Speaking on National Radio during the week Rodney Hide talked up ACT's achievement of ensuring a National-led, stable government for New Zealand and downplayed the internal problems the party has experienced. What interested me was when asked why people wouldn't vote National rather than ACT (it was put to him that National are moving into their territory with things like asset sales) he basically outlined the three election issues for ACT this year. 1/ The Economy 2/ Education and 3/ One Law for All. His emphasis was on the last. No mention of law and order, no mention of welfare, no mention of health, all usually in the running when deciding election year strategy.
No surprises really with the efforts that ACT have been making to block the Seabed and Foreshore legislation. What bothers me is the debate teases out a lot of ignorant, anti-Maori sentiment. The type heard on talkback this week concerning a fee being charged to media attending the lower marae at Waitangi. Many Maori callers saw it as a racket and disagreed with the action. But some Pakeha just start running off at the mouth about Maori get this and Maori get that. I tried to make the point to Sean Plunket that it is those sort of sentiments that are racist. People seem unable to grasp that in their own accusations of race based privilege or discrimination they are being inherently racist themselves by lumping all Maori together. Do reprehensible individual Pakeha actions generally elicit cries that "Pakeha do this" and "Pakeha do that"? No they don't.
I am still betwixt and between regarding the Coastal and Marine Bill and whether it will advance or set back race relations. That will only be known when and if the legislation is passed. But I am very uncomfortable with divisive scaremongering, the blithe imposition of the Pakeha worldview on Maori, and the reversal (since 2005) in both National and ACT positions on establishing customary rights and all that might entail. One law for all surely infers Maori should also have recognised property rights.
General Debate 23 November 2024
22 minutes ago
11 comments:
Good post: I need clarification on a small piece of it. Why do you write that pointing to race based privilege exhibits a racist attitude in those who do this? Isn't this glibly precluding completely open debate and assessment of circumstances? For comprehensive consideration on any topic all parties ought be free to make whatever observations they choose. It is a quantum leap therefore to assert that simply pointing out a privilege based on race is to be racist oneself.
Cadwallader
"One law for all surely infers Maori should also have recognised property rights."
They do--the same rights as all other New Zealanders have. The obvious problem is that they demand "rights" based on race which other new Zealanders don't have.
If pointing that out is "racist" then I happily plead guilty as charged.
"Do reprehensible individual Pakeha actions generally elicit cries that "Pakeha do this" and "Pakeha do that"? No they don't."
You obviously haven't been listening to Tariana Turia, Lindsay.Or any number of prominent Maoris. They have done and continue to do exactly that.
Signed
"white mother...."
"I need clarification on a small piece of it. Why do you write that pointing to race based privilege exhibits a racist attitude in those who do this?"
The example I gave was exclamations that "Maori get this" and "Maori get that". It assumes all Maori. Some Maori are getting very little. Don't forget they form a large part of the working poor.
The example I gave was technically unrelated to the F and S issue (which I said I am myself unsure about) but I used it to highlight how racists react to issues raised under the One Law for All banner.
Come off it. Maori describe themselves as Maori. How about you take a break from searching out ways to malign Europeans.
Ever heard of Critical Theory?
And I describe myself as Pakeha or NZ European when required. Here I refer to the labelling of a race in a derogative sense.
"Some Maori are getting very little. Don't forget they form a large part of the working poor"
They are not entitled to any more than the working poor of any other race.
I see maori along with other working poor paying zero tax (WFF) living in state houses ($90/week)getting free education and healthcare for their children, subsidies on many other things thanks to CSC and probably a few other benefits as well.
The poor in NZ have little to complain about.
Maori poor could well complain that the greed of corporate iwi has reduced their standard of living by removing wealth from the crown that might have well been used to improve the lot of the poor.
"blithe imposition of the Pakeha worldview on Maori"
It's actually called civilization and justice and so far has been of immense benefit to maori.
Nobody thinks maori should not have their own culture and language but it is not their right to force it on others and make them pay for it as well.
Furthermore the concept of one law for all is not a "pakeha idea" It is a product of the minds of civilized men over many hundreds of years and it's coincidental that the most successful and beneficial civilizations have adopted or grown from these ideas have been those with "white people"
"Maori poor could well complain that the greed of corporate iwi has reduced their standard of living by removing wealth from the crown that might have well been used to improve the lot of the poor."
Exactly my point. SOME Maori are benefiting heavily from state redistributive policies ie Treaty settlements. Others are not.
"Furthermore the concept of one law for all is not a "pakeha idea" It is a product of the minds of civilized men over many hundreds of years and it's coincidental that the most successful and beneficial civilizations have adopted or grown from these ideas have been those with "white people"
Law is a dynamic thing which politicians constantly revisit and remould. I want to see the claims of (some) Maori to customary title examined at the very least.
This appears to be the last chance for ACT. It is now or oblivion.
Personally, I wish the party the best in the next election, but I have serious reservations about Hide's style (and substance) of leadership.
Like you, Lindsay, I too, am unsure of the details of the F & S debate but I am sure that all perspectives are necessary ingredients in a comprehensive deliberation. I fear that by simply pointing to a race-based benefit one may elicit accusations of racism. This is counter to balanced debate.
Cadwallader
Post a Comment