Racist? Yes? No? Perhaps?

I had an interesting, if brief, debate with a mildly right-whinged character signing himself "PhilBest" in the course of which he opined that -

I strongly object to the stereotyping of white NZ-ers, as Habersham also helpfully pointed out. "We" are not "racists". "We" did NOT "defraud" Maori (except in minor cases provable in court). "We" abolished slavery before anyone else. White Europeans biggest problem now is that we are the world's worst suckers for a guilt trip, and a certain proportion of our number, the Neo-Marxist intellectuals, have re-written history to exploit this.

Last Saturday night on Maoritv was an NZ doco entitled "Lines in the Sand". Now, I very much doubt that someone like PhilBest would be in the market to watch Maoritv, and even less likely to choose something that had an element of knowledge and fact to it.

So, let me start by giving my wholehearted recommendation that should this programme ever appear on free-to-view television (sadly an unlikely prospect but stranger things have happened...) it should be a "MUST SEE".

It is a brief - to some it will be very selective - history of Maori "in" NZ since WW2. It is constructed around one person and her life, and she has her own special part in the drawing of lines in the sand. The idea behind the title comes from "the line in the sand"; the principle that such lines can not or must not be crossed; and the times when those lines are crossed; the consequences of the breaking of new ground.

It starts with an ever-so-brief glimpse at the 1978 hikoi for recognition of Maori as an NZ language, the 1981 Springbok rugby tour, the woman (sorry I can not remember her name) who broke all the rules with her "Kia ora" greeting on the official Post Office telephone lines, through to the 1999 All Black rugby tour of Britain.

Those with far better memories than I might remember why that particular tour gained an element of notoriety and it had absolutely nothing to do with the game or players. The traditional singing of the national anthems prior to the game caused an almost deathly hush when Hinewehi Mohi sang the NZ "God Defend New Zealand" entirely in Maori. While this was in part because very few there knew the (Maori) words, there was a far greater element of shock because NZ Rugby was (and still is) one of the most conservative sections of NZ society. It is not as if the dual-language version had never been used at similar (non-rugby) sports events. Netball for instance had been using the dual Maori-English version for about 5 years prior. If I recollect, it was first used at the Christchurch Commonwealth Games in 1974.

And it is at this point that I link back to PhilBest, and to Habersham.

What is the real state of the racial relationships between Maori and (European) pakeha? Is Habersham right? We are not a racist nation? I have to agree that at some levels he is right. There is a lot of intermarriage between the two sides; no question. There are a great many on both sides who work alongside of the other race with great respect for their knowledge and ability. The list goes on...

BUT!!

There are other aspects to the relationship between Maori and pakeha that are not as sweet. Likely the primary examples, certainly those most to the forefront in the past month or so, are Waitangi Day (for those who do not know, our equivalent of Independance Day), and the on-going debate over the ownership of foreshore and seabed. It does go a great deal deeper than that though.

One of the "lines in the sand" was Don Brash's State of the Nation speech to Orewa Rotary

"Two weeks ago, Don Brash delivered "the state of the nation" address to the Orewa Rotary. The main thrust of that address - certainly as far as the media and the public are concerned - involved the vexed question of Maori / Pakeha relationships and the long succession of government policies intended to "benefit Maori", to "favour the disadvantaged", the whole litany of political double speak that comes with pork barrel politics. Do not for a moment think that this is a one-sided position. It might seem that way to many given the special relationship between the Ratana Church and the Labour Party (who just at the moment happen to be "in charge"). In truth as many or more of these policies originated with the National governments as from Labour governments.

"So, we have Don Brash "rescuing the National Party" (which had been polling in the low 20% of total vote since the last election - effectively a rudder-less rowboat with only one oar) with a speech which promoted the idea of "one rule for all".
...
So, we get back to the "product differentiation" that Donny-come-lately Brash has successfully created. The "one rule for all" (I still know nothing about the rest of his speech, it is as if that is all that he said) idea seems to have taken hold quite nicely within the electorate. If you say it out loud, and often enough it has the kind of ring to it that appeals, in the same way as a referendum asking "Do you believe in Law and Order?" might.

Until today, when the Sunday paper has pointed out (in yet another "the king has no clothes" revelation) that what Donny Brash has said is "a xerox copy" of one Pauline Hanson in her electioneering for the "One Australia Party".

There is the connection I was missing.

What a frightening prospect it creates...

To a very great extent that debate is still rumbling deep in the seismic world of NZ politics. It surfaces (quite frequently as it happens) with minor tremors in the more right-winged part of our political world; as witnessed by the current debate on foreshore and seabed; the debate over the nature and extent of Maori representation in Parliament and in local government; and in the writing of many of those people whose ideas follow the same lines as PhilBest. And, as I say that, I am thinking as well "There is fault on both sides here."

The "one people" principle behind the debate is - as evidenced by PhilBest, but he is not guilty at all of its formulation in this guise - that it is "right" as long as "one people" are all like me. The same might be said of those on the Maori side who pick up on the "We are now one people" statement made at the signing of Te Tiriti. Strangely perhaps the statement of "He iwi tahi tatou" came not from the Maori side, but from Hobson ("As each chief signed, Hobson said "He iwi tahi tātou", meaning (in English) "We are now one people".[17]" Claudia Orange on the signing of the Treaty taken from Wikipedia). So, to that extent the attitudes of the pakeha side seem not to have progressed all that much from those of the paternalistic condescention of the early colonists. PhilBest in his comments presents other aspects of that same paternalism which is sad.

It reflects too the attitude of the colonists right up until WW1 that - as had happened so many times before - the "stone-age culture" of the Maori would die out in a fairly short period of time as the people themselves died out and the population dwindled. Micheal King wrote this period very well in his "Penguin History" which I recommended PhilBest should read.

A vox-poll in the street on the question "Were Maori deprived of their land and authority by theft or valid contract?" the response on the pakeha side would likely come out much in line with PhilBest's -

"We" did NOT "defraud" Maori (except in minor cases provable in court).

Again, I can not say he is entirely wrong. What did in fact happen has been well documented by those "left wing liberal historians trying to rewrite history"; the reason why I recommended Michael King to him and the likely interest of AU in PhilBest as Prof History...

For the truth is, to those who read and understand, quite different. When I was a teenager, Parihaka Lookout in Whangarei was just the name of a hill. There was no obvious statement of how the name was given, or why it coincided with that of a little known village in Taranaki. Since the 1970's, through the work of a large number of people including the likes of Michael King, Claudia Orange, the iwi of Taranaki, to the pop-group Herbs the name of Parihaka and its place in NZ history is generally well known.

Parihaka was a market garden village; much like Pukekohe has been to Auckland. The biggest differences being that Parihaka was owned and developed by the local Maori and they were actively and successfully exporting their products to Sydney. King and Orange have both documented the history of Parihaka in considerable detail. It is well worth the read.

This was not an isolated incident. In other parts, militia and mercenary troops (some of them Maori settling old scores) were engaged in similar tactics in order to "acquire" good farming land for settlers.

To come more up to date, I don't know if PhilBest would count the saga of the Raglan Golf Course as "fraud" or "theft". I guess that the difference really lies in one's point of view. Land taken prior to WW1 for "defence purposes" was granted to the Raglan Golf Club in the 1960's instead of being returned to its owners. It took some 35 years for compensation to be negotiated for the loss.
Personally, I count that as a theft, a misappropriation. It is not a fraud in the strict sense of the word.

Or perhaps he might like to consider the occupation of Bastion Point by Ngati Whatua. The Waitangi Tribunal short history is concise and easy to read - written for school projects - so PhilBest should have little difficulty understanding it. He might like to watch the television film of the eviction just to satisfy his curiosity in re-written history of the Maori and race relations in New Zealand.

Both of these events were featured as "lines in the sand".

The point here is that "racism" as many in this country see it - the discrimination of the Southern States of the US as the predominant example - does not exist. So to that extent I agree with PhilBest. There are no separate toilets for Maori, no laws requiring segregated seating in public transport.

On the other side, there is a very subtle form of racism. It is evidenced by the kind of statement in his opening salvo -

If the people of a stone age culture really does want to preserve their traditions, then they simply cannot expect to share in the benefits of modern life. MOST of the PEOPLE of any given race or culture, given the chance, vote with their feet, and "westernise" just as fast as they can. Radical spokesmen can deny this all they like, but it is true.

So, you can either be Maori and live in the stone age or you become pakeha and share in the "benefits" of our society.

It is a racism that borne of a very simplistic way of thinking. It paints in black and white; lithographic black and white and not grayscale. It parallels GWB's horrendous "you are either with us or against us"; "you are either pakeha or you are not part of our society".

So to those many whose ideas of our society and its inter-racial relationships parallel those of PhilBest (I can not single him out as he is but one of many), I have to say -

I do not, I can not, agree that racism is totally absent in this country.

It is not the overt racism upon which I believe PhilBest and his ilk base their belief.

It is the product of cultural paternalism, the belief that "we are better than you". It is a fundamental cultural arrogance.

It is the product of cultural deprivation; the 19th century belief that inferior cultures would in time "die out"; a process that was encouraged to hasten the demise of the inferior culture. (As an aside, by far the best illustration of this in action comes from Australia; the second best comes from South Africa.)

On liberalism (with a small "l")

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Samson and Delilah

This is not the traditional Biblical tale. Samson and Delilah are two Aborigine teenagers, and the film is their story.

The film is funded by a number of Australian organisations, including Central Australia Aborigine Media Association (CAAMA).

To say that I enjoyed this would not be true. It is very definitely not entertainment.

The film opens at dawn in an aborigine village. Samson wakes, cuddles his small tin of petrol, gets out of bed, walks outside and plays (very non-musically) with his brother’s electric guitar, gets hit by his brother… The same scene is repeated perhaps ten or fifteen times. Delilah wakes, takes medicine to her grandmother, feeds her, takes her to the health clinic, sits with her as she paints… The same scene is repeated several times. The repetition is modified slightly, the communal phone rings and no one answers it. The art gallery agent arrives to collect the grandmother’s latest painting, pays her bill of $25 at the store in return. Samson’s brothers wake, start playing drums and guitars; the same tune every day, the same tune endlessly.

As an introduction to the story it could not be bettered. It creates exactly the sense of boredom and hopelessness of life in a very remote Aborigine community. And that, really, is the film. It presents a portrait of Aborigine life, as it really is.

The prevalence and impact of illiteracy, petrol sniffing addiction, teenage pregnancy, rejection by “white” Australian society, unemployment, homelessness, crime – real, cultural, and imaginary – and rejection by the family is all there.

The painting collected by the agent is seen in an art gallery window priced at $22,000.

No, not enjoyable. It is a film that the likes of MK should have as compulsory viewing.

I give it a 9; most of all for not shirking the truth.

The State of the Nation -

I have not been writing all that much in recent times, for a number of reasons connected mainly with work (and staying employed) along with several other events in my personal life that will not be discussed in any forum.

But there are two events that do inspire some comment, and they are connected; in many ways including that they impinge in a small way on my personal past.

The first of these (in temporal terms) actually passed me by until I went looking for the second in order to re-read it and to précis at least in my mind. So, with your (the reader’s) consent I shall start with the article in Friday’s Herald concerning a group calling themselves the BroFiles, and what is being described as “institutionalized racism” in the Far North.

When Rapine Robert (Rob) Murray went to his doctor with heart problems, the doctor drew a sign on Murray's ample belly and wrote: "Nil by mouth".
To the South African-born doctor in Kaitaia, it was a light-hearted way of telling Murray to get serious about reducing his then 224kg bulk.
But he didn't know his patient. Murray, 45, is a partner in a company with 20,000 beehives, exporting manuka honey around the world for medicinal use.

At its very best, unthinking perhaps. But I am not going to make excuses for either side.

Around the same time, school maths adviser Makoare (Mak) Parangi, 51, started a new job as principal of Te Kura Kaupapa Maori o Rangiawhia, a small Maori-language primary school on the Karikari Peninsula where many children had switched off education.
"When I started, the absenteeism was really high. I was lucky to get one student with 70 per cent attendance," he says.
"They didn't think they could do it."
His friend, Rocky Manga, 53, a former Telecom technician, says many Maori kids can't understand the relevance of a subject like algebra.
"Our parents do labouring jobs. We don't have to smarten up to do that, do we?" is the thinking.
Pakeha teachers respond by "putting them all in the same boat".
"No one's listening, so they just show off," says Manga. "They shut down."
These grassroots experiences, repeated from Kaitaia to Bluff, have national consequences. Last year 45 per cent of the babies born in this country were Maori or Pacific. [I have reported that directly; I am still trying to determine the relevance of that last sentence.]

Now that differs slightly from my personal experience. I am in no position to argue that to be invalid; my experience is not as wide nor as direct as the report. The impact of the difference on the overall consequence though is minimal to nil.
The point behind this is the reflection of the “pakeha teachers”; Maori are a bunch of no-hopers, the dead-weight of the country, the culture of unemployment and dependency, fit only to be the curios of global peeping toms and tomettes.

Significantly, Te Puni Kokiri researcher Paul Hamer found signs of much less "waste" when he surveyed the one in every six Maori who now live in Australia.
"People move there because they feel that by doing so they can step outside those limiting expectations that Pakeha have of them and the limiting expectations they have of themselves because of that environment," he says.
"Some said that when they lived in New Zealand, their whanau accused them of being 'white' or 'Pakeha' if they sought to enlighten themselves or enrich their lives in any way," he wrote in his 2007 report.
A woman in Perth told him: "It's not a crime anymore to try and be financially comfortable or to have stability or be intelligent."

And this is the point with which I most heartily concur. Of those with whom I went to college with in the final three years nearly half – 8 out of 18 - were Maori. Of those 8, at least three hold higher qualifications than I, two are reportedly teaching at university. The failure is not the consequence of inate inability, there are far more important forces at work.

Tariana Turia, the Maori Party co-leader who is associate minister responsible for both Maori health and Maori/Pacific employment, believes Maori are held back in their homeland by "institutional racism".
She points to research showing, for example, that Maori suffer higher rates of heart disease than Pakeha, yet doctors request lipid and glucose blood tests at lower rates for Maori than for non-Maori in the at-risk age group from 35 to 64.
In the Ministry of Health's 2002-03 NZ Health Survey, Maori were three times as likely as Europeans to say they had been treated unfairly in the health system because of their ethnicity, and 13 times as likely to say they had been treated unfairly in the housing market.

At that point Turia and others involved, wander off into a reverie of “Poor people needing everyone’s help and support” that does no good at all.
More importantly, relate the findings of the 2002-3 report with the comments of Rapine Murray earlier. Equally as importantly, relate those findings to the earning capacity of Maori, and the earlier comments from Makoare Parangi on the problems of teaching in what is a largely disadvantaged community. If any person’s education standards, and qualifications, are at the bottom end of the scale then (unless they live in the US of course) their ability to earn, and consequently to afford to buy a house will be extremely limited.
As direct argument against Turia (and I say here that I have always had respect for her) the experiences, and successes outlined in the article are compelling.

Even when dealing with children, [ Dr Lance] O'Sullivan and Parangi place themselves on the same level as their clients instead of treating them like children who have to be told what to do.
There are similar examples elsewhere. Almost 20 years ago, Professor Walker helped initiate a "tuakana" ("older sibling") programme using Maori, and later Pacific, university students to mentor others at Auckland University and at selected South Auckland colleges. The programme has halved the Maori/Pacific failure rates at some schools.
…
At Auckland University, Walker's co-director of Nga Pae o te Maramatanga, Dr Tracey McIntosh, says she has always advocated opening up the Tuakana programme to all ethnicities.
"When we do get successes, we have a responsibility to ensure that everyone who could benefit from these programmes should have access to them," she says.
Dr Evan Poata-Smith, a social scientist at AUT University, says any strategy of "closing the gaps" also has to go beyond healthcare and education.
"Can you feel good at school if you have to go home to the same environment where you are waiting for the landlord to evict you?" he asks.

If we hold Poata-Smith’s comment against the mirror of the “woman from Perth” then the very best place to start would be within the Maori culture.
The power, and conservatism, of that culture is illustrated by the second (earlier, remember?) article covering the release of Part One of the Waitangi Tribunal into the claims of Ngati Tuhoe. I confess that I missed this when it was published a week ago. I will have to download and read the 500 pages of the document myself to truly judge the accuracy of the report in the Herald; which report makes much of the history of the relationship between Tuhoe and the government.

To find out where the anger stems from, people could read the newly released first part of the Waitangi Tribunal's report into the troubled history of Tuhoe and the Crown.
The report, though incomplete, finds largely in favour of Tuhoe. People can learn about sweeping land confiscations and military actions which have, in the words of Tribunal judge Patrick Savage, "echoed down through generations and explains the anguish and anger evident to this very day".
The first substantial contact the geographically remote Tuhoe had with the English was when without warning the Crown seized much of their fertile land in 1866 as part of the confiscation of a large tract of Maori land in the Eastern Bay of Plenty.
There were devastating social, economic and cultural impacts, says the Tribunal.
The land was taken to punish not Tuhoe specifically but Maori involved in attacks in the region, including the killing of missionary Carl Volkner and government agent James Fulloon.
The Tribunal, though, makes clear Tuhoe were not responsible: "The time has come to lay this myth to rest. Tuhoe were not involved in the killings of either Volkner or Fulloon."
Their land was taken anyway because they were swept up in the hostilities of others.

So, until I get the chance to read Part 1, take a breather and go back read my several items written on the Urewera raids at Ruatoki. The trials of those arrested are due in the next few weeks and that will add considerable weight to the historical analysis of the Waitangi Tribunal.

What a sorry pass...

In amongst all of the angst and hair pulling and sackcloth and ashes over the (seemingly rash) refusal to serve two Israeli women, I can but wonder if the same hue and cry would have erupted if a Jewish café owner had refused to serve two Muslim women in hijab.

American politics...

...at the worst.

Well, no, that is a bit harsh. But it says little for the nation that holds itself out as the last bastion of Democracy.

From the Herald this morning

since the November 4 election, law enforcement officials have seen more potentially threatening writings, internet postings and other activity directed at Obama than has been seen with any past president-elect, said officials aware of the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the issue of a president's security is so sensitive.

Earlier this week, the Secret Service looked into the case of a sign posted on a tree in Vay, Idaho, with Obama's name and the offer of a "free public hanging". In North Carolina, civil rights officials complained of threatening racist graffiti targeting Obama found in a tunnel near the North Carolina State University campus.

And in a Maine convenience store, an Associated Press reporter saw a sign inviting customers to join a betting pool on when Obama might fall victim to an assassin.

The sign solicited US$1 (NZ$1.79) entries into "The Osama Obama Shotgun Pool," saying the money would go to the person picking the date closest to when Obama was attacked. "Let's hope we have a winner," said the sign, since taken down.

...

One of the most popular white supremacist websites, stormfront.org, got more than 2000 new members the day after the election, compared with 91 new members on election day, according to an AP count.

On Saturday, one Stormfront poster, identified as Dalderian Germanicus, of North Las Vegas, said, "I want the SOB laid out in a box to see how `messiahs' come to rest. God has abandoned us, this country is doomed."

How sad.

A day almost forgotten

Yesterday, 30 years ago, was one of the most shameful days in NZ recent history, in my living memory.

Almost as sad is the fact that, other than a 4 minute commemorative on Radio NZ, and a full "Bastion Point Day" on Maori TV, the day passed almost totally unremarked.

The Herald included this article, an interview with Alec, one of the "radicals" from the Hawke family.

It is 30 years since the bulldozers and army trucks loaded with police arrived at Bastion Pt to clear away the tent and plywood town of protest that had become a symbol for hope, or a blight on society, depending on your perspective.

Looking back, my first thought is what an honour it was to be a part of the occupation. What an honour being a member of a larger group, that initially was just whanau in Ngati Whatua o Orakei, and was then joined by supporters - Maori, Pacific Islanders and Pakeha - who came to right a wrong.

As my brother Joe says, we were not there to be arrested, we were there to arrest a wrong, and we did that.

There are news images from the papers of the time, such as here. I will not pirate them - they have almost reached the status of taonga. I respect that.

Take a look at what is one of the turning points in NZ history. Read ALL of the interview with Alec Hawke.

On nature vs nurture...

One of the more plausible politicians of any party in the House at present (and what a shame that he chose Winnie the Pooh as his leader) is Ron Mark. Now be clear here, I do not agree with everything that he says politically, and I have a very decided dislike for the views of his Leader. I say again, he strikes me as a fairly plausible guy.

This morning's Sunday Star Times has a fairly lengthy "human interest" story focussing on Ron the MP and his brother Tui the ex-leader of a criminal gang.

Some excerpts -

It was the neighbour who found the two small children late one night, sitting on the back doorstep of their darkened Carterton home, alone, locked out. Ron Mark was not much older than three, his sister Angela was seven.

"We'd been put on a goods train, and had walked from the railway station to home.

"This lady took us over and tried to find us some clothes and food and everything and found nothing in the house," says Mark.

Their parents? Mark shrugs. "Out somewhere, partying."

...

There is Ron, 54, the scrappy, energetic New Zealand First MP, who enlisted as a soldier at 16 and found his path out of the chaos. Now law and order is something of a personal calling, with his insistence that gangs should be outlawed, that the age of criminal responsibility should fall to 12, and his passionate attacks on "scumbag, low-life gangsters".

Also here, under a New Zealand flag and a wall of armed forces memorabilia, is Mark's little brother Tui Mark, now 50, who tried to follow his brother into the army but was rejected. Instead he rose through the criminal ranks to become a Black Power president.

...

And then one day when Ron was 11, and Tui was seven, the boys were told Ron would be going to a new foster family. Tui would not be coming.

"It was the only connection, it was the last connection. He was the only one in my family I was brought up with," says Tui. He remembers feeling lost.

But Ron found himself in a whole new world of opportunity and affluence. His new foster parents were Gordon Thorburn, a big wheel in the agriculture business, and Gordon's wife Sylvia. Ron and the three Thorburn kids were treated to holidays away, fishing and hunting.

All the same, Ron Mark struggled at school, and was at times wild and rebellious. He believes ultimately what saved him was the order and self-discipline he learned in the army. Even there, he was initially close to being thrown out, before finally settling down.

Meanwhile, Tui too was showing early signs of a life at odds with authority. Was there a fork in the road that ultimately led to the gangs?

Tui Mark is right back there in his mind. He is about 14, and trying to follow the brother he rarely sees into the army. But he is wearing a cast on his upper body because of a congenital back problem.

"When I went to apply to get into the army, they refused to consider me ever, EVER again," he says with great vehemence. Then he flicks back into wry detachment. "I think I might have taken offence."

Within a few years of leaving school at 15, Tui Mark was in prison. Then in 1977, not long after emerging from jail, he passed a recruitment test of a different kind.

Visiting an Upper Hutt pub known to be a Black Power haunt, he came back from the toilet to find his jug of beer gone.

"So I stepped them all out. I got my jug back, and drunk it and left. They arrived at my place the next day and wouldn't go until I came along with them to see their president. He just offered me a patch straight away," says Tui.

...

BUT IN about 1996, as Ron Mark entered parliament as a New Zealand First MP, Tui Mark's life was also changing. After 20 years in Black Power he began to doubt the path he had taken, and decided the whole chapter should retrain and join the trades.

Tui Mark wanted them to earn the respect of their town in a new way, "which seemed a lot better than waiting till your neighbour goes out and ripping them off".

He began training for a qualification in boatbuilding, working with steel and marine welding. But his brothers in arms didn't want a new life.

"They don't seem to want to think for themselves, or get ahead by themselves. They seem to want to be held up by both shoulders and carried through life. That's their excuse to stay patched up."

In frustration Tui Mark closed down the chapter, depatched his members, and headed to the South Island to try to make a new life. He failed to get the qualification he was seeking. A prison term interrupted.

Ron Mark of course has called for the law to be changed to make it a criminal offence to belong to a gang, saying it would be a condition of coalition with New Zealand First at the next election. Would such a policy work?

"Of course not!" says Tui Mark.

"Because people like Ronnie and Michael Laws are making it easier for the gangs.

"Take the patches off and put the suits on, and then we won't know who youse are any more. You're still a pack of criminals, but we're not going to know that any more, are we?"

But he does agree with his brother that education and real rehabilitation in prisons are keys to turning around lives. So is he impressed by what his brother Ron has achieved?

"Well, do I impress him? Did I impress him when I was president? That was meant to be impressive for him," says Tui, looking at his brother. Then he flashes a grin.

...

"There are no excuses in my mind for the life that he's led actually. He had very good foster parents. Out of the two of us he had more stability. Ten or 11 years with the same foster parents. Come on," he [Ron] says.

"But to the day I die, I will wonder whether moving from the Fields to the Thorburns was good for Tui.

"Who knows. Maybe I could have, as an 11-year-old boy, changed that. Maybe I could have said `no, I don't want to leave my younger brother'.

It is a quiet and fascinating image of two separate lives.

Two brothers - two very different paths.

A quick potted history...

...of New Zealand as I fondly recall it.

Whakahuihui Vercoe is certainly one of the leading Churchmen of recent times, irrespective of which colour. Have a read through, it is a well written and personal look at the man.

“One hundred and fifty years ago, a compact was signed, a covenant was made between two people…

“But since the signing of that treaty… our partners have marginalised us. You have not honoured the treaty…

“The language of this land is yours, the custom is yours, the media by which we tell the world who we are are yours...

“What I have come here for is to renew the ties that made us a nation in 1840. I don’t want to debate the treaty; I don’t want to renegotiate the treaty. I want the treaty to stand firmly as the unity, the means by which we are made one nation…
The treaty is what we are celebrating. It is what we are trying to establish so that my tino rangatiratanga is the same as your tino rangatiratanga.

“And so I have come to Waitangi to cry for the promises that you made and for the expectations our tupuna (had) 150 years ago… And so I conclude, as I remember the songs of our land, as I remember the history of our land, I weep here on the shores of the Bay of Islands.”

The article concludes...

Sixteen years after his 1990 Waitangi Day speech, how does he assess its value? And in the intervening years, what gains have been made? How much does he think have Maori been able to move away from the margins of New Zealand society?

There’s a tone of resignation in his reply: “My feelings about that,” he says, “are very similar to what I discovered when I took part in war. And that is, in spite of whatever you do, and whatever you say, nothing changes.”

NZ has TERRORISTS!! - 4

The next Parliamentary General Election is due for this time next year. Already, the volume from some of the minor parties is being wound to 8 and beyond. Amongst the loudest is everyone's best friend Winnie the Pooh. From his leader's speech to the faithful at the New Zealand First conference this last weekend... (thanks Scoop)

Now answer this please, which subject about New Zealand has had the most coverage internationally – in all the major media outlets across the globe – in the last ten years?

I’ll tell you, because I saw it unfolding last week. It is an unnerving feeling, to be overseas and to see our country headlined, not because of economic or sporting success, but because of a bunch of malcontents running around the bush with guns.

That was the news that the world heard from New Zealand last week.

The biggest New Zealand story in more than a decade.

The result of behaviour which has been excused, condoned, nurtured and even encouraged over the past twenty years.

What type of country do we live in, when it is not the malcontents with the guns that get turned on by society, but the police?

That is an indictment on our values system.

We had hundreds of people protesting against the police arresting Tama Iti and his mates.

They are marching – not because he is guilty or innocent – they are marching because he is brown.

We once marched against apartheid, now they are marching for it.

We have groups calling for separate nations within our nation and prepared to use guns and violence.

If you don't believe that – watch TV One's Sunday programme tonight.

What is most obscene about this is that these same people who want their separate nation, want us the taxpayer to pay for it.

Just last Friday I was in a helicopter flight overlooking the forestry estate around Taupo.

What I saw were Maori workers, hundreds of them, on tractors and trucks, working hard and being paid for their work.

Not looking for a handout, not prancing around protesting – they were too busy working to pay their taxes and support their families.

What a contrast!

This is where the system is failing – taxpayer sponsored militant separatism.

These groups want separate development – but your money to fund it.

Rejecting all our values except collecting the dole each fortnight.

Get this clear – we are not having people opting out, demanding we pay for it, and then ramming their hymn of hate down our throats.

Fortunately this situation is not without hope.

Most Maori in New Zealand actually want to be part of and enjoy their country.

The overwhelming majority of Maori have jobs and want to raise their children for a better future.

Today we call on these Maori to join the fight against militant separatism...

Now those of right wing persuasion might quite like some of the things Winnie is saying, and that is understandable as he is trying hard to create an impact in that side of his market.

But, there is much in that quote that is just plain wrong as well.

He raves at the protestors who marched in Auckland and Wellington, and that

"...They are marching – not because he is guilty or innocent – they are marching because he is brown.

We once marched against apartheid, now they are marching for it."

That makes for great headlines. It stirs the pot even further into the apartheit corner where he wants it. It might even be good politics.

But read it again. One would imagine that there was only one person arrested - Tame Iti - and that all of the protestors were there in support of his right to justice. Well, it is probable that quite a few of the 1000 or so who marched did have that as their cause.

I suspect that more than a few, likely a majority, were in fact protesting the law and the process rather than the individuals involved. Certainly that was my motivation. Certainly that is my concern.

As a note, I went to Scoop tonight looking for news of the latest releasee from the Urewera 17. She was featured on the news from TV3. It will be very interesting to see what charges she was held on, and whether further charges are laid.

And to that end, the news tonight also mentions that the Police are talking to the Attorney General about the justification and nature of charges to be laid under the Suppression of Terrorism legislation. I will say that the chances of there being more than 6 of the 17 charged are pretty darned slim to zero. More to come over the next few weeks... not least the continuing reaction to Winnie the Pooh.

Amazing Grace...

It was not until about a month ago that I learned the provenance of the hymn; the story of the slave-ship captain who renounced that trade to become a reclusive Christian monk. That would be a tale of some fascination in itself.

The subject comes up through the film of the same name, which wife and I went see yesterday afternoon.

The connection comes from the captain who is an important part in the development of the character of Wilbur Wilberforce and the progress of the anti-slavery movement in Britain.

How historically accurate is the film? From my knowledge of the time (relatively limited) I would say that the major players are there, and that they are well portrayed by the various actors. Be sure that Cumberpatch in his role as Pitt the Younger presents a compelling portrayal of the young Turk in his prime and his death. Grffudd as Wilberforce has a large part to fill; which he does with honesty but no great distinction.

The tale of the shipboard party that was diverted (intentionally) alongside the slaver that was in dock was a story that I knew. Such a shame that the ship concerned seemed to move magically among the tightly packed docks until a sternward sequence that showed - quite clearly - the propellor wash under the rudder. The version as I heard it had the ship being towed around (as was the practice of the times) by two gigs. Again, as I heard the story, those two (oar-powered) boats were manned by men landed from the slave-ship.

I enjoyed the film. It is a great story of the power of politics. It is one of the great stories of the victory of humanity over subjugation and exploitation.

Very recommended...

Need vs Want

In a world ruled by the might of the dollar, a mantra is being heard: I don't need it, I don't want it. Claire Harvey tries going without spending power"That", says my brother Adam, "is the most middle-class thing I've ever heard". We are sitting in an Italian cafe eating expensive peasant food, and I've just told Adam about my plan to go for a month without spending money. He rolls his eyes and bites into his pizza.

That is the opening to a fairly lengthy op-ed-confess column published last Saturday in the Herald. And, before going any further let me make my own admission that I have been and am still occasionally guilty of the indiscrete, spur of the moment, “Why DID I buy that” purchase.

In some ways Claire Harvey’s article disappoints as it trundles its way through the middle class angst of self denial and sacrifice. It skims ever so briefly over many of the real issues of the modern consumer society. The author agonises endlessly over the minutiae of not being able to have a coffee at the local with her friends, of making her lunch at home rather than spur of the moment buying from the local cafe, takeaway or sandwich bar. Her wardrobe gets a quick and slightly embarrassed glance with the self-consolation of it being perhaps one of the justifications for her decision to “not spend money”. So the parameters are set...

When I say "without spending", I mean I am allowed to buy basic groceries and fill up the car with petrol, but nothing else. No takeaway food, no barista coffee, no taxis, no visits to restaurants, bars or cafes, no tickets for movies or the theatre, and no buying books, clothes, shoes, magazines or cosmetics. No buying presents for anyone. No haircuts or massages or facials. No fancy booze in bars, no tobacco, no non-essential drugs (pharmaceutical or otherwise). The supermarket is it, but that doesn't mean all supermarket items are OK - there'll be no DVDs or home-laminating machines in my trolley.

But to give credit, Claire Harvey’s conclusion does get close.

Time for my own confession: I've cheated six times during this month by buying that cup of tea, two packets of chewing gum when I was desperate, accepting two cafe freebies, and getting my winter coat drycleaned. The coat was musty and had grubby marks all over the cuffs - real, dedicated misers probably don't buy cream-coloured garments for this very reason.

When it's over, I practically knock over chairs in my rush to get into a cafe. But I can't think of any solid consumer item I really want to buy. In fact, I'd quite like to keep up the frugality for a while if I can - the bank balance is looking satisfyingly healthy. I've saved about $600. Not bad.

So what have I learnt from this? That I like spending money on things that matter but I'd like to be a little more miserly on a permanent basis. From now on, bought coffee should be a treat, not a thrice-daily habit. I've learnt that bringing my lunch from home really is cheaper, and that saving a few dollars really can make a difference. I've also discovered cooking at home can be really cheap but only if cuisine is heavy on the starch and light on the luxuries. Rice and toast might be cheap, but if you enjoy chicken breasts and fresh pomegranates, it's hard to budget under $10 per head, which really isn't any cheaper than takeaway.

But most importantly, this month has reminded me to be a little more mindful of money; saving my cents for the important stuff. I don't just mean mortgages and superannuation - I mean the experiences and items that make everyday life a little sparkly. I don't care how frivolous it sounds, but for me, the joy of life is at least partly in visiting cafes with friends, flying across the Tasman to see my family, seeing movies, going to galleries, buying the occasional gorgeous dress - these are the reasons I work for a living.

I like being part of a society where delightful food and beautiful locally designed clothes are available on every corner, and I'm happy to pay for that privilege. If we all stopped spending to start Compacting, this would be a much less interesting place to be. It's just a matter of finding the point where "I need" meets "I want". As long as the general flavour of life is more Italian parmesan than wet turmeric, I'll be happy.

Now that highlighted second-last sentence really is the nub. For someone like myself, and I suspect Harvey as well, the self satisfaction of middle class security with most if not all of the “modern necessities” such as house, private transport and children paid off would make the denial of luxury an attainable goal compared with the struggle of “the poor” to provide the very basics.

But the point of this exercise is not to save money, not really. The point is to get out of the habit of constantly thinking about buying, spending, having. If I were trying to live on the dole ($178.49 a week for a childless beneficiary, since you asked), I'd be constantly wondering, "What can I afford to get today?" This way, I just have to accept I can't afford to get anything. Money is no object, as Hugh Hefner might say. The difference is he gets to put his arm around a very expensive rabbit while he says it.

For the first time, I understand what it must be like to be significantly poorer than your friends. Being poor (or frugal) is fine if everyone in your social circle is doing the same, but how tedious it must be if your friends accelerate to ludicrous new levels of lucre. Oh, I'd love to come out to dinner, but I might just have the garlic bread ... sorry, I can't get away to come skiing that weekend.

... really does miss the point by more than just a little.

Perhaps had she been looking at the decision to pay a utility account – let’s say for electricity – so that one week’s food must last for the next three weeks, it would have had a greater impact. That is the reality that a goodly proportion of people have to face.

For while that is the side of Harvey’s piece that is missing, it is quite coincidentally an aspect that has been extremely prominent in local (and apparently international) news over the past week.

It has been (for as long as I can remember) standard practice for supply utilities – the obvious ones being water, electricity and gas – to disconnect supply if a customer has not paid outstanding accounts. My first direct involvement was with water supply, through the Borough Council where I was head of finance. Reasons for non-payment ranged from the bloody-minded landlord who would disconnect the supply himself (to get rid of unwanted tenants) were it not illegal for him to do it, to the little old grandmother who was getting a bit muddly and had no one to take care of her money for her, to the struggling family of six (very likely the unwanted tenants) with the parents working a 60 to 80 hour week between them on minimum adult wage rates to survive.

It is into this last category that the quite tragic case of Folole Muliaga falls. She, her husband, her family, owed something like $170 for electricity. The supply was disconnected by the utility company. Mrs Muliaga died some short while later.

Those are the very bare, non-judgemental, dispassionate bones of what happened. There is a very great deal more that can be added; some conflicting, some disputed, some just downright wrong. With there being at least three enquiries, including police, under way there is some prospect that the truth might emerge in the future.

Everyone, from Auntie Helen on down to the ol’ probligo, seems to have an opinion on the rights and wrongs of what has happened. I am not going to discuss this aspect here as I prefer to have fact rather than speculation to hand. Certainly there seems to have been failure at just about every point in the “system” where humans are involved. Pointing bones at any individual involved is meaningless at this stage. Even Auntie Helen’s undertaking to “make the current guidelines as set down, mandatory” rings about as tunefully as my gout ridden knee when I collide with the end of the coffee table.

So now we have the whole country (other than those who are busy stuffing books in the seat of their trousers) giving all of the good advice they can think of. Contributions range from Mother Jeanette proposing “graduated pricing” for electricity – the poor pay less than the rich - to Jonkey and his cohorts suggesting that the true solution to expensive power is to build a number of very expensive power stations to create an oversupply in the market hence forcing down prices.

The very big pity amongst all of which is that it is going to make very little difference in the long run. Auntie Helen has this morning been mouthpiecing the latest variation on her theme of “mandatory guidelines”; this time the tune is along the lines of utility companies having to refer “people who are having difficulty paying their bills” to one or another of the various social agencies that like to be so involved. That might help. The emphasis is on the “might”. Having been involved in providing budgeting advice to people in financial strife I know just how difficult it can be to get across the idea that this week’s wage packet has to pay for more than smokes, some food and perhaps an afternoon in the boozer. It is even more frustrating when you get a client with $150 in the bank at the end of the month for electricity and school fees. The next week it has disappeared – “Oh, we got this special deal...”.

In the meantime, my mailbox this morning is jammed with a half inch thick wad of paper. All of it is advertising from three retailers offering me “special deals” on everything from 42” tv screens at $5,000, dishwashers at $1,200 upward, and cooking pots at $19.99. Any purchase over $500 qualifies me for 12 month interest-free credit; “approval guaranteed”.

Yeah, right!

The Goody, the Baddy, and the Fugly - the true face of latent racism

What a storm in Britain! All over a few chance remarks in the midst of one of these time-waster tv programmes - the kind that relies upon the prurient interest of the audience in how personalities interact in confined circumstances.

But, given the hooha that has blown the latest series into the limelight -
mebbe I will have to change my mind somewhat.

Regulars here will know that I have had a fairly unique life - including experiences that would be limited to very few. For example being one of only 12 pakeha in a school of 120 gave me an idea of "culture shock" long before Toffler (was it his?) came up with the idea. That does not give me the right to claim that I have no prejudices. The proof of that pudding is in the hands of everyone else. For that reason I am loath to judge individuals.

What this Goody hooha has shown in very cold and sharp light is that the attitude we might have toward others - prejudice, preconception, and acceptance - is far more deeply ingrained and insidious than many of us would be prepared to admit.

Who remembers old Alf Garnett? He of "curry muncher" fame? A very biting and cruel portrayal of the British character of the 60's and 70's. "Nah! I'm not like that!" came with the just slightly embarrassed laughter.

And it is the cringe that is coming through on the wires now that make no better of the situation. Not that Dan Sabbagh's thoughts are in any way inconsistent with the several op-eds I have read.

What has happened to Shilpa Shetty, a genuine megastar, in the past few days has been deeply uncomfortable — but also compelling — viewing. It will divide opinion, offend many, and it will also get people thinking. To believe that Britain in 2007 is a uniformly nice place is to display staggering naïvety; if it takes reality television to remind us of that, so be it.

There are limits, of course, but there is no need for intervention in the programme at the first whiff of controversy. Intervention should be required only when the law (in this case against inciting racial hatred) has clearly been broken. Channel 4 is just about right when it says that “no overt racism” has occurred, although that does not absolve the broadcaster of a duty to warn housemates if that does occur.

Sabbagh's statement that "...the programme will ("should" would be a much better word I suspect) get people thinking..." deserves to come true. I suspect that in fact the number who "think" will be relatively small. The 10,000 objectors/complainers might comprise 20% of that number. That is still a very small slice of the population.

I would suspect that the far more common reaction will follow the kind of "review" that followed each week's programme of Alf Garnett - "Did ya see... Wasn't it hilarious!!" followed by instant brain-death on the topic until the morning after the next programme.

The truth of that is supported by the synopsis from the Guardian revealing that Goody was not the only participant with similar views...

In one exchange, Goody was heard saying of Shetty: "She makes me feel sick. She makes my skin crawl", while her now evicted mother Jackiey continually referred to her as "the Indian". Later Lloyd claimed that the Bollywood star "wants to be white" and called her a "dog".

After Shetty cooked a roast chicken dinner, Lloyd had said: "They eat with their hands in India, don't they. Or is that China?" She added: "You don't know where those hands have been."

The complaints were further fuelled when Tweed was reported as calling Shetty a "Paki". Channel 4 insists that in fact the word he used, which was bleeped out, was "cunt".

So while the Goody might be the whipping-girl for the hooha that has developed, there is an even deeper current running within the microcosm of the programme.

In Bangalore, Gordon Brown faced journalists questioning him on the merits of a reality show he claimed not to have seen. "I understand that in the UK there have already been 10,000 complaints from viewers about remarks which people see rightly as offensive," he said. "I want Britain to be seen as a country of fairness and tolerance. Anything that detracts from that I condemn."

Later Tony Blair's spokesman added: "What clearly is to be regretted and countered is any perception abroad that in any way we tolerate racism in this country."

That would seem to point to a level of denial that has even wider implications.

Who remembers the introspection and intent navel gazing that took place in Britain after the 7/7 bombings. How could people from England contemplate doing such a thing - after all they are part of our society and we treat them as equals. They are nice people...

That they may well be. What about the rest of us...