese etc influance in their way of life, religon and over all culture. PI have none of that. they have their own. then you look at where they live. they live in Asia. a Samoan, Fijian nad I belive Tongan house hold operates on the mati system. there is a male (sometimes female) representive of the home. they are like the ruler of the house. they represent the family to cheifs and local government. is there such a family leader in Asia? I am not sure. what religions are in Indoneisa? Islam, Buhdism, Hinduism etc and native aminism. PIs got rid of their native belifs (or in many places adapted them to Christianity because they agreed with one another) a long time ago and became Christians.

when I say "race" Im talking about physical features. PIs dont look anything like Asians when you see full blooded ones and even mixed ones.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

when I say "race" Im talking about physical features. PIs dont look anything like Asians when you see full blooded ones and even mixed ones.

Then that's not 'race', that's more like 'ethnic proximity'. The reason why white people have grouped Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans into one is simply because they look alike (to them). If you ask me, a lot of Malays and native Indonesians look a lot more like Pacific Islanders (to me). Racial category is not stagnant, whereas ethnicity is. Once again, I don't want to get into this semantics argument regarding whether or not race is just a social thing or not. Strictly by definition, race is social, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter. People who argue this seem to assume that I'm saying that just because race is a social everchanging label that it has no implications or does not matter.

P.S. Hmm I didn't know that a lot of PI's are Christian.

[Mr.Lum]

P.S. Hmm I didn't know that a lot of PI's are Christian.

oh yes. most in fact. Christian churches are official in a few PI countries acctually. there were only like 2 places (Guam/Marians and Easter Island) where it was accctually forced (from the Spanish no less) by Euros. everywehre else it was voluntary. mostly Protestant.

If you ask me, a lot of Malays and native Indonesians look a lot more like Pacific Islanders (to me).

what PIs have you seen? I used to go to mosque with my dad and there were these Indonesian/Malay families there just looked Asian with big noses.

Once again, I don't want to get into this semantics argument regarding whether or not race is just a social thing or not

niether do I but I think if you were from Suva and you met a guy from London youwould be tipped off that hes different.

race is a social everchanging label

note you say "everchanging". PIs changed. Malays Indos and Asians did not cause they stayed where they were at.

The reason why white people have grouped Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans into one is simply because they look alike (to them).

Im sorry I have to address this. they look the same to just about anyone who isnt one of them. my grandma thinks my granduncle (who was Japanese on my dads side) was Chinese, and when she say "what his name, the Chinese one" and they correct her its 'same bloody thing". Arabs think like that too I have observed as well.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

what PIs have you seen? I used to go to mosque with my dad and there were these Indonesian/Malay families there just looked Asian with big noses.

There are quite a few Samoan international students at my university. At least, maybe I'm just ignorant but they are either Samoan or something related to that because I know at least three of them are in the same group. And it has been my observation that Indonesians and Malays actually have smaller flatter noses than East Asians, not bigger ones. Not to mention being darker and having a tendency towards curlier hair. Many do not resemble Chinese/Japanese/Korean at all. Heck, even a lotta Chinese (such as some tan Cantonese or Taiwanese) don't resemble Koreans or Japanese. The only thing they have in common is their straight black hair and perhaps skin tone. That's like saying that Hispanics and Arabs are the same because they both have similar tones and hair color.

note you say "everchanging". PIs changed. Malays Indos and Asians did not cause they stayed where they were at.

I was referring to the fact that what constitutes as 'white' or 'black' or 'Asian' changes over time in the eyes of those with the power to control societies. Therefore, it is completely understandable how some groups, say...Filipinos or even PI's, may switch over from being Asian to being Austronesian to being Pacific Islander, depending upon who you ask and where it matters.

Im sorry I have to address this. they look the same to just about anyone who isnt one of them. my grandma thinks my granduncle (who was Japanese on my dads side) was Chinese, and when she say "what his name, the Chinese one" and they correct her its 'same bloody thing". Arabs think like that too I have observed as well.

Well if you can accept that certain people or groups think in this type of uninformed manner and it's not their fault, you should have no problem accepting that some people out there who aren't either Asian or PI still see Asians and PI's as pretty much the same.

[Mr.Lum]

There are quite a few Samoan international students at my university. At least, maybe I'm just ignorant but they are either Samoan or something related to that because I know at least three of them are in the same group. And it has been my observation that Indonesians and Malays actually have smaller flatter noses than East Asians, not bigger ones. Not to mention being darker and having a tendency towards curlier hair. Many do not resemble Chinese/Japanese/Korean at all. Heck, even a lotta Chinese (such as some tan Cantonese or Taiwanese) don't resemble Koreans or Japanese. The only thing they have in common is their straight black hair and perhaps skin tone. That's like saying that Hispanics and Arabs are the same because they both have similar tones and hair color

I have had a different experiance. I know what your talking about with the straight hair definitly. but the noses, I know only a few of them but they have large ass noses. like "blam!".

I was referring to the fact that what constitutes as 'white' or 'black' or 'Asian' changes over time in the eyes of those with the power to control societies.

this I agree with. I have noticed that the US is realy the only place where Asians (people from Asia) and those from the Pacific (islanders) are grouped and considered the same.

Well if you can accept that certain people or groups think in this type of uninformed manner and it's not their fault, you should have no problem accepting that some people out there who aren't either Asian or PI still see Asians and PI's as pretty much the same
I can understand from misinformation. but I do not "acept" when people do that. I tell them theyer wrong.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I can understand from misinformation. but I do not "acept" when people do that. I tell them theyer wrong.

Then in that case, it's completely okay for me to tell people they are wrong when people group Chinese and Japanese together in any way, right?

[Mr.Lum]

to say they are both "Asian" because they are Asian. you realy cant get around that. theyer from Asia. but to say "chinese and japanese are the same" is ignorant.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

this I agree with. I have noticed that the US is realy the only place where Asians (people from Asia) and those from the Pacific (islanders) are grouped and considered the same.

Well yeah, but the US is also one of the few places where people with German or Irish background are considered the same as well for obvious historical reasons.

to say they are both "Asian" because they are Asian. you realy cant get around that. theyer from Asia. but to say "chinese and japanese are the same" is ignorant.

Well, nobody is saying that PI's are 'Asian', they are just often grouped into the same category. That's why there are Asian/Pacific Islander organizations, and not just groups who call themselves 'Asian' while allowing PI members to join.

[Mr.Lum]

Well yeah, but the US is also one of the few places where people with German or Irish background are considered the same as well for obvious historical reasons.

they are considered "white" or "european" just about everywhere.

Well, nobody is saying that PI's are 'Asian', they are just often grouped into the same category. That's why there are Asian/Pacific Islander organizations, and not just groups who call themselves 'Asian' while allowing PI members to join.

those organizations are Asian organizations with PI tokens.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

they are considered "white" or "european" just about everywhere.

Your point here is that people from Europe are all considered the same pretty much everywhere in the world except to those actually living in Europe who don't believe in a universal 'white' race or identity (much like how many Chinese don't see themselves as of the same race as Japanese), whereas Pacific Islanders and Asians are two separate categories for almost everyone in the world except for those living in the U.S. So then it is all about how outsiders label you isn't it? If you are willing to place value on what outsiders perceive or how they categorize you, then you should not object to people within the U.S. grouping Asians and PI's together, just as how you may argue that Chinese should not object that many societies group them together with Japanese. I'm not debating the existence of differences between cultures or peoples that you cite, I'm talking about your attitude against this type of 'grouping' people together. It happens to all of us. PI's are not any more or less victimized.

those organizations are Asian organizations with PI tokens.

Many times this is the case, however the point is that PI's are not considered 'Asian' by Asian people, if they were, it would be called the Asian American Association instead of the A/PI American Association. The fact that PI's don't tend to join such organizations is another matter altogether.

[Mr.Lum]

Your point here is that people from Europe are all considered the same pretty much everywhere in the world except to those actually living in Europe who don't believe in a universal 'white' race or identity (much like how many Chinese don't see themselves as of the same race as Japanese),

my point here is that they are Asian because they live in Asia, and germans and irish are Europeans because they live in Europe.

I'm talking about your attitude against this type of 'grouping' people together. It happens to all of us. PI's are not any more or less victimized.

Im talking about "grouping" people to gether arbitraily. asia and the pacific are two different areas. I mean if youre going to group, do it correctly. does that make sense?

Many times this is the case, however the point is that PI's are not considered 'Asian' by Asian people, if they were, it would be called the Asian American Association instead of the A/PI American Association. The fact that PI's don't tend to join such organizations is another matter altogether.

acctualy, its obviously trying to say that A/PIs have similar issues when they dont. and its also takeing an ignorant and arbitrary classification and using it foolishly. I know a couple of PIs who joined an "asian pacific american" club at their school and ended up quiting because it had nothing at all to do with "pacific" anything. my sister had a similar expericance in college with an AA/PI org that was realy just an asian org. I have even seen it. there is an 'asian american pi club" at my HS. my friend (who is Samoan) showed up at a meeting and they were like "....what are they ehre for" and so we left. I think its because PIs realize real quick that they are either just tokens or are looked down on for w/e reason and get out of there.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

my point here is that they are Asian because they live in Asia, and germans and irish are Europeans because they live in Europe

And as I noted earlier, people living in the pacific islands are still called Pacific Islanders and are not considered Asian.


Im talking about "grouping" people to gether arbitraily. asia and the pacific are two different areas. I mean if youre going to group, do it correctly. does that make sense?

Not really. How do you group something correctly? Where do you draw the line regarding who is 'white' (e.g. Jewish situation) and who is not? The issues Japanese people face are NOT exactly the same as the issues Chinese people face all over the world, once again perhaps as you had indicated earlier, this type of process only happens in places like the U.S. and Canada where immigration from East Asian countries has occurred with great significance. Why should continental borders (e.g. Europe, Asia, Pacific Islands, Africa, etc.) dictate who gets grouped with who? Just because some people come from the same continent as others, their issues and concerns are similar? And once again, PI's are not considered Asian anyway as explained above.

acctualy, its obviously trying to say that A/PIs have similar issues when they dont. and its also takeing an ignorant and arbitrary classification and using it foolishly. I know a couple of PIs who joined an "asian pacific american" club at their school and ended up quiting because it had nothing at all to do with "pacific" anything. my sister had a similar expericance in college with an AA/PI org that was realy just an asian org. I have even seen it. there is an 'asian american pi club" at my HS. my friend (who is Samoan) showed up at a meeting and they were like "....what are they ehre for" and so we left. I think its because PIs realize real quick that they are either just tokens or are looked down on for w/e reason and get out of there.

So how do you think people got the idea that PI issues are similar to Asian issues in the first place? I actually don't know the answer to this question, but if PI's are so distinctly different and completely a worlds apart from what are considered Asians as you say, I wonder how the idea originated that perhaps PI's should be grouped with Asians. Perhaps it's because of the small PI population in the US and a 'more power in numbers' type of attitude. Nevertheless, you can't satisfy everyone, there are plenty of Korean people, including some of my friends, who complain that much of the Asian American activist movement is geared more towards the interests and issues faced by the California Chinese communities and the like.

[Mr.Lum]

Not really. How do you group something correctly? Where do you draw the line regarding who is 'white' (e.g. Jewish situation) and who is not?

I have heard that there is "white" which is from Europe and then there are caucasians who are "nonwhite" they would be Jews, Arabs, Iranians, Afgans, Indians etc.

So how do you think people got the idea that PI issues are similar to Asian issues in the first place?

bloody Census Berue.

I wonder how the idea originated that perhaps PI's should be grouped with Asians. Perhaps it's because of the small PI population in the US and a 'more power in numbers' type of attitude.

I dont think it has to do with "power" at all. this is what I think:
1)at the time there were few Asians or PIs in America. it made some demogrphers job easier.
2)Hawai'ians are natives. there are few of them. Asians predominate there. if one can make it so the Hawai'ians are part of a larger group (or barried underneath it) they would not need to be attended to. the Hawai'ians would be "Asian" and thus since Asians in Hawai'i are rather well off, they wouldnt have to worry about their land rights, or other social ills. (note: theory of a family friendnot nessicarily mine)
3)as a result of #1, it becomes thought that the two groups are the same because of their grouping.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I have heard that there is "white" which is from Europe and then there are caucasians who are "nonwhite" they would be Jews, Arabs, Iranians, Afgans, Indians etc.

Regardless of the passionate opinions of many Jews, Jews are considered to be white in the U.S. Dunno about Canada or Australia or other places. Contrarily, some Jews would be offended if you considered them closer to Arabs regardless of blood or gene pool.

I dont think it has to do with "power" at all. this is what I think:
1)at the time there were few Asians or PIs in America. it made some demogrphers job easier.

Then why weren't PI's grouped with African Americans or Hispanics, since I guess in my opinion PI's look a lot more like those two groups than East Asians (the stereotypical East Asian look at least)?

[Mr.Lum]

Regardless of the passionate opinions of many Jews, Jews are considered to be white in the U.S. Dunno about Canada or Australia or other places. Contrarily, some Jews would be offended if you considered them closer to Arabs regardless of blood or gene pool.


Jews are widely accepted as "semitic" as are Arabs and Ethiopians. "Anti-Semitic" is usually used to describe an antiJew feeling/act/attitude. thats too broad tho. that means they are hating on Arabs and Ethiopes as well. Jews are considered "caucasian" here. "white" is also used, but on many forms "caucasian/white" is also used. Arabs on the census are also considered to be caucasian/white.

Then why not group PI's with African Americans or Hispanics, since I guess in my opinion PI's look a lot more like those two groups than East Asians (the stereotypical East Asian look at least)?

hahaha. Melanesians especialy look like Africans. my grandma told me when she first came to the mainland (California) that my uncle got in all kinds of "nigger fights" with white kids. I also remember my Samoan friend telling me when he first moved here from AS that he tried out for the towns football team and there were like 5 blacks that were like "are you black?" and hes like "no Im Samoan" 'you look black, nigga you black" "no...Im Samoan" 'wheres that? like Jamacia? you black"

[s1eve]

Ah, a thread about New Zealand.

Big issue at the moment: Don Brash's race message hitting a chord with pakeha (white New Zealanders), that Maori should not be treated with privileges solely because they are Maori. Many have said his speech is divisive. Will be interesting to see how race relations in the country go this year with the elections ...

Hey Mr Lum, whazup!

[Mr.Lum]

Bula! sup s1eve!

[kuilong]

Jews are widely accepted as "semitic" as are Arabs and Ethiopians. "Anti-Semitic" is usually used to describe an antiJew feeling/act/attitude. thats too broad tho. that means they are hating on Arabs and Ethiopes as well. Jews are considered "caucasian" here. "white" is also used, but on many forms "caucasian/white" is also used. Arabs on the census are also considered to be caucasian/white.

You're confusing the etymology of a word with its meaning. "Anti-semitic" means anti-Jewish, not "anti-all semitic peoples".

s1eve, do you think National will form the next government?

[Mr.Lum]

You're confusing the etymology of a word with its meaning. "Anti-semitic" means anti-Jewish, not "anti-all semitic peoples".

no. if you say "I am anti white" that is saying you dont like all whits. Germans, Spaniards, Anglos etc. if you say "I am ant-French" that is specific.

if I say "I am antiJew" I dont like Jews. if I say "I am anti Arab" I dont like arabs. who are semites. "I am Anti-Semitic" I dont like Semites. that is many different kinds of people. anti-semitic is used inproperly by many people, use is not the meaning.

[s1eve]

s1eve, do you think National will form the next government?

Hard to say. National seems to be leading at the moment based on snap polls. And I have to say the Labour government has screwed up lately, most recently sacking their immigration minister over the controvesy surrounding the leaking of a letter from the lawyer of a deported Sri Lankan teenager.

The media coverage is very much about National's race message against Maori. I have a suspision Winston Peters will try and attract the media spotlight soon and no doubt will bring up his anti-immigration/anti-Asian views again.

[kuilong]

no. if you say "I am anti white" that is saying you dont like all whits. Germans, Spaniards, Anglos etc. if you say "I am ant-French" that is specific.

if I say "I am antiJew" I dont like Jews. if I say "I am anti Arab" I dont like arabs. who are semites. "I am Anti-Semitic" I dont like Semites. that is many different kinds of people. anti-semitic is used inproperly by many people, use is not the meaning.

Actually, any linguist will tell you that use is meaning. :P Prescriptive grammar went out of fashion nearly a hundred years ago. Meaning, grammar and the like are descriptions of how people speak. I quote Wikipedia:

Formal grammars are codifications of usage that are developed by observation. As the rules become established and developed, the prescriptive concept of grammatical correctness can arise. This often creates a gulf between contemporary usage and that which is accepted as correct. Linguists normally consider that prescriptive grammars do not have any justification beyond their authors' aesthetic tastes. However, prescriptions are considered in sociolinguistics as part of the explanation for why some people say "I didn't do nothing", some say "I didn't do anything", and some say one or the other depending on social context.

And:

In any case, in the long run, usage alone determines the meaning of words, although dictionaries provide conservative continuity, even the most descriptive.
(Emphasis added)

The word "anti-Semitic" is almost universally used to mean "anti-Jewish", and thus that's what it means. Words are simply symbolic containers for meaning, and if that is what it's understood as, that's what it means.

Words often mean something different from their etymology, because meanings of words change through a process called semantic progression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_progression). One example is "egregious" which used to refer to something extremely good. Today, it refers to something extremely bad. Another one: Demagogue, the etymology being demos (people) + agogos (leader) ("popular leader"). Despite that, it refers to a person pandering to the vulgar emotions of the common people. Similarly, although the etymology of anti-Semitic is "Against Semites", it really means "Against Jews". The only reason people get upset over this one is that the etymology is readily apparent, since it's English. :P

Gah, I'm so incoherent tonight. More than usual.

[Edit: Mr.Lum: As Hello_Hapa pointed out, this is blatantly offtopic, so... if you want to discuss this further, you can create a thread in the appropriate forum (Whatever...?)]

[kimpossible]

kuilong, lum

you guys aren't doing anything wrong but this is going way off topic. gentle reminder, nothing serious.

[DaMuo]

I see it as part of the "Asia Pacific" Region.

Dude... the "Asia Pacific" region is something that the Wall Street Journal probably came up with. Asia and Oceania/Pacific Islands are totally different. Asia Pacific is along the rim of China... nothing to do with Australia or new Zealand or Antarctica.

So... NZ != APAC

Hard to say. National seems to be leading at the moment based on snap polls. And I have to say the Labour government has screwed up lately, most recently sacking their immigration minister over the controvesy surrounding the leaking of a letter from the lawyer of a deported Sri Lankan teenager.

The media coverage is very much about National's race message against Maori. I have a suspision Winston Peters will try and attract the media spotlight soon and no doubt will bring up his anti-immigration/anti-Asian views again.

Living in New Zealand you would probably know more than the rest of us; but isn't the issue of Brash about remove certain rights andd privileges that were orginally part of or derived from the Treaty of Waitangi? So what Brash essentially wants to do is to go back on the treaty. Maybe I am oversimplifying the issue?

[back to the original thread of immigration]
Also, I think any country has a right to set the "minimum entry requirement" to their country. I agree with the person earlier who said that most Asians are not particularly interested in the general welfare of the Maori (most are there to make $). Every country needs to set the immigration requirements to benefit the country... so immigration policies are inherently discriminatory. Shouldn't a country be allowed to set these policies? So in short, probably both Maori and Pakeha do have the right to discriminate against Asian if they feel like it. But I doubt it, I think they would accept anybody that would make significant contribution to the New Zealand way of life.

[sorry, too lazy to respond to earlier posts... too much reading as it is]
BTW, I don't know who said earlier that Maori are Asians. Wouldn't that be tantamount to saying that Native Americans and Inuits are Asians?

[Faithless]

Ah, a thread about New Zealand.

Big issue at the moment: Don Brash's race message hitting a chord with pakeha (white New Zealanders), that Maori should not be treated with privileges solely because they are Maori. Many have said his speech is divisive. Will be interesting to see how race relations in the country go this year with the elections ...

Hey Mr Lum, whazup!
As I suspected, it is a big issue. Polarizing, though?

Growing tension between Maori and Pakeha?

Are there any comparisons of the Maori to the American Indian?

[Kuchana]

This is an interesting link on the Identity and Culture of the Chinese in NZ.

http://www.stevenyoung.co.nz/chinesevoice/ChinConf/S2.html

[Mr.Lum]

NZ confirms review of Maori policies

New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark has confirmed plans for a government review of assistance given to the country's Maori population, saying there is a need for a "new balance".

The Prime Minister says policies have to be based on need, not privilege, and there is genuine public concern over the issue.

Few details of the review have so far been released, but Miss Clark suggested some educational initiatives might change.

One area of concern is said to be the provision of Government-funded scholarships.

But the Prime Minister has also attacked the Opposition National Party for fuelling the race debate, accusing leader Don Brash of shattering the national consensus on how to deal with Maori affairs.


24/02/2004 09:00:37 | ABC Radio Australia News

[nicksinif]

By race, I think the Maori are lumped with Asians, especially if they are linked to Polynesians.

At least, the US census would categorize them that way:

http://www.scu.edu/SCU/Programs/Diversity/asdef.html

But I also read some where where the ultimate origin may have been:

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/PNAS_2000_v97_p8225.pdf

i wouldnt exactly take serious what an american website has to say about this. americans also claimed iraq had nuclear weapons.

[Faithless]

i wouldnt exactly take serious what an american website has to say about this. americans also claimed iraq had nuclear weapons.
Maybe. Maybe not.

I think you have to separate-out whose saying what about what.

Not all Americans claimed WMD's in Iraq.

[Faithless]

According to this report, NZ has another problem they've got to tackle. :frown:

NZ exploiting Asian women for sex, says US report (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10357946)

01.12.05 1.00pm

A report issued by the US State Department is portraying New Zealand as a place where Asian women are being exploited for sex.

The report also claims a sizeable number of children are involved in prostitution, many the victims of trafficking.

It says some women being smuggled into New Zealand are put to work to repay substantial debts to the traffickers. It says the Government should make a greater effort to prosecute trafficking and raise public awareness.

The same source caused controversy last year when it claimed New Zealand had a large problem with children being trafficked for prostitution.

- NEWSTALK ZB