National and Pasifika

86 comments on “National and Pasifika ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Kiwiri 1

   12 July 2014 at 9:13 am

   “But you really have to wonder at the dishonesty involved in their attempt at being different things to different communities. For throughout the rest of the country Key wants to be known as a urban liberal. But in South Auckland for purely political reasons he wants to create the impression that his party is socially conservative.”

   Who can forget John Key in the media being so pathetic on stage during 2009 Big Gay Out?

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQcISky549A (be warned, this can be quite painful to watch)

   http://www.3news.co.nz/Golden-moments-with-John-Key—the-Big-Gay-Out/tabid/419/articleID/131519/Default.aspx

   And then next thing, Nats’ out lesbian Claudette Hauiti was directed to decamp to the north.
2. karol 2

   12 July 2014 at 9:17 am

   I would have thought party policies to end (child) poverty would be a priority for many Pasifika and other people in South Auckland. National is making it worse, and left wing parties are strongly focused on ending poverty and lessening the inequality gap.
3. felix 3

   12 July 2014 at 9:37 am

   Claudette was briefly interviewed on Back Benches last week. What a disgrace.

   She’s either a total moran or she’s totally dishonest.

   (just kidding, the smug “nailed it” glance at the end revealed her as both)
   • Murray Olsen 3.1

     13 July 2014 at 12:40 am

     I suspect she’s both. Par for the course for NAct.
4. tc 4

   12 July 2014 at 9:42 am

   Just another example of how much the MSM are under the govts thumb. A better story would be focus on Claudette who cant seem to string a few sentences together to show folk yet another blue sock puppett.

   We need a public broadcaster, you only have to look across the ditch to see the moves Abbott is making to politicise and de power abc and sbs as independant reporting is the rights nemesis.
5. marty 5

   12 July 2014 at 9:44 am

   Pacifica? Pacifika. You might think it doesn’t matter, but try getting away with Maore. I you want to capture hearts and minds, these apparently insignificant mistakes cost.
   • karol 5.1

     12 July 2014 at 10:04 am

     I thought it was ‘Pasifika”.
     • srylands 5.1.1

       12 July 2014 at 10:11 am

       In the last few weeks it has changed to Pacifica.
       • Murray Olsen 5.1.1.1

         13 July 2014 at 12:42 am

         Only in public ACT documents. I have heard you guys prefer “untermenschen” in your internal communications.
   • mickysavage 5.2

     12 July 2014 at 10:35 am

     I have seen both versions used heavily.
     • karol 5.2.1

       12 July 2014 at 11:06 am

       Google search. Pacifica throws up commercial activities as top of the list. Pasifika throws up community activities as top links.
       • mickysavage 5.2.1.1

         12 July 2014 at 11:51 am

         In deference to community I have changed the spelling to “Pasifika”.
         • karol 5.2.1.1.1

           12 July 2014 at 12:00 pm

           Thanks.
6. Tiger Mountain 6

   12 July 2014 at 11:14 am

   On one level why shouldn’t pasifika people act as as idiotically as so many Pākehā, Euro and Asian New Zealanders and vote tory against their actual material interests out of misguided aspiration and the money bags–dear leader?

   On another, hopefully the legacy of dawn raids, ongoing racist attitudes to Pacific Islanders and social inequality will see most not fall for Nationals bait and switch on gays and belated crocodile tears on loan sharking etc.
   • karol 6.1

     12 July 2014 at 12:01 pm

     But it also shows the Nats are concerned about the amount of votes they will get – scrounging for a few extra votes wherever they see a possible niche.
   • marty mars 6.2

     12 July 2014 at 12:34 pm

     Plus 1 TM
   • Populuxe1 6.3

     12 July 2014 at 5:24 pm

     If by “bait and switch” you mean marriage equalisation, it was tabled by Labour and it’s pretty damn easy to trivialise rights that no-one has ever denied you, eh?
   • Populuxe1 6.4

     12 July 2014 at 6:43 pm

     On one level why shouldn’t pasifika people act as as idiotically as so many Pākehā, Euro and Asian New Zealanders and vote tory against their actual material interests out of misguided aspiration and the money bags–dear leader?

     Because Labour hacks then can’t use them exactly as National are using them now. That’s why.
7. Tracey 7

   12 July 2014 at 12:16 pm

   “I suspect many attendees were related to one or the other of them.”

   Really? What an odd, unsubstantiated, thing to write.
   • Lanthanide 7.1

     12 July 2014 at 1:51 pm

     Yes, the general tone of this post is actually pretty condescending and racist. I’m sure Micky didn’t mean it, but it’s not the first time he’s had these sorts of issues in his posts.

     Another one:
     “3News reported this week on a meeting held in Mangere and repeated National’s line that Pasifika is turning to National because of socially liberal issues driven by Labour such as marriage equality and anti child brutalising.”

     This implies that Pasifika people are on average against marriage equality (which is a fairly accurate representation, and an a non-inflammatory statement), but also that Pasifika people are pro child-brutalisation.

     People who are against the “anti-smacking” legislation, are against it because they feel it diminishes their right to discipline their child as they see fit, and makes them feel like they’re a criminal. Referring to this as the “anti child brutalising” legislation in this context is ham-handed and clumsy, when either “S59 ammendment” or “anti-child smacking” would have been perfectly correct and acceptable alternatives.
     • mickysavage 7.1.1

       12 July 2014 at 2:25 pm

       Err?

       Are you being serious?

       I grew up in South Auckland and I am actually part samoan. There is nothing condescending in the post.

       The brutalisation comment is because I do not believe that the anti smacking comment is an accurate description of the legislation and I have refused to use it.
       • Populuxe1 7.1.1.1

         12 July 2014 at 4:36 pm

         Saying you are “actually part X” has to be right up there with “I’m not Xist, but…” and “Some of my best friends are X”.
         • Lanthanide 7.1.1.1.1

           12 July 2014 at 4:47 pm

           “My wife is Singaporean…”
         • mickysavage 7.1.1.1.2

           12 July 2014 at 6:11 pm

           BS. I was proud when I discovered that I was part Samoan.
           • Populuxe1 7.1.1.1.2.1

             12 July 2014 at 7:17 pm

             Conceivably the Samoans at the National meeting are proud to be Samoan too.
             • Colonial Viper …

               12 July 2014 at 8:34 pm

               Similarly, I have no doubt that some of the Chinese who helped the Imperial Japanese Army in Manchuria were also proud to be Chinese.
               • tinfoilhat …

                 12 July 2014 at 9:39 pm

                 Do you really think those kind of comparisons help your case CV ?
                 • Populuxe1 …

                   15 July 2014 at 4:42 pm

                   Nah, even CV’s not quite that blind – just can’t help him/herself is all
       • Lanthanide 7.1.1.2

         12 July 2014 at 4:45 pm

         Of course I’m being serious or I wouldn’t have said it.

         I completely understand why you wrote it the way you did. It just comes off as suggesting that Pasifika people don’t support Labour because Labour passed an anti-child brutalisation law.
         • mickysavage 7.1.1.2.1

           12 July 2014 at 6:13 pm

           I said that TV3 had “repeated National’s line that Pasifika is turning to National because of socially liberal issues driven by Labour such as marriage equality and anti child brutalising” which has the opposite meaning of what you propose.
           • Lanthanide 7.1.1.2.1.1

             12 July 2014 at 8:09 pm

             No, it’s not. I’m sorry you can’t follow my argument, but repeating it won’t serve any purpose.
             • mickysavage …

               12 July 2014 at 8:36 pm

               Um you said I suggested that Pasifica people don’t support Labour because Labour passed the anti smacking law, to give it your title.

               I disagreed.

               I said that TV3 had said that National’s line was that Pasifica people don’t support Labour because Labour passed the anti smacking law, to give it your title.

               I also said that National’s line was not correct.

               I thought this was your argument.

               What am I missing?
               • Lanthanide …

                 12 July 2014 at 10:11 pm

                 Actually you’re right.

                 I just wrote it all out using symbols in place of actors/groups and the logical conclusion to draw is that you are saying Pasifika are actually anti-smacking (or anti-child brutalising as you put it), which is the opposite of my initial interpretation.

                 Sorry for the accusations and confusion.
   • mickysavage 7.2

     12 July 2014 at 2:29 pm

     Really? What an odd, unsubstantiated, thing to write.

     Why? National are trying to spin this as evidence of a surge of support for them. I am saying that this is not correct. I am aware that the invitations went far and wide and came out to groups in West Auckland. The meeting was relatively small. Family relations are important in PI politics.
     • ghostwhowalksnz 7.2.1

       12 July 2014 at 4:05 pm

       The evidence is National has tried to spin this for a few elections now and even at the Mana by election. Each time its been proved false.
       Youd expect #TeamKey stories on their websites that are paid to play their stories , but 3News ?
8. DS 8

   12 July 2014 at 1:58 pm

   This reminds me of US Republicans trying to appeal to socially conservative black voters. It doesn’t work. Blacks vote 90+% Democratic, and Pacific Islanders vote 75+% Labour, because economic interests come first and neither National nor the US Republicans care about workers or the poor.
9. UilaSouthAuckland 9

   12 July 2014 at 2:05 pm

   Firstly……try “Pasefika”…….the Samoan word for Pacific islands, Pacific people.

   Secondly, having a blood relationship to a National Party MP mentioned in your article, I record that I would not contemplate in a million years being present at that National Party ‘cheerfest’ for JohnKey.

   Why ? Because the gathering was for John Key, not for Polynesian people; because while parading an ’empathy’ for (his perception) of Polynesian thinking, he John Key voted FOR the marriage equality law; because at that meeting John Key relied on a small number of Polynesians who have attached themselves to him for individual advancement – that is they are the fiapalagi, (in the Samoa language) a Polynesian possessed of palagi values, embracing individualism over collectivism. In the purpose of individual advancement.

   Collectivism runs deep in Samoan culture. How else could my people have suffered the outrageous racism of the dawn raids, the mocking inhumanity, and the attacks on our dignity experienced at the hands of bureaucracy – for example WINZ and Housing NZ offices all over New Zealand. It is our powerful collectivism that is our strength.

   It is a mark of John Key’s ignorant cultural arrogance that he believes, assisted by a few fiapalagi, that he can corrupt our culture to his political advantage. That’s what it is all about – his personal politcal advantage. Not about respect for Polynesians. Polynesians know this.
   • mickysavage 9.1

     12 July 2014 at 3:30 pm

     Thanks for your comment Uila.

     I agree entirely about the collectivism in Samoan culture. And thanks for reinforcing so strongly my impression that the effect of the dawn raids is still felt.
   • Wayne 9.2

     12 July 2014 at 4:15 pm

     Uila,

     While I accept there is a deep strand of collectivism in Polynesian cultures, if you think that National is only about the individual and ignores communities you are grievously mistaken. And the Polynesian National MP’s that I know well do not think in that way. They did not join ACT, since they are not libertarians.

     Clearly National does encourage individual success, and believes that people should retain the bulk of the fruits of their endeavors for themselves and their families, but it does so within the context of building strong communities. And a large part of National’s programme relates to that. Paula Bennett on The Nation this morning gave a very clear exposition of National’s intent in that respect. People who saw her will be able to make their own judgement on the success of National in this regard.

     An essential point that I am making is that National is not ACT, even though many of the commenters on The Standard seem to think so. There is a large difference between the philosophies of the two parties. ACT is fundamentally a libertarian party, National is not.

     And how long does National pay for the sins of Muldoon and the dawn raids. As has been pointed out, they were 40 years ago. The current National Polynesian MP’s would have been small children. And they have joined a modern National Party, not the National Party of their grandparents.
     • Draco T Bastard 9.2.1

       12 July 2014 at 4:56 pm

       if you think that National is only about the individual and ignores communities you are grievously mistaken.

       BS. If National had any community values they wouldn’t have been selling off our assets.

       Clearly National does encourage individual success, and believes that people should retain the bulk of the fruits of their endeavors for themselves and their families, but it does so within the context of building strong communities.

       Everything that National does benefits the few at everyone else’s expense and tears down communities rather than build them up.
       • Weepu's beard 9.2.1.1

         12 July 2014 at 10:59 pm

         Yep. I can’t agree at all that National is pro-communities. They might pay lip service to it when it suits them – an example of yet another marketing exercise dressed up as policy, but their actions speak louder…

         Dismantling state housing areas, moving people on, focus on temp work and part time work to make employment numbers look better, the 90 day law, devolution of unions, massive immigration drive, focus on a landlord/peasant society, etc, etc.

         The more you move people around and the less secure you make them in their homes, the weaker the community.
     • Puddleglum 9.2.2

       12 July 2014 at 8:01 pm

       “…if you think that National is only about the individual and ignores communities you are grievously mistaken”

       “National does encourage individual success, and believes that people should retain the bulk of the fruits of their endeavors for themselves and their families, but it does so within the context of building strong communities.”

       Wayne, I’m willing to accept your view that National party members and MPs generally believe this but,if they do, then they haven’t been taking any notice of the consequences on communities of policy after policy that they have supported and, in most cases, implemented.

       The ‘liberalisation’ of the ‘labour market’, to take one example, has meant that more and more people have experienced repeated unemployment, unstable incomes, casualisation of work (which has worked against the production of community interconnections) and internal migration in pursuit of jobs or, if they have jobs, ‘better jobs’.

       In fact, as this report from the Child Action Poverty Group details, residential mobility increased throughout the 1990s (who was in government then?) and not just because everyone fell in love with moving around.

       And this paper (from 2013) details how residential mobility is associated with decreased affiliation with a Primary Care Giver (in the health sector) and, in turn, worse health outcomes.

       Policies, in general, that increase private provision of services previously provided by local or central government produce – completely unsurprisingly – the instability associated with ‘market forces’. The ‘market and business friendly’ (to use the usual euphemism) policies pursued by National make community-building that much harder. Communities establish through a combination of stability and common interest. Market-friendly policies accentuate instability and the salience of individual interests over community or collective interests.

       Every indigenous community in the modern world, so far as I’m aware, has felt the corrosive effect of market economies on existing community forms. I suppose, if you wanted to be a postmodern relativist, you could argue that, today, communities are still present but they are just ‘different’ from what they used to be.

       OK, but they’re ‘different’ in the following ways – they are transient, they involve weak; unidimensional links between individuals; they are conditional (people opt in and out at personal whim or in response to ever-shifting circumstances) and they increasingly don’t provide the ‘social insurance’ that has always been the raison d’être of human communities (that’s why the state stepped in to provide such ‘insurance’ through social security).

       I just can’t believe that you – and other National Party people – don’t understand any of this Wayne.

       It amounts to one of the most well-established and researched trends in modern societies. Our world – completely unsurprisingly – has become increasingly privatised the more we organise ourselves for ‘the economy’ – social relationships and community stability have simply been mined to fuel ‘the economy’, with entirely predictable effects on both communities and the psychological functioning of individuals.

       This is why inequality, child poverty and relative poverty in general matter so much. Without communities, the effects of material disadvantage are magnified immensely.

       Frankly, I couldn’t care less what National Party MPs ‘intentions’ are. I’m only interested in whether what they do aids communities or undermines them. The evidence, in my eyes, shows overwhelmingly that it’s the latter.

       Fine sentiments are irrelevant when it comes to this level of dislocation of communities. And I remember when Jim Bolger started to make a few of his ‘communitarian’ speeches ‘nek minnit’ he was rolled.

       The only government that did worse for communities than most National governments in the past 30 years was, obviously, the Douglas government. That’s why Bolger oozed around the country in 1990 talking about the ‘Decent Society’ – so much for that once the Treasury benches were gained.
       • Weepu's beard 9.2.2.1

         12 July 2014 at 11:07 pm

         Yeah, what you said. Great post, hadn’t read it before posting my truncated version.
       • Draco T Bastard 9.2.2.2

         13 July 2014 at 12:45 am

         +11111

         Bloody well said.
       • Wayne 9.2.2.3

         13 July 2014 at 9:30 am

         No, I am not suggesting that people forget the dawn raids. But I am asking the question does it always remain the defining feature of National.

         Clearly for a number of National MP’s and supporters it is not. They certainly are fully aware of the impact of the dawn raids, but they don’t judge John Key and the contemporary National Party by them.
       • Wayne 9.2.2.4

         13 July 2014 at 9:30 am

         No, I am not suggesting that people forget the dawn raids. But I am asking the question does it always remain the defining feature of National.

         Clearly for a number of National MP’s and supporters it is not. They certainly are fully aware of the impact of the dawn raids, but they don’t judge John Key and the contemporary National Party by them.
       • Wayne 9.2.2.5

         13 July 2014 at 9:42 am

         Take an objective look at the last 5 1/2 years and ask yourself if the current government is all about a rampant market approach.

         Right through the recession the full range of social services were retained. There was no significant cut back precisely because National was concerned about the community impact. State houses were insulated. Education and health spending increased. Inequality has actually reduced compared to depth of the recession. Fewer children are in poverty, because of the focus of getting people into jobs.

         Now clearly National does things differently to Labour, but have a look at the ad by the Conservatives in the paper today, to see what a truly right wing party would do. A very different prescription to National.

         Anyway we know in 2 months what the voters think of all of this.

         (The site needs a feature to prevent accidental double posting)
         • Camryn 9.2.2.5.1

           13 July 2014 at 2:11 pm

           Another thing that’s commonly forgotten is that individual responsibility and community mindedness are not necessarily mutually exclusive. One of the ways that I, as an individual, contribute to my community is by ensuring I draw upon as few of our shared resources a possible. I have a duty to those who truly need help to not use that resource myself. This is the main thrust of National’s policies that’re described as “individualistic”. Moving people off benefits who can be moved of benefits is good for the community is it preserves (and strengthens against criticism) the resource for those with strongest need. There probably are Pakeha cultural perspectives of community ingrained in this perspective. That those are different from other cultural perspectives on how to best support each other as a community is not racist unless all cultural differences are racist. And I really think, as with genes, the variations within a culture can often be as broad as variations between them. So it really is unfair to say someone is “fiapalagi” just because they’re at that end of the Samoan spectrum.
         • Puddleglum 9.2.2.5.2

           13 July 2014 at 9:29 pm

           Wayne, the present government inherited a socioeconomic system that – at least since the 1980s – has heavily prioritised the market, economic interests and activity.

           What it therefore ‘retained’ in terms of social services was itself deeply undermining of community (e.g., the reduction in benefit levels in the early 90s remain imprinted in the social security system). Not content with that, National has further tightened eligibility requirements – especially for retaining full benefits. It has made a myriad of petty cuts that have further undermined stressed communities (e.g., community education, women’s refuge, rape crisis).

           On the other side of the coin National has further destabilised working arrangements and made casualised work more enticing for employers.

           My main point was that the policies National pursues are principally about prioritising the goal of increasing economic and business activity by – perhaps unwittingly, to be generous – making our social arrangements less stable and by further encouraging the prioritising of one’s own interests ahead of the common interest. What you see as ‘centrist’ and balanced remains tilted heavily in favour of business/economic needs rather than social needs.

           Here in Christchurch this basic prioritising has been crystal clear. Whether it’s the schools, the red-zoning decisions, the central city blueprint or just about anything else that’s been done here by the government, the priority has been business-oriented (in a very ham-fisted manner) rather than primarily concerned with preserving, supporting and strengthening communities, families and people. Perhaps you haven’t seen your government’s actions down here close up.
     • Uila South Auckland 9.2.3

       12 July 2014 at 10:47 pm

       Wayne it sounds like you don’t understand a word I said. Your last paragraph is like you’re saying “Polynesians should get over it” dawn raids etc. To your advantage obviously. Which is just what I was saying about Once Was Wayne’s comment. Too much saying how Pasefika SHOULD think. I am talking about what Pasefika DO think. And that’s our business. Not yours.
   • Wayne 9.3

     12 July 2014 at 4:15 pm

     Uila,

     While I accept there is a deep strand of collectivism in Polynesian cultures, if you think that National is only about the individual and ignores communities you are grievously mistaken. And the Polynesian National MP’s that I know well do not think in that way. They did not join ACT, since they are not libertarians.

     Clearly National does encourage individual success, and believes that people should retain the bulk of the fruits of their endeavors for themselves and their families, but it does so within the context of building strong communities. And a large part of National’s programme relates to that. Paula Bennett on The Nation this morning gave a very clear exposition of National’s intent in that respect. People who saw her will be able to make their own judgement on the success of National in this regard.

     An essential point that I am making is that National is not ACT, even though many of the commenters on The Standard seem to think so. There is a large difference between the philosophies of the two parties. ACT is fundamentally a libertarian party, National is not.

     And how long does National pay for the sins of Muldoon and the dawn raids. As has been pointed out, they were 40 years ago. The current National Polynesian MP’s would have been small children. And they have joined a modern National Party, not the National Party of their grandparents.
     • felix 9.3.1

       12 July 2014 at 4:46 pm

       So as long as ACT exists as a comparison, National can’t be all that bad.

       God that’s weak, Wayne.

       National is still the party of racists it always has been. There was a very revealing exchange in parliament recently where a couple of National MPs referred to NZ residents of Asian descent as “foreigners”.
     • Blue 9.3.2

       12 July 2014 at 5:10 pm

       if you think that National is only about the individual and ignores communities you are grievously mistaken.

       Clearly National does encourage individual success, and believes that people should retain the bulk of the fruits of their endeavors for themselves and their families, but it does so within the context of building strong communities.

       ??? Exactly how stupid do you think people are, Wayne? The very foundation of right wing political philosophy is the valuing of the individual over the collective. To tell people that it’s okay to be selfish and that those who are not as successful as they are deserve hardship and should be demonised and punished until they are forced to pull their socks up. National is not as extreme as Act, but there’s still nothing community-orientated about them.

       There is really no need to try to pretend that the National Party is something it’s not. There are enough people who go in for the bennie-bashing schtick for you to make hay with.
       • Draco T Bastard 9.3.2.1

         13 July 2014 at 12:54 am

         +1
     • Weepu's beard 9.3.3

       12 July 2014 at 11:20 pm

       John Key made PR love to John Banks in that cafe. According to his memoirs, that was the incident that nearly made John Key give up. Oh, if only it were so!

       All John Banks is worried about is brown people coming through his windows at night. He said so on TV.

       National and ACT are tight. Watch Epsom in a couple of months.

       ACT foisted charter schools upon us. A brain explosion of an idea borrowed from tea-party America. What the fuck is wrong with building upon our already very very good education system?

       John Banks is a criminal, btw. Jamie Whyte seems a criminal in waiting.

       Etc.
       • Tautoko Viper 9.3.3.1

         13 July 2014 at 9:56 am

         Agreed, Weepu’s Beard. A vote for National is a vote for any extreme right policy that National would like to inflict on the public but could not implement as their own policy because it would make them unelectable.
         A vote for National is a vote for Act policies.
       • Tautoko Viper 9.3.3.2

         13 July 2014 at 9:56 am

         Agreed, Weepu’s Beard. A vote for National is a vote for any extreme right policy that National would like to inflict on the public but could not implement as their own policy because it would make them unelectable.
         A vote for National is a vote for Act policies.
   • sockpuppet 9.4

     15 July 2014 at 4:51 pm

     What a wonderful insight Uila.

     Your commentary should be required reading at this blog along with those of Messrs Morrissey, North and Prof. Longhair.
10. Once was Pete 10

    12 July 2014 at 2:06 pm

    Some of the views you express in this post remind me of why I am currently switched off to Labour.
    Firstly, the 70’s are 40 plus years ago and the majority of voters will have no memory of these times. To somehow link the ‘atrocities’ committed nearly 90 years ago to any current political party is beyond a stretch. Thats like saying Labour will have to wait two generations before the excesses of the Clark government are forgotten.
    Secondly, to suggest somehow that only Polynesian national candidates are somehow only motivated by money and lifestyle, and not for their communities, is a scurrilous thing to say. You should resile from this implication, because it is disgraceful. It is insulting and deeply patronising. No party should be exempt from this sort of criticism if this reasoning is followed. And Labour has surely picked some duds in this area ( think Taito Philip Field and others).
    Finally, to claim that there are more racists in National, than there are say in Labour is an unwarranted slur and has no basis in reality. Are you seriously saying that the people who support Labour are less prejudiced than than those who support National. You wouldn’t think so reading these pages. Given Labours current polling one could be forgiven for believing that the more intolerant and hardline elements would be found at the extremes and therefore over represented in Labour. But like your proposition, no one will ever really know. But you only have to read some of the social media comments from Labour candidates to see that ‘hatred’ is alive and well in the party.
    There was an article in the NZH this am that resonated with me. I can’t recall who wrote it but the contention was that centre voters (I consider my self to be left of centre) have become turned off by the politics of envy and hate (my words not theirs). I am not saying that similar disturbing prejudicial posts aren’t on right wing blogs, because they are. I am just as deeply concerned about extreme right wing views.
    But being a mild pink, makes me especially sensitive to the type of post above. Perpetuating these stereotypes is a lose-lose proposition.
    • mickysavage 10.1

      12 July 2014 at 2:37 pm

      Are you saying that history is unimportant? I was attempting to contextualise why PI support for Labour is so strong and these historical events seem to me to be very important. The dawn raids for instance are still mentioned to me as being a significant event for the people who went through them.

      As for the motivation what I said was

      “National is clearly focussed on selecting individuals who will blunt the otherwise clear difference between the parties in terms of support amongst different ethnic groups. At a personal level I can understand individuals signing up. The privilege of an MP’s lifestyle must be hard to ignore. All you have to do is persuade yourself that you are better than others and believe that the cult of the individual is more powerful than the strength of the collective.”

      National has as its central theme the importance of the individual. This is at odds with the PI emphasis on family and community. I did not say that the individuals were only motivated by money and lifestyle although I am sure this is a factor.

      As for “more racists in National” you should have a read of the link and then form your own conclusions.
      • Populuxe1 10.1.1

        12 July 2014 at 4:33 pm

        It pisses me off to see people deracinated because they don’t conform to stereotypes and sweeping generalisations about political or personal beliefs. Patronising No True Scotsman bullshit. Can you just call them “race traitors” and be done already? It’s as ridiculous and offensive as questioning the authenticity of the Pakeha in the Mana Party.

        #notallpolynesians
        • North 10.1.1.1

          13 July 2014 at 10:14 am

          Swell Pops’. A robust defence of those who deceptively drape themselves in a flag foreign to their seminal thinking in order to advance their seminal thinking. You know the type – Tories who dance around pretending to be lefties. Yes Pops’……you of ALL people DO know the type.
          • Populuxe1 10.1.1.1.1

            15 July 2014 at 4:46 pm

            Fuck off Morrissey
      • Once was Pete 10.1.2

        12 July 2014 at 5:10 pm

        No I am not saying history is unimportant. I am saying most Pacific Island voters won’t have been born then, and as someone else pointed out below, it was actually a Labour government that introduced the dawn raids. Kids will not carry the same level of angst as their parents. And it is a stretch to relate those times and those circumstances to either current Labour or National parties.
        ‘Its supporters are amongst some of the most racist belligerent sorts imaginable (warning Kiwiblog David Garrett link)’. As to your point about racists, your statement was quite outrageous. You can find racists in all parties, Labour included. I did find your comments quite patronising and paternalistic (and in a broader sense also almost racist). There was more than a whiff of the sentiment that somehow labour has a right to pacific island votes. Look at all we have done for you!
        • mickysavage 10.1.2.1

          12 July 2014 at 8:42 pm

          Your concern trolling skills are not bad.

          So I take it that there are similar numbers of racists amongst the left as amongst the right?

          Sorry my reality chip kicked in then and I realised that your comment was somewhat bizarre to put it mildly.

          How about you do an analysis of the Kiwiblog comments compared to the usual Standard post comments and compare the results?
          • greywarbler 10.1.2.1.1

            12 July 2014 at 9:19 pm

            @ Mickey S
            It is surprising how difficult it is to discuss South Auckland matters.
        • Puddleglum 10.1.2.2

          12 July 2014 at 8:45 pm

          You might want to reflect whether your own assumptions about “Pacific Island voters” is itself a bit paternalistic and patronising.

          As North’s friend (below) said “collectivism runs very, very deep in Pasefika culture. That’s why your comment – “40 years ago….etc” is nonsense. A deep sense of collectivism has an enduring memory.”

          Your comment assumes an individualistic approach to knowledge (if it didn’t happen to me in my lifetime it’s not relevant), rather than a collectivist view.

          It’s almost as if you can’t imagine what it’s like to think from a collectivist point of view – “Kids will not carry the same level of angst as their parents“. Really?

          I was formed out of a very collectivist North England working class background and, I can tell you, when I hear about what happened to my direct ancestors in the ‘industrial north’ in the 19th century I feel it acutely – for better or worse.
11. North 11

    12 July 2014 at 3:13 pm

    You don’t know much OnceWasPete.

    According to a Samoan friend of 20 years plus, at this very moment seated right next to me dictating this comment –

    Firstly, for everyone, try “Pasefika” – not mandatory but that’s Samoan for Pacific Islands, Pacific people.

    Secondly, collectivism runs very, very deep in Pasefika culture. That’s why your comment –
    “40 years ago….etc” is nonsense. A deep sense of collectivism has an enduring memory. Dawn raids etc. He sees your comment as a colonisation of Polynesian thinking. Arrogant of you.

    Thirdly, the Mangere ‘cheerfest’ for John Key was arranged with the assistance of some ‘fiapalagi’ (the Samoan equivalent of the ‘potato’ of Maori – brown on the outside white on the inside). These, the fiapalagi, prize individual advancement over collective interest.

    Fourthly, John Key HIMSELF voted FOR the marriage equality law while at the cheerfest he seeks to put himself apart from his earlier self. ‘Fa’agutugutu lua’. Samoan for the two mouths of a species of ‘fugafuga’ – sea cucumber. Hypocrite.

    Fifthly, that cheerfest was for John Key’s personal political advantage and that of fiapalagi, not for the interests of Polynesian society in New Zealand. That is widely understood.

    He ventures that your ‘pink’ sensibilities might reflect blushing embarrassment that you don’t know much yet you talk like you do.

    Noted – his unsuccessful attempt to comment from North’s computer using the name “Uila South Auckland” and his own email address.
    • Draco T Bastard 11.1

      12 July 2014 at 5:17 pm

      Noted – his unsuccessful attempt to comment from North’s computer using the name “Uila South Auckland” and his own email address.

      Not unsuccessful as his post shows above. A first comment will always go into moderation as part of the service the mods provide to try and keep the tr*lls at bay.
      • Weepu's beard 11.1.1

        13 July 2014 at 10:05 am

        All my comments go into moderation. The tech boffins are stumped, apparently. Guess I’ll just have to get used to it.
12. swordfish 12

    12 July 2014 at 3:16 pm

    A few weeks ago, I summarised the way National seem to successfully seed this Pasifikas about to mass defect story in the MSM in the run-up to each election, here…http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-12062014/#comment-829668 (albeit with a particular emphasis on their claims during the 2010 Mana By-Election campaign).

    See also Rob Salmond’s post on the issue here…http://polity.co.nz/content/nerdy-praise-nation (see second half of his post 2. Hypothesis testing, in which he praises TV3 for employing long-term quantitative data to dispel the argument that Pasifikas were swinging away from Labour).

    As DS points out (above), Pasifikas continue to be Labour’s most loyal demographic, I would say more than 80%. The key, of course, is to improve both enrolment and turnout in South Auckland (and, perhaps to a slightly lesser extent, in Porirua East).
13. dimebag russell 13

    12 July 2014 at 3:46 pm

    Its just the tories trying to be authentic when they are just a gang of fakes.
14. swordfish 14

    12 July 2014 at 4:27 pm

    Yep, Once was Pete’s idea that the 70s Dawn Raids are little more than forgotten ancient history for the Pasefika community is laughable. He clearly doesn’t understand (or care about) the trauma that resulted.**

    Labour have a reasonably proud (though not entirely blemish-free) history regarding Samoan independence. The Labour caucus of 1929 strongly condemned the Black Saturday violence that saw at least 9 Samoans, including a high-ranking chief, shot dead by New Zealand military police during an entirely peaceful demonstration. And the Party had long condemned the, at times, quite vicious suppression*** of the mass movement for independence, while also supporting exiled Samoan independence leaders like Olaf Nelson.
    (Clark, of course, offered a formal apology for the NZ Government’s actions in 2002)

    As New Zealand History online puts it: The Labour Party victory in New Zealand’s 1935 general election broke the political stalemate in Samoa. A goodwill mission to Apia in June 1936 recognised the Mau as a legitimate political organisation, the Samoan Offenders Ordinance was repealed, and Olaf Nelson’s exile was revoked. The Mau held majorities in both a newly elected Fono of Faipule and the legislative assembly.””

    **(although it should be remembered that the Dawn Raids began in 1974 while Labour were still in government. Muldoon then greatly intensified the raids and used the demonization of Samoan overstayers as a scapegoat for his own electoral ends)

    ***(one or two historians dispute the orthodox interpretation, suggesting instead that New Zealand’s rule was more liberal, enlightened and benign than most scholars have suggested)
    • Colonial Viper 14.1

      12 July 2014 at 4:38 pm

      Yep, Once was Pete’s idea that the 70s Dawn Raids are little more than forgotten ancient history for the Pasefika community is laughable. He clearly doesn’t understand (or care about) the trauma that resulted.**

      Indeed. As laughable as related ideas that most working class and under class Kiwis have by now forgiven Labour for bringing Rogernomics and neoliberalism to our shores.
    • DS 14.2

      12 July 2014 at 5:24 pm

      ***(one or two historians dispute the orthodox interpretation, suggesting instead that New >>>Zealand’s rule was more liberal, enlightened and benign than most scholars have suggested)

      I think it speaks volumes that in the 1930s, there was actually a Samoan branch of the Nazi Party (as daft as that sounds). Why? Because New Zealand was such a godawful imperial power, Samoans wanted the Germans back.
    • Once was Pete 14.3

      12 July 2014 at 5:31 pm

      My comment was a reflection that time modifies everything, and 40 years on, and two new generations of NZ’ers (Pacific Islanders who were born here) and a quite different political landscape that the attempt to link the dawn raids to current politicians who would have been in kindergarten then is more than a stretch. It was quite grubby. As you pointed out Labour in fact instituted the dawn raids. It doesn’t matter what side of the spectrum you sit, any half way decent person, would be ashamed of this period of our history.
      When I was young there was a very real protestant/catholic schism in the community and there was active discrimination. Today no one really cares about it. Thats what time does.
      The rest of the post was quite paternalistic.
      But that is just my view.
15. swordfish 15

    12 July 2014 at 4:27 pm

    Yep, Once was Pete’s idea that the 70s Dawn Raids are little more than forgotten ancient history for the Pasefika community is laughable. He clearly doesn’t understand (or care about) the trauma that resulted.**

    Labour have a reasonably proud (though not entirely blemish-free) history regarding Samoan independence. The Labour caucus of 1929 strongly condemned the Black Saturday violence that saw at least 9 Samoans, including a high-ranking chief, shot dead by New Zealand military police during an entirely peaceful demonstration. And the Party had long condemned the, at times, quite vicious suppression*** of the mass movement for independence, while also supporting exiled Samoan independence leaders like Olaf Nelson.
    (Clark, of course, offered a formal apology for the NZ Government’s actions in 2002)

    As New Zealand History online puts it: The Labour Party victory in New Zealand’s 1935 general election broke the political stalemate in Samoa. A goodwill mission to Apia in June 1936 recognised the Mau as a legitimate political organisation, the Samoan Offenders Ordinance was repealed, and Olaf Nelson’s exile was revoked. The Mau held majorities in both a newly elected Fono of Faipule and the legislative assembly.””

    **(although it should be remembered that the Dawn Raids began in 1974 while Labour were still in government. Muldoon then greatly intensified the raids and used the demonization of Samoan overstayers as a scapegoat for his own electoral ends)

    ***(one or two historians dispute the orthodox interpretation, suggesting instead that New Zealand’s rule was more liberal, enlightened and benign than most scholars have suggested)
16. Tanz 16

    12 July 2014 at 9:41 pm

    It’s a free country is it not, his MPs have a right to electioneer as they see fit.
    • Draco T Bastard 16.1

      13 July 2014 at 12:55 am

      A RWNJ turns up and tells people it’s fine for the right-wing politicians to lie.
    • Murray Olsen 16.2

      13 July 2014 at 1:13 am

      And we have the right to criticise them when they do stuff we don’t like. Congratulations for once again stating the obvious.
17. Ad 17

    13 July 2014 at 1:22 pm

    It would be heartening at this point to see the Labour team organise a major event with leading Nw Zealand business people that was well publicised – Parker and Cunliffe this time are a whole bunch better in front of business than Goff and Shearer were last time.

    The right need to see that cross-constituency forays go both ways.

    And I bet Cunliffe and Parker could muster several hundred more than Key did.

    Strike back Labour.
    • Colonial Viper 17.1

      13 July 2014 at 2:11 pm

      +1000

      a real business plan for SMEs which takes on board their feedback and needs directly, focussing on developing and expanding those NZ businesses with revenues in the sub $20M range pa i.e. the vast majority of NZ businesses and independent contractors
    • DS 17.2

      13 July 2014 at 9:35 pm

      Labour meets business all the time. You’d have to go back to Muldoon to find a Tory leader who spent much time around trade unions, and then it was only because he wanted drinking buddies.
      • Colonial Viper 17.2.1

        13 July 2014 at 10:14 pm

        I believe Ad is talking about a “major event” purposed to bring NZ businesses (and I presume here it is mainly SMEs) and Labour together to develop a joint vision for the nation. Perhaps the beginnings of a Five Year Plan 😈
18. RTM 18

    14 July 2014 at 9:22 am

    Very cynical politics from the Nats, when we consider the politically motivated stinginess of their response to Tonga’s recent cyclone:
    http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2014/01/letting-down-family.html

Links to post

1. Claudette Hauiti is gone « The Standard The Standard: posted on 22 July 2014 at 1:17 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS