Nats on Pacific workers in the 70s

32 comments on “Nats on Pacific workers in the 70s ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tim Ellis 1

   22 October 2008 at 12:31 pm

   Sam Lotu-Iiga would tend to disagree that things haven’t changed, I think.

   Have things changed for the Labour Party since Helen Clark named the anti-Foreshore and Seabed protesters “haters and wreckers”, and the Maori Party the “last cab off the rank”? If they hope to have serious conversations with the Maori Party, they had better hope so.
2. Ben R 2

   22 October 2008 at 12:32 pm

   Actually, the idea that Asian workers are particularly dexterous is not that far fetched, just as Polynesian sportspeople have particular advantages:

   “The excavation of an abundance of precise tools in Asia, including needles for sewing clothes to survive cold winters, has led scientists to speculate that Asians were “programmed” over time to be more dexterous. Studies indicate that East Asians do have the quickest reaction time, which some have speculated may play a role in Asian domination of Ping-Pong.”

   http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/straw_man_of_race.htm

   “Polynesians, especially the Samoans, are amongst the world’s most mesomorphic (muscular) body types. A number of studies have shown that muscle bulk and the degree of muscularity, especially in thigh and buttock, are important predicators of success in rugby players, whereas the opposite applies in such sports as distance running. This genetic admixture helps in part explain why athletes from this region are large, agile and fast.’

   http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/KC_Star_Dominican.htm
3. higherstandard 3

   22 October 2008 at 12:35 pm

   Cobblers a more likely comment from the seventies would have been a group of polynesians and whiteys at a bar disparaging the yellow peril.
4. higherstandard 4

   22 October 2008 at 12:40 pm

   Ben

   Add osteoporosis to the mix almost unknown amongst Polynesians – polynesians are genetically gifted in terms of gaining muscle mass the downside being there is also a predisposition to Type II diabetes and all it’s associated complications.
5. randal 5

   22 October 2008 at 12:46 pm

   The new zealand sux gang strikes again. why dont you say something decent for a change.
6. Tim Ellis 6

   22 October 2008 at 1:03 pm

   At the risk of looking like I’m either a) threadjacking, or b) hypocritical since I indulge in it myself, but when is the election campaign going to start?

   Surely this election is about more than just whether Labour spent sixty grand of public money on a booklet or if Helen was in a foul mood after a debate or whether Lockwood or Maurice shoot their mouths off.

   This is really the kind of trivial crap that turns voters off politicians in general and elections in particular. Surely the big issues are which parties are going to provide the best education for children and young adults, which parties are going to provide the strongest economic base for New Zealand, which parties are going to provide the most financial security for the elderly, which parties are going to improve healthcare and deal to violent crime.

   We’re not seeing much of it here though. Not seeing much of it anywhere, to be fair. I’m not trying to tell you guys what to write about at the Standard, but it would be nice to see a couple of big policy discussions a day on these big core issues, where you guys are advocating your favourite party policies and why you think voters should support your parties ahead of the others.
7. Daveski 7

   22 October 2008 at 1:06 pm

   John

   Most of the other commentators who try to be provocative at least try to provide some evidence.

   Your comment that “underneath they haven’t changed” reflects your bigotry, not that of your targets.

   Such grossly generalised statements are easily deconstructed. Other commentators here like IB, Tane, or SP will attempt to provide some better analysis of justification of their views.
8. Scribe 8

   22 October 2008 at 1:15 pm

   Midday news said the comments were being called “stupid” and “racist”.

   Right on the first score; not necessarily on the other.

   If Amish people showed up, they might not know how to use a toilet or shower. They would need teaching. It wouldn’t be racist or “lifestylist” or bigoted to say that one had to do that. [oh dear, someone needs to complete their Amish studies. SP]

   And any hand experts around here? A colleague whose wife is Asian reckons they have got smaller hands — and might be more useful in some agricultural tasks.

   Stupid? Yes. Racist? Everyone can make up their own mind.
9. bill brown 9

   22 October 2008 at 1:17 pm

   Tim,

   You could start here.
10. Felix 10

    22 October 2008 at 1:22 pm

    Tim, you’re so right. What politicians running for office actually say whilst campaigning is trivial to the process. What matters is the press releases and slogans.

    I see now, thanks Tim.
11. Ben R 11

    22 October 2008 at 1:36 pm

    “If Amish people showed up, they might not know how to use a toilet or shower. They would need teaching. It wouldn’t be racist or “lifestylist’ or bigoted to say that one had to do that. [oh dear, someone needs to complete their Amish studies. SP]

    And any hand experts around here? A colleague whose wife is Asian reckons they have got smaller hands — and might be more useful in some agricultural tasks.”

    Scribe, you’re forgetting that the media tends to view whites as being uniquely greedy, intolerant and racist. So any comment about a minority group is immediately suspect. Like you say, if it was a group of white’s from some remote part of Eastern Europe who needed to learn to use the facilities it wouldn’t be a big deal.

    Actually there’s an interesting study of how whites go to great lengths to avoid mentioning race and how this can actually backfire. http://www.apa.org/releases/colorblind1008.html
12. Tim Ellis 12

    22 October 2008 at 1:44 pm

    Weak and dishonest, Felix. You can do much better than that.
13. Felix 13

    22 October 2008 at 2:23 pm

    Correct, Tim. Your comments were weak and dishonest. And yes I can do much better.

    Oh you mean me?

    But did you not say that this is just Maurice and Lockie shooting their mouths off?

    Did you not say that this was trivial crap?

    And you say I’m being dishonest you snivelling troll?

    It’s your own words, Tim, right there, for all to see. And no-one will be surprised to see your pathetic squirming as you pretend you never meant what you clearly wrote, as you always do.

    You’re getting a reputation for this sort of blatant lying, Tim.

    Unfortunately for you, you’re not smart enough to pull it off and you’re not amusing enough to be forgiven for it.

    (p.s. this is where you usually tell two more lies; that I’m commenting anonymously and you’re not. Filthy liar.)
14. Tim Ellis 14

    22 October 2008 at 2:26 pm

    Go back to bed Felix. You’re tired and emotional.
15. Felix 15

    22 October 2008 at 2:55 pm

    That’s it Tim, keep deflecting.

    Just so you don’t forget (because your inability to scroll up is well documented) here’s what you said:

    Surely this election is about more than just whether Labour spent sixty grand of public money on a booklet or if Helen was in a foul mood after a debate or whether Lockwood or Maurice shoot their mouths off.
    This is really the kind of trivial crap that turns voters off politicians in general and elections in particular.

    Then I said “Tim, you’re so right. What politicians running for office actually say whilst campaigning is trivial to the process.”

    And then you called me dishonest.

    Now if you’re not going to back it up and point out my dishonesty you should really apologise. I won’t be holding my breath though as you’ve got a proven track record of saying outrageously untrue things and then backing away and denying them.

    Filthy lying deflecting snivelling troll.

    [lprent: That is my prerogative to be denigrating to that level. I know that you’re trying to get clarification, but don’t step on my territory too far. I will save that for the next troll though (and I don’t think the TE is one).]
16. Tim Ellis 16

    22 October 2008 at 3:00 pm

    I don’t know what problem you have to make you so aggressive and hostile Felix, but if you want sensible people to engage in a debate with you then you’re not going to attract it by being so abusive. I know you would like me to take the bait and respond with abuse, but that isn’t my style. It really does damage your argument when you behave like that.

    I’ll happily debate issues with you if you want to behave civilly.
17. Felix 17

    22 October 2008 at 3:11 pm

    Bullshit Tim, you won’t engage because you’re an intellectual worm with delusions of intelligence.

    You called my remark dishonest and you haven’t made the slightest effort to demonstrate where. Until you do I see no reason to treat you with any degree of civility.

    If you had any ability to you would refute my claims without stooping to my level.
18. jo zinny 18

    22 October 2008 at 5:05 pm

    Felix, re Tim I wondered.. thanks for the assist..

    re 70s give me a click for a whole lot more about then though highly relevant as you’ll see to 2008..
19. Felix 19

    22 October 2008 at 5:41 pm

    Sorry Lynn, I respectfully defer to your programming knowledge.
20. Tim Ellis 20

    22 October 2008 at 5:46 pm

    No, Felix. I am treating you like a child as you are behaving like one. I am not rewarding you with a dignified debate while you act with so much disrespect.
21. Principessa 21

    22 October 2008 at 5:52 pm

    ‘Pacific Island people are like Maori because they cause trouble and climb through the windows of New Zealanders at night’.

    -Jenny Shipley.
22. Felix 22

    22 October 2008 at 5:55 pm

    Unfortunately Tim it is you who has thrown your toys out of the cot and refused to play.

    The reason is clear – you made a ridiculous claim and you’re not adult enough to admit it.

    Why don’t you go back to accusing me of being an anonymous troll like you did last week when you didn’t want to own up to your ridiculous statements?
23. Felix 23

    22 October 2008 at 5:57 pm

    Principessa that’s a doozy!

    Got a link for it?
24. Principessa 24

    22 October 2008 at 6:06 pm

    I quoted that from Labour Press Releases on http://www.beehive.govt.nz

    on the net I have found this which are presumably the exact words from the interview she did:

    ” … this government is saying that, somehow or other, Mäori cannot cope on their own; that, somehow or other, a racial allocation in the form of a discount is needed to close the gap. Where is the 5 percent discount for Pacific Island people, if they are actually causing trouble as well? They climb in the windows of other New Zealanders at night. It is not only Mäori.”

    And I got that from an article on http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/denial.htm
25. Lew 25

    22 October 2008 at 6:06 pm

    Principessa: She shoots, she scores! Thank you 🙂

    http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/shame+shipley is a contemporaneous response form then-minister of Pacific Island Affairs Mark Gosche indicates it was in the House, so it should be in Hansard.

    L
26. Ben R 26

    22 October 2008 at 6:13 pm

    “Shrek’s better company”

    Helen Clark on meeting with a sheep rather than Foreshore protesters
27. Lew 27

    22 October 2008 at 6:19 pm

    Ben R: Yes, an ugly response. I’ll look forward to seeing how (i don’t think there’s room for `if’) she can put that behind her in a few weeks’ time.

    L
28. Ben R 28

    22 October 2008 at 6:28 pm

    But a truthful one, who wants with protesters, let alone when one of them tries to blow his nose on you? I think that politicians can get over these slights quite easily if power is within their grasp.
29. Lew 29

    22 October 2008 at 6:32 pm

    Ben R: It seemed to me that that was a personal response. A political response would have been to receive them cordially as a significant constituency of the NZ electorate, and deny them the advantage of being shunned. Helen Clark almost always reacts politically, even to personal slights, which is why this incident was such an eye-opener.

    L
30. Felix 30

    22 October 2008 at 8:31 pm

    Good lord what a shocker. Thanks Pincipessa.

Links to post

1. Wait, what’s the RSE? at The Standard 2.02: posted on 22 October 2008 at 3:48 pm
2. National’s redneck element at The Standard 2.02: posted on 23 October 2008 at 10:06 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS