Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 61498	2005-09-06 23:33:00	Does this make me a Racist ?	KiwiTT_NZ (233)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
386552	2005-09-06 23:33:00	At the moment we have an election campaign going on and one party's policy is to treat all people equally. This policy is being deemed by some as "Racist". Now we had a race of people called "Maori", who controlled most of the country before the Europeans arrived (e.g. similar to Native Indians in America). This race eventually merged into the European race due to marriage, etc., so that now the majority of people who call themselves "Maori", are less "Maori" then they are English, Scottish or other races. It would appear that some significant wrongs were done to these people, well over 100 years ago and we are working through righting those wrongs, with the tribes. However, who is going to have to pay for these wrongs; the people who aren't "Maori", but all New Zealanders, including "Maori". Now, I have a problem with this. Like Maori, I have a mixture of races in me, including one that was seriously wronged in the past. My grandfather had to work as a slave laborer in Germany, because he was a part "Jew". I think a 1/4 was. My grandmother on the otherside was "German". Now this would make me 1/4 German. Do I now sue my 1/4 German side that my 1/16 Jew side was wronged, i.e. the wages he was not paid. Of course not. That is why I think paying compensation to a race that is represented by people who are less of that race than they are other races is really wrong. People who are of this race can also claim special benefits, like free education, etc, even though they are less than 10% of that race. I prefer helping people based on "need" as opposed to their "race" or "color". Does this make me a Racist ?	KiwiTT_NZ (233)
386553	2005-09-07 02:09:00	On current definitions - probably. sarel	sarel (2490)
386554	2005-09-07 02:25:00	At the moment we have an election campaign going on and one party's policy is to treat all people equally. This policy is being deemed by some as "Racist". Now we had a race of people called "Maori", who controlled most of the country before the Europeans arrived (e.g. similar to Native Indians in America). This race eventually merged into the European race due to marriage, etc., so that now the majority of people who call themselves "Maori", are less "Maori" then they are English, Scottish or other races. It would appear that some significant wrongs were done to these people, well over 100 years ago and we are working through righting those wrongs, with the tribes. However, who is going to have to pay for these wrongs; the people who aren't "Maori", but all New Zealanders, including "Maori". Now, I have a problem with this. Like Maori, I have a mixture of races in me, including one that was seriously wronged in the past. My grandfather had to work as a slave laborer in Germany, because he was a part "Jew". I think a 1/4 was. My grandmother on the otherside was "German". Now this would make me 1/4 German. Do I now sue my 1/4 German side that my 1/16 Jew side was wronged, i.e. the wages he was not paid. Of course not. That is why I think paying compensation to a race that is represented by people who are less of that race than they are other races is really wrong. People who are of this race can also claim special benefits, like free education, etc, even though they are less than 10% of that race. I prefer helping people based on "need" as opposed to their "race" or "color". Does this make me a Racist ? The wikipedia definition of racist (though by no means the quintessential definition) is this: "Racism has historically been defined as the belief that race is the primary determinant of human capacities, that a certain race is inherently superior or inferior to others, and/or that individuals should be treated differently according to their racial designation. Sometimes racism means beliefs, practices, and institutions that discriminate against people based on their perceived or ascribed race. There is a growing, but somewhat controversial, opinion that racism is a system of oppression -" I've always understood "racism" simply as the categorisation or identification of people by their race, and qualfiied this with "positive discrimination" and "negative discrimination". However, this is where is gets messy, as the "positive" and "negative" elements imply a moral judgement (i.e. what is positive to some will be negative to others). Programs of genocide would be classified by most as "negative discrimination according to race" (something of an understatement in my view), whereas an example of "positive discrimination according to race" could (arguably) be a program of assistance offered to a certain racial group. This is contentious where there is disagreement whether that racial group would be better assisted by targeted assistance, or by "tough love", and encouraging resilience and self-reliance. For me, this is the crux of the matter - I think the majority of society has in-built racism of the type that I identifed at the start - thinking of people according to their race. It's in-built simply because we talk about Maori, Chinese, European, etc throughout our day. This is a generalisation, a category to assist communication. Such identification is not inherently negative discrimination. The problem arises when people disagree over the best approach - hands on, or hands off? In the current political climate, we have competing ideologies, each claiming to be the most beneficial. It's an individual choice, at the end of the day. IMHO, the word "racist" is bandied too-much, and frankly, "mainstream" is a far more offensive word (implies "normality", and consequently "abnormality") and is ultimately dependent on your point-of-view. People who talk about the "mainstream" whatever are revealing where their true prejudices (not necessarily confined to racial discrimination) lie.	Lizard (2409)
386555	2005-09-07 02:28:00	I find it much easier to pass judgment on people based on their spelling............	Metla (12)
386556	2005-09-07 02:30:00	I find it much easier to pass judgment on people based on their spelling............ Ahhh, a language nazi! :horrified :)	Lizard (2409)
386557	2005-09-07 03:00:00	There is no real defined measure (1/4, 1/8, etc.) . All you need (according to Social statisticians) to do is have a "Maori" ancestor, to call yourself a "Maori". I think one of my ancestors was a "Prince" in the 1600-1700's, however, I can't call myself a "Royal". Or more recently "Jew", and I don't think I can call myself one. This is my real problem with the current "Policy" towards Maori. These people get special treatment, because they have declared themselves to be Maori, not because they need it or because they are "Maori". There are many other races in NZ, including a growing number or Refugees that are more in need than these people.	KiwiTT_NZ (233)
386558	2005-09-07 04:06:00	You, or anyone else, are not paying compensation to "Maori" per se. You are paying compensation to the "rightful" owners of the land, who happen to be Maori. That they have intermarried with other races does not diminish their claim to ownership of the disputed property. If the said Maori owners legally and wilfully transferred the ownership of their property to a red-headed Mongolian from Nigeria, then you pay compensation to that strange dude. And not all Maori are asking for compensation, and not all Maori qualify for compensation, and not all Maori should be given compensation. The liberal use of quotation marks indication the subjective nature of the definitions.	vinref (6194)
386559	2005-09-07 04:23:00	I know not all Maori are asking for compensation. However, a lot of tribal elders or representatives are not even full Maori. How many are ? This is my concern. Also why should they be treated differently if they are only 1/32, 1/64 or even less; when they are in fact more of some other race. "Race" based policies is wrong as it causes a lot of people to take advantage of it.	KiwiTT_NZ (233)
386560	2005-09-07 04:48:00	I know not all Maori are asking for compensation. However, a lot of tribal elders or representatives are not even full Maori. How many are ? This is my concern. Also why should they be treated differently if they are only 1/32, 1/64 or even less; when they are in fact more of some other race. "Race" based policies is wrong as it causes a lot of people to take advantage of it. Therein lies the contradictions. Legal claims are/should not be based on genetic inheritance. And you, being a more alert and worldly observer, should not construe it as a right based on the amount of genes inherited. And those Maori who are supporting various claims should not infer such a thing either. And they probably do not either. Dig deeper into the history and the issues involved. Do not believe the media coverage or some Maori dude down the road. There are too many lies, inconsitencies, and myths floating about. It is a legal case, and should always be construed as that. And I know for sure that the courts do not award anything on the basis of race genetics. The politicians are different though. Thank god for the independence of the judiciary.	vinref (6194)
386561	2005-09-07 05:07:00	There will be a queue to join a tribe when the Maori party's proposal to allow Maoris to go on pension ten years earlier than the rest of society gets through. :thumbs:	Scouse (83)
1 2 3