National’s ‘redneck element’

117 comments on “National’s ‘redneck element’ ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Lampie 1

   23 October 2008 at 10:47 am

   National Nazi party
2. Ben R 2

   23 October 2008 at 10:49 am

   “what they say to win some votes from the white community”

   Wasn’t he suggesting that the RSE be expanded to include Asian workers? I would have thought, if anything, this would appeal to the Asian community. The problem is making crude comments about hand size which is offensive.
3. higherstandard 3

   23 October 2008 at 10:54 am

   I didn’t find the hand comments offensive just dim wittewd (perhaps I’m racist) I thought Helen’s comments were very good…. along the lines of it was a daft thing to say maybe he should have engaged the brain before opening the mouth …… women have smaller hands than men perhaps we should just have women doing the work.
4. Ben R 4

   23 October 2008 at 11:00 am

   Lampie,

   I refer you to Godwin’s Law.
5. Lew 5

   23 October 2008 at 11:01 am

   HS: Seen this?

   L
6. randal 6

   23 October 2008 at 11:04 am

   more like “No Necks”. hahahahahaha!
7. Tane 7

   23 October 2008 at 11:07 am

   I would never suggest the National Party are Nazi or even remotely near it, but the kind of racial hatred the 1975 ad is trying to stoke comes pretty damn close in its methods.

   An old union comrade just told me Hannah Barbera also made ads for Pinochet around the same time. Don’t know if that’s true, but it would sure make a lot of sense.
8. DeeDub 8

   23 October 2008 at 11:11 am

   BenR “The problem is making crude comments about hand size which is offensive.”

   Smith also made comments to the effect that he didn’t think employers under this scheme should have to pay to train Pacific Islanders how to use ’21st century NZ appliances’ like toilets, showers, washing machines….. THAT, my friend, is not only offensive on so many levels, it’s culturally arrogant.
9. Danny 9

   23 October 2008 at 11:14 am

   National’s bright “vision for the future” is merely a re-hash of policies that undeniably failed our communities in the past. And, ridiculously, they are being brought to us by the same old privileged and prejudiced fools that fronted them then too.

   Smith? McCully? Ryall? English?

   No thanks.
10. DeeDub 10

    23 October 2008 at 11:15 am

    I think calling the National Party Nazi’s would be a bit ludicrous considering John Key’s ancestral heritage, eh? It’s a non-starter, folks!
11. Tim Ellis 11

    23 October 2008 at 11:15 am

    They’re quite choice quotes. I think Arthur will irritate a lot of people in the National Party with those comments, since it’s clear that he’s simply grandstanding. There is no evidence that Lockwood Smith was deliberately having a go at PI people; they were loose comments from somebody who didn’t have much control over what he was saying. To characterise Lockwood’s stupid comments as a deliberate attempt to pander to the redneck vote is just silly.

    Mind you, this is election season, and lots of people will try to capitalise on it.

    John Key appears, from reports, to have told Lockwood that his comments have cost him the Immigration Minister’s job. Likewise Maurice appears to have been told that he’s out of contention for the Transport Minister’s job. Maurice will feel that pretty deeply I suspect; it probably means Lockwood’s out of cabinet contention altogether. Harsh consequences for loose lips, but it shows a contrast between the discipline Key will apply to his Cabinet, and what Helen has allowed Winston to get away with for the last year.

    If I were one of the other long-standing National MPs who might be in contention for culling in 2011, I would be VERY careful about what I said over the next three weeks.
12. John Stevens 12

    23 October 2008 at 11:15 am

    What about Winston’s comments bout Asian jockeys?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-election-2008/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501799&objectid=10539006

    Or is this a case of
    National = racist
    NZF = stating a comment form someone else

    You can’t have it both ways so I am looking forward to your post condemming the corrup ex Minister of Racing.

    [Tane: John, no one on this site has defended Winston’s racism. In fact, we’ve frequently condemned it.]
13. randal 13

    23 October 2008 at 11:17 am

    National were the idiots who brought in compulsory helmet wearing for bike riders instead of focussing on the bad driving habits of new zealanders. the net effect has been to discourage bike riding and more idiots in cars and motorbikes fulfilling their destiny on new zealands roads. more humbug.
14. Danny 14

    23 October 2008 at 11:17 am

    Every progressive male in NZ would have had, at some point in their life, a right-wing guy spout off racist crap to them. It is no secret what these bastards really think, and it is fucking disgusting.
15. DeeDub 15

    23 October 2008 at 11:18 am

    Tim Ellis: “John Key appears, from reports”

    What ‘reports’? Do you mean ‘rumours’?
16. Chris G 16

    23 October 2008 at 11:19 am

    Ive always found it astounding that should I make it clear im a Labour Party/Green supporter, certain people eg. whaleoil bloggers, would call me a Communist/Hippie respectively. My response would be to call the national party just as an earlier commenter made, or you alluded to a … oh well you know what I mean. Thankfully I try not to get in to the mud slinging.

    Great post by the way and link to the ad. all this plus watching my flatmates last night try and defend Lockwood with ‘Oh well he was just quoting local winemakers’ and the usual tripe of ‘oh but often they do have small hands’ riiiiiighht. Stepping back in time we are.

    Captcha: ing pruyn ….. ummm? I couldnt read them any other way
17. higherstandard 17

    23 October 2008 at 11:19 am

    Lew

    Yep he he – silly season is upon us !

    I see you recently tried to communicate with the she who doesn’t wish to be disagreed with – now that is silly !
18. Ben R 18

    23 October 2008 at 11:21 am

    “BenR “The problem is making crude comments about hand size which is offensive.’

    Smith also made comments to the effect that he didn’t think employers under this scheme should have to pay to train Pacific Islanders how to use ’21st century NZ appliances’ like toilets, showers, washing machines .. THAT, my friend, is not only offensive on so many levels, it’s culturally arrogant.”

    As someone else has posted, Eric Rush says the same thing in his book. Obviously it’s amazing a politician would be so explicit, normally you’d couch it in terms like ‘adjustments to the new environment’ or culture shock.

    In any case, I see that Smith & Williamson look like they’ll lose their portfolios.
19. Pascal's bookie 19

    23 October 2008 at 11:22 am

    Tim, Why do you say he is grandstanding? It isn’t ‘clear’ at all. That’s just you baselessly calling him a liar or something.

    He couldn’t possibly mean it eh.
20. randal 20

    23 October 2008 at 11:22 am

    HS I have no wish to communicate with you and that is not silly. why dont you take your creepy little games elsewhere?
21. ak 21

    23 October 2008 at 11:23 am

    You betcha they haven’t changed. Careful, Pita……hold that tongue and let Tari make the running.

    Be afraid. Be very afraid. When the “ministers sacked before they take office” and other bumbles send the nat poll sub-50, tory Orewa One fingers will get very itchy….

    Despite its utter predictability (to all but himself and the most wishful-thinking tory morons), Slippery looked genuinely hurt by the Green’s announcement this week: if all the crawling work done on the MP tuns to custard, it’s tantrum time – and “whatever it takes” will include the Race Card (in the Nicest possible way, of course).

    Colin Espiner’s latest blog post is a feeler: no real outrage in comments yet, but wait till the next poll dishes the reality up……

    Labour must take the initiative to avoid a sucker punch in the last week: trumpet the achievements to date and the work yet to do. And warn the public that NACT won’t hesitate to revisit the gutter.
22. Chris G 22

    23 October 2008 at 11:28 am

    danny,

    Agreed, and I find them sad bunnies and scary at the same time. The worst is when it comes from white males who are well educated and will end up in some office job in town, yet are still so ignorant and prejudiced.

    Ive always wondered what instills this hatred in peoples minds? Parents? Bad experiences?
23. Tane 23

    23 October 2008 at 11:29 am

    Sorry about all the moderation, folks. The spam trap doesn’t like the word ‘Nazi’.
24. Tim Ellis 24

    23 October 2008 at 11:30 am

    Oh, DeeDub, I should have linked to the following article: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10539010

    Captcha: “Lockwood finished”. Very spooky.
25. DeeDub 25

    23 October 2008 at 11:30 am

    BenR: “As someone else has posted, Eric Rush says the same thing in his book. Obviously it’s amazing a politician would be so explicit, normally you’d couch it in terms like ‘adjustments to the new environment’ or culture shock.

    In any case, I see that Smith & Williamson look like they’ll lose their portfolios.”

    Oh, I see! Silly me. So it’s ok to THINK like that as long as you don’t say it in public?!!!

    Does Eric Rush really comment in his book that employers shouldn’t have to pay to train Pacific Island people to use “21st century New Zealand appliances”?

    Who says Smith & Williamson (doesn’t that sound like some sort of firearms manufacturer?) will lose their portfolios?? The rumour mill is grinding away already, folks!
26. Lampie 26

    23 October 2008 at 11:34 am

    “I would never suggest the National Party are Nazi or even remotely near it, but the kind of racial hatred the 1975 ad is trying to stoke comes pretty damn close in its methods.”

    And that is what we don’t need especially stupid comments like yesterday.

    “To characterise Lockwood’s stupid comments as a deliberate attempt to pander to the redneck vote is just silly.”

    Bet it does though!!!
27. Ben R 27

    23 October 2008 at 11:35 am

    “The worst is when it comes from white males who are well educated and will end up in some office job in town, yet are still so ignorant and prejudiced.”

    Isn’t it ironic though that people who are well educated and liberal tend to live in middle class predominantly white neighbourhoods & ensure their kids go to private or predominantly white schools?
28. randal 28

    23 October 2008 at 11:38 am

    whatever but rednecks are still rednecks. they substitute violence for thought and think they are intelligent when they are just thugs.
29. DeeDub 29

    23 October 2008 at 11:38 am

    Tim Ellis: “Oh, DeeDub, I should have linked to the following article: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10539010 ”

    And the key phrase from that article is:

    ” Oh, DeeDub, I should have linked to the following article: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10539010

    “…. the Herald understands.” Which is Journospeak for ‘possibly bullshit but it’ll make a good lead’.

    IF the Nats get in – and frankly that’s looking less likely by the day – it will be interesting to see if any of this speculation about portfolios bears fruit…
30. Ben R 30

    23 October 2008 at 11:41 am

    “Does Eric Rush really comment in his book that employers shouldn’t have to pay to train Pacific Island people to use “21st century New Zealand appliances’?”

    I think the comment was that the guy didn’t know how to use a toilet.

    “Oh, I see! Silly me. So it’s ok to THINK like that as long as you don’t say it in public?!!! ”

    I’m not sure what you mean, if someone comes from a totally different culture it’s not that surprising they may have a period of adjusting to do. Have you travelled round many Island nations? The lifestyle is a lot different in many cases, acknowledging that and recognising people may need support to adjust is simply being realistic.
31. Chris G 31

    23 October 2008 at 11:50 am

    Ben R,

    I’d disagree that people who are liberal send their kids to private schools, those are right-wing breeding grounds judging by the schools I know. And I’m not sure I see the irony your pointing out?

    Ive heard of research (infact a guy who’d written a book on it was on Jon Stewarts Daily Show a couple weeks ago) that as population density increases, the more liberal and left-wing the people get. Clearly because you’d begin to have more interaction with a wider range of cultures and socio-economic groups. Therefore when you think of people who are well educated and liberal it tends to make sense that they are who they are, even though they may come from a white neighbourhood, because probably: They live in a city or large town, and the more education the more liberal you will probably become eg. Most academia I’ve encountered are all staunchly liberal with the exceptions in the commerce departments. Thats the irony I see when people who come through all that somehow end up all biggoted
32. Lampie 32

    23 October 2008 at 11:50 am

    “The worst is when it comes from white males who are well educated and will end up in some office job in town, yet are still so ignorant and prejudiced.’

    Isn’t it ironic though that people who are well educated and liberal tend to live in middle class predominantly white neighbourhoods & ensure their kids go to private or predominantly white schools?

    aw for f*** sake…..git!
33. DeeDub 33

    23 October 2008 at 11:52 am

    BenR: “I’m not sure what you mean, if someone comes from a totally different culture it’s not that surprising they may have a period of adjusting to do. Have you travelled round many Island nations? The lifestyle is a lot different in many cases, acknowledging that and recognising people may need support to adjust is simply being realistic.”

    Yes, I have visited a few of the Pacific Islands over the years. Yes, the lifestyle is very different in places. But do you really think any people need to be ‘trained’ (and remeber Lockwood was worried about the COST to employers???!!) to use a toilet, a shower? Come on, mate!?! Get real.

    Smith using phrases like “21st century NZ appliances” imlpies an innate cultural arrogance and it’s in such language bias that he reveals himself as a 20th century thinker.

    Gameshow host!
34. Lampie 34

    23 October 2008 at 12:01 pm

    think calling the National Party ***** would be a bit ludicrous considering John Key’s ancestral heritage, eh? It’s a non-starter, folks!

    Not implying thay are actual *****.
35. Chris G 35

    23 October 2008 at 12:16 pm

    Infact now that I’ve read this a few times:

    Ben R: Isn’t it ironic though that people who are well educated and liberal tend to live in middle class predominantly white neighbourhoods & ensure their kids go to private or predominantly white schools?

    I wholeheartedly disagree with you. I dont think its ironic at all, education is a very important facet in making people more liberal as I stated in my previous comment. Again, I stress the irony is that people who are well educated end up being bigots. Maybe its cos they went to a private school with a bunch of other tory prodigys! And maybe thats why Jonny friendly wants to give private schools more funding!!! to further enhance these factories.

    Explain yourself
36. DeeDub 36

    23 October 2008 at 12:35 pm

    Not implying thay are actual *****

    Ok, perhaps we should be more selective in our use of that particular political phenomenon when trying to get descriptive about the Nats then? It does us (by us I mean the political ‘left’ in general) no good service to be bandying about such crude comparisons.
37. Lew 37

    23 October 2008 at 12:45 pm

    Lampie: “Not implying thay are actual *****.”

    But you did. Do you now resile from it? If so, why should we take your utterances seriously in future?

    L
38. Chris G 38

    23 October 2008 at 12:47 pm

    DeeDub,

    Great point, Dont stoop to the whaleoil level of calling us Commies by shouting back ‘your a (you know what)’
39. Ben R 39

    23 October 2008 at 12:49 pm

    “And I’m not sure I see the irony your pointing out?”

    The irony is that the well educated people who consider themselves morally superior on these issues tend to reveal different attitudes by where they chose to live, work & send their kids to school. You mentioned academia. Again, wouldn’t academics tend to live in a middle class environment? They’re not likely to be found living, or teaching in South Auckland or sending their kids to a low decile school. The Liberal Democrat leader in the UK recently confessed he might send his kids to a private school. He said “I am a father before a politician”, and fair enough. It’s one example, but I think it reflects the way a lot of people operate.

    “Ive heard of research (infact a guy who’d written a book on it was on Jon Stewarts Daily Show a couple weeks ago) that as population density increases, the more liberal and left-wing the people get. ”

    That’s interesting. I imagine that people in cities also tend to be better educated & more open minded in general.
40. Felix 40

    23 October 2008 at 12:49 pm

    Pascal’s bookie,

    Don’t worry, Tim will deny he wrote it. Then he’ll deny that you called him on it. Then he’ll say grandstanding doesn’t mean what you think it does. Then he’ll say you’re too “anonymous” to have a proper discussion with. Then he’ll say it was never important anyway and you’re petty for bringing it up.

    Hope that speeds things up for you, it can be so boring waiting for Tim to go through his functions himself.
41. Tane 41

    23 October 2008 at 12:57 pm

    Ben. People on the Left do not idealise poverty, it’s something we want to lift people out of by reforming the system that creates it. Assuming for a moment you’re making an honest argument, your mistake is to assume that because we recognise there is not equal opportunity in society and we want to address this, we therefore don’t want what’s best for our kids.

    In any case, I know plenty of people with decent incomes who send their kids to low decile schools for a variety of reasons.
42. Chris G 42

    23 October 2008 at 1:02 pm

    “The irony is that the well educated people who consider themselves morally superior on these issues tend to reveal different attitudes by where they chose to live, work & send their kids to school”

    Thats not an irony. If someones more educated their probably gonna have more dough, you got more money your more than likely not going to buy a house in South Auckland, your gonna buy a more expensive house which stats will tell you are elsewhere. Is that reflective of them being hypocritical of their attitudes? or reflective of plain economics?

    If someones more educated their probably not going to have to work on the floor in a manufacturing plant in South Auckland, they will more than likely be counting beans or typing at a computer in the CBD. Is that reflective of them being hypocritical of their attitudes or reflective of plain economics?

    Schooling is very much linked to housing in that schools are ZONED in New Zealand, Im not going to run through the ins and outs of that but can you spot what I’ll end up saying regarding that?

    Your pointing out an irony that doesnt exist. The one thats true is those unfortunates eg. Lockwood smiths of the world, who are educated and are in a position of power and/or privilege, yet become all the more bigotted or prejudiced!
43. DeeDub 43

    23 October 2008 at 1:02 pm

    Ben has nicely diverted the discussion off topic…..

    You’re not a ‘Crosby kid’ are ya’ Ben?
44. DeeDub 44

    23 October 2008 at 1:04 pm

    …. and nicely steered back by Chris! 🙂
45. Chris G 45

    23 October 2008 at 1:06 pm

    I Amen what Tane just said,

    In the case of myself, and many other liberals, Because I live in a white wealthy suburb in Wellington and study at Uni in Otago, that doesnt mean I don’t want to, or am being hypocritical of, my desire to alleviate poverty by the means that I see as the most effective, eg. System reform.
46. Lampie 46

    23 October 2008 at 1:11 pm

    Ok, perhaps we should be more selective in our use of that particular political phenomenon when trying to get descriptive about the Nats then? It does us (by us I mean the political ‘left’ in general) no good service to be bandying about such crude comparisons.

    you mean sinking to the same levels as the right calling you a filthy communist bastard?
47. Ben R 47

    23 October 2008 at 1:14 pm

    “Ben. People on the Left do not idealise poverty, it?s something we want to lift people out of by reforming the system that creates it.”

    I’m sure that’s the case, I’m not saying that people on the left are wrong in their policies.

    “your mistake is to assume that because we recognise there is not equal opportunity in society and we want to address this, we therefore don?t want what?s best for our kids.”

    My point is that this can also reveal a persons real views. This doesn’t mean they don’t want equal opportunities in society. I’m saying that it shows they don’t want their kids getting bullied, or in a disruptive classroom & they suspect certain schools have more of this than others. They might say the higher decile school has better teachers or something along those lines which conceals any possible prejudice.

    “In any case, I know plenty of people with decent incomes who send their kids to low decile schools for a variety of reasons.”

    And that’s cool, I’m not saying everyone does.
48. randal 48

    23 October 2008 at 1:16 pm

    ben that whole screed was justa load of dribble. are you crosby or textor?
49. Tane 49

    23 October 2008 at 1:16 pm

    Ben, they might believe that. Many low-income parents believe that too and want to send their kids to high-decile schools. Many well-off parents just send their kids to the local school, which due to their income is high-decile.

    In short, it sounds like you’re talking crap.
50. Lampie 50

    23 October 2008 at 1:17 pm

    Lampie: “Not implying thay are actual *****.’

    But you did. Do you now resile from it? If so, why should we take your utterances seriously in future?

    After reading and studying history in areas of early 20th Germany and United States, I think, feel angry that such comments are publically aired by those who should know better. I let you be the judge
51. randal 51

    23 October 2008 at 1:22 pm

    lampie ben is just writing vapid nonsense that is barely literate and is designed to baffle people and put them off coming back to this site. I think it is a tactic devised by crosby textor to stifle real debate.
52. Lew 52

    23 October 2008 at 1:24 pm

    Lampie: Having read Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism I am angered and insulted that people should bandy the term `Nazi’ about so flippantly. Show some respect.

    So, come now: do you really think the Nats are like the Nazis? Or are you just employing foolish and ugly hyperbole because you’re unable to vent your anger in some rational way?

    L
53. randal 53

    23 October 2008 at 1:31 pm

    nazis are those who shout down all opposition, repeat the same arguments ad infinitum and have the criminals intent of getting what they want without working for it. sounds like the tories to me.
54. Ben R 54

    23 October 2008 at 1:31 pm

    “Ben, they might believe that. Many low-income parents believe that too and want to send their kids to high-decile schools. Many well-off parents just send their kids to the local school, which due to their income is high-decile.

    In short, it sounds like you’re talking crap.”

    But people put enormous importance on school zones. Look at the difference in price between getting into grammar zone or not. It’s not just incidental to their having a high income, they actively seek those zones. And part of it is because they don’t want their kids mixing with the ‘wrong crowd’.
55. Lew 55

    23 October 2008 at 1:34 pm

    randal: No. Nazis were the ones who killed their opposition instead of trying to shout them down. If you can’t see the difference, there’s no hope for you.

    L
56. Tane 56

    23 October 2008 at 1:38 pm

    Ben, in my experience the people who do that tend to be wealthy right-wingers. I’ve seen no evidence of liberal lefties doing that. But even if a minority of them did, which you haven’t provided any evidence of, I still can’t figure out what your point is. Care to elaborate? Or are you just trolling?
57. Lampie 57

    23 October 2008 at 1:39 pm

    So, come now: do you really think the Nats are like the Nazis? Or are you just employing foolish and ugly hyperbole because you’re unable to vent your anger in some rational way?

    Do you really think the Labour party are communists???
58. randal 58

    23 October 2008 at 1:43 pm

    Lew I was talking about the initial stages of first gaining p[ower by using the democratic process and then denying it afterwards. and one of the other defining characteristics of N****s is using words that they wont define and you will remember Don Brash at the last election refusing to define the word ‘mainstream”.
59. Lew 59

    23 October 2008 at 1:44 pm

    Lampie: Of course not; in fact, I raised the ire of a wide swathe of the wingnut right by casting light on their particularly nasty attack campaign of this nature against Helen Clark. Which also, incidentally, asserted she was a Nazi.

    So now, instead of running an uninformed line of misdirection, just answer the fucking question.

    L
60. Chris G 60

    23 October 2008 at 1:45 pm

    Lew: “Nazis were the ones who killed their opposition instead of trying to shout them down”

    You can easily replace Nazis with ‘Stalin”,

    My point, emphasised in example by you, is how ridiculous it is that right wingers call us Communists, say we’re living in Helengrad etc etc. when the comparison is so far fetched. I said we Could stoop to that level and call all Nats (Considering they share the same side of the political spectrum as the Nats) Nazis. OBVIOUSLY they are not Nazis, just as OBVIOUSLY that We are not Communists!
61. Lew 61

    23 October 2008 at 1:46 pm

    randal: As I said: if you can’t see the difference…

    L
62. Pascal's bookie 62

    23 October 2008 at 1:49 pm

    My point is that this can also reveal a persons real views. This doesn’t mean they don’t want equal opportunities in society. I’m saying that it shows they don’t want their kids getting bullied, or in a disruptive classroom & they suspect certain schools have more of this than others. They might say the higher decile school has better teachers or something along those lines which conceals any possible prejudice.

    Maybe they’re not prejudiced though Ben. You’re just asserting that they are and accusing them of lying to cover it up. Have you got any evidence?

    And part of it is because they don’t want their kids mixing with the ‘wrong crowd’.

    and again.

    To make the obvious analogy, maybe you are only saying this about Liberals to make yourself feel that your prejudice is widely felt and natural, and that those who claim not to share it are liars.

    FTR, I think the argument in that analogy is flawed. It’s an ad hominum argument for starters, depends on mind reading powers for evidence and merely serves to try and change the subject. But there you go.

    Felix: re Tim. Pretty much.
63. randal 63

    23 October 2008 at 1:52 pm

    lew..speak for yourself
64. Lew 64

    23 October 2008 at 1:54 pm

    Chris G: “You can easily replace Nazis with ‘Stalin'”

    Yes, indeed you can. You rightly observe that idiots of any stripe tend to resort to reckless and historically illiterate hyperbole when they lack any arguments of merit. Gods know the right doesn’t have a monopoly on moronitude.

    L
65. Lampie 65

    23 October 2008 at 1:55 pm

    were the ones who killed their opposition (ohhh so did the communists)

    Yeah and the German people didnt realise they were voting for that

    “lampie ben is just writing vapid nonsense that is barely literate and is designed to baffle people and put them off coming back to this site. I think it is a tactic devised by crosby textor to stifle real debate.”

    he lost me at ‘the’
66. Ben R 66

    23 October 2008 at 2:00 pm

    “Ben, in my experience the people who do that tend to be wealthy right-wingers. I’ve seen no evidence of liberal lefties doing that. But even if a minority of them did, which you haven’t provided any evidence of, I still can’t figure out what your point is. Care to elaborate? Or are you just trolling?”

    This thread is about a supposed ‘red neck’ element & an underbelly “towards pacific people”. Now that’s fair enough for Anae to say, but it amuses me a bit when some white’s take the moral highground despite the fact they’d never dream of living in South Akl or Porirua. I think some of them are slightly hypocritical.
67. Lampie 67

    23 October 2008 at 2:04 pm

    So now, instead of running an uninformed line of misdirection, just answer the fucking question.

    yipee a bite at last
68. Lampie 68

    23 October 2008 at 2:04 pm

    So now, instead of running an uninformed line of misdirection, just answer the fucking question.

    yipee a bite at last
69. Tane 69

    23 October 2008 at 2:04 pm

    Ben, I think you’re making things up to suit your own prejudices.
70. randal 70

    23 October 2008 at 2:06 pm

    speak for yourself ben…
    why do you think you can attribute motives to large sections of the population you have never met.
    you are just making it up and casting slurs on whole groups of decent people
    is this what crosby textor tells you what to do?
71. Lampie 71

    23 October 2008 at 2:08 pm

    “So now, instead of running an uninformed line of misdirection, just answer the fucking question.”

    “you just employing foolish and ugly hyperbole because you’re unable to vent your anger in some rational way”
72. Ben R 72

    23 October 2008 at 2:10 pm

    “Ben, I think you’re making things up to suit your own prejudices.”

    You can think that, but you must be familiar with the concept of ‘white flight’ which the race relations commissioner Trevor Phillips observed was occuring in the UK earlier this year. The same thing has been observed in the US. I don’t think it’s necessarily a race thing though.
73. Lew 73

    23 October 2008 at 2:10 pm

    Lampie: Another two misdirections, making clear you have nothing actually worthwhile to say. Nice.

    L
74. Chris G 74

    23 October 2008 at 2:12 pm

    Ben,

    I refer you to my comment at 1.02pm. And add to that once again, simply because I dont live in Porirua doesnt mean I am being hypocritical nor does it mean I dont care about alleviating the poverty that exists there. Your ignoring basic things such as economics and preference eg. Id rather live in Mt Victoria – What a view.

    Clearly the ones who reeeeeallly dont wanna live in South Auckland or Porirua are the Nats and Lockwood Smith etc. and whats worse they dont give a toss about making those places any better! When lockwood says rubbish like yesterday, bingo i’ve caught me a redneck.
75. randal 75

    23 October 2008 at 2:17 pm

    ben well what do you think it is then…why dont you say something?
76. DeeDub 76

    23 October 2008 at 2:18 pm

    Ben:

    “Now that’s fair enough for Anae to say, but it amuses me a bit when some white’s take the moral highground despite the fact they’d never dream of living in South Akl or Porirua. I think some of them are slightly hypocritical”

    Hmmmmm, now that’s an interesting one. You just assume that we are all ‘white’ around here and that none of us actually already live in South Auckland or Porirua?

    That assumption tells me a lot about you.

    And anyway, buddy, who’s ‘really trying to ‘take the moral highground’ ’round here???
77. Ben R 77

    23 October 2008 at 2:22 pm

    “I refer you to my comment at 1.02pm. And add to that once again, simply because I dont live in Porirua doesnt mean I am being hypocritical nor does it mean I dont care about alleviating the poverty that exists there. Your ignoring basic things such as economics and preference eg. Id rather live in Mt Victoria – What a view.”

    I refer you to my comment at 1:14pm. I’m not saying that wanting to live in a middle class neighbourhood means you can’t also care about & support measures to alleviate poverty elsewhere.
78. Lampie 78

    23 October 2008 at 2:26 pm

    You just assume that we are all ‘white’ around here and that none of us actually already live in South Auckland

    i have lived in South Auckland and still have family who have lived all their lives there.
79. DeeDub 79

    23 October 2008 at 2:26 pm

    Ben: I refer you to my comment at 1:14pm. I’m not saying that wanting to live in a middle class neighbourhood means you can’t also care about & support measures to alleviate poverty elsewhere.

    UNbelievable stupidity!?! C’mon Ben, you’re not seriously going to try to argue that one are you?
80. Lampie 80

    23 October 2008 at 2:29 pm

    Lampie: Another two misdirections, making clear you have nothing actually worthwhile to say. Nice

    gee you are a fine one to talk *yawn*. You sound like some upper-class snob who likes talking down to people
81. Ben R 81

    23 October 2008 at 2:31 pm

    “You just assume that we are all ‘white’ around here and that none of us actually already live in South Auckland or Porirua?”

    I don’t assume that everyone here is white, or that no one here lives in South Akl or Porirua.

    “And anyway, buddy, who’s ‘really trying to ‘take the moral highground’ ’round here???”

    Look, I think Smith is a fool. Of course it’s right that people condemn racism. I’m just saying that peoples attitudes about things are also revealed in their actions.
82. DeeDub 82

    23 October 2008 at 2:33 pm

    I grew up in a pretty rough neighbourhood in the early 80s and consider myself lucky to not be in those circumstances now. That does NOT mean I ‘can’t care about and support measures to alleviate poverty elsewhere’! I help by paying my taxes and supporting governments that focus on trying to do just that – unlike your Tory mates who just want to look after their big business pals – and please don’t try to sell me on the ‘trickle down’ – ’cause I have a funny feeling that’ll be the next thing out of your mouth?!!!
83. Chris G 83

    23 October 2008 at 2:35 pm

    Ben,

    Your saying that there are all these moral high ground white people (Your version of liberals) who live with eachother and they are hypocritical and secretly they are racist. In doing so you feel this somehow defends Lockwood smiths derogatory comments and the general underbelly of racist sentiment expressed by lots of tories, Including my friends who are those very people. Frankly, you are wrong.

    Regards,

    Chris.
84. insider 84

    23 October 2008 at 3:34 pm

    What about the Maori vineyard manager/owner on 3 News last night who said exactly the same things as Lockwood Smith re training immigrants to use what we considered standard facilities and the ‘inability’ of some to work 8 hours at a stretch. Was he a redneck racist as well? Wonder if he had to apologise to Tariana?

    And let’s not forget the threatening redneck mote in the left’s eye – a certain Chris Trotter (sang Labour song on stage at the Labour conference last year – whatever happened to that song?) and his ‘vote for Labour or the seats get it’ comments aimed at the Maori Party. Imagine if a prominent Nat supporter said such a thing.
85. DeeDub 85

    23 October 2008 at 3:44 pm

    insider:

    Is it possible the vinyard owner is racist? Yes.
    Is he standing for parliament? No.
    Is Chris Trotter? No.

    Bing bong. That is all.
86. randal 86

    23 October 2008 at 3:44 pm

    Just because you are a maori does not mean that is impossible to be a TORY dork too.
87. Ben R 87

    23 October 2008 at 3:49 pm

    “In doing so you feel this somehow defends Lockwood smiths derogatory comments ”

    No, I never said it defended what Smith said.

    “Frankly, you are wrong.”

    Ok, if you say so. How do you explain the existence of ‘white flight’? Also, don’t take this so personally, I don’t think are a racist for living in Mt Victoria. It does have a great view & is handy to town/work etc.
88. Lampie 88

    23 October 2008 at 3:51 pm

    hahaha thanks for making me laugh dedub and randal, shoot them down in a few words, good stuff 🙂
89. randal 89

    23 October 2008 at 3:54 pm

    bene..how much crosby textor paying you to sit round and invent all this crappola to fill up the space on left leaning blogs.
    they must be very scared if they have to go to these lengths.
    I didnt know whites could flight will you please explain? theres a good little tory.
90. Lampie 90

    23 October 2008 at 3:55 pm

    Here are ya Lew, guess there must be one or two thinking the same thing in the Herald

    phil wallington (Mt Eden)

    Hitler, Himmler and the rest of the Nazi gang were obsessed with the supposed difference in the size of Aryan craniums measured against Semetic skulls. This sort of ratbaggery usually starts as a throw away comment. It can be elevated to a “psydo-science” like eugenics and eventually through prejudice and malice of human nature it distills into a poisonous brew of racism. Lockwood Smith should keep his tiny hands out of this before fingers get burned!
91. Ben R 91

    23 October 2008 at 3:55 pm

    DeeDub,

    “unlike your Tory mates who just want to look after their big business pals – and please don’t try to sell me on the ‘trickle down’ – ’cause I have a funny feeling that’ll be the next thing out of your mouth?!!!”

    Why do you think I would want to sell you on ‘trickle down’ economics? I don’t think it’s based on a particularly accurate view of human nature. Check out ‘Origins of Wealth’ by Eric Beinhocker, it’s quite interesting and points out some of the problems with the trickle down approach.
92. Lampie 92

    23 October 2008 at 3:56 pm

    Hey randel, is phil wallington from Mt Eden the guy Ben is talking about???
93. DeeDub 93

    23 October 2008 at 3:57 pm

    Ben R
    October 23, 2008 at 3:49 pm
    “How do you explain the existence of ‘white flight’?”

    We don’t need to explain something that may not exist. Please tell us where you got this information (and colourful phrase) from?

    “No, I never said it defended what Smith said”

    Then why the hell have you wasted the last two hours of our lives arguing the point then?

    One word:
    TROLL
94. DeeDub 94

    23 October 2008 at 3:59 pm

    Why do you think I would want to sell you on ‘trickle down’ economics?

    Maybe because you have been acting like a Tory troll on here for the last two hours or so.
95. Lampie 95

    23 October 2008 at 4:01 pm

    stop it please, my sides hurt
96. Billy 96

    23 October 2008 at 4:07 pm

    I do not understand. Why is it racist to say that a certain race has small hands? Is it racist to say a certain race has an epicanthic fold or a higher concentration of melanocytes in their skin? Why are we allowed to make jokes about the efficiency of the German race? Or arent’t we?
97. randal 97

    23 October 2008 at 4:12 pm

    ben goes for afternoon tea and up pops troll no 3.
98. Lew 98

    23 October 2008 at 4:15 pm

    Lampie: I’m familiar with the work of Lombroso and his minions, from whom the Nazis got a few of their ideas about the Master Race. I agree that classifying people on the size of their various extremities rather than what they can do with said extremities is the reason Smith’s comments were racist.

    I disagree with Phil’s point too, and I think it’s in bad taste. But his was a much more reasoned, explained and carefully-measured warning about what has happened, and an inference that it might again, eventually, if the right set of circumstances are fulfilled than was yours, or randal’s. That’s a lot of `ifs’ in his narrative, not an immediate, categorical classification of, not only Smith, but his whole party.

    What’s more revealing is that you needed to resort to a sort of appeal to authority and cite a drastically-reduced set of assertions to fail to back up your point – on the fourth request to do so.

    L
99. Lew 99

    23 October 2008 at 4:16 pm

    Billy: Is it your assertion that Smith was joking?

    L
100. Lampie 100

     23 October 2008 at 4:23 pm

     Racism, by its simplest definition, is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
101. Billy 101

     23 October 2008 at 4:27 pm

     Lew, no.
102. Lew 102

     23 October 2008 at 4:31 pm

     Billy: Then why not address the actual issue?

     L
103. Billy 103

     23 October 2008 at 4:42 pm

     Oh, Lew. I have been away for a while, so had forgotten quite what a pompous arse you are.

     I am addressing the issue. I was asking a genuine question. Why is it racist to attibute to a racial group a physical characteristic that they patently possess?

     B
104. Lampie 104

     23 October 2008 at 4:42 pm

     Lampie: I’m familiar with the work of Lombroso and his minions, from whom the Nazis got a few of their ideas about the Master Race. I agree that classifying people on the size of their various extremities rather than what they can do with said extremities is the reason Smith’s comments were racist.

     Who???? A)never heard of them b) net throws up some guy who died before the existence of N****

     And you really are missing the point, read Phil’s comments again

     “eventually through prejudice and malice of human nature it distills into a poisonous brew of racism, usually starts as a throw away comment”

     You dont have to agree with him, I don’t care. I’m not reference nothing unlike you who apparently has to be thought of as some Mr Walking Authority on everything.

     Think you need to get out more
105. Ben R 105

     23 October 2008 at 4:44 pm

     We don?t need to explain something that may not exist. Please tell us where you got this information (and colourful phrase) from?

     I think I came across it in Malcolm Gladwell’s book ‘Tipping Point’. Also, the race relations person in the UK referred to it earlier this year. In terms of sport Joseph Romanos pointed out in ‘The Judas Game’ that increasingly whites were taking up soccer because they tended to be physically smaller at high school.

     “Then why the hell have you wasted the last two hours of our lives arguing the point then?”

     This thread isn’t just about Smith.
106. Billy 106

     23 October 2008 at 4:47 pm

     Ben R,

     What on earth are you on about?
107. Ben R 107

     23 October 2008 at 4:51 pm

     “Ben R,

     What on earth are you on about?”

     I made a comment much earlier that a lot of the people who get on their high horse about race issues tend to live, work and send their kids to predominantly white schools. I think that some people take quite liberal positions on issues because they can afford to.

     For instance, Felix I think the other day made some comment that people should quit worrying about crime and enjoy life. That’s fine if you live in a low crime area, which most policy makers presumably do, but not so great if you’re a shopkeeper in some places.
108. higherstandard 108

     23 October 2008 at 4:52 pm

     Why is it racist to attibute to a racial group a physical characteristic that they patently possess?

     1. Because there is no other news at present.
     2. Because NZ and the world appear to have lost all sense of perspective as soon as race is mentioned.
109. Lew 109

     23 October 2008 at 4:58 pm

     Billy: It wasn’t the description that was racist. It was the context and consequences implied in the observation that was.

     Incidentally, I agree it isn’t an open-and-shut case of blatant racism – I think it’s a judgement call and a matter of opinion. But I think there’s been a lot of conveniently disingenuous literalism displayed by Smith’s apologists on this matter, and equally (as I’ve tried to call out above) a lot of idiotic overreaction from his detractors.

     L
110. DeeDub 110

     23 October 2008 at 5:20 pm

     Ben R
     October 23, 2008 at 4:44 pm
     “This thread isn’t just about Smith.”

     Well, not any more, anyway.
111. Felix 111

     23 October 2008 at 6:05 pm

     Ben,

     Just to be clear, the point I tried to make the other day was that it makes no sense to get worried about crime just because politicians are having their tri-annual rant about it.

     The areas I live and work in are far from squeaky clean but letting people with power agendas whip us into a state of perpetual fear over it helps no-one.

     Living in fear of anything is one sure way to make your life poorer in every sense.

     Your comment actually strikes me as quite the reverse of my own experience in that I generally find that people who jump up and down about crime tend to live fairly safe lives in clean areas behind big fences.
112. randal 112

     23 October 2008 at 6:36 pm

     ben it is totally self centred to worry about somehting you can do nothing about. do you do anything about crime in the area where you live?
113. ziuzou 113

     23 October 2008 at 7:41 pm

     Why is it racist to attibute to a racial group a physical characteristic that they patently possess?

     Like silly white guys having small p*****s?
114. Ben R 114

     23 October 2008 at 8:59 pm

     “I generally find that people who jump up and down about crime tend to live fairly safe lives in clean areas behind big fences.”

     Yes, I think it’s partly because the media focuses so much on it, so it’s easy to get the impression things are more dangerous than they in fact are.
115. Ben R 115

     23 October 2008 at 9:04 pm

     ziuzou, haven’t you heard of John Holmes? There is considerable variation in member size within a group.
116. Lampie 116

     24 October 2008 at 8:03 am

     ummm Ben, you are opening yourself up to abuse there

Links to post

1. The Standard Week: 17-24 October at The Standard 2.02: posted on 24 October 2008 at 2:05 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS