No country for old bigots

Written By: - Date published: 9:40 pm, March 11th, 2012 - 190 comments
Categories: religion - Tags: ,

What is it about New Zealand media? Seems if you’re an old, privileged white man, you get a podium to say whatever nonsense you want – Henry, Laws, Armstrong, George, Du Fresne. And Deaker. The old twerp’s latest is to attack Sonny Bill Williams saying “I don’t like that he’s Muslim in a so-called Christian country”.

I mean, what the fuck?

So we all have to be Christians now in old man Deaker’s world?

This isn’t a Christian country. We have freedom and equality of religion.

In 2006, 56% of people said they were Christian. And the rate had been dropping at 1% per year since 1991. So, likely, we’re not even majority Christian anymore. No religion is the fastest growing spiritual belief system.

It’s not just offensive to Sonny Bill or even just to all Muslims when people spout this crap. It’s offensive to all right-minded New Zealanders who want religious freedom.

But I expect the broadcaster will turn a blind eye. As normal. They’re already covering for him by refusing to make video of the incident available to other media.

190 comments on “No country for old bigots ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Jenny 1
    11 March 2012 at 10:00 pm

    Far away and long ago it was acceptable for radio announcers to publicly denounce sports stars because of their religion.

    How is Deaker different from those German radio hosts?

    If Deaker refuses to make a full public apology to Sonny Bill Williams, and his employers don’t apply any sanctions on him for his behaviour, are we all as a society guilty by association?

    • ghostwhowalksnz 1.1
      12 March 2012 at 10:15 am

      Its ratings time.

      Time to make money by spewing out prejudice

    • Sam 1.2
      12 March 2012 at 9:13 pm

      So no doubt you will be asking Willie Jackson’s employer to do something about his outbursts on radio today, advocating violence over the Ports of Auckland/MUNZ dispute?
      Or is that acceptable to the extreme left wing?

  2. prism 2
    11 March 2012 at 10:10 pm

    We’re like baby birds here in NZ – we can’t rise up and collect our own information, put it together and feed our minds with it, no we want our stuff regurgitated by someone who can ‘say what
    we’ re thinking but just can’t say ourselves”.

  3. McFlock 3
    11 March 2012 at 10:17 pm

    Wasn’t he the guy who also gave partner-basher veitch his first tv job after the trial?
       
    Jerk.

  4. Muzza 4
    11 March 2012 at 10:20 pm

    Deaker , Larry Williams , Mike Hosking , Laws et al ,the lot of them are a bad joke! Let’s see how this one gets dealt with, under the mat I expect. There is a war on Islam , Im not saying this is part of it , as these are the words of Deaker, but the war on Islam is real. The war on religion in a wider context is being faught , but that is less obvious currently. We will see the true colours of it all in a few years time I suspect.

  5. Nick K 5
    11 March 2012 at 10:21 pm

    We have freedom and equality of religion.

    We also have the freedom of expression and speech.

    [including the freedom for me to call Deaker a twerp, point out the privileged position that such men seem to hold in NZ broadcasting, and question the intelligence of his employers. Freedom of expression isn’t freedom from criticism. Dork. Zet]

    • McFlock 5.1
      11 March 2012 at 10:28 pm

      Yep. Nobody’s saying Deaker should be locked up. Although I’d prefer it if he wasn’t paid to be a fucking bigot.

    • Nick K 5.2
      12 March 2012 at 8:51 am

      Williams’ freedom and equality of religion does NOT trump Deaker’s freedom of expression and/or speech.

      Quit the name calling, Zet. It is beneath you, and this blog.

      • Pascal's bookie 5.2.1
        12 March 2012 at 9:24 am

        No one is quashing deaker’s freedom of expression, they are just calling him out on what he said. Same as you are doing to ZET.

        If Zet is denying Deaker’s freedom of expression, then you are doing the same to zet. But you’re not, and neither is he.

      • Matthew Whitehead 5.2.2
        12 March 2012 at 2:09 pm

        Freedom of Speech includes the freedom to criticise people- if you have a problem with that critique, you should critique it yourself, rather than muttering about freedom of expression that you don’t seem to understand.

    • Frank Macskasy 5.3
      12 March 2012 at 9:25 am

      Whgat about responsibilities and obligations to expression of speech, Nick?

      The Right are fairly Big on personal responsibility – yet when it comes to ‘speech’, it seems to be carte blance.

      Anyone can spew the most vile hate speech imaginable. It doesn’t take much brains to come up with that kind of stuff.

      But how does unfettered commentary benefit society?

      And just ‘cos we can say a thing – should we?

      • Nick K 5.3.1
        12 March 2012 at 9:48 am

        But that’s my point, Frank.. It’s not “hate” speech. And neither is Zet’s post calling Deaker s bigot. The responsibility that goes with the freedom is measured by the limit of the lawbreaking involved – that’s what the NZBORA is for, and the criminal law, and the defamation laws. Sure, they’re fine lines. I accept Zet is allowed to call Deaker a bigot; but you have to accept too that Deaker is allowed to express a view.

        • Frank Macskasy 5.3.1.1
          12 March 2012 at 10:00 am

          Perhaps there’s more to social cohesion than just the law, Nick. It’s said that politeness and courtesy are the lubricant of society.

          As I said, just ‘cos I can say a thing – should I? For example, if I said your daughter had great tits – that’s not illegal. But it is rude and I’m abusing freedom of speech to express a derogatory viewpoint.

          Another example; being married and having a sexual affair with a co-worker isn’t illegal: I’m allowed by law to do it.

          But should I?

          (Note to my partner: no, sweetie, I’m not!)

          We have a reasonably polite, well-ordered society. In part, that’s due to self-discipline on our part. We don’t engage in the kind of “expressions” that are common in other countries, and which ultimately escalate to violence. Deaker (and others like him) is benefitting from our well-ordered society by expressing a derogatory point of view that, if it were common, would probably have dire consequences.

          • Vicky32 5.3.1.1.1
            12 March 2012 at 6:03 pm

            Perhaps there’s more to social cohesion than just the law, Nick. It’s said that politeness and courtesy are the lubricant of society.
            As I said, just ‘cos I can say a thing – should I? For example, if I said your daughter had great tits – that’s not illegal. But it is rude and I’m abusing freedom of speech to express a derogatory viewpoint.

            You’re absolutely right Frank. Seconded!

      • Gosman 5.3.2
        12 March 2012 at 9:55 am

        What?!?

        Who determines the “responsibilities and obligations to expression of speech” Frank?

        Would it be you or maybe a committee made up of like minded individuals?

        You have stated a number of idiotic comments in your time Frank but the following is among your greatest.

        “But how does unfettered commentary benefit society?”

        You’re big on face palms. That one deserves the mother of all face palms.

        • rosy 5.3.2.2
          12 March 2012 at 10:11 am

          Dunno about ‘who’, but this passed the grey area where some party should have called a halt:

          … But critics of Sarah Palin have already drawn a link between the shooting and the fact that the former Alaska governor put Giffords on a “target list” of lawmakers Palin wanted to see unseated in the midterm elections.

          In March, Palin released a map featuring 20 House Democrats that used crosshairs images to show their districts. (You can see it here.) Critics suggested at the time that she was inciting violence by using the crosshairs imagery and for later writing on Twitter to her supporters, “‘Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!'”

          It’s ridiculous to think speech doesn’t affect people’s actions, otherwise why bother?

          • Frank Macskasy 5.3.2.2.1
            12 March 2012 at 10:22 am

            And of course speech affects actions; famous examples, Hitler with “Mein Kampf”; Lenin; Karl Marx with “Das Kapital”; John F Kennedy with his speeches; Martin Luthor King’s “I have a Dream” speech…

            People who think that free speech doresn’t have consequences are usually deluded or disengenuous. Interestingly, they are the ones who make the biggest fuss about their “rights” to say what they like.

            But, if what they are expressing doesn’t matter – why insist on it? Catch22.

          • Gosman 5.3.2.2.2
            12 March 2012 at 10:31 am

            How would you draw a halt to that rosy? Have you actually thought through the implications of what you are calling for here?

            First off you would need some sort of official body that would look at what people are either saying or writing. The body would have to make decisions if the messages they were trying to convery were in anyway offensive via some sort of arbitrary scale that someone made up. They would also need to have the authority to stop people from making these comments or at least to punish them if they did so e.g. locking them up ultimately.

            There is a term for that. It is called Censorship. Totalitarian dictatorships like to use it to stiffle debate and impose their views on society.

            • Kotahi Tane Huna 5.3.2.2.2.1
              12 March 2012 at 10:38 am

              Strawman Gos. Rosy pointed out that Palin’s crosshairs crossed the line, and of course in 20/20 hindsight (or should that be gunsight?), and said that “some party should have called a halt”. I note that “some party” includes Palin herself.

              If you need another example as to how “freedom of speech” can have horrifying outcomes you need look no further than the Ten Hutu Commandments.

              This is not the same as calling for an official censorship body.

              • Gosman …
                12 March 2012 at 10:43 am

                Anybody is free to call a halt anytime they like. It is what is great about Freedom of speech. That is different to a body having the POWER to actually bring about that halt, which is what I have an issue with. Do you want somebody having the power to do so?

                • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                  12 March 2012 at 10:58 am

                  Yes, starting with bloody obtuse strawman diversionary trolls! Only joking Gos.

                  Let’s just apply the reality check to your proposal shall we? How about some examples where “freedom of speech” is curtailed now. Advertising, for example. Speech under oath. Incitement to violence, libel, slander.

                  So we already have “powers” that limit freedom of speech.

                  Should talk-back radio gobshites be subject to any of these strictures? I have already mentioned the Ten Hutu Commandments, but what about an example closer to home? How do you suppose the complete media black-out of pakeha child abuse cases affects social outcomes? Should there be more responsibility of the media to publicise this litany of shame – 4500 cases in eight years and not a peep!

                  Again, Gosman, I am not calling for compulsory censorship, but don’t you think a little personal responsibility might be in order?

            • rosy 5.3.2.2.2.2
              12 March 2012 at 10:47 am

              Yes I have thought it through, and yes I think a level of censorship (much of it self-censorship, depending on the social discourse) is necessary in society, just like traffic rules are. Officials already do make decisions in NZ about what people can say – advertising standards, Human Rights Commission, even the police who stop people being abusive in the streets.

              I’m really just saying I don’t think your comment the Frank was thought through very well. Murray Deaker is an boor – he’s been called on it – that’s how society generally learns what is polite and acceptable, as Frank suggests.

            • Frank Macskasy 5.3.2.2.2.3
              12 March 2012 at 12:09 pm

              First off you would need some sort of official body that would look at what people are either saying or writing.

              Or, Gosman, we could rely on people taking responsibility fior what they say in public?

              I understand the Right is very big on Personal Responsibility.

          • grumpy 5.3.2.2.3
            12 March 2012 at 11:23 am

            ..except Rosy, that later, more reasoned investigation revealed that the young shooter was a nutter and had left wing tendencies – certainly not the type to be influenced by Palin.

            • Kotahi Tane Huna 5.3.2.2.3.1
              12 March 2012 at 11:31 am

              …except, grumpy, that Palin’s message of distrust in government is consistent with Loughner’s ravings; equally deranged, just with nice hair.

            • rosy 5.3.2.2.3.2
              12 March 2012 at 11:44 am

              Are you saying Palin didn’t pass the grey area where someone should be called on their comments, Grumpy?

              What about Limbaugh’s rant against Sandra Fluke? Is there a problem with that? Sometimes, some people have to censor themselves or get picked up on it.

              • Frank Macskasy …
                12 March 2012 at 12:11 pm

                In the old days it was called self-discipline and courtesy…

              • Gosman …
                12 March 2012 at 12:33 pm

                Anybody can call anybody out pretty much at anytime rosy . I call Frank out for his economic illiteracy quite a lot. That is different from stating that Frank should be stopped from spouting his BS. I think someone like Frank should be free to propagate his ill informed opinions. He’s just not free to do so without someone pointing out how wrong headed he is.

                • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                  12 March 2012 at 12:36 pm

                  And what would be your response to Frank on the radio every day, convincing others that his ideas are correct, funded by your tax dollars the way Radio Lifeless is?

                  • Gosman …
                    12 March 2012 at 12:50 pm

                    Interesting that you think that if a media outlet receives some form of Government funding that somehow gives the State a say in the editorial policy of that outlet. I certainly don’t have a huge problem with that, (although ideally there wouldn’t be a need for state funded media at all). Take Citizen A as an example. As far as I am aware that receives government funding via NZOA or has done so in the past. I wouldn’t want to see it’s funding cut simply because Martyn Bradbury is a complete plonker and spouts nonsense.

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      12 March 2012 at 1:06 pm

                      Gosman, please check your genome sequence for strawmen; my asking you to clarify your position says nothing whatever about mine.

                      Where would you draw the line then, with specific regard to prejudicial speech? Ku Klux Klan Radio? National Front Broadcasting Corporation? The Ten Hutu Commandments? Conspiracy to broadcast an illegal election program?

                      Would you prefer to let the market decide?

                    • Gosman …
                      12 March 2012 at 1:19 pm

                      I’m actually all for shining the light of analysis on all sorts of ideas. I think making an idea illegal just glamorises it. For example some of the nonsense spouted on here about the September the 11th attacks by the likes of Travellerev and others could be regarded by some as highly offensive. Yet I don’t object to the ideas being expressed. I do have a problem if noone raises objections to them though

                      [lprent: Objections tend to be raised frequently and at length. We have to read the discussions where most readers simply skip them.

                      There are some opinions and ideas that we won’t allow here because they cause flamewars, are usually pointless, appear to largely be matters of genetic predisposition rather than rationality, and are in the opinion of the moderators just outright uncivilized. Mostly the idiots pushing them act like trolls and get discriminated against for that reason.

                      Tev’s comments (and a few other commentators) aren’t like that. But they sometimes pick up bans simply because every so often the moderators just can’t stand to see the same argument repeated yet again. I think that receiving the occasional moderator fatigue is just the penalty cost of holding beliefs. ]

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      12 March 2012 at 1:29 pm

                      Nowhere, then, you would draw the line nowhere? From false advertising to incitement to murder, let the light of analysis shine?

                    • Gosman …
                      12 March 2012 at 1:58 pm

                      I’d draw my line in two areas.

                      Factual accuracy- i.e. I claim something which I can’t back up with any facts such as ‘Such and such a product cures baldness according to X number of studies’

                      Protection of minors – i.e. something that is appropriate for an adult but society has deemed inappropriate for children should not be available for the child e.g. Pornography.

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      12 March 2012 at 2:10 pm

                      Any thoughts on who should be subject to the requirement for factual accuracy? Politicians, for example?

                    • Gosman …
                      12 March 2012 at 4:34 pm

                      Let’s be clear here, when I’m talking about being factually accurate I am not meaning someone expressing an opinion which might turn out to be not a fair reflection of reality. I’m meaning where someone deliberately decides to state something that they know isn’t backed by any facts or certainly the facts they try and claim it is supported by.

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      12 March 2012 at 4:51 pm

                      Indeed. And you think politicians should be bound by this? I’m not saying you’re wrong but it’s a legal test they are not subject to now, not in any practical sense.

                • rosy …
                  12 March 2012 at 12:53 pm

                  hmmm Frank hasn’t crossed over any grey area as far as I know. And given your over-confident sarcasm that I guess you think passes for wit, I don’t think what you think really matters to me, at all.

                  • Gosman …
                    12 March 2012 at 1:21 pm

                    You haven’t defined who decides where this grey area starts rosy? that is the problem with your whole concept. It relies on subjective views on what is acceptable and what is not.

                    • rosy …
                      12 March 2012 at 1:28 pm

                      Really? I did at least give examples of the bodies I thought did this.

                      And it’s not subjective views, it’s context (remember that word, it’s important for so many things that are not economics).

                    • McFlock …
                      12 March 2012 at 1:30 pm

                      Gos, offensive language, intimidation and incitement to violence are already crimes. It’s quite possible that something like Palin’s bullseye pamphlet would run very close to that line without any alteration to our criminal code.
                           
                      So go scream “censorship” at parliament.

                • Frank Macskasy …
                  12 March 2012 at 2:28 pm

                  Oh dear me, Gosman, you seem to feel threatened by my “economic illiteracy” , “BS”, and “ill informed opinions”, don’t you?

                  To be honest, I don’t really care what you think. I research my stuff; put it out there; and let folk make up their own mind.

                  In your case, I think anything I present is wasted. You ignore what is inconvenient and mis-represent what I (and others) say. You may be bright – but you’re intellectually dishonest as well. Your obsession with minutiae is mind-numbingly tedious. That’s a sad mis-use of your talents.

                  I look forward to you continuing to read my blog. One day something I write may actually give you pause for thought.

                  I’m an optimist.

                  • Gosman …
                    12 March 2012 at 4:36 pm

                    I’m no more or less threatened by your economic illiteracy than you are to Murray Deaker’s opinion on SBW’s religion. Are you threatened by his opinion Frank?

                • mik e …
                  12 March 2012 at 8:11 pm

                  goose you have been found out many times lying about economics

            • Vicky32 5.3.2.2.3.3
              12 March 2012 at 6:18 pm

              and had left wing tendencies

              Don’t think so! 🙂 I was on an American right wing website at the time (I hadn’t realised how right it actually was) and believe me, had he really had ‘left wing tendencies’, we’d have heard all about it. So, er. sorry mate, you’re wrong again!

              • Pascal's bookie …
                12 March 2012 at 6:33 pm

                Grumpy is probably talking about a list of books that the shooter had somewhere which it was assumed influenced him, (to be clear, the shooter had a list, not a pile of books, there is no evidence that he had read the books). Marx was on the list, and so many on the right jumped up and down claiming that this proved he was a lefty.

                I didn’t see any of them mention that the list also contained an early work of Ayn Rand’s, which might have got them some points for consistency if they had included it in their ‘reasoned investigations’.

                • Morrissey …
                  13 March 2012 at 8:31 am

                  to be clear, the shooter had a list, not a pile of books, there is no evidence that he had read the books…

                  That sounds exactly like our friend grumpy.

    • QoT 5.4
      12 March 2012 at 7:14 pm

      It’s so cute how you have no idea wtf you’re talking about.

  6. Jimmie 6
    11 March 2012 at 10:24 pm

    I think Murray Deaker used the wrong analogy but I read more of the article relating to this and I think what he was referring to was SBW’s decision to become a muslim in a ‘christian’ country was an analogy for SBW not being settled in any sport that he has played in. Sort of a fish out of water, the odd one out scenario.

    If you think of his career where he has jumped from league to rugby, then throw in boxing and broken contracts, and being homesick in France, and now rumours of back to league it appears that he can’t settle, or can’t be satisfied with excelling in any particular code.

    Deaker should have picked a different analogy as picking on his muslim faith was guaranteed to overshadow his main point of wanting SBW to stick to a code and not just chase the almighty dollar where ever it takes him.

    But having said that Zetetic you kind of shoot yourself in the foot as your main point was that Deaker was a foolish twerp for discriminating against SBW on the basis of his religion however you commit the very same faux pax when you denigrate Deaker on the basis of his skin colour, economic situation, age and sex.

    So tell me what is worse; denigrating someone for their religious beliefs or denigrating them based on their race, sex, age, and economic resource?

    Smacks of the H———y word if ya know what I mean?

    [point to the bit where I denigrated those attributes of Deaker’s. If anything, I labelled them a source of power and privilege. Zet]

    • McFlock 6.1
      11 March 2012 at 10:32 pm

      “mentioning” != “denigrating”
       

    • Jimmie 6.2
      12 March 2012 at 7:04 am

      It is a subtle form of denigration – when chosing to criticize Deaker your list of ‘old/white/priviledged/male’ points to a negative ‘stereotype’ which you are using to paint him in a negative light thereby impinging all other ‘old white rich males’ in NZ who may not give a toss what religion SBW belongs to.

      So what you may ask?

      Well turn it on its head, would you be happy to describe a perpetrator of killing a little child to be described as ‘young, unemployed, male, Maori’ in the media or would that get you upset as a MSM negative stereotype reinforcing prevailing racist attitudes.

      Because there is no difference in either case.

      If however you had described Deaker as a bigoted idiot who shouldn’t be broadcasting that would be fine as you are crticizing him personally rather than having a swing at whole groups in society who may not share his views.

      Just saying ya know….

      • Carol 6.2.1
        12 March 2012 at 7:59 am

        There is a difference. As others said above it is one of power and privilege. Stereotypes have limited impact if they are not supported by power and privilege.

        The old white boys club (not used here as a stereotype but a fact of privilege) works to ensure that some very destructive and negative stereoptypes of relatively powerless groups keep getting perpetuated.

        It’s about POWER! Gettit?!

        • Jimmie 6.2.1.1
          12 March 2012 at 9:10 am

          Power huh? So if you are in a position of ‘power’ then you must walk around on tippie toes being careful not to offend anyone who may or may not be in some form of lessor power?

          However it is ok for someone who is in a position of relative ‘lesser power’ to abuse and put down anyone who is in a position of ‘higher power’.

          Again it smacks of hypocrisy. If the person of ‘lessor power’ wants to be shown respect and not stereotyped then shouldn’t they set an example by their own words and attitude?

          To show how shallow your argument goes you could use this blog as an example.

          There are two groups to The Standard. Posters/Administrators & Commentators such as myself.

          Due to their position of control over what is posted and commented on the Posters/Administrators hold a position of relative greater power over commentators.

          Therefore by your theory commentators should be able to abuse and denigrate the administrators as much as they want and in return the administrators should be so nice and touchy feely and not ban anyone and allow any comments what so ever as they are in a position of power.

          If they allowed this the whole blog would fall to pieces – the point is Power or lack of, is no excuse for bad manners and negative stereotyping by anyone.

          • Carol 6.2.1.1.1
            12 March 2012 at 9:50 am

            Jimmie, you’re making it impossible for anyone from a marginalised and relatively powerless position to protest against the way they are treated by those with power and privilege.

            But, you don’t want to know. You seem more bothered about the criticisms of the powerful, than the way they maintain that privilege.

            I’m done – have said my piece.

            • Kotahi Tane Huna 6.2.1.1.1.1
              12 March 2012 at 10:19 am

              SBW can hardly be said to be in a “marginalised and relatively powerless position”. Part of the way he “maintains that privilege” involves using his religion as a lubricant. Nothing new in that: just like Mr. Deaker, he has a valid business model.

          • Te Reo Putake 6.2.1.1.2
            12 March 2012 at 10:08 am

            Way off the mark, Jimmie, but at least you are thinking about the issues. The fact is that media figures have an obligation to defend their comments if they cross the line. They have a power that it is denied to the majority and an obligation both morally and legally to abide by the rules that govern broadcasting.
             
            Deaker has an audience, which doesn’t include me. I find rugby boring, so I’m never going to a Deaker listener anyway. But I am interested in his SBW comment, because it goes beyong rugby. It may be, as somebody else claimed, taken out of context. If so, it should be easy for Deaker to show that.
             
            The title of the post is entirely accurate. Talkback radio is aimed at white middle aged men with chips on their shoulders and the most succesful exponents of it worldwide fit the same mold. I wouldn’t have thought Deaker fell in to that camp, but clearly, the likes of Holmes, Henry and the blatantly racist Laws do.
             
            So, they have tremendous power in getting their message across and very little accountability, except when they occasionally get asked to explain. Even then, the most racist, bigoted rubbish is career enhancing, not career limiting, as it should be.

          • Gosman 6.2.1.1.3
            12 March 2012 at 10:09 am

            Jimmie, there’s a certain type of hard core leftist who believes that prejudice is all about power and nothing to do with treating someone as an inferior because of something they cannot control such as their race. It is the same sort of wrong headed thinking that had some peeople defend Hone Harawira because as a member of an ‘oppressed’ minority he could never be ‘Racist’.

            It’s irrational and illogical but as it provides lefties an excuse for bad behaviour from their favourite ‘oppressed’ groups it is unlikely that they will see it that way.

            • Te Reo Putake 6.2.1.1.3.1
              12 March 2012 at 10:21 am

              Exept no one on the Standard defended Hone on those grounds, Gosman. Perhaps you are making this up?

              • Frank Macskasy …
                12 March 2012 at 10:24 am

                Gosman – “making stuff up”? Nooooo, surely not… 😀

              • Gosman …
                12 March 2012 at 10:35 am

                Where did I mention ‘The Standard’?

                As for someone who believes this idiotic ‘Racism is related to power’ idea you don’t have to go far past someone like Marty Mars from the mars2 earth blog.

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  12 March 2012 at 10:51 am

                  You’re on the Standard, Gossie, so it’s hardly unfair to assume you are referring to it. But if you have any evidence from other sites that proves that you didn’t make it up, please post the links.

                • marty mars …
                  12 March 2012 at 11:26 am

                  A lot of people believe it gossie, not just me.

                  “Prejudice by itself does not constitute racism, however. Neither does power by itself. But when people use their position of power, be it political or institutional, to reinforce their prejudices and to enforce them so that as a result of their racial prejudices the life chances, rights and opportunities of others are limited, the result is racism. Thus, the simplest definition of racism then is: Racism is prejudice plus power. On the basis of this definition, while all people can be prejudiced, only those who have power are really racist… Within this understanding of racism, to be a racist you have to possess two things: 1) socioeconomic power to force others to do what you desire even if they don’t want to, and 2), the justification of this power abuse by an ideology of biological supremacy. Keep in mind that what often is described as racism in society today, is really nothing more than prejudice and discrimination.”

                  http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/papers/caleb/racism.html

                  Thanks for the plug too I’m pleased to be called idiotic by a bigbrain like you

                  • Frank Macskasy …
                    12 March 2012 at 12:17 pm

                    Bugger, I just realised I left you off my bloglist, Marty. (Thanks to Gosman for remindsing me.)

                  • Gosman …
                    12 March 2012 at 12:24 pm

                    ‘Racism is prejudice plus power’

                    Simple and wrong.

                    Racism is prejudism against someone due to the race of that person. All power does is magnify the impacts of the prejudice.

                    Hence Hone Harawira is racist if he is uncomfortable with his daughter dating a white guy. If he had the power to stop his daughter dating on this basis this is merely him acting on his racist principles. It doesn’t make him more racist.

                    Thank you for highlighting my whole point though. I was going to trawl through your blog to find that discussion we had a while back. You’ve saved me the hassle.

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      12 March 2012 at 12:29 pm

                      ‘Racism is prejudice plus power’

                      Simple and wrong.

                      That is so naive as to beggar belief.

                      When have you, Gosman ever suffered from racism? Have you ever been turned down for a job or flat because of your ethnicity? No, of course you haven’t. Because even if a non-Pakeha wanted to discriminate against you based on your skin colour – they were unable to because they lacked the Power to back up that Prejudice.

                      C’mon, Gosman, you’re more intelligent than that. Work out the logic of it. Don’t just repeat rightwing rubbish without critical analysis.

                    • Gosman …
                      12 March 2012 at 12:40 pm

                      Okay then Frank. Use those powers of critical analysis that you think you have and deal with my following statement :

                      “Racism is the belief that someone is somehow inferior to someone else based on the racial classification. All that power does is magnify the impact of that belief in any actions the racist makes against the other person.”

                      Please tell me exactly where it is wrong.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 March 2012 at 12:56 pm

                      So gos, do you think that Deaker should be paid to broadcast prejudice?

                    • Gosman …
                      12 March 2012 at 1:13 pm

                      I didn’t think that was in his job description. If it is I’d suggest you take it up with his employers as it certainly isn’t something that is very normal. My view is that he is employed to express his opinions. You don’t like them don’t listen to him. It is quite simple really. I personally dislike Talk Sport type shows especially his one and don’t waste my time on them.

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      12 March 2012 at 1:20 pm

                      Don’t be naive Gossie. Talk-back radio hosts are paid to make controversial statements, it’s part of the job description, and is expected of them. Since they are doing it for money, their product, like any other, is subject to more scrutiny that what you or I might say in a bar, for example.

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      12 March 2012 at 6:24 pm

                      As I can’t answer to Frank below, I will say it here – 

                      When have you, Gosman ever suffered from racism? Have you ever been turned down for a job or flat because of your ethnicity? No, of course you haven’t. Because even if a non-Pakeha wanted to discriminate against you based on your skin colour – they were unable to because they lacked the Power to back up that Prejudice.

                      What a load of shit. I have no idea what Gosman’s ethnicity or appearance may be like. I can’t even speak to gender, but you are being incredibly patronising of non-Pakeha people to suggest that they can’t hold positions of power over Pakeha people. This is the twenty-first century. I would dare you, for example, to stand up in a history lecture and call out a senior Maori academic for saying something objectionable or indeed false about Pakeha – especially if your grade, and possibly degree (a significant investment) hinged on marks given by that person. There are non-Pakeha people in all levels of society – it’s ridiculous to think them all disempowered because you are some kind of white liberal masochist. Racism of any description is vile. Positive racism, like yours, is an annoying fetish.

                • Frank Macskasy …
                  12 March 2012 at 12:13 pm

                  “Where did I mention ‘The Standard’?”

                  You need to be clearer in your comments, then, Gosman. It’s called taking Responsibility for your comments.

          • Frank Macskasy 6.2.1.1.4
            12 March 2012 at 10:23 am

            Jimmie, Carol is correct – it is a matter of power.

            • Gosman 6.2.1.1.4.1
              12 March 2012 at 10:38 am

              Power only impacts it when it comes to the effects of prejudicism. It doesn’t enter the equation of determining if someone’s ideas are prejudiced of not. But thank you for illustrating the idiocy of certain people on the left Frank around this issue.

      • fender 6.2.2
        12 March 2012 at 5:38 pm

        Jimmie…..it’s the “old, privilaged, white” demographic that these outrageous statements keep coming from.
        But i agree, it would be helpful if these twits wore a red scarf around their necks and then we could just say; did you hear what one of the rednecks has said this time?

  7. hateatea 7
    11 March 2012 at 10:56 pm

    There is a part of me, the cynical, jaded bit, that has been wondering just how long it would be before someone took a swing at Sonny Bill because of his faith. 

    I don’t watch or listen to sports shows so I have no idea what Murray Deaker’s interviewing / philosophising technique might be but I seem to recall his having had foot in mouth moments before.

    If people contact his employers threatening a boycott of the show’s advertisers, perhaps there may be an apology forthcoming. Perhaps he might even be sent on some sensitivity training. 😉 Of course, I am not holding my breath 

    • Vicky32 7.1
      12 March 2012 at 6:43 pm

      If people contact his employers threatening a boycott of the show’s advertisers, perhaps there may be an apology forthcoming. Perhaps he might even be sent on some sensitivity training. Of course, I am not holding my breath

      Probably not… In the 90s, I used to listen to talkback radio, and I made complaints about Leighton Smith and Chris Carter. Nothing was done about LS, and years later CC was in fact sacked, allegedly for his racism, (I mean that, that was the rumour, not the official reason.)
      On a related note, I bought the Sunday Star-Times last week, read Michael Laws and projectile vomited. I shall never buy the SST ever again, because of Laws.

    • QoT 7.2
      12 March 2012 at 7:20 pm

      I have no idea what Murray Deaker’s interviewing / philosophising technique might be

      Based solely on ads for his abysmal-even-before-he-invited-Tony-Veitch-on show on Sky? It involves wanking on about his own opinion and mistaking “being an aggressive tool” for “incisive journalism”.

  8. Eduardo Kawak 8
    11 March 2012 at 11:30 pm

    Mirror, mirror on the wall. Who is the most bigoted of all?

    No one’s mentioned Paul Holmes yet esp. his recent Waitangi Day diatribe. And surely “Cheeky Darkie” is without peer?

    Deaker pales in comparison.

    • hateatea 8.1
      11 March 2012 at 11:41 pm

      Why would anyone mention Paul Holmes? While his many offensive remarks remain offensive, including the Waitangi outburst, this is about  Murray Deaker and his reference to the religious choice of Sonny Bill Williams.

      It would be good to stay on track, even just for a short while.

      Anyway, being bigoted isn’t a competition with someone being excused as being ‘less’ than someone else.  Any bigot, condoned by society, diminishes the worth of the society as a whole, in my opinion

    • shreddakj 8.2
      11 March 2012 at 11:58 pm

      I think Garth George trumps Holmes, perhaps not in severity, but definitely in the frequency of bigoted bile spewed forth.

    • BLiP 8.3
      12 March 2012 at 12:45 am

      . . . And surely “Cheeky Darkie” is without peer? . . .

      Paul Henry’s gotta be up there:

      . . . “Are you going to choose a New Zealander [for Governor-General] who looks and sounds like a New Zealander this time? Are we going to go for someone who is more like a New Zealander this time?” . . .

      John Key giggled.

      • Frank Macskasy 8.3.1
        12 March 2012 at 8:47 am

        My concerns with Paul Holmes is somewhat more critical, as hisa interview on Q+A yesterday illustrated. His different “style” of interview between Maritime Union National President, Gary Parsloe; and Ports of Auckland chairman, Richard Pearson was quite telling…

  9. BLiP 9
    11 March 2012 at 11:45 pm

    I didn’t even know Sonny was a Muslim until I heard about it on a sports show.

    What is it about the New Zealand media, I hear you ask? The New Zealand MSM is struggling to maintain its relationship with its audience and is trying all sorts of things in a frantic effort to find the lowest common denominator for cross-platform leverage. This is achieved by way of mini-scandals and the like and can often be observed when there’s a bigger story which, unless overshadowed, might educate/anger the consumers/advertisers. When it comes to sports, and especially in Auckland, that lowest common denominator is a cohort of – generally speaking – lower middle class, School Cert., baldheads who see nothing wrong with not liking a Muslim in a so-called Christian country. As this wee kerfuffle filters out across the MSM, most of that cohort will be chuckling up their sleeves in slightly-hushed but brotherly amusement at all the fuss, the talk-back taliban will be doing its thing, the magazines will have big photos of Sonny on the cover, and the internet will be all a twitter in the shaky isles. Its called “synergy” and helps maximise sales for our multi-national, foreign-owned, profit-driven media.

  10. Eduardo Kawak 10
    12 March 2012 at 12:36 am

    The post is a general swipe at the state of New Zealand’s aging media dicks with Deaker’s foot-in-mouth being the latest example of the closed minded stupidity that passes for MSM commentary.

    Deaker’s is the latest in a long line of idiotic comments from journos with personal or otherwise agendas.

    What would actually be interesting is if one of these hacks asked Sonny Bill some questions about being a Muslim in New Zealand and even his thoughts on Islam in general, if any such things exist. Insights such as has he made his pilgrimage to Mecca, or how hard is it to find halal food in New Zealand, what does he think of the stigmatism attached to being a Muslim in a predominantly Christian society, might actually have some journalistic merit.

    Me personally, I have my own opinions on SBW’s switch to Islam which I’ll keep to myself, like Deaker should’ve.

  11. hateatea 11
    12 March 2012 at 12:41 am

    ‘What would actually be interesting is if one of these hacks asked Sonny Bill some questions about being a Muslim in New Zealand and even his thoughts on Islam in general, if any such things exist. Insights such as has he made his pilgrimage to Mecca, or how hard is it to find halal food in New Zealand, what does he think of the stigmatism attached to being a Muslim in a predominantly Christian society.’

    Why should they and why would Sonny Bill deign to answer? We have had players in the past who had religious beliefs that limited their ability to fully represent the country who weren’t put under this sort of inquisition. To apply it to SBW would imply some sort of bigotry, IMHO or did I miss the bit where he proclaimed himself as an expert on the Q’ran and all the religious observances arising from that

    • Populuxe1 11.1
      12 March 2012 at 5:53 am

      I doubt he could answer – he’s never struck me as the brightest crayon in the box. And quite frankly, just how “Muslim” is he – by which I mean, how observant is SBW? Or is it just cosmetic like so much of his lifestyle?

      • Pascal's bookie 11.1.1
        12 March 2012 at 6:38 am

        Know him well, do yiz?

        • Populuxe1 11.1.1.1
          12 March 2012 at 6:07 pm

          Given his endless courting of the media, or rather that of his management with his consent, it’s hard not to form an opinion.

          • Pascal's bookie 11.1.1.1.1
            12 March 2012 at 6:37 pm

            But you’d agree that you only have an opinion about a carefully crafted image of him then?

            • Populuxe1 11.1.1.1.1.1
              12 March 2012 at 7:06 pm

              Not at all. It can hardly be called a “carefully crafted image” if it just leaves the impression that he’s a vain, self-obsessed but easily led, media-whoring, money-chasing muppet lacking dedication or teamwork skills, can it?

              • Pascal's bookie …
                12 March 2012 at 7:13 pm

                It could be that you not the target market in spite of your, no doubt, awesomeness. John Key’s carefully crafted image strikes me as being all sorts of fucking unpleasant things. People form different opinions about the very same thing; a true fact that professional opinion formers are no doubt well aware of.

  12. Eduardo Kawak 12
    12 March 2012 at 2:09 am

    So you’d prefer journalists continue personal attacks Deaker-style?

    Maybe SBW wouldn’t answer, but it doesn’t mean the questions are not worth asking.

    • hateatea 12.1
      12 March 2012 at 2:23 am

      ‘So you’d prefer journalists continue personal attacks Deaker-style?’

      No, personal attacks such as Deaker’s reported comments are unacceptable 

      ‘Maybe SBW wouldn’t answer, but it doesn’t mean the questions are not worth asking.’

      Why are they worth asking? He is a professional sports person and should only be expected to comment on matters pertaining to his sporting activities.

      People, encouraged by the MSM’s obsessive pursuit of ‘celebrity’ think they have a right to know a lot of things that my grandmother taught me were not for public discussion – politics and religion chief amongst them. I think she was correct. You obviously think differently.

      On the basis of fairness, perhaps you would answer questions posed by the commentors at The Standard on your personal religiousviews and practices or is it different when applied to oneself?

      • Kotahi Tane Huna 12.1.1
        12 March 2012 at 10:29 am

        That’s a bit naive isn’t it Hateatea?

        SBW is also a professional model/actor, appearing in adverts for Rebel Sports and so-on. His paychecks are proportional to his profile.

        I think your grandmother was right though – as PJ O’Rourke put it: “Celebrity is the toxic run-off of fame.”

  13. higherstandard 13
    12 March 2012 at 7:19 am

    I saw the live item on TV with Price and Nash, as always context is everything watching the entire piece it didn’t come across as bigoted at all IMO and smacks of more pathetic sensationalism from the MSM.

    • Pete George 13.1
      12 March 2012 at 7:30 am

      That’s not surprising, the SBW media circus continues. As does blog bandwagon bull.

      If everyone who gets up anyone’s nose is banned we’d have radio bland.

      • muzza 13.1.1
        12 March 2012 at 7:46 am

        What we have in this country Pete is media that is overrun and populated by self important inflated egos, who espouse opinions which large swaths of sheep in this county form their views on!

        The media outlets in this country are in fact a reflection of the the state of the country, and most the ills that have taken hold, and you in your response sanction that…

        Wonder what skeltons you have in your closet that makes you think that comments such as this are “getting up peoples noses”

        Time for you take your 170 votes and toddle along Pete. Almost anyone in this country could get 170, heck even 2 independants in my electorate got about that many votes…..

        Off you go you irrelevant old fool!

      • the pink postman 13.1.2
        12 March 2012 at 4:13 pm

        Lot’s of people get up get up my nose and lots of people make me angry . I usually let it just pass by.However I draw the line at racism . Racism is evil ,in fact I believe it is most evil. It should never be allowed to o unanswered . What is often passed by as a joke often recruites others to this foul philosophy . Unfortunatly Aotearoa seems have an enormous number of bigoted racists many in positions where the can spread their Right-wing racist beliefs . No racist comment should go unanswered !

  14. shorts 14
    12 March 2012 at 7:30 am

    I’m disgusted with Deaker’s comment but even more so by how so many of his peers are coming once again to his defence citing how he’s a good bloke and meant something else…

    as they do with Holmes, Veitch and others

    They like to call themselves straight talkers and other such terms as if their ignorant attitudes can be explained away in this manner

    it can’t

    he’s a rascist and should lose his job and those that defend hm should be mocked for the idiots they are

  16. Psycho Milt 16
    12 March 2012 at 7:44 am

    What is it about New Zealand media? Seems if you’re an old, privileged white man, you get a podium to say whatever nonsense you want…

    I’m picking these aren’t actual qualifications for the job. In fact, this is the flip side of those blog posts about how you have to be a cute girlie to be a TV news reporter these days.

    The old twerp’s latest is to attack Sonny Bill Williams saying “I don’t like that he’s Muslim in a so-called Christian country”.

    How awful it is that others have views you don’t like and state them publicly. Intolerable.

  17. vto 17
    12 March 2012 at 9:39 am

    What about young bigots? And female and non-white ones?

    I guess the reason you only referred to old white male bigots is because all the other types are quite ok – or so it seems from watching the reactions to ALL bigots over the last couple of decades or so.

    • Frank Macskasy 17.1
      12 March 2012 at 10:05 am

      “What about young bigots? And female and non-white ones?”

      What’s your point, Vto?

      What are yoyu referring to?

    • marty mars 17.2
      12 March 2012 at 11:37 am

      bring out these young female non-white bigots so they may face the same scrutiny as the old white male ones

      • vto 17.2.1
        12 March 2012 at 1:25 pm

        try the author of this thread.

        by pulling out only old white males and linking the white bits with the old bits with the male bits the author becomes a prejudging bigot himself.

        • Te Reo Putake 17.2.1.1
          12 March 2012 at 1:39 pm

          Jeez, VTO, can you still get sun and air down in that hole you’re digging? The talk back hosts/media figures I normally associate with brain dead bigotry are Holmes, Henry, Laws and Smith. There may be others, but I avoid talkback radio because I lose enough brain cells each day as it is, so I can’t be sure.
           
          I’m really intrigued with the concept of talk back hosts who aren’t old white males with tiny todgers*. Can you point out anyone who doesn’t fit the category, becaue I’m really struggling to think of any. Graeme Hill? Karen Hay? Any others?
           
          *I can’t confirm the tinyness of the todgers, but I think it’s a fair bet that their genitalia is in proportion to their humanity.

          • lprent 17.2.1.1.1
            12 March 2012 at 3:10 pm

            Try Kerre Woodham…. I don’t listen to her (or any other talkback), but her opinion pieces follow the same lines as Homes and Laws. A common idiot unthinking denominator…

            • Populuxe1 17.2.1.1.1.1
              12 March 2012 at 6:11 pm

              Fiona McLeod also springs to mind – if not actually race/culturally prejudiced, certainly unashamed to vent homophobic bile.

              • vto …
                12 March 2012 at 9:28 pm

                Rosemary McLeod has also spouted some useless unsupported ambergris (but of no value) on too many occasions.

                (and she aint even young, to spout her own common spouting)

                • Populuxe1 …
                  13 March 2012 at 7:51 pm

                  Oooooops – MY BAD!!! Brain fart – thanks vto – I got my McLeod’s crossed. Apologies to the artist, no apologies to the pseudojournalist hag

  18. Kotahi Tane Huna 18
    12 March 2012 at 10:02 am

    Rachel Maddow’s recent remarks about a Mr. Limbaugh probably apply:

    “Talk radio hosts like Mr. Limbaugh are banking on you being offended by what they say.”

    The outrage is part of the business model.

    • muzza 18.1
      12 March 2012 at 10:48 am

      Correct, its the capture of emotion that is sought by the media system!

      Media is a reflection of society, just have a look at those who have the mic in NZ. Pretty much got all the bases covered. Alcohol, racism, abuse etc, and so it goes on…

      NZ is a sad little backwater, we accept this kind of BS, because people relate to it. It is society!

  19. (A different) Nick K 19
    12 March 2012 at 10:03 am

    I don’t like Sonny Bill Williams either but its nothing to do with him being Muslim.
    I don’t like Deaker for implying that I should be Christian to live in New Zealand.

    Freedom of expression is fine but you need to realise that certain people in certain jobs have more influence and as a result more ‘expression’ than others and they should therefore be more careful about what they do with it.

  20. Tiger Mountain 20
    12 March 2012 at 10:08 am

    The comments here illustrate yet again that NZ society does indeed need more philosophers and public intellectuals and less talk back lunkheads.

  21. Kevin 21
    12 March 2012 at 12:45 pm

    Sports talk back must be the most boring radio ever invented, it is tailor made for bigots and boofheads and Deaker is King of them all.

  22. Fortran 22
    12 March 2012 at 1:00 pm

    The whole subject of SBW’s conversion to muslim is boring – big yawn.

    • McFlock 22.1
      12 March 2012 at 1:16 pm

      but why NZ seems to want racists and partner-bashers as broadcast “entertainers” is profoundly fascinating, although equally disappointing.

      • grumpy 22.1.1
        12 March 2012 at 2:32 pm

        Don’t know why you want to dignify the little twerp with “partner basher”. he’s just a little weedy wanker who thinks he’s tough beating up a woman.

        How he’s got back on the radio is the question and if Deaker helped, he’s a tosser too.

        • Tiger Mountain 22.1.1.1
          12 March 2012 at 6:46 pm

          “back buster” Veitch and “I was a bit of a plum” (more than once) Martin Devlin are sports jocks that got public exposure along I guess with “Ridgey”, “Toddy” “sweating like a rapist” Mark Ellis etc. Even professional era sport surely could do with some more dignified less bovine behaviour from the assigned journos slash PR people.

    • Te Reo Putake 22.2
      12 March 2012 at 1:18 pm

      Illiterate, irrelevant and off topic. Well done, Fortran, a trifecta of stupid.

  23. mint059 23
    12 March 2012 at 1:35 pm

    racist bigot shouters are at it again playing precious,
    SBW converion is somewhat suspect and is used as needle
    in what is a christian country.

    • McFlock 23.1
      12 March 2012 at 4:21 pm

      As the post says, NZ is probably not actually a Christian country.
       

      • Vicky32 23.1.1
        12 March 2012 at 6:59 pm

        As the post says, NZ is probably not actually a Christian country.

        It’s not and neither should it be. (Disclaimer: I am a Christian, BTW) 
        Only people can be Christians, Muslims, Jews etc, not countries.

        • Pascal's bookie 23.1.1.1
          12 March 2012 at 7:14 pm

          +1

        • Populuxe1 23.1.1.2
          12 March 2012 at 7:19 pm

          In the West, for the most part, certainly. In the Middle East and North Africa, I would respectfully suggest it’s a different story.

        • fender 23.1.1.3
          12 March 2012 at 7:23 pm

          True!
          And with these crooked Nact devils at the helm it’s pretty clear NZ hasn’t got god on its side.

        • Verity 23.1.1.4
          13 March 2012 at 7:31 pm

          never heard of Saudi Arabia. All citizens have to be muslims and Jews are not allowed entry unless they are a highly qualified medico who has been hired to treat one of the Royals.

          And the Jewish people were ethnically cleansed from the ME countries after they declared war against Israel and lost.

          • Morrissey 23.1.1.4.1
            14 March 2012 at 9:38 pm

            Something called “Verity” crawled out from beneath a rock and offered the following piece of idiocy…

            …the Jewish people were ethnically cleansed from the ME countries after they declared war against Israel and lost.

            This must be one of the less intelligent comments of the year.

            You seem to have little or no knowledge of what you call the “ME” countries. Which raises a pertinent question: why on earth would you presume to make a comment?

  24. mac1 24
    12 March 2012 at 7:23 pm

    Zetetic, I just wanted to say how clever is your title for your post.

    I went to read a bit about “No Country for Old men” by that wonderful writer Cormac McCarthy on the Web and found this quote.

    “Soon, the violence breaking out around him forces Sheriff Bell to reexamine his own ability—and willingness—to deal with this new form of criminal brutality. The elderly lawman, product of an informal code of honor that belongs to generations past, comes to doubt whether he is any longer suited to his work. This new era demands an equally brutal response of a kind he is unwilling to muster lest he “set his soul at hazard.”

    So descriptive of our times. We indeed must not set our souls at hazard. Your post by challenging the mindset which is part of that new brutality helps counter the hazard. Thank you.

    • RedLogix 24.1
      12 March 2012 at 9:33 pm

      So descriptive of our times. We indeed must not set our souls at hazard. Your post by challenging the mindset which is part of that new brutality helps counter the hazard.

      Very, very good.

      Suffice to say that once upon a time I had Deaker as a teacher. He was brutal then and not much seems to have changed since. The man does not seem to have spent his life wisely.

  25. Adele 25
    12 March 2012 at 9:51 pm

    With due respect – Te Ao Pākehā (The Western Tradition) is already afflicted with moral hazard especially in its treatment of Te Ao Māori (The :Maori Worldview). Deaker is the sharp end of a broad sword.

    • vto 25.1
      12 March 2012 at 9:57 pm

      Adele, is that not a view that arises from the nature of their confluence and the very nature of manwomankind itself, rather than from the very being of just one?

      I see not too many differences in peoples worldwide, just a variance of circumstance.

  26. Adele 26
    12 March 2012 at 10:25 pm

    Kiaora, VTO

    But that’s the point, your worldview is not prepared to actually see the difference in peoples Why did humanity evolve away from the parasite if all that we are, can be reduced to sinew and bone – a homogenous gloop of sameness.

    Te Ao Māori is polar opposing to The Western Tradition in its essence but that another tale.

    • vto 26.1
      12 March 2012 at 10:43 pm

      hmmm, it seems we are at an early impasse. I see “the difference in peoples” being a result of circumstance and you see it being a result of different sinew and bone.

      Surprisingly, your view would seem to align with the colonist view of the savage.

      We should keep thinking ……..

    • Populuxe1 26.2
      12 March 2012 at 11:24 pm

      It’s also a couple of millennia shorter – indeed, another tale. You do realise that the hopelessly inaccurate “Noble Savage” picture you are conjuring up for yourself was first pulled out of 17th century Europe’s arse with a generous dash of Margaret Meade, don’t you? Western constructs. Nor is the Western Tradition as consistent or homogeneous as you blithely treat it – it is, however, prepared for the self-examination of its flaws (something cultures overly concerned with personal and tribal mana are reluctant to do – not that’s that’s inferior or wrong, or right, just different).
      Nor is Te Ao Māori a “polar opposite” to the Western Tradition (though I find it curious you are raising it above Polynesian Tradition, which would be a more accurate comparison) per se. The Western Tradition is very much aware of its beginnings as various unrelated and widely dispersed Bronze Age tribes, and some groups – the Scots in particular, have aggressively preserved some of them (though notably, the Scots also were a major force behing the Enlightenment, and produced Gordon Brown). The fact is, even just looking at the Anglo-Germanic cultures, we’ve been there and done that: pantheistic warrior tribes, ocean navigators – we even had Utu, but we called it Weregild. We understand the concepts. Who knows how Māori might have developed if left alone for a similar time span – but this isn’t H Rider Haggard – didn’t happen… They were gatecrashed by a phenomenally more technologically advanced culture like a Martian invasion.
      Māori are no less or more morally perfect than Pākehā – That is just absurd. Being marginalised or conquered doesn’t make you morally superior (though some pro-Zionist tubthumpers have taken that line), nor does being technologically inferior, or an underdog, or a victim, or whatever. Your position is ridiculous, as is anyone who tries to distinguish one people as somehow “chosen”. History isn’t moral – it doesn’t give a fuck about right and wrong – that’s what humans are supposed to do in the present.

      • Colonial Viper 26.2.1
        13 March 2012 at 7:51 am

        It would be fair to say that 10%-20% of Maori have quite a lot more than a passing grasp of their own historical and philosophical nuances and tradition.

        In comparison, fuck all pakeha know about (to quote you) “even just looking at the Anglo-Germanic cultures, we’ve been there and done that: pantheistic warrior tribes, ocean navigators – we even had Utu, but we called it Weregild. We understand the concepts. ”

        Seriously, get out into a local shopping mall, ask 10 Maori if they know what the “utu” means, then ask 10 pakeha passing buy if they know what “Weregild” means.

        • Populuxe1 26.2.1.1
          13 March 2012 at 4:36 pm

          Actually you could ask 10 Maori and 10 Pakeha what Utu meant, and in both cases they would almost certainly say “revenge” (the impression given by the movie of the same name and the popular media) – and they would all be wrong. I have heard a number of Maori, many from academic and cultural backgrounds, who make the same mistake.
          Utu is the process of achieving a sort of symbolic-metaphysical equilibrium in the universe through reciprocity and exchange, comparable to the Biblical “eye for an eye” but also applying to ritual, nature, and the internal and external relations of whanau, iwi and hapu.

          • marty mars 26.2.1.1.1
            13 March 2012 at 10:57 pm

            I don’t know about that pops. I see them and you as both right. The context of the word forms part of the meaning, as in utu means both of those descriptions and more. Revenge contains aspects of reciprocity. The layers of meaning are there, potentially, in the word and that is what makes it hard to pin down.

            I find it interesting that there are some words in te reo Māori and other languages that cannot really be translated into english. I still find it a little hard to get my head around to tell you the truth. I’d say utu is one of those words with many shades of meaning that make it not easily translatable to english.

        • Vicky32 26.2.1.2
          13 March 2012 at 5:57 pm

          Seriously, get out into a local shopping mall, ask 10 Maori if they know what the “utu” means, then ask 10 pakeha passing buy if they know what “Weregild” means.

          You may well get quite a surprise about that, C.V.
          If you asked a parade of 20 somethings, the answer you would get would be “huh?” -but then if you asked a parade of 20-somethings what, say, a leap-year is you’d get the same answer. They’re as thick as pigsh*t.
          But, ask my sons and me, or my sisters, or go to your local library and ask women in their 40s, they’d all be able to tell you more than you wanted to know about weregild! (Should be ‘passing by, BTW)

      • Adele 26.2.2
        13 March 2012 at 4:53 pm

        Populuxe

        It is not me that is attempting to re-animate the “noble savage.” It was you and Vto that dragged its hoary carcass from its mythical resting place – situated somewhere in the Auckland Art Gallery. I know completely my historical account, replete with gore and the ugly bits, both from a Te Ao Māori perspective and from history as written by Pākehā.

        My initial reaction to your sentiments was to retaliate in a ‘less than noble savage’ kind of way by saying “go fuck yourself with a rock” aka Rena style. Thank a Christian God that my forebears were colonised as I can now massage that message with pretentious civility.

        From the perspective of a person housed in indigeneity there is this monolithic thing called ‘The Western Tradition.’ The Tradition has core elements that bind and define its adherents:

        – Greek and Roman ideation
        – Walks a Christian dogma
        – Professes secularity
        – Science is truth
        – Reason
        – Me

        Te Ao Māori is an indigenous worldview informed by Aotearoa although it is probably more correct to say Te Ao Tāngata Whenua – an indigenous worldview informed by relationships to a particular place and space. Pasifika has as many different worldviews as there are islands in the Pacific Ocean.

        The ideology that is indigeneity is polar opposing to the Western Tradition because it views the natural world differently not because at one time we threw lamingtons at your lot. Our moral stance is built on a Treaty that has yet to be honoured by the other Treaty partner; not because we were conquered (which never happened) or victimised.

        Your intellectualism comes with very little understanding which is another defining feature of The Western Tradition – a very narrow mind.

        • Kotahi Tane Huna 26.2.2.1
          13 March 2012 at 5:11 pm

          But of course your intellectualism conveys great wisdom and is infinitely superior, which is why it helps you make bigoted generalisations about entire cultures. You should get a slot on Radio Live.

          • Gosman 26.2.2.1.1
            13 March 2012 at 5:37 pm

            Yeah I was wondering about that. Somehow it is not possible from someone from the Western traditions to fully understand Maori/Pasifika cultural understanding yet Adele had no problem summarising Western concepts even to the extent of claiming they were the polar opposite of the Maori world view. The intellectual arrogance behind that thinking is a wonder to behold.

            • vto 26.2.2.1.1.1
              13 March 2012 at 5:48 pm

              Agreed gosman, the approach to these issues from the likes of Adele and marty mars leaves me flabbergasted at times. However, I enjoy the backwards and forwards debate, provided it doesn’t get personal and the like (which it often does, from a lot of us).

              It is difficult to come across the views of others out here in the ‘real world’ at times. The ongoing debate should be encouraged.

            • Adele 26.2.2.1.1.2
              13 March 2012 at 7:45 pm

              Gosman

              I fully understand the Western Tradition because my people were colonised by it – doh. I have a very good understanding of much of its tenets in a number of fields and can speak with some authority on at least one.

              How often do you meaningfully engage with Te Ao Māori. Do you even want to engage meaningfully with an indigenous perspective?

              By the way, I can’t help but notice the relative ease that both right and left of the political debate came together to ward off a slur common to both.

          • Adele 26.2.2.1.2
            13 March 2012 at 7:36 pm

            KTH

            The only bigot here is you.

            [Your free to say it… but this is not going to degenerate into a personal slagging match. RL]

            • Kotahi Tane Huna 26.2.2.1.2.1
              13 March 2012 at 10:54 pm

              I didn’t say you were a bigot, Adele. I said your generalisation was bigoted, but if you are upset by my slur upon your noble generalisation I withdraw it. I am happy for your generalisations to speak for themselves in future.

        • Populuxe1 26.2.2.2
          13 March 2012 at 5:29 pm

          From the perspective of a person housed in indigeneity there is this monolithic thing called ‘The Western Tradition.’ The Tradition has core elements that bind and define its adherents:
          – Greek and Roman ideation
          – Walks a Christian dogma
          – Professes secularity
          – Science is truth
          – Reason
          – Me

          And you have the nerve to call me narrow minded? There is no single linear progression or evolution in the Western Tradition – let me try and fix that for you. “Ideation” *sigh* – well let’s start at the very beginning, a very good place to start. Most of the social principles of the WT (I can’t be bothered typing it over and over) are Mesopotamian – ref: Hammurabi codex. You seem to have left out a few thousand years of Judaism completely, but we’ll skip to the Greeks (who at various times pick up ideas from everywhere from Persia to India) and thence to to the Romans (who in their imperial phases picked up ideas and strange gods like some people acquire STDs). By ideation, you are esentially being reductive of whole categories of thought and worldview – philosophy, pedagogy, the origins of scientific method, politics, literature, and on and on…. Then much of that mutates in the middle ages (though we do get some lovely art and poetry), at which time we throw in a whole lot of Germanic cultural structures and concepts from Northern Europe. Then in the Renaissance the Arab world kindly returns a lot of our “Greek and Roman ideation” while kindly providing their own footnotes (they get treated shabbily in Spain, but that’s history for you).
          Unlike you, I wouldn’t dare try and compress the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution and the rest – I’m not that arrogant, but those centuries are in of themselves extraordinarily complex and absorbing ideas (along with words) from everywhere.
           

          Te Ao Māori is an indigenous worldview informed by Aotearoa although it is probably more correct to say Te Ao Tāngata Whenua – an indigenous worldview informed by relationships to a particular place and space. Pasifika has as many different worldviews as there are islands in the Pacific Ocean.

          So to return to my “narrow mindedness”, you are lumping the whole conflicted and diverse global paradigm of the WT and calling it “narrow minded” while Te Ao Maori (which is as much a subset of Polynesia as Pakeha is a subset of the WT), a group of closely related tribal entities that maintained an essentially Stone Age culture (which doesn’t mean primitive) in total isolation, and didn’t even conceptually exist as a “single” culture until confronted by the European “other” isn’t? Perhaps I’m misreading that, in which case I’m happy to be corrected.
           
          The ideology that is indigeneity is polar opposing to the Western Tradition because it views the natural world differently not because at one time we threw lamingtons at your lot. Our moral stance is built on a Treaty that has yet to be honoured by the other Treaty partner; not because we were conquered (which never happened) or victimised.
          Ah, the “one with nature” fallacy. If Maori viewed the natural world as anything other than a human resource, the Moa would still be alive and the South Island mostly forest. Yes, Maori have suffered terrible indignities at the hands of the Crown (though some calling it a Holocaust is ridiculous) – no sensible person would deny that. The Treaty wasn’t honoured – quite true – so stop clinging to it like it can ever be a meaningful constitutional document and let’s just ditch it and start again from our current constitutional law which in no way discriminates on race, and let us find meaningful, practical ways of recognising Maori indigenous status and unique qualities.
           
           

          • Kotahi Tane Huna 26.2.2.2.1
            13 March 2012 at 6:16 pm

            Nope, don’t know if I’m down with that last bit about ditching te tiriti.

            I say discuss it, sure. Make sure it’s a living document – like all partnerships. But ditching it has no validity in international law and would be a gross injustice, on top of the existing ‘shabby treatment’.

            In fact it enables us to have “practical ways of recognising Maori indigenous status and unique qualities.”

            • Populuxe1 26.2.2.2.1.1
              13 March 2012 at 7:26 pm

              Actually KTH, I reallyagree on keeping Te Tiriti 😀 – I think I overshot on the old reductio ad Absurdum on Adele’s repetition of what we already know and have been incrementally acknowledging for the past 36 years. Te Tiriti, however, is due for a through reconceptualising for the twenty-first century and long term future. The implicit us and them/them and us a priori position does not accurately reflect the realities of the modern democratic  Aotearoa-New Zealand nation-state.

              • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                13 March 2012 at 7:40 pm

                “Us and them” is a loaded term for partnership, but nonetheless all partnerships have more than one partner.

                One of “…the realities of the modern democratic Aotearoa-New Zealand nation-state” is that it is founded on a partnership between the Crown and Maori.

                That is a far more grounded basis than any ephemeral notion of “reflecting realities”. It has clear terms and grounds and decades of precedent in local and international law.

                Inconvenient maybe, but so is the weather.

                • Populuxe1 …
                  13 March 2012 at 8:08 pm

                  Yes, but that really doesn’t take into account that “The Crown” is these days just a poetic way of saying “the New Zealand Government”, and if their are Maori MPs, and indeed as in this case a Maori Party as part of the coalition Government (as half arsed as that coalition is), Maori are part of The Crown. The two conflicting paradigms need bringing into harmony.
                  Also it has only ever been on a relatively ad hoc Frankenstein’s pantomime horse way that the nineteenth century terminology of the Treaty is applied in terms of Govt obligations to post-Treaty social, cultural, political, technological, and global changes (the welfare state, for example, or mass media). I would like to see protocols formalised, with an official position on the role of the Treaty in an inevitable future republic or supranational federation.

                  • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                    13 March 2012 at 8:36 pm

                    It’s a contract. Not a policy. Both parties still exist. You are arguing that the contract be terminated. That is a valid position. Others may think differently. As do I.

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      13 March 2012 at 8:46 pm

                      Without wanting to sound like a Natzi talking about employment policy, I don’t want the contract terminated, I want it clarified and made robust for a future dynimmic invirinmn. Except if I was a NACTress I would have said “flexible” – but that is a world too loaded with negative implications as well.

                    • RedLogix …
                      13 March 2012 at 8:47 pm

                      All contracts eventually expire one way or another. At some point in this country’s future the Treaty will likely be redefined in a way that makes sense for the needs of the age.

                      While for instance the Magna Carta remains an important document in principle; virtually none of it’s original passages survive as current law in the modern world. It certainly shaped modern law, and remains a vital moral charter… but it’s no longer of direct applicability.

                      Surely even the Treaty of Waitangi will likely evolve into something else?

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      13 March 2012 at 9:09 pm

                      Magna Carta remains an important document in fact because its principles have informed future developments. The same is true of Te Tiriti, and Te Tiriti has stronger grounds than Magna Carta: Magna Carta restrans the powers of a tyrant, but a treaty is an agreement between two nations.

                    • RedLogix …
                      13 March 2012 at 9:22 pm

                      treaty is an agreement between two nations.

                      What ‘two nations’? Therein lies a crux of the matter. The Treaty was signed between Maori chiefs representing the iwi of the day (who barely saw themselves as a nation at that time) and the English Crown.

                      Both parties have changed substantially since that time. The iwi themselves have become part of New Zealand state, while the English Crown’s obligations were passed on to the same New Zealand state. That is a process of change which continues today…. and will continue into the future.

                      In one sense we are one nation while in another we remain two. That conundrum alone remains unaddressed by the original text of Ti Tiriti.

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      13 March 2012 at 11:13 pm

                      It’s kind of obvious that any agreement that lasts for generations will be subject to the changes undergone by the parties.

                      Especially since it has only been in recent times that the agreement has been honoured at all.

          • Adele 26.2.2.2.2
            13 March 2012 at 10:40 pm

            Populuxe

            Can you please not regurgitate European history to me – we were taught this stuff from primary school – some in ‘native’ schools. Of course the Western Tradition is not completely smoothed skin – there are blemishes, freckles, skin tags and every so often, a blackhead.

            Firstly, your comprehension is linear – not surprising under your worldview but annoying nevertheless. Secondly, I have quoted (indirectly to you it seems) the Western Tradition’s Mesopotamian and Judaic links through walking the dogma. The history of the Bible and Christianity is also a good read. Thirdly, within some scholarly circles there are considered three underlying traditions that confluence into the Western ideologue.

            To paraphrase; the Greek and Roman contribution was in liberty and law respectively. Christianity created structural change in the separation of powers, the Godly from the Secular – the Church from the State. The enlightenment cut the umbilicus completely. The Western Tradition, untethered from God and the Natural World, was now able to pursue its worldly ambitions unencumbered by false notions of morality.

            Lastly, being ‘one with nature’ was more the battle cry of the new-age after having mis-appropriated indigenous traditions into sweat lodges and forest retreats.

            • Kotahi Tane Huna 26.2.2.2.2.1
              13 March 2012 at 10:49 pm

              No, it wasn’t.

            • Populuxe1 26.2.2.2.2.2
              13 March 2012 at 11:20 pm

              Adele,

              Can you please not regurgitate European history to me – we were taught this stuff from primary school – some in ‘native’ schools. Of course the Western Tradition is not completely smoothed skin – there are blemishes, freckles, skin tags and every so often, a blackhead.

              Well given as you seem to be so blase about the complexity of it all, I felt you needed a refresher. They don’t, as far as I’m aware, teach West Civ 101 until University, and then it’s only a general overview – so it must have been an awesome primary school you went to. I’ll ignore the ‘native schools’ jibe – it was a cheap shot and beneath you. No, you’re right, WT doesn’t have a smooth skin, mainly because it’s very very old – not quite as old as China, perhaps, but old, and given that it runs the world more or less, successful.

              Firstly, your comprehension is linear – not surprising under your worldview but annoying nevertheless. Secondly, I have quoted (indirectly to you it seems) the Western Tradition’s Mesopotamian and Judaic links through walking the dogma. The history of the Bible and Christianity is also a good read. Thirdly, within some scholarly circles there are considered three underlying traditions that confluence into the Western ideologue.

              Not linear at all – a series overlaps and occasionally even reversals. The Bible and Christianity (whichever of the many, many sects you have in mind) alone, are ultimately a product of a very complex set of cultural negotiations between Judaism, various other Near Eastern cultures (Mithraism, Magna Mater), Greek philosophical concepts (which covers a vast breadth of competing schools), and boiled for centuries until all the other competing heresies were killed off. As for this “three underlying traditions” malarkey – that sounds like Wikipedia shorthand for beginners. Oh, I forgot to mention ancient Egypt. Oh, and the Indian “Gymnosophist” gurus of India via Alexander the Great… etc .. etc..

              To paraphrase; the Greek and Roman contribution was in liberty and law respectively. Christianity created structural change in the separation of powers, the godly from the secular – the church from the state. The enlightenment cut the umbilicus completely The Western Tradition, untethered from God and the Natural World, could now pursue its worldly ambitions unencumbered by false notions of morality.

              “Liberty and Law”, metaphysics, mathematics, geography, literature, architecture, etc etc, all borrowing from other cultures in their neighbourhood. Christianity has never (unfortunately) except on paper really been separate from the state, especially as the Christians of various stripes always seem to be trying to grab back temporal power. And most of the great thinkers of the Enlightenment would have been horrified by the suggestion that they had been severed from Nature – perhaps less so God. You might actually want to read what they wrote rather than quote dubious summaries. It was, by the way, Enlightenment moral philosophy and early nineteenth century sensibilities that got Maori a Treaty rather than the Tasmania treatment – the British, after all, did have superior weaponry.

              Lastly, being ‘one with nature’ was more the battle cry of the new-age after having mis-appropriated indigenous traditions into sweat lodges and forest retreats.

              The “into” is redundant – dirty hippies. However, the WT has always run hot and cold on animism and nature. It was quite big with the Greeks, Romans, Germanic tribes, definitely the Romantic movement, and probably now in the Environmental movement. You can pretend your relationship with the land is as special as you like – to a goodly proportion of the WT even today it’s special as well.
               

        • vto 26.2.2.3
          13 March 2012 at 5:30 pm

          Adele “It is not me that is attempting to re-animate the “noble savage.” It was you and Vto that dragged its hoary carcass from its mythical resting place ”

          I was doing no such thing.

          You stated that you consider that differences in peoples result from their different sinew and bone, here… ” Why did humanity evolve away from the parasite if all that we are, can be reduced to sinew and bone – a homogenous gloop of sameness. ” ……. I said that it was from difference in circumstance not difference in sinew and bone.

          I then reminded you that colonists, in the same way as you, also considered that there was more than mere circumstance that created difference between peoples. They at times even considered the “savage” an entirely different species of sinew and bone.

          That was how the “savage” was dragged in.

          You may also want to consider that not only did colonists consider that there was different sinew and bone but so too did 1930s Germany.

          Perhaps you could explain a bit more what you mean by “sinew and bone” because sinew and bone has long been laughed out of court as a difference in peoples. Happy to listen.

  27. Adele 27
    12 March 2012 at 11:32 pm

    Vto,

    My last response tonight.

    I see diversity as being necessary for the species as a whole. I see difference as reality not as ephemera masking an essential sameness.

    The new-agey gooey ideology that renders everything beige is as bile inducing as atlas shrugging.

    Pō marie

    • Kotahi Tane Huna 27.1
      13 March 2012 at 7:20 am

      “I see diversity as being necessary for the species as a whole. I see difference as reality not as ephemera masking an essential sameness.”

      ^^^^

      “The new-agey gooey ideology that renders everything beige ”

      The first statement being a perfect example of the second. Populuxe breaks it down.

      “…your worldview is not prepared to actually see the difference in peoples”

      A prejudicial statement made from a position of profound ignorance much?

      • Adele 27.1.1
        13 March 2012 at 5:00 pm

        KTH

        Ko wai koe?

        • Kotahi Tane Huna 27.1.1.1
          13 March 2012 at 5:54 pm

          Someone who wants you to lift your game above stereotypes.

          “your worldview is not prepared to actually see the difference in peoples” doesn’t hold water. vto’s remarks in fact acknowledged the diversity within people and within peoples.

          The idea that ‘science is truth’ can only be believed by someone who doesn’t read any science: “the notion that science is binary is a false and misleading dichotomy,” to quote Gavin Schmidt.

          There are many other subcultures in “The Western Tradition” that defy these neat boxes, and you will find narrow-minded people everywhere.

          • marty mars 27.1.1.1.1
            13 March 2012 at 7:58 pm

            why not tell her – why you chose that name and so on. I got a little confused back then what with the voice of reason changing his name too on the same thread.

            • Kotahi Tane Huna 27.1.1.1.1.1
              13 March 2012 at 9:35 pm

              That’s the beauty of being anonymous, Marty. It doesn’t matter how you spell it.

              • marty mars …
                13 March 2012 at 10:22 pm

                A very nice sentence that.

                Without meaning to pry, it is intriguing why you chose that version of your old name – just interested, not wanting to get into a slanging match. I ask because voice changed his to get up the nose of righty, or something like that and I just wondered about you.

                • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                  13 March 2012 at 10:43 pm

                  If I knew the secret of whimsical anonymity, I should surely share it.

                  Is that true about TPR? Goodness!

                  • marty mars …
                    13 March 2012 at 11:05 pm

                    I’m sure i’m just being unkind and he had many other noble reasons – sorry vor.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      15 March 2012 at 8:06 am

                      No apology required, Marty. The original name, The Voice of Reason, was chosen because I thought it would annoy libertarians, as it’s the title of an Ayn Rand book. But it clearly annoyed lefties as well, so it became problematic.
                       
                      Frankly, I was a bit nervous about using the translation, because I didn’t want to be unintentionally insulting to maori posters or readers, by assuming I had a right to the name. However, I was encouraged by the response, which was to correct my spelling of the phrase, not to criticise the choice. I recall Kotahi Tane Huna and I were warned there would be a backlash and sure enough, KTH copped a serve from a racist making stupid assumptions only a few days later.
                       
                      I’m really pleased I made the change, Marty. I’ve been a user of greetings and farewells in te reo for decades and this name is both a continuation of my education and understanding and also a sign of my respect for the tangata whenua.

          • Adele 27.1.1.1.2
            14 March 2012 at 12:44 am

            KTH

            Your transmogrification into a Māori suggests a liking for concealment, covertness. I congratulate you for having cultural re-assignment surgery considering the high risk for failure. However, choosing to be Māori as concealment was probably an unwise decision.

            – As a Māori you are more likely to be accused of a crime, even when the TV is yours.

            – Police will stop you every time, thinking you’ve stolen your newish Car.

            – You will be followed in Shops

            • hateatea 27.1.1.1.2.1
              14 March 2012 at 1:06 am

              I admit to a chuckle when both the persons concerned chose a Maori version of their nom de plume because I thought as you did, Adele, and wondered how long it would be for someone who didn’t know about the translation event to jump to an erroneous conclusion.

              It has happened already at least once to my certain knowledge but I don’t know how the poster concerned felt about the misconception.

              I personally felt like singing a verse of ‘Welcome to my world’!!

            • rosy 27.1.1.1.2.2
              14 March 2012 at 1:34 am

              You will be followed in Shops
              lol – it happened all the time where I came from too. The difference is, of course, that us Pakeha from the wrong side of the tracks can pretend we’re not. Maori – no matter what side of the tracks they’re from might still feel the sting of prejudice… e.g. a friend of mine in bow-tie at a business function was mistaken for a waiter, as if he didn’t belong in business. That would never have happened if he was Pakeha… No wonder he left the country to be taken seriously

            • Kotahi Tane Huna 27.1.1.1.2.3
              14 March 2012 at 6:33 am

              Adele, are internet anonymities prohibited from using official languages? If I employed NZ sign instead would you assume I am deaf?

              The name itself suggests concealment a lot more than the language it is written in. “One anonymous bloke” is hardly overt, after all, but it’s not like your name conveys much about you either.

              As a white devil I am more likely to be accused of bigotry, hate crimes, the Spanish Inquisition. the global financial crisis, and the greenhouse effect.

              In any event, bigotry is stupid, racism is wrong, and both of them are useless. Kia kaha.

              • marty mars …
                14 March 2012 at 1:35 pm

                It is an interesting point, I’m still neutral on it.

                Without wanting to speak for adele, when she asked you, who are you? the question seemed to me to be less about your name and more about what rights to speak do you have or how have you cone to the point of speaking. You probably know that already and still chose the reply you wanted but a polite reply IMO would have answered the question. I may be wrong but I don’t think Adele would have asked the question if you didn’t have a Māori name. Just a few thoughts.

                • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                  15 March 2012 at 6:18 am

                  The question “what right do you have to speak?” doesn’t deserve a verbal response, so I ignored that interpretation completely.

                  Anyone making assumptions about my ethnicity based on my use of te reo is not the first and won’t be the last. A few years ago on another forum I was using a German handle. People made assumptions about me on that basis too – you would not believe the prejudice against Germans!

  28. Peter Pumpkinhead 28
    13 March 2012 at 1:00 pm

    If you don’t like what they are saying, just don’t listen/watch.

  29. the pink postman 29
    13 March 2012 at 3:18 pm

    These racist bigoted minority group bashers allways come out from under their stone when we have National goverments .

    • Gosman 29.1
      13 March 2012 at 4:20 pm

      You are obviously not including Murray Deaker in that as his comments were not racist. Possibly bigotted but definately not racist.

      • Bored 29.1.1
        13 March 2012 at 4:30 pm

        You are right, Deaks is a no nonsense opinionated radio jock who like all of us is prone to make comments that will be misinterpreted or plain wrong in the eyes of others. He is certainly no racist, in fact all up he is a good guy with a track record of doing good things.

        Zet, I dont think it fair to lump Deaker in with idiots like Henry and Du Fresne.