Thu, 06/02
Michael....@cs.cmu.edu
> Graham J. El...@csd.bris (317)
> Is there anything people traditionally do on this day?
Engage in fervent ideological discussions about race, colonialism, the
nature of nations, whether it was all bad, mostly bad, or just a little
bit bad. and so forth. A useful excercise, whose absence in the US on
the 4th of July is probably regrettable.
Graham J. Ellis
I'm not a NewZealander, and I don't know - can someone tell me, what it
Waitangi Day? Is it a celibration of something specific? Is there anything
people traditionally do on this day?
G.J.E.
Ewan Tempero
Well mainly, it's a day off work. This is the most important feature of
any New Zealand holiday. The actual _reason_ for the holiday is
secondary.
It's typically celebrated by protests about how the Maoris got ripped
off by the pakeha signatories of the Treaty of Waitangi. This treaty
(according to the Pakeha) united the Maori and Pakeha under the
sovereignty of Britain (in the person of Lt Gov. Hobson) and so, in some
sense, can be considered to be the beginning of the existence of NZ.
There is strong belief that most of the Maori chiefs who signed the Treaty
thought they were merely acknowledging Hobson as governer of the
pakeha. These days, while the Treaty is not considered with the
same religious fervour as the U.S. constitution, it is treated with
the same LEGAL fervour.
[Disclaimer: I believe this explanation to be accurate. I even think
it's mainly complete. It's my priorities you may have trouble with!]
--ewan
--
e-mail: ew...@comp.vuw.ac.nz Post: Department of Computer Science
Phone: +64 4 471 5328 x8069 Victoria University of Wellington
Fax: +64 4 495 5232 P.O. Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand
Conjecture: 1+1=1 (plus a small constant)
Stuart Wilson
>
[...]
>pakeha. These days, while the Treaty is not considered with the
>same religious fervour as the U.S. constitution, it is treated with
>the same LEGAL fervour.
[Here begins a quick lecture in New Zealand Colonial History, Kiwis can
hit the 'n' key here]
The LEGAL & POLITICAL fervour is mostly caused by the article of the
treaty which guarantees the Maori "Ownership" over their "Lands,
Forests and Fisheries". The real problems arise, because although
there is one English version of treaty there were at least 4 different
Maori translations that were carted round the country and signed by
most of the Maori Chiefs. And the British ideas of Ownership & Sovereignty
didn't translate into Maori very well, if at all.
All that was in 1840. Later on (About 1865) the real colonialism
comes in. Large scale british immigration during the 1850s and 1860s
meant that the bits of New Zealand that the Maori were willing to sell
to the Pakeha were no longer big enough. Land wars erupted which by
and large were won by the superior fire power of the british army.
"To the winner the spoils" then took affect, with wholesale land
confiscations.
By the late 1970s the Maori population had recovered, and large scale
protests about the land confiscations took place right through the
1980s. The Waitangi Tribunal was set up and it heard grievances from
the Maori tribes about land confiscations dating from 1880. The
tribunal has no real teeth to enforce it's judgements, and the
government of the day, can & has ignored the judgements from the
tribunal.
Then the Labor Government (Left of center, but only just) gave the
tribunal the power to hear grievances going back to 1840, and some
really big land claims, and lately fisheries claims have been heard.
After these judgements came down in favour of the claimants, the
Labour Govt, usually entered into negotiations with the claimants
about what compensation should be paid.
The current National Govt (Right of center, almost at Genghis Kahn
over Maori land issues), have kept ther heads down and probably wish
the whole thing would just go away.
The land claims for "Crown Owned" land can and have resulted in the
crown land being handed back to the tribes. Claims over "Privately
Owned" land have resulted in large cash payments from the government
to the Maori tribes rather than dispossesion by the current owners.
Needless to say Waitangi day was a focus of great protest particularly
at Waitangi itself. During the 970s & 1980s Waitangi day meant near
riots with large numbers of police at the grounds of the treaty house.
Yesterday there was protest, but it was peaceful & without confrontation.
We are learning, and things are improving.
Comments ?
Stuart Wilson.
--
===============================================================================
Teach them politics & war so their sons may study medicine & mathematics so as
to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music & architecture.
==============================================================================
Robert Lum
the latest issue of "Ms" magazine, the one titled "Women + Rage = Power".
Alan gibson
> Needless to say Waitangi day was a focus of great protest particularly
> at Waitangi itself. During the 970s & 1980s Waitangi day meant near
> riots with large numbers of police at the grounds of the treaty house.
>
> Yesterday there was protest, but it was peaceful & without confrontation.
> We are learning, and things are improving.
>
>
> Comments ?
>
> Stuart Wilson.
>
> --
> =============================================================================
Getting better? Just who are you trying to kid? The only people things
are getting better for in NZ are the owners of big business and the
managers who put their decisions into practice. I refer you to the
screams of panic in the week preceding the Tamaki by-election by business
leaders who all were stating that we don't want to change the present
economic/political course because it is working (unlike the increasing
numbers of unemployed). Working people are being fucked over, and Maori
as an oppressed ethnic minority are having a particularily bad time.
Things are getting worse - it's time to fight back!
Alan
PRG
Philip R. Banks
> numbers of unemployed). Working people are being fucked over, and Maori
> as an oppressed ethnic minority are having a particularily bad time.
What evidence do you have to suggest that the Maori are suffering any
more than the rest of us? The economic recession is hitting the average new
zealander of *any* race just as bad. The only people getting any improvement
are, of course, those in power....
> Things are getting worse - it's time to fight back!
What do you suggest? A good reveloution? These tend to be bloody and the
people put into power by it usually are worse than those being removed. No
the best way to fight back would be for a new political party to be formed
that *actually* reflects what people want. However I don't think this is
likely....
Philip
--
Philip R. Banks @@@@@/|
Syntax: mail <ban...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz|ban...@khantazi.welly.gen.nz> @@@@/#|
@@@/##|
What price the crown of a king on his throne, @@/---|
When you're chained in the dark all alone? ---A.P.P. @/ |
Mary....@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
> Alan gibson <al...@sideways.welly.gen.nz> writes:
>
> > numbers of unemployed). Working people are being fucked over, and Maori
> > as an oppressed ethnic minority are having a particularily bad time.
>
> What evidence do you have to suggest that the Maori are suffering any
> more than the rest of us? The economic recession is hitting the average new
> zealander of *any* race just as bad.
>
Try looking at comparative unemployment rates. Or average wage rates.
(Remember, reasons WHY Maori are overrepresented in the
unemployed/poor are not relevant here - the fact is that they are - and
the unemployed and the poor *are* being hit harder than are the
employed and well off.)
--
\ \/ / |
\/\/\/\/ | mary....@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Philip R. Banks
> Try looking at comparative unemployment rates. Or average wage rates.
>
> (Remember, reasons WHY Maori are overrepresented in the
> unemployed/poor are not relevant here - the fact is that they are - and
> the unemployed and the poor *are* being hit harder than are the
> employed and well off.)
This still does not give me evidence that the Maori are being hit harder
than any other race. Perhaps more percentage wise of their race is but in
terms of individuals they are not being affected any more or less than the
rest of New Zealand. As you say the reasons why Maori are percentage wise
more affected are not relavent here.
What you are implying in your above statement is that if you are non
Maori then you aren't being affected as badly. This is not true as there are
people of all races being affected as badly as any Maori is. It is this
continual implication that non Maoris are always better off than Maoris that
gets my goat. Isn't it about time that people realised that not matter the
race,colour or creed that *everybody* bar the well off are being affected
equally detrimentally?
Mary....@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
> Mary....@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>
> > Try looking at comparative unemployment rates. Or average wage rates.
>
> than any other race. Perhaps more percentage wise of their race is but in
> terms of individuals they are not being affected any more or less than the
> Maori then you aren't being affected as badly. This is not true as there are
> people of all races being affected as badly as any Maori is. It is this
> continual implication that non Maoris are always better off than Maoris that
> gets my goat. Isn't it about time that people realised that not matter the
> race,colour or creed that *everybody* bar the well off are being affected
> equally detrimentally?
Sigh. We're talking about populations, or subgroups of populations,
here - not individuals. If an individual belongs to a population
subgroup that is worse off than others, then the probability that that
individual is badly off is higher than the probability that an
individual from the rest of the population who is matched on all
factors bar ethnicity is badly off.
L J Groves
If you are trying to determine whether Maori are suffering more that non-Maori
as a result of the economic recession, based on unemployment and average wage
levels, you'll need to look at more that the current unemployment and average
wage levels -- you'll also need to look at the levels BEFORE the start of the
recession. For example, if the proportion of Maori unemployed was 90% before
the recession and 70% now, this would not show that Maori were suffering more
AS A RESULT OF THE RECESSION.
I am not claiming that Maori are suffering any more or less than anyone else
-- just attempting to point out a flaw in Mary's logic.
Lindsay
Alan gibson
> In article <0SSbr...@khantazi.welly.gen.nz> ban...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz wri
> > Mary....@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> >
> > > Try looking at comparative unemployment rates. Or average wage rates.
> >
> > This still does not give me evidence that the Maori are being hit harder
> > than any other race. Perhaps more percentage wise of their race is but in
> > terms of individuals they are not being affected any more or less than the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > Maori then you aren't being affected as badly. This is not true as there ar
> > people of all races being affected as badly as any Maori is. It is this
> > continual implication that non Maoris are always better off than Maoris tha
> > gets my goat. Isn't it about time that people realised that not matter the
> > race,colour or creed that *everybody* bar the well off are being affected
> > equally detrimentally?
>
>
> Sigh. We're talking about populations, or subgroups of populations,
> here - not individuals. If an individual belongs to a population
> subgroup that is worse off than others, then the probability that that
> individual is badly off is higher than the probability that an
> individual from the rest of the population who is matched on all
> factors bar ethnicity is badly off.
>
>
>
> --
> \ \/ / |
> \/\/\/\/ | mary....@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
>
It is true that all NZers except the people at the top are being hit hard
and it is important that we recognise that this exploitation is at base
caused by the class nature of our society. This does not mean however
that racial oppression does not exist. Our struggle to fightback as
workers must be intertwined with the struggle against all forms of
oppression. Working people will not be free if racial oppression
continues and ethnic minorities will not be free of racial oppression
while capitalism continues.
Alan
PRG
Steven Murray
[Stuff deleted]
>continues and ethnic minorities will not be free of racial oppression
>while capitalism continues.
Of the economic systems, capitalism must be the most ambivalent to race.
Where do you get off?
--
Steven Murray
uunet!slxsys!stevem ste...@specialix.co.uk
I am speaking, but | The important thing is not to stop questioning.
not for my employer.| -Albert Einstein
Philip R. Banks
> Sigh. We're talking about populations, or subgroups of populations,
> here - not individuals. If an individual belongs to a population
> subgroup that is worse off than others, then the probability that that
> individual is badly off is higher than the probability that an
> individual from the rest of the population who is matched on all
> factors bar ethnicity is badly off.
Really? I was initially talking about individuals myself but....
Your reasoning my indeed be true (and probably is) but it is not what I am
talking about. What I am fed up with is the constant implication that simply
*because* someone is non Maori they *must* be better off. This not the case.
There are alot of non Maori's who are affected just as badly as any Maori
ever was or will be. It may be a higher probability that a non Maori is
better off but it is *not* always true. Which is what is implied. Indeed it
could be argued that the reason a non Maori is better off on probability is
due to factors other than race which have simply stacked up badly.
However I am not going to bother arguing such lines as I really don't
know and do rather have my hands full on another arguement... I really must
at some point get the census data and have a look at it just to see what the
percentages are now.
Alan gibson
> There are alot of non Maori's who are affected just as badly as any Maori
> ever was or will be. It may be a higher probability that a non Maori is
> better off but it is *not* always true. Which is what is implied. Indeed it
> could be argued that the reason a non Maori is better off on probability is
> due to factors other than race which have simply stacked up badly.
>
>
> --
> Philip R. Banks @@@@@
I am amazed that you could have thought from either mine or Mary's
posting that we were implying that every Maori is worse off than any
Pakeha. This is a discussion about social groupings. To argue as you do
can only be seen as denying the reality of racial oppression. This social
reality was what I was referring to, your insistence in promoting the
other social reality that many Pakeha are badly off and in fact some are
worse off than some Maori is not useful in understanding NZ society and
racial oppression. These are things we must understand if any real change
is going to occur in NZ. The fight to change NZ society is what motivated
my previous postings, I can only wonder what motivates your symantic
arguments on this question.
Alan
PRG
Michael....@cs.cmu.edu
> Claims & Wai.. Steven Murray@specialix. (463)
> Of the economic systems, capitalism must be the most ambivalent to race.
Why, pray tell?
Michael
loa...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
a cheap labour "resource". I don't call this ambivalence. Most of the
alternatives that have been tried recently are just as bad though, I suppose.
--
Ralph Loader LOA...@UK.AC.OXFORD.VAX
THIS IS A SIGNATURE VIRUS ;-)
Alan gibson
> al...@sideways.welly.gen.nz (Alan gibson) writes:
> [Stuff deleted]
> >continues and ethnic minorities will not be free of racial oppression
> >while capitalism continues.
>
> Of the economic systems, capitalism must be the most ambivalent to race.
> Where do you get off?
>
Are you serious?
We have a world which is dominated by capitalism, a world where racism
not only is tolerated but in many cases it is nurtured. Take the bastion
of capitalism the good old USA - a profoundly racist society. Also how
would Steve Murray explain the present persecution of ethnic minorities
in the UK and the more repressive immigration laws presently proposed.
Ambivalent?? More like dependent.
Alan
PRG
Alan gibson
> Capitalism benefits greatly from nearly any sort of oppression that results i
> alternatives that have been tried recently are just as bad though, I suppose.
> --
> Ralph Loader LOA...@UK.AC.OXFORD.VAX
There is a real alternative to the oppression which capitalism in the
period of imperialist decline breeds. That is Communism. Not the
bureaucratic distortion that was Stalinism but the communism of the first
four congresses of the Third Workers International under the leadership
of Lenin, Trotsky and the healthy Bolshevik party. Those who want to see
a better world should join the struggle to reforge the revolutionary
traditions of Bolshevism. Get involved in the far left, join the debates,
fight for the working class. Learn the politics of Bolshevism - find out
about the politics of the International Bolshevik Tendency the
continuators of these politics in our time.
Alan
PRG/
Evan Torrie
>There is a real alternative to the oppression which capitalism in the
>period of imperialist decline breeds. That is Communism.
Sure, it would work fine...
if you lobotomised every child at birth. Until the state decides to
do this, perhaps you could explain how you plain to eliminate any
traces of individuality present in the human psyche.
>Not the
>bureaucratic distortion that was Stalinism but the communism of the first
>four congresses of the Third Workers International under the leadership
>of Lenin, Trotsky and the healthy Bolshevik party.
Oh no, it's the standard they weren't "REAL" communists argument.
This is just as hackneyed as the the Spanish Inquisitors/Jimmy
Swaggart weren't "REAL" Christians argument.
Have you considered that maybe the first phase of Communism
(Bolshevism) leads inevitably to the second (Stalinism)?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? tor...@cs.stanford.edu
Rains RCC - "Remember, even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat."
Philip R. Banks
> I am amazed that you could have thought from either mine or Mary's
> posting that we were implying that every Maori is worse off than any
> Pakeha. This is a discussion about social groupings. To argue as you do
> can only be seen as denying the reality of racial oppression. This social
> reality was what I was referring to, your insistence in promoting the
> other social reality that many Pakeha are badly off and in fact some are
> worse off than some Maori is not useful in understanding NZ society and
> racial oppression. These are things we must understand if any real change
> is going to occur in NZ. The fight to change NZ society is what motivated
> my previous postings, I can only wonder what motivates your symantic
> arguments on this question.
When this topic began I *was* talking about individuals myself. It has
since been altered from that.... In no way am I denying the `reality` of
racial opppresion. (Indeed there is racial oppression but I think you and I
would disagree in what way there is.) What I was pointing out was that it is
erronious to point to any race and say that they are being affected by the
economy any more or less than any other race in New Zealand.
However the total effect that such delivers depends upon what your
initial starting state was. What irked me was this implication that simply
because one was of a particular race one was being affected any more or less
than anyone else in any other race by the current economic depression. Which
*is* what you and Mary were implying....
And my motives? Well one of annoyance at such large amounts of erronious
information being plastered across the network and a desire to see that all
sides of the arguement are presented. There seems to be a decided lack of
that around....
Philip
--
loa...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
>
> There is a real alternative to the oppression which capitalism in the
> period of imperialist decline breeds. That is Communism. Not the
> bureaucratic distortion that was Stalinism but the communism of the first
> four congresses of the Third Workers International under the leadership
> of Lenin, Trotsky and the healthy Bolshevik party. Those who want to see
> a better world should join the struggle to reforge the revolutionary
> traditions of Bolshevism. Get involved in the far left, join the debates,
> fight for the working class. Learn the politics of Bolshevism - find out
> about the politics of the International Bolshevik Tendency the
> continuators of these politics in our time.
>
> Alan
> PRG/
Bullshit. Politicians are oppressors. Power corrupts. The only way to end
oppression is to rise up against all those who think they know how we want to
run our lives. Storm the parliments and string up the politicians. Real
democracy is the people taking power, not some leader, Bolshydick or
Crapitalist, grabbing power and privilege, and kicking us down, while
pretending to act in our interests.
ANARCHY IS OK
--
Ralph Loader LOA...@UK.AC.OXFORD.VAX
THIS IS A SIGNATURE VIRUS ;-)
THIS IS A COMMUNIST SMILE :-{
THIS IS A CAPATALIST SMILE $^|
Steven Murray
>There is a real alternative to the oppression which capitalism in the
>period of imperialist decline breeds. That is Communism.
[sigh] Yes. Its just a damn pity no one has been able to get it to
increase anyones quality of life.
loa...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
> al...@sideways.welly.gen.nz (Alan gibson) writes:
>
>>There is a real alternative to the oppression which capitalism in the
>>period of imperialist decline breeds. That is Communism.
>
> [sigh] Yes. Its just a damn pity no one has been able to get it to
> increase anyones quality of life.
>
think either that Gorbachov, Chernenko, Andropov, Breznev, Krushchov and that
other one who's name I've forgotten exactly starved under communism. Not to
mention a host of other lesser politicians / beaurocrats / military etc. Mind
you, pity about all the working class people the communists were so worried
about looking after. Isn't much different from crapitalism, really, eh?