Eek! ANGRY BLACKMAN

Written By: - Date published: 3:45 pm, November 11th, 2009 - 112 comments
Categories: colonialism, racism - Tags:

angry brown and blue men

OK, so Hone says

If I should be suspended for my language, he [Phil Goff]

and his mates should be lined up against the wall and shot.

Just as saying something about [blue] mofos does not mean therefore all [blues] are mofos, the comment about Goff is not an incitement nor is it meant other than figuratively. It is an exasperated response that employs a common idiomatic phrase in a conditional comparative analogy. I think they’re a bad choice of words, although the sentiments and anger are understandable if you acknowledge the context – even if you don’t agree with them.

Of course many people don’t actually want to think or hear about what Hone actually said, they’re too distracted wetting themselves over the specter of an ANGRY BLACKMAN. Some will be pleased with the hysteria and merrily propagate as much misunderstanding and ill sentiment as possible. Many will take the comments as incontrovertible ‘evidence’ that the Maori Party is racist and that bloke Harry Wearer is one scary angry marry. Others will be wetting themselves with relief that the heat’s off them – thank goodness a couple of intemperate sentences are far more outrageous than senior Ministers of the Crown pilfering thousands of dollars to pay for family homes or trips overseas for their girlfriends.

And of course let’s not think about whether it might be true that there were and still are blue mofos, although presumably not all blues are mofos, right? Just as long as we don’t have to acknowledge our distant and very recent past of the Crown screwing-over Maori. Because that could really kill the buzz and bring us back to those downer issues like the recession. Instead, let’s make it all about Hone, about his anger actually being the cause of racism because he shouldn’t be so upset or criticizing the deeply racist anti-Maori acts of our Crown throughout history.

Buying into the ooh he said white mofos, he hates whites meme is just bullshit.

112 comments on “Eek! ANGRY BLACKMAN ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Jackie 1
    11 November 2009 at 3:49 pm

    About time. thanks Sprout

  2. fizzleplug 2
    11 November 2009 at 3:49 pm

    Fucking smurfs. I hate them all.

  3. rocky 3
    11 November 2009 at 3:50 pm

    Excellent Sprout. You’ve put it best 🙂

  4. Bill 4
    11 November 2009 at 3:51 pm

    Thank-you and well said Sprout!

  5. ConorJoe 5
    11 November 2009 at 4:12 pm

    very timely, nice one

  6. gitmo 6
    11 November 2009 at 4:14 pm

    Hone’s black ?

  7. lukas 7
    11 November 2009 at 4:15 pm

    Sprout, do you think that white-man bulls*** is a good excuse for not going to a meeting?

  8. Matt Andrews 8
    11 November 2009 at 4:17 pm

    Very sad to see The Standard trying to justify racist hate speech.

    What Hone said is not ok. We need to stand up to racism, whatever the source.

    To oppose what Hone said is NOT to deny the horrors of colonialism or to dismiss the continuing underlying racism in NZ society.

    But neither past wrongs nor continuing racial injustice make it ok for him to say what he did.

    I think it is really sad that, by the logic of this post, people who reject racism are, by definition, racists themselves.

    That’s not right. Neither is what Hone said.

    [The Standard is saying nothing on the matter. Read the About. These are the opinions of one author and you will address your views directly to that author. Continue to ascribe the views of individual posters to The Standard and you will be banned.]

    • the sprout 8.1
      11 November 2009 at 4:19 pm

      try reading the post again Matty, this time with both eyes

    • rocky 8.2
      11 November 2009 at 4:48 pm

      You’ll find a number of posts on this topic on the standard with different views. Check out the posts from Eddie, Zetetic, Tammy Gordon, The Sprout, and myself.

    • lukas 8.3
      11 November 2009 at 4:55 pm

      to whoever wrote… [The Standard is saying nothing on the matter. Read the About. These are the opinions of one author and you will address your views directly to that author. Continue to ascribe the views of individual posters to The Standard and you will be banned.]

      How can you say that when there are numerous posts from “The Standard”?

      [It’s quite simple. Posts are to be attributed to their authors. If a post is written by “The Standard” you can attribute it to The Standard. Otherwise don’t.]

  9. TightyRighty 9
    11 November 2009 at 4:41 pm

    and you’d think the waitangi tribunal had never been established to redress some of the wrongs perpetrated against Maori. what we need now is a Chatham Islands tribunal to redress the wrongs perpetrated by mainland Maori against the Mori-Ori. wonder what the waitangi tribunal pay out would have been for can…..?

    • the sprout 9.1
      11 November 2009 at 4:47 pm

      bringing the moriori issues into the debate is a hoary old chestnut. maybe you should talk to Maori about that one 😉

      as for your earlier observation, do you think the Nuremburg Trials nullified the reality of what preceded them? not saying they’re comparable, just that it’s the same logic.

    • rocky 9.2
      11 November 2009 at 4:53 pm

      Great point re the Nuremburg trials sprout.

      TightyRighty – So might is right, and as long as those done wrong aren’t 100% pure and innocent, actions against them are justifiable? Especially if some token compensation is later given.

      If another country invades and takes over NZ tomorrow, it will of course be totally acceptable because of the injustice we’ve done Maori.

      • TightyRighty 9.2.1
        11 November 2009 at 4:58 pm

        in a historical context seems to be ok when judged against what the maori did to the mori ori. which is really what this all about, history. trying to bring the present into it is reasonably lame.

        • Daveski 9.2.1.1
          11 November 2009 at 6:00 pm

          To be pedantically correct, the Maori did nothing but I think it was Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama.who carry that burden.

          The concept of “the Maori” is very much a European invention.

          • the sprout 9.2.1.1.1
            11 November 2009 at 6:11 pm

            thanks Daveski
            Be as pedantically correct on this as you like – beats the hell out of being woefully and willfully misinformed!

            and yes, always pays to remember Moaridom, at least in the early colonial context, is very much a euro construct. probably still is, especially if you consider european is in many ways a kaiwai construct 😉

    • gitmo 9.3
      11 November 2009 at 4:53 pm

      1. The Mori-ori were Maoris
      2. They didn’t have a treaty with the mainland invaders
      3. According to the Taranaki tribes of the day they were quite tasty.

      You are right of course Maori have been dealing to Maori since before and after the arrival of Europeans. The Waitangi tribunal and the TOW are a different issue entirely though.

  10. Matt Andrews 10
    11 November 2009 at 4:53 pm

    Apologies. I meant “someone on The Standard” rather than “The Standard”.

    This is a very emotional topic for a lot of us on the left. I do feel very upset about what Hone Harawira said and by the attempts to rationalise it.

    Fortunately his leader has taken a stand:
    Nov 11th 2009 4:30pm Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia has finally spoken out of the Hone Harawira controversy, calling his behaviour “unacceptable”

  11. TightyRighty 11
    11 November 2009 at 4:54 pm

    I have on occasion brought the issue of the Mori Ori up. all i got in return was replies ranging from “fuck off” (hilarious) to “you wouldn’t understand”. well i do understand, i understand an entire race of people (genocide, see below) was wiped out.

    like nuremberg, the memory should remain with us forever to remind us, not to be an albatross around our necks. when does moving forward start? if we always look back, which you seem to be implying we should, we can never progress as a nation. but since we are stuck here, let us remember the Mori Ori while we are at it.

    • BLiP 11.1
      11 November 2009 at 5:04 pm

      Fuck off.

    • rocky 11.2
      11 November 2009 at 5:11 pm

      Claiming you’re bringing this up because you give a shit rather than to score political points is bullshit.

      In any case I’ll ignore that fact and address your comment. We’re not looking to a very distant past here, land confiscations from Maori have been a fairly continuous occurrence since 1840. The treaty was never honoured, which brings into question the Crown’s right of kawanatanga which was only ceded by Maori as part of the deal. As the Waitangi Tribunal has said, treaty settlements will never be able to compensate for what was lost, but they help restore the Crown’s honour, and therefore the constitutional foundations of this country.

    • the sprout 11.3
      11 November 2009 at 5:11 pm

      an important discussion to be had tr, but not one for this post – maybe open mike?

      keeping a little closer to the topic, do you think Hone’s comments are much worse than, and more worthy of great debate than, say the propriety of the F&S Act, the outrageousness of English and Hide’s thievery, or NZ’s colonial history of land confiscation and frequently racist treatment of Maori?

      • TightyRighty 11.3.1
        11 November 2009 at 5:19 pm

        ah, it depends on your take on all those issues.

        I believe that Hone shot his mouth off. I think he is entitled to think what ever he likes in private. however, as he is a public figure, he has to be held accountable when does things in public. I, for one, am thick skinned enough to laugh at being called a white motherfucker. and i don’t think this is an excuse for all racism to be released either. racism of any sort is uncalled for. I do think that this is a topic of debate ever since the race relations commissioner opened his stupid mouth and said that racism of one kind is not okay, but of another kind it’s fine. for any other reason it’s pretty flash in the pan type stuff.

  12. Matt Andrews 12
    11 November 2009 at 5:00 pm

    The issue of the Moriori is a very odd one to bring up in the current context and one needs to be very careful in using words like genocide.

    The current understanding is that the people of the Chathams were conquered by Taranaki Maori. They were not an “entire race of people” in the way we commonly understand this term.

    But a discussion of the potential role of the Crown in preventing such a massacre from happening is one that requires a serious historical and jurisprudential debate that would be off topic on this post.

    But on happier note it’s really good to see the press release from Tariana Turia accepting “people are really upset by what Mr Harawira wrote”
    and describing “what Mr Harawira wrote as very distressing.”

  13. deemac 13
    11 November 2009 at 5:13 pm

    afraid I disagree
    a throwaway remark in a bar is one thing, a media statement (particularly by a professional politician) is another
    it is never appropriate to suggest violence is the answer, even as a joke
    the problem is not that he’s angry but that he’s a clown

  14. Matt Andrews 14
    11 November 2009 at 5:22 pm

    Sprout – I’m a little confused by the question originally posed to another commentor:

    “do you think Hone’s comments are much worse than, and more worthy of great debate than, say the propriety of the F&S Act, the outrageousness of English and Hide’s thievery, or NZ’s colonial history of land confiscation and frequently racist treatment of Maori”

    Clearly his comments are not much worse than any of those things.

    But to me, your query is a non sequitar.

    What he said was wrong. He should not have said it. Racism should be decried, whoever advocates it.

    This is the point I’ve been trying to make, obviously inarticulately, this afternoon: I find it sad that those who call Harawira’s racism are accused of racism themselves.

    Of course his comments pale in comparison to the wrongs you note. But they don’t become insignficant.

    • rocky 14.1
      11 November 2009 at 5:27 pm

      Can you define why what Hone said was racist?

      • the sprout 14.1.1
        11 November 2009 at 5:29 pm

        i’d be keen to hear

        in terms of the suggestion critics of Hone might be being racist, while they are right to criticize his phraseology, the strength of their reaction is disproportionate in and of itself, and particularly in terms of what was actually said and when comparing what he actually said to the culpability others ought to wear.

      • Matt Andrews 14.1.2
        11 November 2009 at 5:32 pm

        I believe it is racist to refer generically to non-Maori as white motherfu.kers. I also think that to assign expecations about fulfilling work obligations as whiteman’s bullsht must be read as racist – either towards non-Maori or Maori depending on how you read it.

        • the sprout 14.1.2.1
          11 November 2009 at 5:35 pm

          i don’t believe he ever did make a generic statement about non-Maori, see the 2nd sentence of the above post.

          as for “assign expecations about fulfilling work obligations as whiteman’s bullsht”, i don’t think that’s actually what he said but it was clearly foolish of him to say it in a way that could understandably be interpreted as such. but still hardly a sacking or witch-burning offence, surely?

        • rocky 14.1.2.2
          11 November 2009 at 5:39 pm

          Hone wasn’t referring to non-Maori as a group.

          As for the white mans bullshit comment, the comment (rightly or wrongly) shows Hone’s contempt for our political system. I doubt very much that it solely related to his Paris trip, but more that was part of the reason for thinking the Paris trip was acceptable. Disagreeing with a political system doesn’t make you racist.

          Personally I think the trip in Paris was stupid, but I fully supported him when he did a similar thing in Australia, going off to Alice Springs, as it was a political action.

          • Matt Andrews 14.1.2.2.1
            11 November 2009 at 5:45 pm

            I don’t understand how he was not referring to non-Maori as a group. I have read your argument on this point but don’t find at all persuasive or compelling. He expressed his comments in away that covered all non-Maori. I can’t find the intertextual or subtextual tags that allow me to read it as relating to a subgroup. But I’m not sure how far we can get in reconciling our different deconstructions.

            I agree that this isn’t a witchburning or sacking offence. I’ll chose to read your query as not implying that my comments suggest I do, although the alternate reading does seem open.

            I entirely and without reservation agree with and endorse your commetns about the trip to Alice Springs. It was WORK. It was a clear and justifiable use of taxpayer money and it reflects incredibly poorly on the NZ Parliament and NZ society that there was any controversy over that trip.

            This one was different. But the side trip is trivia compared to his language (at least by my reading, which is obviously very different to yours).

            • rocky 14.1.2.2.1.1
              11 November 2009 at 5:49 pm

              We probably won’t agree on the interpretation of the comments, but in one last attempt, sprout puts it best:

              “[saying] something about [blue] mofos does not mean therefore all [blues] are mofos“

            • the sprout 14.1.2.2.1.2
              11 November 2009 at 6:08 pm

              no definitely not suggesting you are advocating a witch-burning. i think your comments are balanced, calm and fair Matt and welcome contrast to some others’ desperation to take vicious offence.

              in the end we may just have to agree to disagree on some of the finer points of interpretation. if one thing’s for sure making comments that are so open to misinterpretation is a perilous game.

            • Matt Andrews 14.1.2.2.1.3
              11 November 2009 at 10:26 pm

              On the topic of more important issues – be keen to see some comment on Hide breaking the Cabinet rules re using his position as a minister to endorse a dentist who provided him with his new teeth. I’ve been told off for referring to The Standard as an entity but am surprised that no-one has commented on this.

              http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/hide-breaks-cabinet-rules-over-teeth-3127017/video

              This guy has proven time and again that he has no understanding of appropriate conduct as a Minister.

            • Trader Jack 14.1.2.2.1.5
              11 November 2009 at 10:33 pm

              Like some spooky machine!

            • Matt Andrews 14.1.2.2.1.6
              11 November 2009 at 10:36 pm

              Right – fully withdraw and apologise. Somehow missed that.
              I did look.
              I hadn’t seen the story until tonight and did a google search for it.
              Sorry.
              Feel free to ban or take other appropriate action!

            • Daveo 14.1.2.2.1.7
              12 November 2009 at 12:04 am

              meh, I’m just some dude. couldn’t ban you if i tried.

  15. torydog 15
    11 November 2009 at 5:24 pm

    Stop making excuses for him.

    Haters and Wreckers!

  16. The Voice of Reason 16
    11 November 2009 at 5:46 pm

    Hard to express how sad this post makes me. So I’ll let the Specials do it for me:

    • Daveski 16.1
      11 November 2009 at 6:10 pm

      Which took me back to Ghost Town. Thanks TVOR … got to say that the left has all the best music 🙂

      • The Voice of Reason 16.1.1
        11 November 2009 at 6:19 pm

        Cheers and a hat tip to Herotodus for reminding me yesterday of all the great anti-fascist music of the early eighties. I feel a post coming on!

        • Daveski 16.1.1.1
          11 November 2009 at 6:32 pm

          If we’re not careful, we’ll be back talking about LKJ again and I’ll start looking like a raving lefty!

        • Herodotus 16.1.1.2
          11 November 2009 at 7:51 pm

          Unfortunately the sound on records is crap and when can you listen to a tape. Still Gang of 4, Killing joke. The problem is that there may be 2 or 3 of us responding, and giving away our age !!
          Also as a young one did not appreciate what the social unrest was like in UK. Ashes to Ashes gives a good impression.
          Back on topic .. mmm nothing to say The global warming is not working as I have not acquired a red neck from the sun. Perhaps all that I can get out of this is that we can all assess our own attitudes towards Hone, and if there is no hatred at least we can to our selfs confirm that the royal “we” aer not racist, the more that can say that at least NZ may be moving on.

  17. hahaha 17
    11 November 2009 at 6:17 pm

    Deniers unite.

  18. Bill 18
    11 November 2009 at 7:17 pm

    If an Irishman refers to the English bastards (or whatever) in the manner that Hone referred to white mofos there is no fallout. Similarly if a Scotsman refers to English bastards or a Welshman refers to English bastards, there is no fallout.

    This is because the English being referred to are taken to be the ones who instigated the colonisation of Ireland, Scotland or Wales or to be the ones who seek to continue English domination or who are apologists for the British state…ie those who represent the English/British establishment rather than all English people.

    The ‘unpleasant’ ones above are, by and large, identifiable by their nationality…..English.

    The ‘unpleasant’ ones in a NZ context are not separately identifiable by their nationality, but rather by their skin colour as well as their identification with the establishment in a comparable manner as the examples above.

    Reversing the players, if an Englishman refers to Scottish, Welsh or Irish bastards (or whatever) it is an expression of disdain aimed at all the Scots or Welsh or Irish and is considered racist insofar as it expresses cultural superiority and or seeks to reinforce cultural inferiorities….which is what that prick Goff claims to not understand when he draws the comparisons he did on breakfast( the if I said what Hone said b/s)….which makes him either racist due to ignorance (which can be fixed) or simply a racist prick regardless.

    Just saying.

    And adding that Labour can fuck right off in my book for as long as they embrace/express such racist crap as can any other political party that does likewise.

  19. M Stein 19
    11 November 2009 at 7:51 pm

    “Instead, let’s make it all about Hone, about his anger actually being the cause of racism …

    Buying into the ooh he said white mofos, he hates whites meme is just bullshit.”

    Perhaps, but how about some consistency? If Roger Douglass, Don Brash, or any white politician had used those words you would not be accepting excuses from their supporters.

    But asking Lenin’s question about politics – Who? Whom? – we can identify the person making the comments is from an oppressed group about an oppressor group so excuses may be accepted.

    • felix 19.1
      11 November 2009 at 11:21 pm

      Bill’s comment above covers this issue very well. I suggest you read it, the whole thing, word by word and deliberately. Then go and read the original post again.

      • Geek 19.1.1
        12 November 2009 at 8:46 am

        Very small minded. He makes uneven comparisons. Yes an Englishmen referring to all Irish men or Scotsmen as inferior is racist. That does not minimize the racist nature of the initial comment.

        Geoffs comments are fair if you were to put him in the same situation as I have below. Identifying a subset by race alone is no less racist. The fact is you are attributing the undesirable traits of a few to the entire race.

        It is a classic case of attempting to say “well that is worse so this must be OK” Just because Murder is a crime it doesn’t mean assault is OK.

        • Bill 19.1.1.1
          12 November 2009 at 10:26 am

          geek.

          Let me put it another way. The oppressors do not get to frame the terms of reference that the oppressed will use to identify their oppressor.

          If and when that is allowed to happen, the defiance of the oppressed is more or less ended as they will have no meaningful terms of reference for their oppression.

          So the terms of reference belong to the oppressed and will shift over time as and when determined appropriate by the oppressed.

          Going back to my British example, I could imagine class and religious based set of references mixing it up with the English reference point….Irish might refer to protestant bastards….and the Scots might be incorporating more class analysis given that G.Brown is Scottish…or they might have disavowed him and his Scottishness and regard him as a traitorous bastard…..whatever; it’s a dynamic that the oppressor has no legitimate say in.

          And I wonder why it is that so many here simply cannot get their heads around the matter with regards to Hone and Goff. Is it all going to come down to who you identify with most…..which is to say, do you consider yourself (not your heritage) Polynesian or European? Do you identify with the colonial winners or the indigenous resistance? Do you see anything wrong with the fact that an Anglo culture was stamped on these islands? To what degree can you empathise with the intergenerational playing out of negative dynamics as a consequence of imposed cultural denigration and land loss?

          Finally. Notice how the white male media has discounted or is totally blind to the genuine and unreserved apology Hone offered in relation to the sexism of his outburst? Which begs the question as to where the ingrained and implacable sexism resides, don’t you think?

          And if you can take on board and follow that not unconnected matter, you can take on board and follow the racist argument too and wind up at the same end point as myself and others.

          • Geek 19.1.1.1.1
            12 November 2009 at 11:53 am

            The problem is that you are straying into the territory of saying it is OK to be racist if you feel you have been oppressed. This is essentially arguing that Maori or any oppressed peoples can’t be accused of Racism because they get to define what Racism is. That is simply not true. Racism is any discrimination based upon race. At no point does it say any discrimination based upon race where the person doing the discrimination is oppressing the other person.

            You are trying to excuse behavior in one person that you would never accept in the other. In fact you would consider the behavior in the other to be a form of the oppression that excuses the first persons actions.

            Finally don’t try and say his apology to women has been ignored. Most reports I have seen on the apology have highlighted the fact that he apologized for any sexist connotations that may have come from his statement. Hell the fact that he apologized for what may be seen as sexist yet stoutly refused to apologize for what may be seen as racist shows that he doesn’t care if it is seen as Racist. He’s sorry if a woman got offended as he didn’t mean to offend her but damn straight I meant to offend Whitey.

            • Bill 19.1.1.1.1.1
              12 November 2009 at 12:50 pm

              “The problem is that you are straying into the territory of saying it is OK to be racist if you feel you have been oppressed.”

              No I’m not. What I am saying is that the oppressed and not the oppressors get to frame the terms of reference….get to decide the criteria that the oppressor will be identified by. ( In this case their whiteness. Not my whiteness….theirs.)

              You are stuck with this idea that Hone was referring to all white people when he patently wasn’t. He was referring to the white motherfuckers who confiscated land etc.

            • Geek 19.1.1.1.1.2
              13 November 2009 at 8:18 am

              God Bill you are making this shit up as you go along. Here is the quote from his email:

              “White motherf****** have been raping our lands and ripping us off for centuries and all of a sudden you want me to play along with their puritanical bullsh**.”

              It clearly says White Mother fuckers HAVE not WHO or THAT.For god sake you can try and justify this shit all you want but it doesn’t change the fact that his email in no way hints at being aimed at a sub set and is aimed at all White people.

              By saying the oppressed get to frame the terms by which they reference the oppressor is clearly saying that if you feel oppressed you get to apply what ever language to that person you feel. I am afraid if that language is offensive it will remain so and is no more acceptable than a white farmer in Zimbabwe who has just been forced off his land referring to those who did it as “Ni**ers”.

  21. Craig Ranapia 21
    12 November 2009 at 12:41 am

    Spout:

    If you think “motherfucker” (let’s can the cute euphemisms, shall we?) contributes anything worthwhile to any debate worth having, be my guest. I’ll just disagree, but it’s rather interesting how you’re trying to reframe the debate as some kind of white fear as of the angry (and uppity) black man. I’m not anti-Maori, but I’m sure anti-idiot.

    Meanwhile, I find it rather interesting that nobody has picked up on Harawira’s rather crass rape analogy. Perhaps I’m a prissy little feminist, but the only thing that’s LIKE rape IS rape, and anyone who trivialises sexual violence for rhetorical effect is a cretin, And if you want to put some racist angle on that, I was also highly critical of Chris Trotter last year when he blogged that criticism of Winston Peters was “the media equivalent of gang rape.” Like hell it was.

    • the sprout 21.1
      12 November 2009 at 12:50 am

      i agree entirely on all those points Craig, except that i don’t think use of the word contributes anything useful – quite the opposite. they’re both completely tasteless and offensive analogies. mark ellis also springs to mind, unfortunately.

    • rocky 21.2
      12 November 2009 at 12:57 am

      From Harawira’s apology:

      A close friend has also forcefully pointed out that the mofo word is demeaning to women and I apologise unconditionally for using that word.

      • the sprout 21.2.1
        12 November 2009 at 12:58 am

        apparently his wife wasn’t at all impressed and quickly pointed out the error of his ways to him

      • Craig Ranapia 21.2.2
        12 November 2009 at 9:24 am

        Rocky:

        I wouldn’t say “the mofo word” is demeaning to women. In a society where parent-child incest is not only profoundly repugnant to any sane person but criminal, it’s demeaning to anyone you throw it at regardless of gender. And I think Hone knows that.

  22. Geek 22
    12 November 2009 at 8:38 am

    Lets simplify the question. Why is it considered that his statements are racist. Well that is easy. If you were to transpose the language would they still be considered racist.

    If a European MP had referred to a group of Maori activists who yelled at him as “those black mofo’s” would we be seeing Mr Harawira claiming it to be a racist comment? yes. Would sprout be defending the comment on the basis that he was only referring to the group of activists? The answer is simple, no.

    It is irrelevant that the term was being applied to a smaller sub set. Mr Harawira chose to identify that sub set based upon their race alone. If he had said those White Mofo’s at the Herald it may have been more acceptable. However he has clearly attributed the action of a few to the entire race. This is the racist nature of the remark.

    In the end it comes down to whether not the comments caused offense. Clearly they have. A man in his position has no right to plead ignorance on this. His position alone means he has to be more thoughtful in what he writes. Ignorance after all is the breeding ground of racism.

    • Pascal's bookie 22.1
      12 November 2009 at 8:54 am

      The few white people that alienated Maori land? That would include those few that voted for Labour or National in 05 right?

      • Geek 22.1.1
        12 November 2009 at 9:49 am

        I’m sorry are you changing the argument? The initial asertion by Sprout is that Mr Harawira’s statements are not racist because they are not directed at Europeoan’s as a whole. I merely point out that the fact that he is assigning the characteristics of a a subset to the race as a whole is what defines it as racist. Increasing the numbers of people he was referring to in no way reduces the racist nature of the comment.

        As to your assertion that anyone who voted for labor or National in the 05 election being responsible for stealing Maori land, well don’t be stupid. People vote for a party based on many varying factors. Being that both parties were using the F&S as a hot button on the issue means that those who voted for them would have to have voted for the green party to be removed from your definition of a land grabber. I would like to think people base their votes on more than one hot button issue.

        You keep building straw men out of statements that I never made though. It only shows you have no valid input to this discussion.

        • Pascal's bookie 22.1.1.1
          12 November 2009 at 10:09 am

          “You keep building straw men out of statements that I never made though. It only shows you have no valid input to this discussion.”

          Sorry about that if true. Got an example?

          Hone was referring to some mofo’s that steal land, and who are white. Where does he say that all whites are mofo’s. White is an adjective in his phrase as I read it.

          It is true that people vote on amny issues, but that doesn’t in fact absolve them for the other issues their vote gives support to. They may not like those things, but they obviously don’t care about them enough to vote against it.

          • Geek 22.1.1.1.1
            12 November 2009 at 10:28 am

            [quote]The few white people that alienated Maori land[/quote]

            At no point did I ever say that only a few people alienated Maori land. That was the whole context of your response to my initial post. Creating your own statement to reply to and using that as a way to try and discredit my initial argument is clearly straw man debating. Of course feel free to pull out of my initial post any reference to a few people.

            White would become an adjective if he had some other defining characteristic in the group of people he was referring to. The statement was “white motherfuckers have been stealing and raping our lands”. Break that down. Who is he talking about? white mother fuckers. What did they do? stole and raped our lands. Now I agree a different meaning is inferred if he had said “those white motherfuckers [u]that[/u] stole and raped our lands. He is then using White Motherfuckers as an adjective for the group of people who carried out the act. However the way he formed the sentence the group of people are the adjective.

            As to laying the F&S at the feet of anyone who voted for either major party, well that included a large number of Maori who actively protested against the F&S legislation. Your entire argument that you are responsible for every policy of the person you vote for would destroy the democratic voting system all together. I, like every one, could find policies from every party that I disagree with. This means that I just can’t vote by your definition because I would be responsible for those policies.

            Dammit drawn into arguing your straw man again.

            • Pascal's bookie 22.1.1.1.1.1
              12 November 2009 at 10:44 am

              “At no point did I ever say that only a few people alienated Maori land. ”

              I was responding to this: “However he has clearly attributed the action of a few to the entire race. This is the racist nature of the remark.”

              If I have misinterpreted it, I apologise.

              “‘white motherfuckers have been stealing and raping our lands’. Break that down”

              Here’s how I read it.

              There are some people “motherfuckers”

              Why are they motherfuckers? “stealing our land”

              Which particularlar subset of motherfuckers has been doing doing this? “the white ones”

              I don’t see that all whites must be motherfuckers, or that all motherfuckers must be white there.

              As for my comments on democracy, another time perhaps, but I stand by them. I own my votes, I’m responsible for what I vote for.

            • Geek 22.1.1.1.1.2
              12 November 2009 at 12:08 pm

              “I was responding to this: “However he has clearly attributed the action of a few to the entire race. This is the racist nature of the remark.'”

              Fair enough perhaps the wording of the few was poor. It was not my intention and I even missed it in subsequent readings.

              “Here’s how I read it.

              There are some people “motherfuckers’

              Why are they motherfuckers? “stealing our land’

              Which particularlar subset of motherfuckers has been doing doing this? “the white ones’

              I don’t see that all whites must be motherfuckers, or that all motherfuckers must be white there.

              Therefore you are reading it the same as me. As I said he is directing the statement at “white motherfuckers”. Where we diverge is the second part. The second part refers to action they have been taking, “steal and rape our land”. The second part is not describing the group of people he is referring to. For that to be the case the statement would have been “white motherfuckers THAT have been stealing and raping our lands”. The THAT is key to this argument. Without the only part of the statement that describes who he is referencing is White mother fuckers.

              You are making a circular argument that undermines your initial point any way. You have said that anyone who voted for Labour/National in 05 is responsible for stealing and raping Maori land. There are plenty of non white who fall into that group yet Mr Harawira chooses to only blame the “White Motherfuckers”

              You also miss the simple fact that this statement was felt to be racist. It caused offense. Mr Harawira is aware of that. He chose to apologize to Women because he didn’t intend to cause them offense. He consciously chose not to apologize to white people in general. This strengthens the feeling that he did intend to cause offense.

            • Pascal's bookie 22.1.1.1.1.3
              12 November 2009 at 1:09 pm

              The second part is not describing the group of people he is referring to. For that to be the case the statement would have been “white motherfuckers THAT have been stealing and raping our lands’. The THAT is key to this argument. Without the only part of the statement that describes who he is referencing is White mother fuckers.

              But it doesn’t mean that all whites are motherfuckers. They are ‘motherfuckers’ because they are stealing the land.

              Also it should be remembered that Hone was replying to Buddy, who siad that Hone might be just like all those ‘white mofo’s’. That’s where the offending phrase came into the conversation.

            • Geek 22.1.1.1.1.4
              12 November 2009 at 1:24 pm

              I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this one. The fact that Hone has chosen to apologize for offense he may have caused women (which is far harder to extract from the email) but didn’t apologize for any offense he may have caused white people would indicate he is happy with causing that offense.

  23. ha ha ha (I'm stupid) 23
    12 November 2009 at 10:17 am

    So ‘Pascal’, it follows that Maoris who steal are black motherfuckers who are raping this country.
    And as Craig Ranapia stated earlier, Hone said MOTHERFUCKERS not the cutesy fluffy bunny US news euphamism MOFO.

    Sounds like you are becoming a racism denier.

    [lprent: Darwinian award? ]

  24. J Mex 24
    12 November 2009 at 12:31 pm

    PB and I have been discussing this on another thread nad I have been using Melissa Lee as an example:

    She said something along the lines of “Burglars driving into Mt Albert from South auckland to steal”

    She was villified by the Standard authors who posted on the subject and commenters as being racist. Students turned up to her speeches with pictures of her with swastikas painted on and officially declared her to be a racist.

    -She didn’t mention a colour, ethnic group or race.

    Yet she was racist.

    Using the sprout defence “And of course let’s not think about whether it might be true that there were and still are blue mofos, although presumably not all blues are mofos, right?” and inserting South Auckland for blue and burglar you get an interesting result

    “Let’s not think about whether there are burglars in south auckland. But not all South aucklanders are burglars.”

    “White Motherfuckers”. Not racist.
    “Burglars from South Auckland”. Racist.

    I fail to see the consistency. But maybe it’s just me.

  25. Geek 25
    12 November 2009 at 12:36 pm

    That was very simple and hard to argue against. However expect to see Bill claim it is Racist because only Maori get to decide what is and isn’t Racist.

    • Bill 25.1
      12 November 2009 at 12:54 pm

      Geek.

      get fucked.

      • Geek 25.1.1
        12 November 2009 at 12:55 pm

        The final cry of a person with no answers.

        • Bill 25.1.1.1
          12 November 2009 at 2:24 pm

          The answer to your preposterous assertion on what I am likely to think or claim was sitting here in response to the first time you posited the trash you have re-asserted in this part of the thread.

          • Gosman 25.1.1.1.1
            12 November 2009 at 3:10 pm

            So did you think that Melissa Lee was referring to ‘Brown’ people in south Auckland when whe referred to criminals from that location?

            Or were you one of the people who defended her against accusations of racism but believed she made a stupid comment?

  26. Blue 26
    12 November 2009 at 12:50 pm

    “presumably not all blues are mofos, right?”

    I should hope so 🙂

  28. Gosman 28
    12 November 2009 at 2:22 pm

    Once again I am enjoying immensely seeing people on the left turn themselves into logical and linguistic pretzels trying to justify why Hone’s comments are not really the kind of blatent racism that they would villify someone else for if it was directed against people of the ‘darker’ shades of skin pigmentation in our society.

    😀

    • gitmo 28.1
      12 November 2009 at 2:37 pm

      There’s only two things I hate in this world.

      People who are intolerant of other people’s cultures and the Dutch.

    • Pascal's bookie 28.2
      12 November 2009 at 2:41 pm

      hah! That’s funny, cause I’m once again wondering why folks from starboard can’t read or think straight.

  29. Brett Dale 29
    12 November 2009 at 9:52 pm

    I find it funny how the left always has to twist things or turn things around if one of their own make racist comments.

    Is Michael Richards Racist in your opinion sprout?

    • the sprout 29.1
      12 November 2009 at 11:11 pm

      I think Richards said some pretty stupid things he very quickly regretted Bretty, I’m inclined to agree with Seinfeld’s analysis on that one. Do you think he deserved to have his career destroyed and be persecuted for it?

      do you think Harawira deserves to lose his job for his outbursts, considering you can be Deputy PM and Minister of Finance and defraud public funds, or build your career on being a perk buster then use public funds to shout holidays to Disneyland for your girlfriend, and suffer no sanction what so ever? What do you reckon Bretty?

      • Geek 29.1.1
        13 November 2009 at 8:22 am

        I haven’t seen to many people call for him to lose his job. What has people in this thread angry is those who jump on the band wagon and call someone like Melissa Lee a Nazi for her comments then come and claim that Mr Harawira’s are any less offensive. He doesn’t need to lose his job. That doesn’t make his comments any less offensive.

        • J Mex 29.1.1.1
          13 November 2009 at 11:26 am

          Correct, Geek. It’s the quite obvious double standard that annoys me.

          In fact, what annoys me most is Sprouts inference that we are racist for finding Hone’s comments racist – To the effect of ‘You only find it upseting because an angry black man said it’

          If Rodney Hide had written about a small group of Maori that had caused him problems and called them “a bunch of black motherfuckers”, you can be damn sure that Sprout wouldn’t be running to his aid saying “That’s not racist because he wasn’t refering to ALL Maori”.

          The Standard, the media and the public would be going absolutely mental, calling for Hide’s resignation, and an apology to the whole of NZ. I wouldn’t be standing in their way.

          Deep down, I pretty sure that Sprout et al acknowledge this. It’s just no fun to admit it. Much more fun to try and tie yourself into knots to show off your ability to almost defend the indefensible.

          Personally, I think Marty G has pretty much nailed this topic in his latest post

          • the sprout 29.1.1.1.1
            13 November 2009 at 11:28 am

            the racism, if there’s any, comes from the disproportionate response

            • J Mex 29.1.1.1.1.1
              13 November 2009 at 12:06 pm

              Could you clarify which racism, if any, you are refering to Sprout?

            • the sprout 29.1.1.1.1.2
              13 November 2009 at 12:24 pm

              i’m referring to the racism you invoked in your quote above

            • Geek 29.1.1.1.1.3
              13 November 2009 at 12:47 pm

              Is the response any more disproportionate than students showing up to Mellisa Lee’s next public meeting with pictures of her with Swastika’s all over it and shouting racist the whole time? Or was that racist against her because she was Asian.

              The response would have been more muted had Hone came out straight away and said he understood that people had taken offense to the fact his comments may be interpreted as racist and that was not his intention. instead he let it build for a week before apologizing to Women and for using bad language but clearly ignoring any racial offense he may have caused. He allowed this to turn into the furor it has become.

              I do think it is a shame that he will end up out of the Maori party for it.

            • the sprout 29.1.1.1.1.4
              13 November 2009 at 3:22 pm

              i think the swastika responses to Lee were equally as preposterously disproportionate as the outcry over HH’s comments

  30. J Mex 30
    13 November 2009 at 5:12 pm

    Sprout – Are you suggesting that if it was Rodney Hide who had used the term “black motherfuckers” in an email about a group of people that there would not have been a severe reaction from the standard, the media and the general public?

    Interesting that you say the Lee response was disproportianate. Do you think her comment was racist?

Links to post