|
|
Post by fish on Dec 16, 2022 12:36:41 GMT 12
It's racism disguised as democracy, hiding behind secularism. Why does he have the right to declare the council meeting secular?Te Tiriti o Waitangi gaurantees Maori cultural expression. Local Government are REQUIRED to uphold Treaty of Waitangi principles in their spaces and decision-making. Banning Karakia is a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It's a racist act to suppress entitlements. Erm, cause he is the Mayor. Maori do have the right to cultural expression. Now, I've read the Treaty, an it doesn't say you have to have a Karakia at the start of every meeting. Further, it doesn't even mention the word partnership. All these people that throw back to the Treaty are just making shit up. Sorry, taking contractual interpretations that aren't based on the wording of the contract. |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 16, 2022 13:06:47 GMT 12
I am afraid that that is ignorant racism.
So I am a recovering ignorant racist, I grew up in a time when learning Maori was frowned upon and actively discouraged by my teachers, including my parents telling me it would be an extinct language. You might work that out one day that you are the same.
The treaty also doesn't say we have to have signs with Maori words on them, it also doesn't say we have to teach Maori in schools, it also doesn't say that Maori is the only official spoken language in New Zealand, it also doesn't say that we have to have Maori place names. The treaty doesn't say a lot of things, but suppressing any of them is racism. And not being able to tell when the suppression of Maori culture is racism is ignorant racism.
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Dec 16, 2022 14:48:31 GMT 12
I am afraid that that is ignorant racism. So I am a recovering ignorant racist, I grew up in a time when learning Maori was frowned upon and actively discouraged by my teachers, including my parents telling me it would be an extinct language. You might work that out one day that you are the same. The treaty also doesn't say we have to have signs with Maori words on them, it also doesn't say we have to teach Maori in schools, it also doesn't say that Maori is the only official spoken language in New Zealand, it also doesn't say that we have to have Maori place names. The treaty doesn't say a lot of things, but suppressing any of them is racism. And not being able to tell when the suppression of Maori culture is racism is ignorant racism. Are you calling me racist because I don't agree with you? |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Dec 16, 2022 14:50:22 GMT 12
PS, I'm actually fairly comfortable with being called an ignorant racist, if all it means is I don't agree with your modern view and interpretation of the Treaty.
It is far better than being an actual racist, and judging people by their skin colour and ethnicity.
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 16, 2022 15:35:30 GMT 12
PS, I'm actually fairly comfortable with being called an ignorant racist, if all it means is I don't agree with your modern view and interpretation of the Treaty. It is far better than being an actual racist, and judging people by their skin colour and ethnicity. I am surprised that you don't see taking away a normalised part of Maori culture as racism. A white pakeha mayor, a leader in the community, elected to represent the community, literally suppressed a cultural Maori activity that had been entrenched for 25 years. If it's not racist, what exactly do you call it when that happens? |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Dec 16, 2022 15:49:50 GMT 12
PS, I'm actually fairly comfortable with being called an ignorant racist, if all it means is I don't agree with your modern view and interpretation of the Treaty. It is far better than being an actual racist, and judging people by their skin colour and ethnicity. I am surprised that you don't see taking away a normalised part of Maori culture as racism. A white pakeha mayor, a leader in the community, elected to represent the community, literally suppressed a cultural Maori activity that had been entrenched for 25 years. If it's not racist, what exactly do you call it when that happens? Oh dear. Ok. I don't think you have a clue what racism is. It certainly is not squabbling over protocols on how to start a meeting. A mate, who many of you will know, went on a holiday this year with his missus. She is black. Porto Rican. He is white (very white, he needs more sun). Traveling interstate, they would need to stop into a hotel for the night. She would go in and be told there were no rooms. He would go in straight after and be given a room. She was followed by some white males. She went back to her hotel, and they followed her to the door. At the door she had to turn around and ask them what they wanted. They thought they heard her talking Mexican. She said no. They wanted to know where she was from. After she said NZ they left her alone. When getting directions on how to get somewhere from local family, they would say "go this way, not that way", if you go that way the Sherriff's deputies will stop you because you are black. It was as matter-of-fact as us saying 'avoid Queen street cause they are building the city rail link'. She laughs in the face of anyone that says NZ is racist. I have worked with Africans and illegal Indians in the UK. I have seen the open racism they suffered from the 'white British' workers and exploitation from the company owners. I could tell several stories about that by itself. So yeah FuzzyDuck, have a cry about the protocols for starting a meeting. You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to racism. No one has had a burning tyre put over their neck. |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 16, 2022 16:10:28 GMT 12
I am surprised that you don't see taking away a normalised part of Maori culture as racism. A white pakeha mayor, a leader in the community, elected to represent the community, literally suppressed a cultural Maori activity that had been entrenched for 25 years. If it's not racist, what exactly do you call it when that happens? Oh dear. Ok. I don't think you have a clue what racism is. It certainly is not squabbling over protocols on how to start a meeting. A mate, who many of you will know, went on a holiday this year with his missus. She is black. Porto Rican. He is white (very white, he needs more sun). Traveling interstate, they would need to stop into a hotel for the night. She would go in and be told there were no rooms. He would go in straight after and be given a room. She was followed by some white males. She went back to her hotel, and they followed her to the door. At the door she had to turn around and ask them what they wanted. They thought they heard her talking Mexican. She said no. They wanted to know where she was from. After she said NZ they left her alone. When getting directions on how to get somewhere from local family, they would say "go this way, not that way", if you go that way the Sherriff's deputies will stop you because you are black. It was as matter-of-fact as us saying 'avoid Queen street cause they are building the city rail link'. She laughs in the face of anyone that says NZ is racist. I have worked with Africans and illegal Indians in the UK. I have seen the open racism they suffered from the 'white British' workers and exploitation from the company owners. So yeah FuzzyDuck, have a cry about the protocols for starting a meeting. You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to racism. No one has had a burning tyre put over their neck. I note you have avoided answering the question. what do you call it then?
When someone suppresses a cultural norm that has been going on for 25 years, if you don't consider it racist or racial discrimination, then what do you call it?Racisim:Racism is the process by which systems and policies, actions and attitudes create inequitable opportunities and outcomes for people based on race. Racism is more than just prejudice in thought or action. It occurs when this prejudice – whether individual or institutional – is accompanied by the power to discriminate against, oppress or limit the rights of others.
|
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Dec 16, 2022 17:12:40 GMT 12
DM - if the lady had asked to say the same prayer in say, Spanish, and got told, no she couldn't, would that be racist?
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 16, 2022 17:32:37 GMT 12
DM - if the lady had asked to say the same prayer in say, Spanish, and got told, no she couldn't, would that be racist? Has it been going on for 25yrs? Is it an established cultural norm enshrined in law? Is the Spanish a disadvantaged minority in Northland? Is the council acknowledged as the equivalent of manawhenua for the Spanish? If the answer to those questions is Yes then Yes it would be racist. Look I get you guys (a) don't think it racist and (b) don't think it's a cultural right. We're past arguing that... What I want to know is what you call it? |
|
|
|
Post by eri on Dec 16, 2022 18:14:34 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Dec 16, 2022 18:52:16 GMT 12
Oh dear. Ok. I don't think you have a clue what racism is. It certainly is not squabbling over protocols on how to start a meeting. A mate, who many of you will know, went on a holiday this year with his missus. She is black. Porto Rican. He is white (very white, he needs more sun). Traveling interstate, they would need to stop into a hotel for the night. She would go in and be told there were no rooms. He would go in straight after and be given a room. She was followed by some white males. She went back to her hotel, and they followed her to the door. At the door she had to turn around and ask them what they wanted. They thought they heard her talking Mexican. She said no. They wanted to know where she was from. After she said NZ they left her alone. When getting directions on how to get somewhere from local family, they would say "go this way, not that way", if you go that way the Sherriff's deputies will stop you because you are black. It was as matter-of-fact as us saying 'avoid Queen street cause they are building the city rail link'. She laughs in the face of anyone that says NZ is racist. I have worked with Africans and illegal Indians in the UK. I have seen the open racism they suffered from the 'white British' workers and exploitation from the company owners. So yeah FuzzyDuck, have a cry about the protocols for starting a meeting. You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to racism. No one has had a burning tyre put over their neck. I note you have avoided answering the question. what do you call it then?
When someone suppresses a cultural norm that has been going on for 25 years, if you don't consider it racist or racial discrimination, then what do you call it?Racisim:Racism is the process by which systems and policies, actions and attitudes create inequitable opportunities and outcomes for people based on race. Racism is more than just prejudice in thought or action. It occurs when this prejudice – whether individual or institutional – is accompanied by the power to discriminate against, oppress or limit the rights of others.
In this context, I call this a procedural matter. I note that Jacinda Adern has cancelled the annual Waitangi Day BBQ, where she cooks up a few sausages and feeds the locals. That has been going on for several years and is closely related to the celebration of the Maori National Day. Is she racist for cancelling that? FuzzyDuck, have you ever been denied accommodation because of who you are? I've been mistaken for a pykie in the UK, a traveller. Funny accent and no fixed abode. Suddenly no room in the back-packers hostel. That is racism. You need some perspective. I've answered your question, could you please answer this one: NZ is a Christian Country. Why can't we say Christian prays at the start of Council meetings? |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 16, 2022 19:34:14 GMT 12
I note you have avoided answering the question. what do you call it then?
When someone suppresses a cultural norm that has been going on for 25 years, if you don't consider it racist or racial discrimination, then what do you call it?Racisim:Racism is the process by which systems and policies, actions and attitudes create inequitable opportunities and outcomes for people based on race. Racism is more than just prejudice in thought or action. It occurs when this prejudice – whether individual or institutional – is accompanied by the power to discriminate against, oppress or limit the rights of others.
In this context, I call this a procedural matter. I note that Jacinda Adern has cancelled the annual Waitangi Day BBQ, where she cooks up a few sausages and feeds the locals. That has been going on for several years and is closely related to the celebration of the Maori National Day. Is she racist for cancelling that? FuzzyDuck, have you ever been denied accommodation because of who you are? I've been mistaken for a pykie in the UK, a traveller. Funny accent and no fixed abode. Suddenly no room in the back-packers hostel. That is racism. You need some perspective. I've answered your question, could you please answer this one: NZ is a Christian Country. Why can't we say Christian prays at the start of Council meetings? You're just racial gas lighting now. The BBQ at Waitangi is not a cultural norm by an opppressed and disadvantaged race. Christian prayers before a meeting is neither cultural norm nor a normal activity carried out by Christian and nor are Christians an oppressed minority. So to answer your question directly, you cannot say Christian Prayers at the start of a council meeting because it is neither the norm or culturally accepted.If on the other hand you proposed the following context: Christians are a disadvantaged minority. Christians have been saying prayers at the beginning of meetings since Jesus was crucified It's part of the Christian Culture and that culture is protected by law. Council meetings have had Chirstian Prayers said at the beginning for the last 25yrs And now some white guy from a majority has come along and banned it. Then that would be discrimination. And if Christians were all from the same race, then it would be racismBut of course those facts don't apply to Christians. But they do apply to Maori. You seem to think there is a threshold of when racism kicks in. So sticking with the answer a question theme: What if the Mayor decided tomorrow to ban all Maori signage in council offices. Would that reach the threshold for Racism or is that also just a procedural matter? What if the Government decides to ban all Maori signs in the country. Does that make the threshold? What if the Government decides to ban the speaking of Maori in all Government buildings, after all, I am yet to meet a Maori that cannot speak English - Does that reach the threshold? Or is that also a procedural matter? |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Dec 16, 2022 20:45:17 GMT 12
In this context, I call this a procedural matter. I note that Jacinda Adern has cancelled the annual Waitangi Day BBQ, where she cooks up a few sausages and feeds the locals. That has been going on for several years and is closely related to the celebration of the Maori National Day. Is she racist for cancelling that? FuzzyDuck, have you ever been denied accommodation because of who you are? I've been mistaken for a pykie in the UK, a traveller. Funny accent and no fixed abode. Suddenly no room in the back-packers hostel. That is racism. You need some perspective. I've answered your question, could you please answer this one: NZ is a Christian Country. Why can't we say Christian prays at the start of Council meetings? You're just racial gas lighting now. The BBQ at Waitangi is not a cultural norm by an opppressed and disadvantaged race. Christian prayers before a meeting is neither cultural norm nor a normal activity carried out by Christian and nor are Christians an oppressed minority. So to answer your question directly, you cannot say Christian Prayers at the start of a council meeting because it is neither the norm or culturally accepted.If on the other hand you proposed the following context: Christians are a disadvantaged minority. Christians have been saying prayers at the beginning of meetings since Jesus was crucified It's part of the Christian Culture and that culture is protected by law. Council meetings have had Chirstian Prayers said at the beginning for the last 25yrs And now some white guy from a majority has come along and banned it. Then that would be discrimination. And if Christians were all from the same race, then it would be racismBut of course those facts don't apply to Christians. But they do apply to Maori. You seem to think there is a threshold of when racism kicks in. So sticking with the answer a question theme: What if the Mayor decided tomorrow to ban all Maori signage in council offices. Would that reach the threshold for Racism or is that also just a procedural matter? What if the Government decides to ban all Maori signs in the country. Does that make the threshold? What if the Government decides to ban the speaking of Maori in all Government buildings, after all, I am yet to meet a Maori that cannot speak English - Does that reach the threshold? Or is that also a procedural matter? I'm happy to call it racist if you insist, but it is at the very minor end of the spectrum. On your examples, you do touch on some highly racist elements of NZ's previous history. Namely the banning of speaking Maori. That happened, and that is a good example of oppressing a culture. It was certainly counter to the basic articles of the Treaty. Banning the use of and removing of all Te Reo signs. If there is a ban in place, then it has the same elements on the ban on speaking Maori, so yes, counter to the Treaty. In saying that, change is a normal thing. There may be a legit reason to remove signs, say if the signs are old and illegible, or if the naming is irrelevant or confusing. But bear in mind that many Tribes in NZ have suffered great injustices. Arbitrary land confiscation is the main one. Removal of the ability to identify as Maori and to practice Tikunga (apologies if I've got that word mixed up) is a big deal and has been actively applied in NZ's history. The flip side to the Treaty though is that all Maori did become subjects of the Crown. Now, in the context of this Council meeting stoush, I'm sure you will say they can't practice their Tikunga because the Mayor has banned the Karakia. The question becomes, as subjects of the Crown, should they expect to be able to say their prayer at the start of general community meetings? I'm sure what you are refering to is the ability to practice Tinorangitiratunga and Tikunga under the Treaty. This is the tricky element as to how to balance how wide reaching that is with imposition on the rest of the community. Maori are still free to practice Tikunga. It hasn't been banned. An example would be equivalent to gay sex being banned. It was illegal to be gay. It is not illegal to be Maori. Another example that you most definitely wont understand is how it was basically illegal to be un-vaxxed, in that the un-vaxxed were excluded from society. Maori aren't excluded from society. The problem with the Karakia at the Council meeting is it becomes an imposition on everyone else. Many people have a well established issue with praying to false gods. And that isn't just a Christian thing. Now, in my view govt & local govt should be secular. That doesn't mean they can't acknowledge various customs and cultures. Classic examples are funding celebrations for Dewali and Matariki. What I would say is this hasn't been handled very well. The Mayor may be an out and out racist, I have no idea. But you made a comment earlier about Maori being good at compromise. I think it would have been more appropriate not to shut the Karakia lady down publicly, but to have a conversation with her before hand. An open and two way conversation. Noting the 25 yrs of Karakia history at this Council, and the significance of the first Council meeting, it probably would have been appropriate to have a Karakia to welcome in the new council etc. A ceremonial function, but at the same time the Mayor could have indicated a change in expectations of not having a Karakia at every meeting. On the same element of ceremonies and what not, the chains and gowns that Mayors wear up and down the country look really weird. Like some random fancy dress. I don't see the need for that carryon either. In my view, Councils are administrative bodies that need to get on with the executive elements of running the district. Budgets, rates, staff salaries, letting and management of maintenance contracts, roading, libraries and other public amenities. The Councillors are there to do a job, not fuck around wearing random gowns and chains or reciting prays and karakia etc. How many boards of directors have some sort of ceremony every time they start a meeting? And on that, I really think this is a major distraction to the Council just getting on and doing its job. Noting Kaipara Council have the record for the biggest infrastructure project fuck up in the Country. They are massively burdened with debt and had to get the law changed so they weren't liable for their fuck up. The Council need to acknowledge Tikunga Maori, the lady shouldn't have been ambushed at the first meeting (I think they call that diminishing Mana), but they should now sort it out and get on with running the district. |
|
dp
Full Member
Posts: 135
|
Post by dp on Dec 16, 2022 21:42:02 GMT 12
On your examples, you do touch on some highly racist elements of NZ's previous history. Namely the banning of speaking Maori. That happened, and that is a good example of oppressing a culture. It was certainly counter to the basic articles of the Treaty.. How can that have been racist when the Māoris themselves asked for it? sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/maori-forbidden-at-school?pli=1"‘In the 1870s, shortly after the Native Schools system had been established, a number of prominent Maori sought through Parliament to place greater emphasis on the teaching of English in the schools. A newly elected Maori Member of Parliament, Takamoana, sought legislation to ensure that Maori children were taught only in English. A number of petitions in a similar vein were also taken to Parliament by Maori. One such petition in 1877 by Wi Te Hakiro and 336 others called for an amendment to the 1867 Native Schools Act which would require the teachers of a Native School to be ignorant of the Maori language and not permit the Maori language to be spoken at the school. |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 16, 2022 22:32:31 GMT 12
On your examples, you do touch on some highly racist elements of NZ's previous history. Namely the banning of speaking Maori. That happened, and that is a good example of oppressing a culture. It was certainly counter to the basic articles of the Treaty.. How can that have been racist when the Māoris themselves asked for it? sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/maori-forbidden-at-school?pli=1"‘In the 1870s, shortly after the Native Schools system had been established, a number of prominent Maori sought through Parliament to place greater emphasis on the teaching of English in the schools. A newly elected Maori Member of Parliament, Takamoana, sought legislation to ensure that Maori children were taught only in English. A number of petitions in a similar vein were also taken to Parliament by Maori. One such petition in 1877 by Wi Te Hakiro and 336 others called for an amendment to the 1867 Native Schools Act which would require the teachers of a Native School to be ignorant of the Maori language and not permit the Maori language to be spoken at the school. Yes it's disturbing. The colonised were active participants in the further colonisation of their people based on the understanding that the coloniser was a model of success. The government on the other hand had the responsibility and the obligation to recognise this and to uphold the treaty of waitangi which provided a gaurantee that maori could continue to learn their own language. So while you're right that some 'assimilated' Maori requested the removal of Te Reo in schools it didn't make it right for the Government to enforce that. That enforcement led to further assimilation and was institutional racism. The government had the obligation to say 'no you have a right to learn your language if you choose' but instead they took that right away because it played right into their colonization objectives of the time. 100 years later and we see what the world considers appropriate protection of indigenous rights in the form of the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous people. Had the Government of the 1870s upheld the treaty of waitangi then those decisions would of been in perfect sync with the UN declaration 100 years later. Of course in the 1870s the treaty of waitangi was considered null and void by the government and totally irrelevant. Which is another discussion altogether. Suffice to say, it's well established in 100s of academic papers and books that institutional racism occured in the New Zealand school system. |
|
