Implosion-watch

Written By: - Date published: 6:49 am, July 12th, 2011 - 79 comments
Categories: act, don brash, john key, maori party, national, rodney hide - Tags:

Two ministers went head to head calling each other racists last night but it looked more like two old hobos fighting over a tin of beans. Pathetic.

Even Rodney Hide has come out against Brash’s racism, but our Prime Minister doesn’t give a damn.

John Key has sided with Brash and dismissed the offense many Kiwis feel over the ads by saying he doesn’t “give a toss” about ACT’s racist ads. Key’s endorsement of Brash’s racism is not good enough. By lending political coverage in the form of Epsom to a bunch of racists Key has aligned himself with their racism.

Confused by this whirlwind of grey old tories biting each other? gobsmacked explains:

“Minister in government attacks leader of his own party, who isn’t in government or Parliament, but hopes to be after the election, provided the party that he used to lead allows a candidate who used to be in that party to defeat the candidate of that party so that the aforementioned party can form a government with the support of the party that the former leader now leads, and who is now busy slagging off the current leader of the aforementioned party, in order to get enough votes to keep that party in power.”

Hope that clears it up.

Of course, one person has the job of cutting this Gordian knot and returning some order to the government. And he’s too busy acting all faint over capital gains tax.

79 comments on “Implosion-watch ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Carol 1
    12 July 2011 at 7:21 am

    And he’s too busy acting all faint over capital gains tax.

    And also taking a page out of John Howard’s play book and trying to drum up xenophobic fears of boats of asylum seekers heading NZ’s way.

  2. mickysavage 2
    12 July 2011 at 7:22 am

    This could get interesting. Who said the election was going to occur on November 26. If the polls start turning dramatically then Key will be tempted to pull the pin early.

    With both of his likely coalition partners in melt down the Tories may have nowhere else to go than to go for broke and if support ebbs they may lose what many have thought was the unlovable election!

    Make sure you have plenty of popcorn! Parliament today will be interesting.

  3. Secret Squirrel 3
    12 July 2011 at 7:23 am

    Maybe Labour shouldn’t get all faint watching the other lot as the Greens get increasingly aggressive at eating into their territory.

  4. Robert Atack 4
    12 July 2011 at 7:25 am

    Does this sum up the fools?
    “The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them….To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.” – George Orwell,

  5. tc 5
    12 July 2011 at 7:35 am

    What a low brow knuckle dragging lot the NACT are

  6. Colonial Viper 6
    12 July 2011 at 8:21 am

    I like watching hobos fight, collect DVDs of it. Perhaps I should just start recording Parliament TV?

    • jackal 6.1
      12 July 2011 at 10:56 am

      I enjoyed the first half of the Don/Pita debate. Mainly because Julian Wilcox is such a great presenter and gets to the truth of the matter lickity split.

      As for John Key, he’s an asshole! Coming out and saying we can’t help refugees when we have a legal obligation to do so shows that he is an unthinking fool!

      Not dismissing Act’s racism shows that he is complicit to that racism. He doesn’t give a toss about racism, or he doesn’t give a toss that racism is being advertised? Once again we need an interpreter to understand what the fuck our Prime Minster is on about.

  7. Colonial Viper 7
    12 July 2011 at 8:35 am

    I bet you Key knew about those asylum seekers heading to NZ by Sunday morning, as ACT’s ads were causing their response.

    That’s when the NATs planned their Australian Conservative style boat people response and implicitly adding respectability to ACT’s racist card:

    Brown people don’t deserve additional help, even if they are in dire straits. They don’t even deserve being listened to, actually.

  8. queenstfarmer 8
    12 July 2011 at 9:10 am

    Seems no-one could answer this question yesterday, so I’ll try my luck here: why should National refuse to work with Act, any more than Labour refused (and in fact actually did) work with New Zealand First? On the “logic” of this article, Labour has endorsed NZ First’s racism.

    • Colonial Viper 8.1
      12 July 2011 at 9:25 am

      Actually ACT is a racist party standing in this election on a racist platform.

      Key should rule out working with ACT exactly as Goff has ruled out working with the unreliable, outspoken and volatile Harawira.

      Goff has set the standard for a Nov 26 coalition, let’s see if Key has the guts to follow.

      Or maybe Key is ‘comfortable’ with the unreliable, outspoken and volatile ACT party because they are all his friends and long time National supporters, and he ‘couldn’t give a stuff’ about their racism.

      • Gosman 8.1.1
        12 July 2011 at 9:39 am

        How exactly is it racist?

        I think it is distasteful to bring this sort of thing up but that hardly qualifies as racism.

        Racism is quite distinct, it is the belief and treatment of a group of people as inferior to another group based on their racial background.

        • weka 8.1.1.1
          12 July 2011 at 9:42 am

          There’s all different kinds of racism. And if you read Ansell’s comments, he certainly thinks that Maori are inferior to the master race.

          • pollywog 8.1.1.1.1
            12 July 2011 at 9:51 am

            About time we had a debate on race and racism and exactly what it means…yeah ?

            http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-11072011/#comment-350666

            …and then at the end of it we can ditch the whole ‘race’ thing and erase it from our political vocabularies.

            • weka 8.1.1.1.1.1
              12 July 2011 at 10:07 am

              I agree we should have the debate PW. I’m not sure what you are meaning though. Obviously there is no such thing as race. But there is such a thing as racism.

              • Vicky32 …
                12 July 2011 at 7:24 pm

                Obviously there is no such thing as race.

                Obviously there is, actually. Ask a doctor. Treatments and disease modalities are both affected by race.
                That doesn’t mean I believe racism is a good thing, it manifestly isn’t, but denying that race is a real thing, helps no one.

                • R …
                  12 July 2011 at 10:38 pm

                  ‘denying that race is a real thing, helps no one’

                  Rubbish, Vicky, sorry. In this context especially. Any decent doctor ascribing a problem to a particular group of people will be using the term ‘race’ to describe the genetic profile of a social group. Genes, not race. Culture, not ethnic affiliation.

            • vto 8.1.1.1.1.2
              12 July 2011 at 12:05 pm

              I agree mr polly. What is racism?

              My 2c says it is judgment, selection, or views, determined on the basis of a subjects race.

              But then again some things can be determined, of a form, by race. Example, various African races have a physical makeup which means they can run faster than pretty much all other races.

              Another example, various …… races have a physical makeup which means they can think (faster) than pretty much all other races.

              Scary subject … be brave now …

              • weka …
                12 July 2011 at 1:25 pm

                There’s no such thing as race vto. All humans belong to the same ‘race’.

                • lprent …
                  12 July 2011 at 1:40 pm

                  Yep, if you were looking at an abstract level, there is no significant difference at a genetic species level between humans apart from gender (the genome is almost as homogeneous as cheetahs and probably because of the same recent near extinctions in this last few hundred thousand years).

                  There are some noticeable but not particularly significant cultural differences (all human cultures operate in much the same way with minor variations).

                  What there is, is a human tribal trait of defining in and out groups that we share with other social animals – which humans then plaster rationales on top of because they don’t like realizing that they are mostly just animals with a high degree of genetic preprogramming.

                  • vto …
                    12 July 2011 at 1:50 pm

                    Good. Now surely it can be seen that creating two sets of rules and arrangements in New Zealand for what are, as expressed above, the same people (with different cultural norms etc) is in fact even more silly than it was when it was understood that the separate rules and arrangements were for different races. It makes even less sense now…

                    Although perhaps my argument goes too far down a rabbit hole. Perhaps these separate sets of rules and arrangements are not intended to be permanent and are instead intended to merely assist one group of us, with different cultural norms, through a temporary difficult patch?

                    … guidance needed …

                    • McFlock …
                      12 July 2011 at 5:21 pm

                      Let’s say “agreed” (although I have some issues with your delivery).
                      So now we just have the situation where several loosely-affiliated groups of people settled on some land. Several hundred years later some slightly stronger-affiliated groups of people encountered the first bunch, made a treaty to settle on the same land under specifc terms, then promptly broke those terms with a bit of the old rape / murder / theft / unlawful_imprisonment etc, and thereby damned the descendents of the first group to a quite abysmal socioeconomic status and the attempted eradication of their culture.

                      As far as I can see, the question we are faced with is not actually race-based, although cultural differences often lead to confusion. It’s about resolving the damage caused by the theft and breach of contract, and returning to the original partnership between equal parties.
                       

                  • Vicky32 …
                    12 July 2011 at 10:51 pm

                    Yep, if you were looking at an abstract level, there is no significant difference at a genetic species level between humans apart from gender (the genome is almost as homogeneous as cheetahs and probably because of the same recent near extinctions in this last few hundred thousand years).
                     
                    What there is, is a human tribal trait of defining in and out groups that we share with other social animals – which humans then plaster rationales on top of because they don’t like realizing that they are mostly just animals with a high degree of genetic preprogramming.
                     
                    The fact is, that whether you want to believe it or not, there is such a thing as race. For instance, African-Americans respond sufficiently differently to anti-hypertensives, that denial of the reality of race, can actually be harmful
                    I know you also don’t want to believe that people are in fact more than just animals. But we are – think about it. If we’re only animals, then we’re not culpable for anything, including racism.
                     

                    • McFlock …
                      12 July 2011 at 11:09 pm

                      I don’t even want to know where you got that tripe from. Way to combo genetic justifications for race with what I guess one would call “let’s play chicken with nihilism”.

                    • rosy …
                      12 July 2011 at 11:09 pm

                      For instance, African-Americans respond sufficiently differently to anti-hypertensives, that denial of the reality of race, can actually be harmful

                      Someone very close to me has reasonably recent black African ancestry. He could very well respond poorly to those anti-hypertensives. But that would be due a couple of recessive genes, not race. In terms of ‘race’ he is clearly European (but he can run fast for a white guy ;-)).

          • Gosman 8.1.1.1.2
            12 July 2011 at 9:55 am

            Where is you evidence for this?

            I heard Ansell on the Radio yesterday. I don’t think he stated anything that could be construed that Maori were inferior to European New Zealanders.

            • weka 8.1.1.1.2.1
              12 July 2011 at 10:05 am

              If you have a look at the two recent The Standard posts on this, you will see alot of what Ansell said over the weekend. There are links to his comments on Kiwiblog, and to MSM interviews.
               
              When you’ve read those, come back and try and make the case that Ansell isn’t being racist.

            • Secret Squirrel 8.1.1.1.2.2
              12 July 2011 at 10:51 am

              Ansell certainly strongly implied women were inferior.

        • bbfloyd 8.1.1.2
          12 July 2011 at 11:48 am

          gosman… your comment(8.1,1) is racist… take some time out and think about why i said this…

          update… compounding the gaff by taking a literal approach to what the people in question say is another time honoured racist technique, designed to deflect attention from the core message.

      • weka 8.1.2
        12 July 2011 at 9:50 am

        QSF, there are some things that are beyond simple differences of policy. The kind of racism and misogyny that Ansell expresses goes far past what should be acceptable in this country. However I think John Key should go for it. There are many died in the wool National voters who feel very uncomfortable about ACT, and I’d guess there will be a number of swing voters too. Give them enough rope.
         
        CV, there is a difference between Goff’s decision and what Key should be doing. Goff may not like Harawira’s behaviour or volatility, and those may be good reasons to rule out Mana as a coalition partner (I think the youngness of the party is a better reason myself). But even though Harawira tends to say things perceived as radical, he’s not pursuing an agenda of something as abhorrent as racial oppression. Some people may not like his personal beliefs but I’ve not seen him promoting those personal beliefs as policy eg in the private email where he talked about colonisation, he’s not saying that Mana want Maori to rule NZ. What ACT are doing is categorically different than what Mana are doing.

        • Gosman 8.1.2.1
          12 July 2011 at 10:06 am

          Where’s the policy in ACT’s manifesto that can be classified as racial oppression?

          I must have missed that announcement.

          • weka 8.1.2.1.1
            12 July 2011 at 10:10 am

            I haven’t read their manifesto. I’m going off what they say in public. The fact that a bunch of white men think they know what’s best for Maori irrrespective of what Maori say is the most obvious expression of their racism, but there’s far more than that.

            • Colonial Viper 8.1.2.1.1.1
              12 July 2011 at 11:43 pm

              Personally I don’t think it would be a bad thing for there to be a viable and seriously Left political party in this country. For a time the Alliance should have been it.

              We’ll have to wait and see if Te Mana can fulfil more promise.

            • Gosman 8.1.2.1.1.2
              13 July 2011 at 8:42 am

              I’d say it is racist to claim that Maori are the only ones who know what is best for Maori. It is illogical as well. I don’t claim my Asian Doctor isn’t as good as a European one in determining what is best for me from a health outcome point of view so why would it apply to other areas of life?

          • Blighty 8.1.2.1.2
            12 July 2011 at 11:08 am

            please point us to ACT’s manifesto.

            Not the 2025 taskforce report, the actual one.

            Oh, that’s right. Parties don’t do manifestos anymore. Their platforms consist of policy papers and public statements like this ad.

        • queenstfarmer 8.1.2.2
          12 July 2011 at 10:10 am

          Thankfully, Ansell is gone – he should head over to NZ First. In fact, given that Labour hasn’t ruled out once again teaming up with NZ First, that would be rather amusing outcome!

          • Pascal's bookie 8.1.2.2.1
            12 July 2011 at 10:38 am

            He’s still saying Vote ACT though, still sating he thinks Don is the only one that can save the country from ‘evil’ maori who want to maorify the nation, whatever the fuck that means.

            reckon he’s still earning whatever he got paid no matter how much they say they have nothing to do with each other.

            • Kaplan 8.1.2.2.1.1
              12 July 2011 at 1:06 pm

              I can’t help wondering if an 1860’s Ansell would have been aghast at the eurofication of Aotearoa and Te Waipounamu.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                12 July 2011 at 1:40 pm

                Don’t be silly, we were doing them a favour dontchaknow. Mighty white of us, and are they grateful? Of course they’re not. Typical. And it’s not racist to say so!

      • queenstfarmer 8.1.3
        12 July 2011 at 10:16 am

        Key should rule out working with ACT exactly as Goff has ruled out working with the unreliable, outspoken and volatile Harawira.

        But what about the unreliable, outspoken volatile, race-baiting, Winston Peters that Phil Goff was only too happy to be in Government with, and hasn’t ruled out working with again?

        I think it would be very silly to suggest that Goff “endorses” NZ First’s highly questionable view (or that of its ad men), any more than to suggest Key endorses Ansell’s race baiting. But you apparently think otherwise.

        • weka 8.1.3.1
          12 July 2011 at 10:29 am

          Goff ruled out Harawira because he didn’t want to scare the horses. Peters fits better with the voters Goff thinks he needs.
           
          Personally I’d take Harawira’s volatility over Peters’ smarminess any day.

        • Colonial Viper 8.1.3.2
          12 July 2011 at 11:59 am

          any more than to suggest Key endorses Ansell’s race baiting. But you apparently think otherwise.

          Race baiting is something Key is comfortable with; he doesn’t mind it, doesn’t give a stuff about it, so naturally he won’t condemn ACT or its race baiting leadership.

  9. weka 9
    12 July 2011 at 9:18 am

    Two ministers went head to head calling each other racists last night but it looked more like two old hobos fighting over a tin of beans. Pathetic.
     

    For those of us who didn’t see the news last night, which two ministers are you talking about, and where did they go head to head?

    • pollywog 9.1
      12 July 2011 at 9:43 am

      Sharples & Brash on Native Affairs last night ?

      Whatever it was they were doing wasn’t debating or going head to head. It was more like traipsing around hand in hand finding common ground to defuse the “racial” situation and smooth things over for the sake of Key’s shitty government and their tenuous grasps on power ?

      T’was a total fucking snorefest with each trying to out diplomatise the other. That Julian Wilcox is a pretty damn good interviewer/referee though.

    • Gosman 9.2
      12 July 2011 at 12:06 pm

      Winston Peters used to engage in similar, (if not worse) behaviour with Asian’s and foreigners all the time. That didn’t stop Helen Clark’s led government including him in it. Did that make Helen a racist?

  10. Blue 10
    12 July 2011 at 12:16 pm

    “Did that make Helen a racist?” – yes Gosman, yes it did.

  11. the pink postman 11
    12 July 2011 at 12:42 pm

    I’m angry and ashamed of the cold blooded comment from Key regarding the asylum seeking boat people .
    His cold blooded remarks show just what unfeeling scary person he is.
    He is guilty of the worst type of behavour, he has forgot his past.He has forgotten his Jewish background and early life. What sort of uncaring person forgets his mother’s background. How can one forget that their mother was a refugee who came to Aotearoa for exactly the same reason as these poor boat people are now. ? The same type as one that forgets their working class background joining the very people who despise the class he come from. One should be very aware of such parasites .

    • vto 11.1
      12 July 2011 at 12:46 pm

      Agree, although rather than Key’s comments indicating cold-bloodedness and unfeeling and scary I think it shows him up to be simply really very ignorant. About pretty much everything.

  12. Robert Atack 12
    12 July 2011 at 5:26 pm

    There isn’t enough shit left to start retrofitting what we have, we will not be able to ‘rebuild’ ChCh, let alone our power generating systems, also there isn’t enough ‘profit/life’ left in the global economy, no one is going to build gazillions of wind farms without massive govt inputs, and at the moment our lot are having to borrow $270 million per week on average over the next 4 years … just to stand still, or not go backwards to much, then we have all the loans falling due every 10 years or so.
    The USA is living off a Mugabe style printing press, the EU couldn’t fund a decent pissup let alone afford to rebuild it’s failing power generation, Japan is stuffed. Can anyone see Greece, Ireland, Iceland, etc etc rebuilding its infrastructure?
    These suggestions are from people who have no idea or ability to grasp the true situation.
    A joke from Ron – picture a CEO giving a state of the company speech
    “And so, while the end-of-the-world scenario will be rife with unimaginable horrors, we believe that the pre-end period will be filled with unprecedented opportunities for profit.”
    Wind farms etc are just another way to move the statues from the quarry to their plinth, ignoring the lack of food production etc on the island.

  13. RedLogix 13
    12 July 2011 at 6:35 pm

    Or you could go all paraniod and suggest that ACT deliberately turning itself into such a circus that the intention is turn off voters from MMP.

    Maybe that’s all ACT is good for any more.

    Still I had to snicker unpleasantly just a little at poor old Dr Sharples struggling to avoid the phrase ‘cancerous and corrosive’. That would have been too ironic.

    • felix 13.1
      13 July 2011 at 8:46 pm

      Or you could go all paraniod and suggest that ACT deliberately turning itself into such a circus that the intention is turn off voters from MMP.

      Hmmmm. ACT needs MMP, National wants rid of MMP.

      So when you consider that ACT has been taken over and is now being run by a bunch of semi-retired National Party proxies, it doesn’t seem all that paranoid.

  14. Vicky32 14
    13 July 2011 at 12:51 am

    Okay, for some unknown reason, there’s no reply button under their posts, but this reply is to McFlock and Rosy.
    I get that you don’t want to believe what I have said, and I also get why you don’t – you believe that acknowledging that ‘race’ is real will allow racism. Nevertheless, race is a real thing! If 99% of people from a particular place with particular characteristics, display identical genetic reactions to particular treatments, how is that not race?
    To say that race is a real thing, is  not the same thing as promoting racism! Why do you refuse to see that? The whole “there’s no such thing as race” is incredibly patronising and, I’d go as far as to say, stupid.
    http://www.stanford.edu/group/collman/jpc/Chapter2.htm#_Race_Can_be
    and
    http://www.stanford.edu/group/collman/jpc/Chapter2.htm#_Race-specific_Drugs
    Of course there’s overlap, and few people (if any, in 2011) are not mixtures of ‘races’. To that extent, you’re right, but ignoring race altogether when prescribing etc is foolish and potentially dangerous. Race is not the same thing as culture, as a Samoan  friend of mine (and fellow student) had to point out to a patronising berk who was also a fellow student of ours years ago. She wanted to bring her son up to appreciate classical music and get a good education, and she was extremely irked that all he wanted to do was listen to NWA and dress like a gangsta. “It’s his culture” whined this elderly Pakeha guy, and she rounded on him, saying “No, it’s black American culture, and just because he’s an Islander doesn’t mean he has to adhere to it”.
    While we’re at it, check out this Wikipedia page, about something my nurse son is always on about, hepatotoxicity, and the sidebar on the lower right of the page…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatotoxicity
     

    • McFlock 14.1
      13 July 2011 at 1:24 am

      Just as “race” is not culture, it is also not purely genetics – otherwise all gingas would be Irish.
      “Race” is an artificial construct and is frequently applied in different ways (according to the person doing the applying) from culture to genes to geography, or mixtures thereof. And it’s also usually applied by one person onto another in a general and constant manner based on the most arbitrary of surface characteristics.
      “Race” is not the occasional reasonable acceptance of differences between groups of people for specific relevant tasks, e.g. geography, socioeconomic differences, or medicine (although even then most “race affected” conditions/reactions are rules of thumb and require a specific test on the specific individual). 
      And, in the political arena and especially regarding the Treaty, 99% of people using the term “race” are full of crap, and the other 1% chose their words poorly.
       

      • rosy 14.1.1
        13 July 2011 at 7:54 am

        +1 McFlock, +1.

      • Vicky32 14.1.2
        13 July 2011 at 6:49 pm

        Just as “race” is not culture, it is also not purely genetics – otherwise all gingas would be Irish.
        Scottish, thanks! 🙂 (My family are all gingas and we’re Scottish/English)

        “Race” is not the occasional reasonable acceptance of differences between groups of people for specific relevant tasks, e.g. geography, socioeconomic differences, or medicine (although even then most “race affected” conditions/reactions are rules of thumb and require a specific test on the specific individual). 
         
        Well, that’s how I mean it! My remarks have got nothing at all to do with the Treaty, and everything to do with the fact that it’s pointless and silly to deny that ‘race’ exists. I can assure you that it matters greatly to some people, whatever they mean by it! If I go into a language classroom and assume that a Japanese person is Korean or Chinese, I cause offence, which is awkward, as they are almost indistinguishable by sight, though thankfully not by name or accent…

        • McFlock 14.1.2.1
          13 July 2011 at 10:31 pm

          YOU assuming that THEY are X is racist. Them IDENTIFYING with X is not. It’s the difference between imposing your label on them, and them choosing their own label, which changes according to time and personal perception. Some ethnicity identifiers refer to prioritised ethnicity, any ethnicity, sole ethnicity, or even “ever” ethnicity (based on whether people change self-identified ethnic groups in different encounters). “Race” is strictly about someone else applying a constant label based on essentially arbitrary criteria.
          With regards genetics or place of birth, labels imposed by others don’t work – “Asian” reactions to medicine Y are more likely for people who self-identify as “Asian”, but if someone had that same reaction they might be very surprised to be called “Asian”.

          • Vicky32 14.1.2.1.1
            13 July 2011 at 11:45 pm

            YOU assuming that THEY are X is racist. Them IDENTIFYING with X is not.

            Ma dai! As someone said to me tonight, you would try the patience of the Pope! Have you ever been in a classroom? Sometimes it’s part of my job to ‘assume’ they are ‘X’… in giving a lesson, for instance. Japanese, Korean, Chinese, all have different pronunciation or reading issues.
            Just to try to salvage my reputation, as you seem to have marked me down as a Klan member, the same is true of people from non-Asian language groups, such as the Russians, Italians and Brazilians I have also taught.
            Secondo me, sei un pretendente, arrogante e nello stesso tempo, pateticamente insicuro di fronte  persone che pensano diversamente da te.
             
             

            • McFlock 14.1.2.1.1.1
              14 July 2011 at 12:14 am

              Like you’re the only one who’s ever worked in a multicultural  environment. But then I used to work with individuals, rather than making assumptions and then having to apologise. Or at least that’s what I learned to do pretty quickly. Cultural differences were fun, but try accommodating GLBT support at the same time as the WWJD crowd.

              You’re entitled to your opinion – if I were to make an assumption it would be that I’m not the only person you’ve ever put into that box. Although I’ll own up to the arrogance.

            • rosy 14.1.2.1.1.2
              14 July 2011 at 12:53 am

              I’m not at all suggesting you would do this in teaching English to foreign students Vicky… but an example of the other-side of assuming needs is the experience of a young boy I know. His parent was told that there wasn’t an expectation that he would do homework and keep up with the class. Reason being – he was Maori.

              To assume that of any child is destroying their potential, but to specifically assume that of this boy is a good case to point out that assumption based on race is wrong i.e. because he is Maori he didn’t have the resources required to succeed academically. The teacher had not bothered to find out that both his parents were well-paid, well-educated professionals and clearly understood what their son required (and btw one was also Pakeha). The boy can identify as Maori all he wants but to negatively stereotype him based on his looks was unforgivable really.

              The other problem with a teacher like this is that she might have been just as likely to assume any Pakeha child had the resources required to succeed – based on the fact they were/looked Pakeha without bothering to find out if they actually did so.

              I know from previous comments you’ve made previously that teachers have underestimated your potential in the past – to do this based on class you clearly understand and deplore. To do so based on race is possibly worse (if only because you can hide class if you want, but it’s harder to hide race).

              • Vicky32 …
                14 July 2011 at 1:16 am

                I’m not at all suggesting you would do this in teaching English to foreign students Vicky…

                Well, of course I wouldn’t! Even if it weren’t that 99% of my students are adults..)

                The other problem with a teacher like this is that she might have been just as likely to assume any Pakeha child had the resources required to succeed – based on the fact they were/looked Pakeha without bothering to find out if they actually did so.

                Oh yes! When I was on a DPB and bringing up my son, I had to content with some teachers who assumed that of course we had a video-camera, a car and such like things, because we’re Pakeha. (Another assumption was that I let him watch TV all day and half the night – she actually assigned TV shows as ‘homework’… I know that’s not strictly relevant, but it reminds me of all the shock-horror-probe from the media when Jeanette Fitzsimons went in to her electorate office early one election night, to watch the results because she didn’t have TV.. it had simply never occurred to them that someone might choose not to have TV! 🙂 )

            • wtl 14.1.2.1.1.3
              14 July 2011 at 1:14 am

              Sometimes it’s part of my job to ‘assume’ they are ‘X’… in giving a lesson, for instance. Japanese, Korean, Chinese, all have different pronunciation or reading issues.

              I feel like I’m stating the obvious here, but surely a better approach would be to simply ask each student what their first language is and then teach them on that basis. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with ‘race’ or even nationality, but rather to do with their upbringing, or specifically the language that is spoken in the household.

              • Vicky32 …
                14 July 2011 at 1:31 am

                I feel like I’m stating the obvious here, but surely a better approach would be to simply ask each student what their first language is and then teach them on that basis. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with ‘race’ or even nationality, but rather to do with their upbringing, or specifically the language that is spoken in the household.

                Another man who has never been inside a classroom tries to teach his grandmother to suck eggs….
                Once again for the hard of thinking, I am teaching adult students in a classroom. I like to give them individual attention, I am a reliever. I don’t necessarily know who they are. If they ask a question, and I am answering, it can be important for me to know whether they are Japanese, Chinese, Korean etc. (Vietnamese people are very easy to distinguish – both by their voices and other cues.) If I make the wrong assumption, “hey, you’re Japanese, that means you’ve learned American English etc” and they’re Korean, or vice versa, they can get rather agitated. That’s why race is important to them, not me, which was my original point, 48 hours and a shedload of ignorant abuse and assumption ago…

                Oh and while I am at it “I feel like I’m” ought to be “I feel as if”… Too much American TV, hey?

                Signore Coglione, i miei studenti non hanno una famiglia, sono persone stranieri che studiano qui. Adulti, capito?

                • McFlock …
                  14 July 2011 at 12:03 pm

                  Three points:
                  1) stop pretending that teachers are the only ones who have to deal with diversity issues;

                  2) no surprise that Koreans and Japanese might get “rather agitated” at such an assumption. Read up on the Japanese occupation of Korea in the first half of the 20th Century. Particularly “comfort women”. Nothing to do with “race”;

                  3) a small digression here, but I would have thought that given the history of US troop deployments in Asia, both (South) Korean and Japanese citizens are probably more  familiar with Webster’s than the OED. 

                  • Vicky32 …
                    14 July 2011 at 4:53 pm

                    Three points:
                    1) stop pretending that teachers are the only ones who have to deal with diversity issues;

                    When have I ever said that? Don’t be stupid…

                    3) a small digression here, but I would have thought that given the history of US troop deployments in Asia, both (South) Korean and Japanese citizens are probably more  familiar with Webster’s than the OED. 

                    Did you read what I said? The Japanese invariably learn American English, the Koreans often (but not always) do. Now are you going to leave it alone? I get it, you’re very important. We all see that. I am not a Klan member, nor even a racist but you don’t want to believe that.
                    However, I will admit to anything you want me to say, provided you promise to leave me alone, okay?

                    • McFlock …
                      14 July 2011 at 5:27 pm

                      “When have I ever said that?”
                      Just the suggestion that other people might not have anything of value to contribute because they are “Another man who has never been inside a classroom tries to teach his grandmother to suck eggs….”

                      I never called you a clan member. I just don’t think that being multilingual or working with ESL students necessarily means that one is not racist. “Not being racist” simply involves not imposing generalised labels on other people.

                      And switching to a second language to insult people might be regarded as being just a touch passive-aggressive – it’s all very well calling me “arrogant” and a “pretender”, but you have been claiming a certain amount of authority for yourself, too. 
                       

                      I generally enjoy having my beliefs about myself and my society (gender, cultural or other issues) challenged by strong debate (e.g. *why* I have the instinct that the concept of “race” is bs. Turns out that it’s because I have an issue with people pinning labels to others, rather than people choosing labels for themselves. I didn’t pick that root cause when the discussion started – thanks, it helped a lot). 

                      If others don’t find any benefit from lengthy debate, they don’t have to engage in the discussion.

  15. randal 15
    13 July 2011 at 11:52 am

    the only thing keys cares about is the bond yields he flogged off to his mates and his client list..